Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

((Americans for Democratic Action)   John Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Here comes the political science   ( divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

7623 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2004 at 5:29 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

428 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-01-24 07:55:34 PM  
Anyone know how Geoge Bush Sr. ranks on the "liberal quotent"? He only fought wars with U.N. approval, he raised taxes and he increased federal funding for social programs.

What the heck is "liberal" anyways other than a cryptic insult used by Bush Apologists meaning "hates America".

Our current president has increased the federal government by 7% every year, is spending record amounts on every federal program in the book, just gave 1 bil to schools for "No Child Left Behind", gave 3 bil to teach people about "marriage" (wtf?), legalized millions of illegal immigrants (wtf wtf???) and signed perscription drug medicare benefits.

How the @#$@ is Bush not a so-called "liberal"? Because he unilaterally bombs countries? That's about the only difference I see.

The parties have reversed. Black is white. Up is down. And according to Bush, War is Peace.
2004-01-24 07:56:16 PM  

"The Pirate Club only picks people who they think are going to be rich and influential. 15 a year."

Is that where Dragon of Avarice is? Away at a Pirate Club retreat?
2004-01-24 07:57:18 PM  
For those of you actually interested, that link was to an obsolete ADA page for 2001. The Presidential Nominee Page shows the 2004 numbers. Kerry's still a raging lefty, although with the way Bush is running down the country, who's to say we don't need a raging lefty?
2004-01-24 07:58:22 PM  
Kerry isn't electable.

Clark in '04.


That aside, this article is kind of ridiculous.
2004-01-24 07:58:36 PM  

That doesn't change the fact that she was not asked to join.

The power brokers of the world have fallen out of love with the Bush family?


DOA wouldn't tell me where he graduated from last night, I am begining to wonder about that boy.
2004-01-24 07:59:04 PM  

Funny, that's what I said when it was actually happening, that it was 9999 pages of legalese (in Arabic no less) and 1 page of anything meaningful.

In a nutshell, Iraq laid out the WMD and WMD programs/materials they admitted to having. When asked what happened to it all, they said, "Oh, Hassan's cousin dumped it in the desert somewhere, but it's all gone now".
2004-01-24 07:59:20 PM  
haha. good one Xtremehkr.

kerry aint got a chance.
2004-01-24 08:01:28 PM  
2004-01-24 07:46:44 PM TheGoblinKing

You noted that all evidence pointed to the WMD being destroyed, but it is precisely the opposite case...the UN gave Saddam a list of the unaccounted for WMD (which was pretty large) that he himself had already admitted to having, and Saddam simply said they were destroyed sometime in the past, not even offering up the slightest bit of evidence, not even the location that it was supposedly done.

"Unaccounted for" should not necessarily mean not destroyed, though. The proof will be in the pudding. If we find the weapons, good. (If we never find the weapons, then we can't really assume anything one way or the other, which is unforunate.)

I watched a show in PBS last night called Chasing Iraq's Weapons (or something like that) and I found it very balanced. It pointed out not only that Bush thought there were WMD, but that Clinton did as well. Of course, then it went on to mention how Bush changed his tone from "having" to "able to aquire", and showed an interview where he asked Diane Sawyer what the difference was.

Either way, I still think we shouldn't have gone to war.

But this is completely off topic, isn't it?
2004-01-24 08:03:09 PM

Worth reading. The Skull and Bones seem more like the PNAC than I thought, in a NWO sort of way.

Aren't there any stand alone candidates anymore?
2004-01-24 08:03:16 PM  
Xtreme:Wow, looking up Skull and Bones sure yeilded some interesting information though.

The club itself was founded by former Nazi party members who escaped from Berlin prior to Germany's surrender. The premise of the club is to secretly rebuild the Nazi party in America and then have its members elected to high profile political posistions. Once enough Neo-Nazies are in place, they drop the bomb and America becomes the Fourth Reich, complete with replacing the eagles and flags with hawks and swastikas.

It will soon be time...
2004-01-24 08:04:13 PM  

Clark digs Journey. Unelectable. That's just wrong.


What? You're only just now beginning to wonder about him? He's always struck me as sort of a Dartmouth type if anything...
2004-01-24 08:04:24 PM  

That's it, I'm volunteering for that mission to mars. Have a good one all.
2004-01-24 08:06:32 PM  
I'm staying pretty much out of this one, but I just had to respond to the assertion that there are "no black republicans to speak of". Somebody had better tell Colin Powell and Condi Rice about this!
2004-01-24 08:07:09 PM  

Man, this is is always on topic (groan).

As far as my stance, I think there is very little chance Saddam didn't secure them either out of the country or in a place we'll never find them till the year 3000. He had 14 months to hide that crap, it could be anywhere; thus, we'll likely find facilities and intelligence, but the actual thing? That's probably in the Syria or Lebanon by now, god only knows. Maybe that's when Bush changed his stance from 'Does' to 'Can', speaking of the inevitability of Saddam moving his WMD over time, or maybe he had specific intelligence that we don't have indicating where they were heading? Who knows...
2004-01-24 08:07:22 PM  
Is Kerry as strong a swimmer as Uncle Ted?
2004-01-24 08:07:23 PM  

Bush is a mere puppet. He's completely expendable. Cheney has all the real power, hence why the Dick was hidden away in a secret bunker while the Bush was allowed to wander around in public with little or no regards to his own safty.
2004-01-24 08:09:20 PM  
GIven the choice of Kerry and Teddy, I wonder who Betty Jo Kopeckne would vote for?

Oh...nevermind, she's dead.
2004-01-24 08:10:33 PM  
Kerry isn't electable.

Clark in '04.

please o' please let Clark get the nomination. that guy is a complete fruitcake. i especially like his guarentee (sp?) that no terrorist attacks would take place on U.S. soil if he is the president. that guy is looney.
2004-01-24 08:10:45 PM  

kerry aint got a chance.

Dont be so sure
2004-01-24 08:10:49 PM  

Perhaps I'd better change that to 'Damn few' then (:

I don't even think it ought to be about all that though. Powell and Rice and Sharpton for that matter aren't 'Black' so much as they are 'People'. No better, no worse, no different (except for maybe Sharpton, but that's for obvious reasons).
2004-01-24 08:11:20 PM  
Ted Kennedy is not on the ticket. Involking his name is another desperate attempt by the Neo Cons to find the angle of the "smear".

Should we bring up that Laura Bush killed someone in a car accident?
2004-01-24 08:14:50 PM  
Raiders of the Fark

great point
2004-01-24 08:15:04 PM  
Afraid to post,

Srry to burst yer bubble, but it is standard proceedure in times of peril to seperate the Prez and VP as you don't want them BOTH getting killed. As far as...

"while the Bush was allowed to wander around in public with little or no regards to his own safety."

...he was on Air Force One surrounded by Air Force fighters, hardly in harms way, probably the safest place for him.
2004-01-24 08:15:21 PM  
Emperor, Afraid-To-Post said:

"If the republicans set up a neo-monarchery, it would completely devestate the global economy. The republicans do not want that because their own personal wealth would also suffur in the process."

Some explanation of what the heck you're talking about? Who'd be the king of this neo-monarchy? The first king, rather, as we're talking about politicians and by the time a single party ruled the country America would probably have degenerated to the point where obviously and openly assasinating the guy on top is as good as a promotion.

How would a change of "rulership" in America devastate the global economy, praytell? Would it not be in the best interests of the Republican Empire to keep trade and relations with other countries as healthy and open as they are now, if not even more so ?(and trust me, you guys could be on much better terms with just about the entire world right now.) Canada won't blink an eye if one party takes absolute control over the other - we sat through the Civil War, we'll sit through 'Civil War 2: What's The Farking Difference?' We'll keep on trading with and being nice to whoever's running the place, as we always have.

I must say, I love the idea that Republicans and Democrats are locked in a complicated war with each other, and that there are only 2 ideologies allowed to exist in the USA at any given time. It makes me like Canada even more - nobody refers to regular, non-card-carrying citizens as Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats (or, God help us, Canadian Alliance...ists.) Shades of gray, my southerly friends.
2004-01-24 08:16:06 PM  
Nah, Skull and Bones is and always has been a masonic institution. It's based on the typical freemason ideals of a ruling, educated elite manipulating the populace for the "betterment" of humanity as a whole. (Of course, this is over-simplified)

I'm not a masonic conspiracy theorist by any means, I just recognize the influential role that they have played in forming the political and social landscape of this country. If you doubt that they had a big influence, just look on the back of a 1-dollar bill.

After all is said and done, Skull and Bones is now just a glorified fraternity. It's a mechanism to teach its members to revel in their believed superiority over the "average man". And a social network for its alumni. As for Kerry, perhaps his experience in Vietnam caused him to forsake the values of Skull and Bones. As far as Bush goes; failing in all of his business ventures, but still getting cushy positions, the valuse of S&B seem to be internalized. But I'm just guessing, who knows?

As to the whole Nazi connection, I'm pretty sure Skull and Bones predates the Nazi party, and I'm damn sure freemasons do. The fact that Presott Bush invested in German (Nazi-owned) companies is certainly interesting, but they were hardly aware of the level of brutality the Nazis represented at that point. Of course, that doesn't make their enthusiastic embrace of fascism itself any more excusable. But members of S&B and the Bush family were hardly alone in American business in their investment in and admiration for "Il Duce" and the fascist systems in Germany and Italy pre-war.
2004-01-24 08:16:08 PM  
Howabout someone outside of the Demican and Republicratic parties?

Wouldn't that just be a farkin breath of fresh air?

And then, just to frost the cake and make sure all the gloating weasels understand, have all of us stick together and not elect one Demican or Republicrat in the next house/senate elections.

Hokay, I can fantasize, can't I?
2004-01-24 08:22:29 PM  
Yeah, I think that the easiest way to get real change, at least from our presidential candidates, is to require all of the debates to have at least one third-party candidate take part, especially the post-primary on-on-one debates. At least then the two major parties couldn't control the agenda completely like they do now.

George Washington was right, poltical parties are destroying this country, slowly but surely.
2004-01-24 08:23:57 PM  
2004-01-24 06:30:20 PM DasNibblet

The preeminent klansman in today's senate. What party does he belong to?

Be careful with factual statements like that DasNibblet, the last time I pointed this out I was banned.
2004-01-24 08:28:10 PM  
Oh boy is the presidential race going to be close. I predicted this around the Iraq war, when everyone said Bush would win. Why? because we have the same amount of dems. and republicans, and moderate righties, and moderate lefties, and all goes down to the few straight in the middle, or a 3rd party taking some votes.
2004-01-24 08:31:03 PM  
TheJoe03 It is sounding like the Libertarians may have a strong showing this year because of Libertarian/Republicans who are pissed at the out of control spending.
2004-01-24 08:32:44 PM  
I dislike Kerry because I think he is unelectable, but I'd gladly vote for him before Clark.

Clark voted for Reagan. And Nixon. And he can't get his stories straight on whether or not shrub did the right thing in Iraq. Did you see his "performance" on the faux news debate? He sucked.

Clark represents the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. If he's the nominee, I forsee major gains for the Green Party.
2004-01-24 08:40:01 PM  
Yeah, that Democrat-Conservitive / Republican-Liberal -> Democrat-Liberal / Republican-Conservitive switch is the most annoying thing I have run across in politics. You get hard-core conservitives saying they are in the party which freed the slaves. The Republican party of 1860's is not the Repubican party of today.

Lincoln was a liberal.
2004-01-24 08:44:52 PM  
Given that the so-called conservatives have spent the last dozen years trying to convince America that Clinton is the scum of the earth, their "Clinton said so too!" justification of Bush's WMD lies smacks of desperation. Come on, you guys aren't even trying anymore.
2004-01-24 08:53:38 PM  
Kerry was instrumental to the castration of the CIA due to the investigation into the Iran/Contra affair in the 80s. How has this affected the CIA of today, and is it possibly responsible for the lack if intelligence that led to the September 11th attacks? Discuss...
2004-01-24 08:57:50 PM  
I am going to offer up a probable no-no here by saying that Kerry in almost every respect is a WEAKER candidate than Dean. First off senators are usually worse presidential candidates than governors are as they do not have experience with budgets and legislators (whatever his flaws, Dean has both). I admit Dean was a bit clumsy with confederate flag reference but I don't think the Dems can just write off white voters in the south.
Kerry hails from the land of the aforementioned Ted Kennedy and gay marriage, and had served as Lt. Gov under Michael Dukakis, who didn't do so hot in the south and midwest as I recall, despite picking a running mate from Texas. This election is looking more and more like 1988 every day.
2004-01-24 08:58:56 PM  
Or we could just say that they actually care about the state of humanity, not just about the state of their bank account.

Good intentions do not equal good results. Hey, let's have 100% taxes and have the government give you everything! Or they could just have us locked up without due process. Both parties are a joke right now...
2004-01-24 09:01:27 PM  
DaleThrompmorton Did Kerry order any CIA agents to engage in illegal activities? No? Then I think you are blaming the policeman for the bank being robbed instead of the bank robber.
2004-01-24 09:02:54 PM  
2004-01-24 08:57:50 PM mikemoto

Those are good concerns. I do believe that shrub is weaker than his father was (in 1988) due to the economy and war. So we have a decent chance of winning, but we could use a better candidate than Kerry.
2004-01-24 09:06:40 PM  
Why I don't like Bush "Shrub-ya" or Republicans:
1. Repubs state that gov't should be small, unobtrusive and state's rights are important(less gun control, no limits on gas milage for vehicles, less govt "programs"aka social services) yet they encourage govt intervention if something goes against their thoughts (sodomy, gay marriage). The majority (59% to 35%) of the people of MA find gay marriage to be acceptable. Let the people of MA have their state rights.
2. Bush leans on his elbows when he speaks, even during important speeches, thus, in my eyes, he loses even more of the credibility he never had.
3. IMHO, Bush was planning to get Saddam since before he was elected and 9/11 was just an excuse to invade Iraq. If you watch the convention commercial for Bush, provided by the RNC, he mentions getting the "bad guys" as one of the things he would like to if elected.
4. Ammending the Constitution for social issues has already been proven to not work. Prohibition was written into the constitution with the 18th ammendment, then quickly repealed with the 21th ammendment. Repubs just don't seem to see that.
2004-01-24 09:11:07 PM  
I would like to insert "abortion, foul language" between the words sodomy and gay marriage. Thank you.
2004-01-24 09:12:24 PM  
----------------------------------------------------------------------​------- ------------------------------------

mikemoto, a Kerry/Edwards Ticket would be great. Get some war veteran/southern guy mix, and you have a winner. Hey, George Bush I was from the Northeast, Nixon was from New York, Kennedy was from Mass., which means Northeasterners aren't that bad. Dems almost won last time, without getting one southern state, so is my area to big of a deal. Possible swing southern states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Tennesee, the Carolinas, and Missouri.

----------------------------------------------------------------------​------- ------------------------------------

Code_Archeologist, Libertarians won't do well in this country untill they either have less extreme leaders in the party, and reach out to more liberals, instead of just sticking to Republicans. I'd vote Libertarian if they did that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------​------- ------------------------------------

/Sorry for any possible grammatical errors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------​------- ------------------------------------
2004-01-24 09:16:25 PM  
Kerry is too liberal? Wha... ah BUSH SUCKS.

/ typical lib response.

Why does defending the candidate most of the time end up comparing him to Bush. Every time a statement of contradiction made by a democrat it is ignored and the Republicans are blamed.

2004-01-24 06:30:20 PM DasNibblet

The preeminent klansman in today's senate. What party does he belong to?

Be careful with factual statements like that DasNibblet, the last time I pointed this out I was banned.


On that note: Joe Kennedy.
2004-01-24 09:16:58 PM  
I'd like to thank everybody for coming out. Be sure to tip your waitress.
2004-01-24 09:18:52 PM  

re: Dont be so sure

The hype will burn out before it's important. Funny how Gore's support for Dean has become irrelevant in a matter of days. Say's something about Gore's poitical insight.

cowboy up! yeah!
2004-01-24 09:19:27 PM  
2004-01-24 09:01:27 PM Code_Archeologist

DaleThrompmorton Did Kerry order any CIA agents to engage in illegal activities? No? Then I think you are blaming the policeman for the bank being robbed instead of the bank robber.

Iran/Contra was bad. I didn't say it wasn't. I was just asking how changes to the CIA have affected current intelligence. I don't really know, I just wanted some entertainment :)
2004-01-24 09:20:10 PM  
Better late than never, eh, CadetHappy? Just felt that a flamewar on your topics would have been much more interesting....

I would be interested in hearing an intelligent response to these claims that are being made about Senator Kerry on the internet:

The controversial 'We need regime change here in the United States' comment by Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry should have focused attention on this congenital liar and cover-up artist. While he smugly defends his comment, he tries to 'move ahead' and have us forget his previous transgressions:

1) His most famous - and first - appearance on the national stage came when he supposedly threw his Vietnam combat medals over the White House fence in a protest against the war. Guess what? Those were not his medals; they belonged to another Vietnam vet. Kerry kept his medals so that - like today - he can play both sides of the street. His medals are displayed on his office wall.

A symbolic act, much like wearing a borrowed flight suit or carrying a fake turkey. Most Bush sycophants simply chose to see no issue with these two events, as it is the symbolism that counts, not the material item. With Kerry, here is a veteran who is protesting the current war by symbolically returning his executively-awarded medals to the current chief executive. A bold public statement, a j'accuse. You may disagree, and that's fine. But if you chose to overlook the dishonor of wearing a flight suit without earning it, you can overlook this little staged event.

2) Of course Kerry also engaged in the ago-old game of playing both sides on this war in Iraq. In October 2002 he voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq; now, speaking to Democratic primary voters - the one group that is overwhelmingly against the war - he proudly blasts Bush for the way he is conducting the diplomacy and the war.

This is not a binary issue, nor was this a binary resolution. It included authorization for military force as a final resort. It received bipartisan support because it gave Bush a wide range of options to pursue toward the solution to this problem. Remember Hans Blix? He was able to ride back into Iraq because of the power of this resolution. This was also the last chance that Bush could have garnered my respect (not that that's keeping him up nights) because it was impressive that Iraq rolled over on the inspector issue. At this point, Bush could have acted the part of "lemme at 'em" while sage advisors suggest "please hammer don't hurt 'em'. We were in there, and we were writing our own ticket! Bush could have kept the pressure up and solved the same problem with far fewer casualties. But he didn't hold back. He pulled the inspectors out because (heh) they didn't find any weapons right away.

In any case, what I'm saying is that this resolution was not a 'war' resolution, but a 'solve the problem' resolution. To point out that Kerry voted for it does not make him pro-Iraq war, he just felt that the President needed a full range of options as Chief Exec. One must hope (and I do mean MUST) that our leaders take this responsibility seriously, that they understand the devastation of war and that they don't commit frivolous acts of self-interest and warmongering. Maybe for a minute it meant that Kerry trusted Bush. Which is what a good patriot would do, no?

Lastly, it wasn't a two-sided issue until Bush made it that way.

Sadly, I have no comment on your third section, as this was the first time I'd encountered this information.
2004-01-24 09:20:47 PM  
Geez...I go off to do some work and things get plain weird without me.
2004-01-24 09:25:47 PM  
I didn't realize that he was this liberal. I thought he was a little more conservative. Maybe he will get my vote. Thanks to who ever posted this.
2004-01-24 09:31:41 PM  
Federal Deficit: 450 billion dollars.

End of story.

AnybodybutBush in 2003.
2004-01-24 09:34:16 PM  
2004-01-24 07:04:34 PM
Sum Dum Gai

Yes, it could. Democracy has one Achilles' heel, and it is the "dictatorship of the majority". The constitution is really designed to provide at least some protection against this, but any democracy has this issue.

OK, so... the majority (that I guess now DOESN'T represent the largest American sentiment) CANNOT be right? That's having your cake, but not being able to eat it.

/The liberal agenda... too sorry for words.
Displayed 50 of 428 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.