John KerryFollow

Im not running, but say if I support someone Im going to voice my opinion to get more to vote for him. People dont have to believe or listen to me.

Or it'd be called sheep like conformity. but whatever works for you.

Baaaa....

Ahhh....the final bastion of a drowning Democrat.....



Edited, Wed May 12 14:32:46 2004 by Deathfromtheskies

That'd be clever if.. I dunno.. that was the typical jingoistic response of the pseduo-patriotic Democrat. Of course, it's not, so no irony points for you. Sorry.

See, your problem is you were so eager to show me up, you blew your load on the first statement I made. You should have waited until I started screaming about 1st Amendment rights when a corporation blocks something or something stereotypically liberal like that. Lessons learned for next time!

Support does in no way mean that. Look it up.

And Jophiel, I dont know what you are talking about, but sounds like you are in some sort of contest, one that I am not in...

Take it easy Joph, it was a joke, no need to flame continuously.

And to what you said about Jesus, you made my point for me. Not once did Jesus speak against political leaders, in fact, like you said, He said "Unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". He spoke against religious leaders because they misled people spiritually.

And why is it "amusing" that I reference the Word of God for advice on how to act today? You seem to know a bit about Jesus, why is that funny?

whoa bud, I never said any of that.

What I mean is that if you disagree with something the person you support does then you should say SO so that they can do something to fix IT!


If you disagree too much then you are supporting the wrong person.


Support w/o questioning is called conformity.

We have a choice. We arent all in the military and have to follow orders w/o question.

o and what is conformity?

Con*form"i*ty\, n.; pl. Conformities. [Cf. F. conformit['e].] 1. Correspondence in form, manner, or character; resemblance; agreement; congruity; -- followed by to, with, or between.

There, ya happy?

I am tired of this, you two guys take it easy.

But that's the point Joph. I (as in me personally) do not have to prove that Iraq was previously, or was in 2002, or would have been, a threat. Congress did that. Before Bush took office.

Also, the issue was not whether Iraq was an immediate threat. The phrase used was "continuing" threat, which implies a threat going forward.

My point is that 2 out of the 3 branches of the US government agreed that Iraq was a "continuing threat to the security of the United States" (and the third doesn't make foreign assessments, so that's essentially unanimous). You can second guess that all you want, but you can't place blame on just one of those two branches.

Obviously, in the opinion of the people who matter (Congress and the Executive) Iraq posed a threat. We elect those people to make those calls. We don't make them by taking a poll on the internet (for very good reasons!). You are the one armchair quarterbacking here, not me. I'm saying: "Hey. Congress decided that Iraq posed a threat sufficient to authorize the use of the military. The President thought they posed a threat as well and used that military. Who am I to arbitrarily decide that they were all wrong?".


We live in a Republic. We give the right to make those choices to our elected officials. That's how the system works. You are free to vote differently this fall if you want. However, I'd like to point out that John Kerry was one of the Senators who voted Yea on the resolution to use military force in Iraq. So a vote for Kerry is not a vote of no confidence over the decision to go into Iraq. He came to the same conclusion that Bush did.

No idea, that's why I got tired....