Left Wingers Line Up For Your Jonestown Kool Aid Here!

[Big Train]

I did not vote for him in 2000 (voted Nader, I'm a very big believer in a third party coming in, even as a long shot...also voted nader in 2008 as an even longer shot). I did in 2004. I did so primarily on domestic issues, which I felt he had a good handle on at the time (pre katrina). It was also an issue of not being able to vote for Kerry. I grew up in Massachusetts and I've seen him in inaction for a very long time. Bush was a better option .

So now give me the counter argument about why that was idiotic and how I'm complicit in everything that has transpired since then, which this post was the setup for. And if you want to discuss the rest of my post, more than happy to.

[hideyoursheep]

1:If Kerry was so bad for Mass, how does he keep getting re-elected?

2: What kind of domestic issues in 04 were so important to keep an obviously incompetent fool in the White house?

3: You being from Mass., did you ever see any of Kerry's opponents run a campaign as shitty as GWB threw at him, to get you distracted from the more important international issues?

At least your honest. I can't slam on you for that.

[Big Train]

Ok, thanks for that, I appreciate it.

1. Uncle Teddy's coattails. He does nothing but goes along to get along (the Mass. State Senate way). Uncle Ted's power revolves around unions (big dig), academia (getting them grants) and the military (all sorts of defense firms do research there, using the academic networks). Small state size and stability (because majority of citizens make their money from these areas or services of). All Liveshot (his local nickname-swift boat ya know) has to do is show up and say "what did Ted vote"?

2. It was the fact that everything domestically was relatively stable. The ABSENCE of issues. Kerry I felt would have messed up one of the best things Bush had going at the time. In hindsight, who knows though.

3. Well, let's be honest, nobody has ever run a shittier campaign than Kerry. He couldn't convince the other half of this country (not all of whom were Republicans) that he was a better choice than Bush. Saying Bush is the worst president in history and you LOST to him, what does that make you?

[LoungeMachine]

By the way, I did take a year off, I guess it wasn't enough for you. I suppose you want to just keep a circle jerk of those who agree with you here, so I'm sorry to disappoint you by showing up and interupting the proceedings.

Not at all....

Welcome back.....

Just dont think you can rewrite history to suit your needs.

Mkay?




You were a cheerleader for the team that got us into this mess, and now you want to sit on your thumb and wait for us to fix it.

[LoungeMachine]

Ok, thanks for that, I appreciate it.


3. Well, let's be honest, nobody has ever run a shittier campaign than Kerry.

Bullshit.

Pay attention at all to the McCain / Palin Campaign?

LMMFAO

[Big Train]

Touche Lounge on McCain/Palin. Kerry and McCain both lost to Bush, so I guess we can call that a tie.

I have no interest in rewritng history, but also don't want to be lumped into things I never signed up for, that all my posts will show otherwise.

[LoungeMachine]

Touche Lounge on McCain/Palin. Kerry and McCain both lost to Bush, so I guess we can call that a tie.

.

Kerry lost to a sitting "war pResident"

McCain lost to a one term unknown Senator from Illinois with the same name as Saddam.

Hardly a tie.

I have no interest in rewritng history, but also don't want to be lumped into things I never signed up for, that all my posts will show otherwise.

Fair enough.



homo.

[Big Train]

That's the original point, but I wanted to be fair and call it a tie, so as not to be too harsh. McCain lost to unknown, not to someone over 50% of the general population already thought was no good. It should have been a slam dunk for almost any candidate who could spit out the party line in a reasonable manner. Kerry failed in spectacular fashion.

Sounds fair to me cunt.