Dem Primary Results LIVE THREAD

Fox News | 2-3-4 | Me

[Petronski]

Live threads have to start somewhere, might as well be here.

[Howlin]

You need to learn some diplomacy skills. There is a way to make your point, without attracting undue flames. Trust me. For example, you could have said that Edwards was just forced to be a faux liberal, because he is in a liberal party, and when he gets in power, you don't really think he will pursue a noxious agenda, with any real fervor, particularly on social issues and foreign policy, to which you give disproportionate weight, because, well ... . Then you get some chat about Edwards is really all about, rather than what you are about. And so it goes. Yep, I admit, I have a superficial knowledge of Edwards. But as I said, faux populism, is just not my flavor of the month. Frankly, it bores me.

Ha! You posted that entire rant just so you could work "faux populism" into the conversation!

[jwalsh07]

There's more where that came from. Mr Kerry has invited us to gring it on and bring it on we will.

[Howlin]

Of all the things that John Kerry talks about, when he launched into his "veteran's leader" thing tonight, I nearly threw up.

Does he think we all have selective amnesia?

[Torie]

The Veteran's committee is obscure, and not the road to publicity or power. It thus was simply not Kerry's cup of tea, even though I am sure he cares about veterans. I have a vague sense that Kerry is a vaguely decent man, who is just consumed with ambition, which would test the decency of us all. I will be next to the last person on this forum to abandon Bush, yes almost the last (even though I trash him on some matters without fear or hesitation on this forum), but I cannot at present demonize Kerry, and will not. If elected, he would be a better president than Gore would have, IMO. How is that for faint praise?

[woodyinscc]

Whoever he appoints, it wouldn't be worse than Clark and Kerry

While there are a lot of lawyers posting on FR, you were blessed by receiving a response from two of the finest. Heed their advice, they gave it benevolently.

[A Citizen Reporter]

I don't know what your definition of a wimp is......but when a post starts with...."somebody called me a name".....I'd say that takes it. Face it, you've done in this particular screen name....time to move on.

[Fledermaus]

I can demonize Kerry. He's nothing but an old JFK roadie...getting the leftover groupies Kennedy threw off after his back was killing him.

[#3Fan]

You need to learn some diplomacy skills.

In other words I need to learn to suck up like everyone else? Not gonna happen. My first post was a long time ago about at post #700 where I said the same thing I've been responding to now. The difference was that the toadie gang wasn't here. I made a simple point. One person replied after I had left and I came back and replied to his reply. The toadie gang was here though and the rest is history. That's what they do, they go around and start crap following the ques of Howlin. I know you think I should just take their namecalling without responding but it's not something I'm going to do.

There is a way to make your point, without attracting undue flames.

Without attracting flames? What's the matter with saying "Edwards is better than Clark and Kerry". What in the world is wrong with that statement that attracts namecalling attacks from 7 people?

Trust me. For example, you could have said that Edwards was just forced to be a faux liberal, because he is in a liberal party, and when he gets in power, you don't really think he will pursue a noxious agenda, with any real fervor, particularly on social issues and foreign policy, to which you give disproportionate weight, because, well ... . Then you get some chat about Edwards is really all about, rather than what you are about. And so it goes.

That's an awful long sentence. I'm not going to walk on eggshells just to avoid flames.

[Mo1]

I'm watching Pat .. why doesn't he just register as a Dem?

[Torie]

I like to try to offend just about everyone a little bit, but not too much. I like to stimulate discussion without gratuiously making enemies. It is in my nature. Sometimes I succeed, and sometimes fail, at that.

[Carolinamom]

I dare you to name one name that I have called you.

[Torie]

Well, you certainly have the right to do it your way, and ignore my advice. All the best.

[Mo1]

And when the timing is right .. SLAM!

[Fledermaus]

To: Petronski
Glad to see Edwards do well. In case a disaster were to happen with Bush, he'd be better than all the other clowns besides Lieberman.

830 posted on 02/03/2004 8:19:08 PM CST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[jwalsh07]

We part company here radically. I think Kerry is a nightmare. He turned on his fellow veterans as easily as one turns over a pancake. I'll be ripping him every chance I get because he is a danger to America.

Left to John Kerry's judgement Saddam Hussein would have accomplished his dream of being the modern day Saladin by controlling the ME oil supplies.

I could go on but its late.

Kerry is not benign, he is malignant.

Cheers.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"I have a vague sense that Kerry is a vaguely decent man, who is just consumed with ambition,"

There was a fog in that "vague" statement. Kerry is consumed with ambition alright. He married two wealthy women to feed it. I don't see a single decent thing in the man.

[woodyinscc]

Most assuredly.!!

[Torie]

We must carry on this conversation at our leisure. I enjoy it when you think I have gone nuts in my judgment, and of course value your views. And you presumably know much more about Kerry than I do.

[#3Fan]

Belligerent repetition of ignorance does NOT contribute to any discussion of any issue. I, among many others, have written about how John Edwards amassed his fortune, and who his financial backers are, and why they support him. Letting Edwards get anywhere near the White House without a visitor's pass would be a giant step toward the institution of government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers. I have written in detail about hot-shot, high-priced trial lawyers in several of my columns. The only way that you can consider John Edwards as not a danger to the Republic, is if you have done essentially no homework on what he is, and how he operates.

But that's like saying if Bush gets elected, big oil takes over. I don't buy that a person would automatically make the country subservient to the president's former occupation.

You need to Do YOUR HOMEWORK. After that, you can rejoin the discussion with a factual basis for what you say. Until then, you should stop cluttering JimRob's bandwidth with fact-free assertions. (Based on your prior history on this thread, I suppose you will now make a personal attack of some kind on me. I have a thick skin and can take it. But I assure you you will only be confirming your own lack of knowledge and perspective.)

No not at all. I don't mind constructive criticism. It's the namecalling I don't like. It's worthless and childish. You guys keep saying how terrible Edwards is but I've seen no specific incident cited. Until I see a string of them, I can't believe he's wrose than Kerry or Clark.

I don't like to be harsh on FreeRepublic, but you have, unfortunately, earned that treatment tonight.

You're not harsh, you're a teddy bear. lol

[woodyinscc]

Hello and goodnight, it is a little late in Conn.!