You guy are right...I CAN'T stay away.

What is John Kerry trying to get me to think about? I can't even keep up with what HE thinks from one day to the next! Bill Clinton...man. Believe it or not, I have a certain amount of affection for him. He is hands down, the greatest politician that has ever lived.

Hey, I think my college friends and I might be starting a blog. Don't know if I'm gonna let you guys in, though. You might find out too much about me! :o)

Actually...I need to amend that first statement. Kerry's message has been pretty consistant since the first debate, "everything Bush does is wrong".

"This President wakes up at 5:00am every morning. He's misleading America...being awake before sunrise when the rest of America is sleeping. As President, I will wake up after sunrise. I HAVE A PLAN!"

A lot of people started chanting "4 more years" when Clinton was speaking, it was kind of funny.

There seemed to be some folks rooting for Boston at the rally too.

Nice panoramic.

Ah yes, Kerry the flip-flopper. Speaking of *yaaaaaawwwwwn* A few comments:

1. What is it with the "flip-flopping" comment? Is making informed decisions so bad? Also, apparently only Democratic presidential candidates are "flip-floppers". Clinton was a flip-flopper. Gore was a flip-flopper. Flippity floppity!

2. So is flip-flopping like saying "We're gonna get 'em! Smoke 'em out!" and then saying "I don't really think about Osama bin Laden"? Just curious :)

3. I'm a little confused...am I supposed to think Bush is a good man because he wakes up an hour earlier than me? Are you sure he's not waking up at 5 to fly down to Crawford for another month-long vacation?

Yeah, I hate flip-floppers. Like when politicians say there are DEFINATELY WMD, maybe nucular, and we must 'free' the people, and then flippity-floppity to..."Ok, he was a bad, naughty ruler, that should be a good enough reason."

Emily, Emily, Emily...

1)I didn't use the word "flip-flop". You did. I prefer to say that Kerry has absolutely no core convictions. Your side's examples on Bush have always been the same, and they are weak. Kerry, on the othe hand, is allowed to constantly contradict himself in the political wind and is never called on it by the media. He's WAY worse than Gore or even Clinton ever were. It's an amazing thing to watch because he's terrible at it and it's SO obvious yet he still gets away with it.

2)Do you know the context of that statement? After he said "I'm not concerned about him", he finished the sentence with "we're going to get him eventually". The question the reporter asked him was about the importance of Osama himself vs. the entire network of A-Q, and that was the context the answer was given in.

3) That was kind of just a joke to make a point about Kerry and his pathetic opportunism....do you think I care what time they get up? Also, do you really believe the President is ever "on vacation"? Give me a break.

"Hazel"...I would refer you to the quotes by about 10 different Democrats (including Kerry and Clinton) regarding the imminent threat from Iraq's WMD.

OH...and this weapons stcokpile issue? Last night NBC reported that they were with the 101st when they FIRST arrived at the site last April and there were no weapons. So if they were taken they were ALREADY GONE when American troops arrived, yet Kerry is about to run an add LYING and blaming it (if there is an "it') on the troops and the President. By the way...if these explosives are so powerful, couldn't they qualify as WMD?? Oh wait...we can't consider that. I loved Kerry's phrase to get around that issue this morning. He referred to the as "Weapons-of-any-kind-of-destruction". HAHAHAHAH!!!! Nobody in the press asked him what exactly that meant...not a surprise.

As a side note...I really shouldn't be surprised that they wouldn't meet the "WMD" test for the press. We find some evidence of Iraq's former WMD program about once a month in Iraq yet the idea that "there were no weapons of mass destruction" survives. It's really bizarre. My favorite was about eight months ago when we found all those chemical-tipped warheads and the headline on FoxNews and ABC websites were both "WMD found in Iraq". Ooops...guess that doesn't jive with "Bush lied" so it just vanished.

This election (even if it's close and Bush wins) is a triumph of manipulation and mis-information. It's so damn sad to see so many opinions purchased directly by George Soros.

All politicians "flip-flop" but it's called pandering, people! I'm pretty pissed at the Bush campaign for verbing the word flip-flop. It weirds the language.

OH ... and this weapons stockpile issue? Start a new post if you want to talk about it, Dude.

Well, "no core convictions" implies that he goes whichever way the wind blows, eh?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be saying "yeah, we'll get the man who plotted the murder of innnocent civilians EVENTUALLY". If Bush is going to run on a national security platform (what really, what else does he have to run on?) then he's going to have to do better than that. Like actually spending money on tracking ObL instead of, say, giving no-bid contracts to his VP's former company. And there were no ties between Iraq and A-Q. Just because the neocons say so doesn't make it true.

Yes, I do believe the President is on vacation when he says "It's a shame so many of our young men and women are dying. Now watch this drive."

By the way, I'd like to know which opinions have been purchased by George Soros, as every paper in Ohio has either endorsed Bush or "despite the fact that the majority of our editorial board favors Kerry, we're not endorsing a candidate this year". That damn liberal media, at it again!

Good point about verbing the word flip-flop, Karen. The Bush camp has done lots of weirding of the language, just another reason to get rid of him.

LOL...you are amazing, Emily. Taking something obviously edited together by Michael Moore and played in succession. Now a President isn't allowed to play golf? Oh, wait, only a Republican can't play golf. What a waste of my time.

A-Q isn't just UBL...and I have no idea where you get the notion that money isn't being spent on tracking him or his terrorist network.

This is just a goofy discussion. It's like being in pre-school and hearing "but he said this...he said that". Every time the name Emily appears on the board it seems I am always forced to focus on silly, irrelevant nuances rather than the actual facts or issues at hand(not that any of us know all of them but we can make SOME effort). Don't mean to be mean...it just makes me crazy.

I'm done on this post. Check out my new post on the weapons, Karen.

One more thing. Regarding this:

"And there were no ties between Iraq and A-Q. Just because the neocons say so doesn't make it true."

You are just plain misinformed. I would refer you two at least two previous posts of mine citing numerous sources with links to several different articles from the past year about the link. Also the 9-11 Commission report which said there were no clear links directly to 9/11 (the event), but that clear ties between that governent and A-Q (and many other terrorist organizations existed). That report was manipulated by liberals to take no links to 9/11, the event, and turn that into no links to terrorists, which is falser than false. Just because neo-cons say it does NOT make it true. Being true is what makes it true.

Okay, so are we justified in starting a war with any country that has connections to terrorists? That's a pretty fun logic to pursue.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Dude: Why don't you just get all yer friends to join disjointed? Few more of you here and you'll nearly have the run of the place.

Ok...LOL....Karen officially makes no sense now too.

Classic liberalism...when presented with facts that are irrefutable, you change to subject to a circular argument that involves the acknowledgent of those facts. Ok, I can argue on that level...

Yup Karen...now that you've finally had the epiphany that there were terrorists connections you should know that that was the only reason for invading Iraq and I think we should right now...at this moment...invade every country with terrorist connections, without regard to any other factors involved (like what countries they may have invaded in the past...or what treaties or UN resolutions they may have violated, or whether they have shot at our planes in a no-fly zone they agreed to abide by). Then, I think we should invade every country with WMD. In fact, how about every Arab nation! No, I got it...every country where some dictator has been mean to a "minority of his people" as agent so eloquently stated on another post.

You do realize that it wouldn't matter what the war and the reasons, if one reason you argue against if proven, then you'll say "should we invade every country where...xyz"...unless of course a Democrat is President, and then his reasons will ALL be legit. It's so silly and mind-numbing it makes my head spin.

Donald Rumsfeld has connections to Saddam Hussein too.

Republicans can play golf, but they can't say "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive." in the same breath while playing golf.

Dude, I never thought there weren't terrorist connections. I just don't think that "terrorist connections" is much of a justification for a war of aggression.

And I don't much appreciate your predictions of my blind faith to a Democrat president or your charactization of my thought process.

Dude, I like how when you run out of valid points, you start insulting people's intelligence. You're right -- we aren't smart enough to understand that neocons have our best interests in mind. We should just stop thinking and just recite their rhetoric.

Believe me, I don't run out of valid points (though I'm surprised to hear you acknowedge I have any)...sometimes I just have better things to do than to tie my brain in knots to make an argument that will never be understood.

I really don't mean to insult, and I appreciate anyone's interest in issues. Oftentimes, I am not so sure I am the winner of the rhetoric-battle, though. There is alot of rhetoric floating around that was completely made up by George Soros and company...and now circulates liberal websites waiting for the next unwitting victim who perceives himself as "thinking for himself".

We all spout rhetoric...but we need to look at facts too. For instance, it's great that you want to read the American Conservative, but you only want to do it because they are often critical of Bush. True intellectual curiousity sends you to as manys sources as possible to prove or disprove or just learn about a point. I do my very best to acknowledge when others make good points...and I can change my mind. Polomex and Ryan are the only two that post here where I get a sense that they are truly open in their thought. When you perceive me as insulting...it's because I get the sense that people are more interested in saying anything (no matter how silly) to avoid admitting that Bush has EVER done anything right. When you don't give credit where credit is due, and go to obviously tortured lengths to avoid doing it, it destroys credibility and comes across as "rhetoric".

If you didn't mean to insult anyone you would not have said such condesending things. It is possible to make a point without insulting people. For example, instead of saying, "Every time the name Emily appears on the board it seems I am always forced to focus on silly, irrelevant nuances rather than the actual facts or issues at hand." You could have said, "We are not discussing the key facks or issue, which I concider to be..."

What makes you think that I only want to read the American Conservative because it is critical of Bush? Could it be that I want to read something because it has substance over talking points?