How can you vote for Kerry???

[once a runner]

It was in the third debate. The topic of gay marriage did not come up at all in the first two debates, so it would have been hard to change his opinion on it from debate to debate. However, John Edwards did say in his debate, that he and John Kerry believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Here is a website with debate transcripts... http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html

Please show me on which topic Kerry changed his position between debates.

[CRLionDawg]

OAR these guys will continue to bust youin the chops as long as you keep responding. Give it up!

[fleaflicker]

Doesn't matter how factual your sources are or how solid your arguments, those guys won't buy it even if they cannot refute it.

[count2infinity]

yeah...face it OAR...this area is as right-winged as it gets!

[deliverance]

Does it really matter now? I thought Bush already won. Why fight about whether Kerry flip flopped on things now? Bush won. Let's just hope Bush gives us 4 more good years.

[once a runner]

Oh my, I'm outnumbered ....I better give up. Great attitude guys. Hope you don't coach or play with that same attitude. Being outnumbered is what makes it fun. I know when I've won and lost. When my arguments aren't refuted, I know I've won. I also know it won't change anyone's mind or the results of the election. Participating in good debate has it's own rewards.

[fleaflicker]

I agree with you once a runner, you and I have intellectually beat the heck out of most of these guys on here, because they can't even make a half decent comeback to most of it. They just like to get up on the moral highhorse about how 51% of the people delivered a "mandate." Like, here, watch this:

The truth is, Bush isn't serious about capturing Osama bin Laden. I haven't heard about any efforts to capture him in over a year. Besides, why would he want to capture one of his cronies? The bin Laden family and the Bush family were both in the Carlyle group. And about a week after 9-11, the bin Laden family was given a free pass out of the country due to fear about them being persecuted. The FBI or CIA could have held them and questioned them about the whereabouts of their long lost relative, and the public wouldn't have had to know anything about where they were being held before deportation. But rather than holding them a day, and possibly gaining valuable intelligence, we just send them out of here. Then after about a year, when nothing is happening with the search for Osama, Bush invades Iraq to avenge his daddy's war and to divert attention away from his failure in Afghanistan. There was no real reason to do this. First, we have found no weapons of mass destruction there that pose any threat to the United States. Second, Saddum may have been a dictator with a very bad human rights record, but many of our allies have that as well. What about communist China and Saudi Arabia? Third, if the reason for attacking Iraq was for harboring terrorists, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? That country harbors as many terrorists as anybody else. Heck, to get all the terrorists, we'd have to fight wars with all of our allies in the Middle East, save Israel.
So looking at all that, there was no real reason to attack Iraq but to divert attention from the unsuccessful search for Osama bin Laden.



Once a runner, now you're going to hear about how Clinton failed to get Osama when he had the chance, while insisting Iraq was a threat to the United States and that Saddum needed to be removed. Of course, the first is not the point, and the second I refuted. I seriously doubt they'll find any proof on any news sites (even their beloved FoxNews) to report any WMD that are a threat to the U.S. But they'll never ever be convinced. You saw it yourself from deliverence, in hoping that Bush gives us four more good years. That is implying of course, that the first four years he had were good. As far as the economy and the wars we've had, as well as international relations, there has been nothing good about it. So face it, these people don't like to read about our views, and if they can't disprove it, they'll just try to bash the heck out of it. Therefore, I see no real point on posting here anymore.

[CRLionDawg]

OK OaR, have at it. At this point most of what gets said here is beyond fact. Including your own statements. Its strictly hardcore partisan politics.

[southpaw]

Praise the Lord, fleaflicker will post no more. lol. I seriously doubt he can resist posting here though its just too much fun.

[once a runner]

Excuse my ignorance, but how can something be "beyond fact". Someone wrote something about Kerry. I said he had his facts wrong. I showed where I found the information. Somebody else told me I was wrong, but never backed it up. I'm not sure how that line of thinking makes me the bad guy.