[BDA116]

Where is the outrage over this? Anyone? Bueller?
This jackass would be President had the exremists on the left had their way.
Now kerry is once again calling American soldiers terrorists, just as he did ~20 years ago. The asshole stated, on national television to a fellow lefty in the press, " ..... there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women ...." Way to go, Senator. You should be held accountable for all the treasonous thing you have said and done. Not much different than the lies he told on the Senate floor in 1971, yet he keeps getting a pass.
Why? because the leftist mainstream media won't hold demos accountable for their lies and treasonous acts. Right, American soldiers are terrorists and the terrorists in Iraq are insurgents. Gotta keep that leftist talking point front and center.

I sure wish I could hold my head high knowing I wanted this idiot in the White House.

[Mo Noyz]

Not that President Bush has been doing a bang up job as of late, but I wouldn't trust Kerry to run a ****ing liquor store.

[colryn]

Kerry hasn't seen his name in the news lately, so he thought he would put it out there. Always douchbag, why would he change now?

[gthotchkiss]

Yeah, I can't believe they're straight up going after our military like that... How do they expect the men fighting for this country to feel telling them that they have no chance and essentially that they're useless???

Thats such political bullshit.... I just feel sorry for the people who actually fall for his propaganda....

[gt702]

Originally Posted by BDA116

" ..... there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women ...."

Not to stir the smelly stuff, because I don't know the whole situation, but....
Is this directed at the soldiers or at the directives that force them into these situations? The question of "need" suggests to me that he is referring to the why, which points to the ones giving the orders ... and that can go all the way to our commander in chief.

Either way, our politicians in general are , and should not reflect on the great people working hard to protect and serve this country

[Smitty929RR]

Originally Posted by gt702

Not to stir the smelly stuff, because I don't know the whole situation, but....
Is this directed at the soldiers or at the directives that force them into these situations? The question of "need" suggests to me that he is referring to the why, which points to the ones giving the orders ... and that can go all the way to our commander in chief.

Either way, our politicians in general are , and should not reflect on the great people working hard to protect and serve this country

Now that is a rational question to as about this. Are you feeling OK? That post was pretty sane.


I think BDA gets paid by the Bush camp to call people liberals on internet forums. Even though true liberals are a very small % of the voting population.

[Mo Noyz]

They are?

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Smitty929RR

Even though true liberals are a very small % of the voting population.

True but Kerry, and his pal Teddy both fall well into that small percentage.

[GhostRider]

I think politicians are ALL losers. Not a good one in the whole lot, unfortunately.

[luvtolean]

Totally disagree with you.

There are scumbag politicians and there are good ones. It's the same with attorneys, engineers, cops or any other occupation.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Totally disagree with you.

There are scumbag politicians and there are good ones. It's the same with attorneys, engineers, cops or any other occupation.

Out of the people of the region, there was only one Mother Theresa... I think he means that the majority are scumbags and that there are few too few good ones. Politicians are usually not driven by the goodness of their hearts, they have other interests... which gives them other agendas aside from the people of their representation.

[GhostRider]

In order for politicians to rise to that level of power, they would have needed to be real bad ass pr@cks in order to beat all the good people along the way. Unless they play dirty, they don't rise to the top. Which means, our choices are to pick the best of the worst that have made their way to the top.

I just vote for the person who will screw things up the least and hope for the best.

From what little I do know about Bush and Kerry, I'd pick Kerry over Bush in a nano second. At least he's competent.

[GhostRider]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

Out of the people of the region, there was only one Mother Theresa... I think he means that the majority are scumbags and that there are few too few good ones. Politicians are usually not driven by the goodness of their hearts, they have other interests... which gives them other agendas aside from the people of their representation.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

True but Kerry, and his pal Teddy both fall well into that small percentage.

Kerry isn't an leftist extremist as much as BDA is a right-wing extremist. Kerry is a swing vote driven by popular demand. He is definitely not a man of principle hence he cannot be an extremist. He is just a loser. Likewise, BDA isn't an extremist to the right either. He is just a selfish individual who likes his hard earned money and feels compelled to speak out when Uncle Sam asks for his contribution to the bigger picture.

[BDA116]

kerry is further to the left than kennedy is. Moreso than reid or hitlary. Very much an extremist, and a complete idiot.
Funny how you leftists think anyone that disagrees with you has to be an extreme right winger. If you only knew.

As for politicians with agendas, sure. If I were to ever run I would most certainly have an agenda. That agenda would be the immediate repeal of both the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, both of which fly directly in the face of what our founding fathers set this country up to be.

[RRWANTR]

Originally Posted by BDA116

kerry is further to the left than kennedy is. Moreso than reid or hitlary. Very much an extremist, and a complete idiot.
Funny how you leftists think anyone that disagrees with you has to be an extreme right winger. If you only knew.

As for politicians with agendas, sure. If I were to ever run I would most certainly have an agenda. That agenda would be the immediate repeal of both the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, both of which fly directly in the face of what our founding fathers set this country up to be.

Heck, BDA would get my vote just because he'd piss off 1.38 billion people per day.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by BDA116

kerry is further to the left than kennedy is.

Maybe... but you do realize that JFK was never a leftist. He had to conform to pressure from the leftist at the time. Johnson was the one who signed the Civil Rights measures. Now if you are referring to Senator Kennedy of Mass., he isn't a true leftist either. Despite his wealth, he does sometimes push for measures favoring the less fortunate and less wealthy population of America. As for Kerry, he isn't a leftist. He doesn't stand anywhere. He is just an idiot like you just brought up.

The sixteenth amendment is one that allows Uncle Sam to generate tax revenue for those of you that haven't paid attention in US History class. I think BDA's position is quite clear for everyone here. The seventeenth amendment is one that permits two senators per state and one electoral vote per senator. Why BDA is against this, ???

[BDA116]

I wasn't referring to JFK, genius.
The 16th forces taxation on income generation and is quite boundless, directly against how we were founded.
The 17th again removes what the founding fathers installed as the method of government. Senators are to be appointed by state legislators and represent the sate, not elected by the people and represent the people. That is what the House is for.
How many more remedial courses do you need in U.S. history and politics?

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

... The seventeenth amendment is one that permits two senators per state and one electoral vote per senator. Why BDA is against this, ???

Maybe because it goes against representation by population? Only guessing here.

[Baketech]

I have so much to learn...

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by BDA116

The 17th again removes what the founding fathers installed as the method of government. Senators are to be appointed by state legislators and represent the sate, not elected by the people and represent the people. That is what the House is for.

Senate was intended to represent the colonial aristocracy, wealthy plantation and property owners. The House of Reps was to appease the masses as a means of representation. You are correct in your assumption that the founding fathers did not intend for such shift in balance of political power. But... haven't you heard, women can now vote, colored people can vote too and they don't count for only a fraction of a vote, ooohh we now have 50 states instead of thirteen. What you need to focus on is that this 17th amendment benefits a sparesly populated state over a densely populated state. Alasksa has the same power in the senate as New York despite the differences in population. Largely, this doesn't affect the checks and balances of the political system. In fact, this benefits the conservative vote. Despite the original intentions of the founding fathers, then net effects of deviation is minimal so this arguement is moot.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Maybe because it goes against representation by population? Only guessing here.

Easy the original system was designed so that the states would be represented by the Senate and the people by the House. This makes it harder for highly populated states to negate the influence of small states, while also moderating the power of the minority states. A very clever setup. Of course it was also created with a change mechanism that was used properly (while I agree not a good idea to do so)

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

Senate was intended to represent the colonial aristocracy, wealthy plantation and property owners. The House of Reps was to appease the masses as a means of representation. You are correct in your assumption that the founding fathers did not intend for such shift in balance of political power. But... haven't you heard, women can now vote, colored people can vote too and they don't count for only a fraction of a vote, ooohh we now have 50 states instead of thirteen. What you need to focus on is that this 17th amendment benefits a sparesly populated state over a densely populated state. Alasksa has the same power in the senate as New York despite the differences in population. Largely, this doesn't affect the checks and balances of the political system. In fact, this benefits the conservative vote. Despite the original intentions of the founding fathers, then net effects of deviation is minimal so this arguement is moot.

That's a nice mess of B.S., but that is ALL it is. Do you even KNOW what the founding father laid out in the Constitution? Your verbal diarrhea has nothing to do with what they intended or stated. Here, just to help you remedials out: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. "
The number of Senators from each state has never changed. The power each Senator had has never changed. The way in which they got the power and to whom they are beholden HAS changed. In all reality the way the power shifted has gone to HURT smaller states and HELP large population areas, which is why the dems are so against changing back. The original way is better for conservative states by far.
The 17th didn't change how many senators a state had, genius, nor did it have anything to do with whom can vote. Nice little try for left wing propaganda spin, but it doesn't hold any water at all.
And if you want to get into civil rights, you obviously need a history lesson there as well.

[johnnycrash]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

Kerry isn't an leftist extremist as much as BDA is a right-wing extremist.