It's official! :D

Sen. John Kerry selected fellow Senator, John Edwards (who ran unsuccessfully against him in the primaries) as his running mate.

And this further finalizes my decision to vote for Kerry this election (even though I'm a registered Republican, I'm not happy with Bush as I was in the distant past). I think that the Kerry-Edwards ticket have a slight better chance of getting Bush out of office this year. Edwards is a newbie in the Senate, but he had showed why he was good stuff earlier in the year, and this gives Kerry a chance to win some states in the South.

Anyway, what's your opinion about this selection?

Edwards is an interesting choice. I know he'll be roasted by the GOP attack machine for his lack of experience and the like, but I think he can bring some energy to the Kerry campaign, which is something it desparately needs.

Just remember, a vote for Bush is also a vote for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowtiz, and others, people who in my opinion should be kept far, far away from our government now.

Take care all.

God, the only thing I've done today is reading the Edwards-VP threads over the net. And love the NY Post Gephardt fiasco. :D

But what I've read for now, Edwards seems to be a net favourite. As much public political experience as Bush in '00, he comes from a middle-class or poor (rural?) miller's background in NC, and dug his way upwards as a trial-lawyer whose maybe most famous case was against a pool-engineering thingie company which' faulty plumbing caused at least a dozen cases of grievous injury for young children (including... Well. Gruesome.).

To me, Kerry doesnt believe we cant fight terrorism, its not a winable war. The same thinking when Reagen was alive 20 or so years ago, fighting communism, he thought we cant fight communism through out the world. Kerry's a pessimist. You know presidential leaders, have great power to change things through out the world, Bush gone ahead and done that. And I know you liberals will all say what about the economy etc. But that recovering. An the war on terror, 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime. etc. I think its rather petty though to argue over this, since people dont see it through my eyes. Its just like in a game when your doing good, theres this other guy that wants to kick you out of the game, and take over. That's my own personal view of it. It just shows where the guy stands, no back bone. Its great that John Kerry picked John Edwards, like two johns. But hey, if they become president, I will respect them, like every other president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

To me, Kerry doesnt believe we cant fight terrorism, its not a winable war. The same thinking when Reagen was alive 20 or so years ago, fighting communism, he thought we cant fight communism through out the world. Kerry's a pessimist. You know presidential leaders, have great power to change things through out the world, Bush gone ahead and done that. And I know you liberals will all say what about the economy etc. But that recovering. An the war on terror, 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime. etc. I think its rather petty though to argue over this, since people dont see it through my eyes. Its just like in a game when your doing good, theres this other guy that wants to kick you out of the game, and take over. That's my own personal view of it. It just shows where the guy stands, no back bone. Its great that John Kerry picked John Edwards, like two johns. But hey, if they become president, I will respect them, like every other president.

---

No, no, no. It's not that the Democrats, and Kerry, do not believe that terrorism cannot be fought - they just believe, and so do I, that it can't be fought the way the current US administration has done it. They only thing Bush has, visibly and memorably, done to fight terrorism is invading Afghanistan and pissing on your precious Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Kerry as president will fight terrorism, not with terror, but with diplomacy and guile. Kerry will be able to rally your former allies together to work for a common cause, and he will be able to bring you some new ones. And in 2008, when terrorism home and abroad has flickered away like a flowering flame in the firework factory due to the more efficient actions of the Neo Administration, you'll be enjoying Democrats until 2020. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nait

Kerry as president will fight terrorism, not with terror, but with diplomacy and guile. Kerry will be able to rally your former allies together to work for a common cause, and he will be able to bring you some new ones. And in 2008, when terrorism home and abroad has flickered away like a flowering flame in the firework factory due to the more efficient actions of the Neo Administration, you'll be enjoying Democrats until 2020. :D

---

And John Connor Kerry will also lead the human race to ultimate victory over the machines after Judgment Day, right?

It's pretty near-sighted to believe that what Kerry plans to do will solve all the worlds problems - and the same goes for Bush's plans. I just happen to disagree with Kerry's plans. We've been talking with terrorists for years, and that's gotten us nowhere.

Quote:

---

Kerry as president will fight terrorism, not with terror, but with diplomacy and guile.

---

Of-course, because terrorists are reasonable people that can be negotiated with. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Of-course, because terrorists are reasonable people that can be negotiated with. :rolleyes:

---

I didn't say that, you horrible little man. I said Kerry would use diplomacy and guile against terrorism. :D Read what I say, not what I do. *_*


EDIT:

And if you can't figure it out, I'm not telling. :D All you conservatives have only one thing in your head as soon as people utter the word "diplomacy".

Doc makes a very valid point. Though I believe Nait was pulling a Shadow Nexus-esque sarcastic post, the point remains the same: terrorism is not a clear cut good and evil type war, such as the one's we're used to. It's darn near impossible to defeat terrorism since at its very root, there must be a government or a society for which the terrorism is rebelling against. So long as government and society continues, which I kind of hope it does, there will be terrorists and terrorism.

I have a sneaking feeling that the war on terror will go the way of the war on drugs: put on the back-burner.

Take care all.

Actually, I wasn't being very sarcastic. Daydreaming, more like. I do believe that with diplomacy limits can be put to terrorism. Force, as exemplified by Iraq and the situation onthewestbank, begets terrorism, by creating grassroots support for such desperate action. Even though terrorism can be the product of some nut just hating America, it can, and will be, also semi-legitimate (from the terrorist's point of view) action against a society or nation that has done wrong against the now-terrorist.

So, if we solve the world's problems, terrorism will automatically dwindle.

Quote:

---

All you conservatives have only one thing in your head as soon as people utter the word "diplomacy".

---

Actually, I'm very much a liberal. Also, I'm a big supporter of diplomacy... I think words are the greatest weapons, and the best means to solve problems. However... I can see that terrorism cannot be met with diplomacy, for the simple fact you cannot reason with something that only wants your life. Even Nazi Germany could be reasoned with, as it wanted to conquer first, and kill only when its terms were not accepted. But what can you offer a Muslim terrorist? He only wants you dead, and the radical ones won't even accept a conversion to Islam. So, you either fight it, or die. Trying to reason with terrorism may seem to work, but it really doesn't.

You must accept the fact that you CANNOT defeat terrorism - you can only weaken it to the point it's almost dormant. And that is not done with large armies... but with small, covert units, eliminating heads, one by one. You can bring down the leadership, and that way the only thing that's left are small-time field operatives with no real means to harm or even reach Western nations... and those small-timers can be found and killed fairly easily. You must KEEP and acting this way, terminating any new riser-to-the-throne of any organisation, so that it never becomes active.

Edwards eh? Well, that's actually rather heartening. He seemed rather nice, and less tainted than the rest of the politicians.

Quote:

---

To me, Kerry doesnt believe we cant fight terrorism, its not a winable war. The same thinking when Reagen was alive 20 or so years ago, fighting communism, he thought we cant fight communism through out the world. Kerry's a pessimist. You know presidential leaders, have great power to change things through out the world, Bush gone ahead and done that. And I know you liberals will all say what about the economy etc. But that recovering. An the war on terror, 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime. etc. I think its rather petty though to argue over this, since people dont see it through my eyes. Its just like in a game when your doing good, theres this other guy that wants to kick you out of the game, and take over. That's my own personal view of it. It just shows where the guy stands, no back bone. Its great that John Kerry picked John Edwards, like two johns. But hey, if they become president, I will respect them, like every other president.

---

Fighting terrorism doesn't entail declaring war on Arab countries. Oh yes, remember, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

I knew he was gonna go with Edwards i just wonder why it took him so long... I wish McCain could have been Kerrys running mate, though im democrat.

Plzz dont vote
Bush/Haliburton for '04

When I see John Edwards, I think "slimeball". Just from his demeanor, maybe. If I was voting, that wouldn't affect my vote, but there you go.

Honestly, who cares who the VP candidates are. I think most people don't even vote for a President, let alone a VP; they vote for a Party. The same people who were cheering on Howard Dean, etc. will go vote for one of the people Howard Dean said sucked, because the Party endorses them. Kerry bashed Edwards and Edwards bashed Kerry nonstop while they were all trying to get the nomination; now they're magically running-mates, and the only reason is because of the Party.

I like how Unne capitalizes "Party". Feels Orwellian.

I like Edwards, but I'm biased because, being from NC, I've had more of a look at what he's done than I have for anyone else. That, and he has a decent stance on enviornmental issues... hopefully, if Kerry is elected, that administration can begin to rectify the "errors" commited by the Bush administration.

Anything is better than Bush!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinity

Anything is better than Bush!

---

Even Hitler?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Even Hitler?

---

Something tells me she meant, "anyone else who's in the running in this election", and I'd have to agree, particularly where Kerry is concerned.
It's good that he's mature enough to approach a former rival to run as his VP candidate; good that he's not going to continue the rivallry for petty reasons.

I agree with what Nait has been saying. I know you can't negotiate with terrorists and then everything is settled but you can just send in troops and bomb and destroy their area. I think the answer lies between the two. I'm not sure about Kerry, but Bush seems so set on "bombing the evil-doers" that he doesn't want to try anything else. I'm rooting for Kerry, though I can't vote yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Even Hitler?

---

GODWIN! GODWIN! :D :D :D :D



I was actually thinking of this when I was mowing the lawn just now, and I started to hope someone from BC'04 would pull a parallel between great oratiorionists (Edwards, it would seem) and Hitler. That would mean and automatic Repub loss, right? :) Maybe Cheney gets another tnemom-cuff in the VC-debate. :D

Quote:

---

Actually, I'm very much a liberal.

---

I believe War Angel is pulling a Shadow Nexus-esque sarcastic post.

Quote:

---

Even Hitler?

---

Well, he had a cool moustache and good taste for music. And he loved animals:

Uh...OK, I don't find the pic, but it was him feeding a baby deer.

However, I found this one: http://www.netwijs.nl/images/hitler.jpg

It wasn't Hitlers fault he was so mean it was the Art schools fault.

Hitler was a sensitive man, after all.

DocFreedom, you broke Godwin, you lost already, shoo shoo. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Hitler was a sensitive man, after all.

---

YOU BET!!!

Quote:

---

I believe War Angel is pulling a Shadow Nexus-esque sarcastic post.

---

No, honey. For once, I wasn't being sarcastic or cynical. I *am* a liberal. Not a tree-hugger, for sure, but a liberal. Please note, that with everything else, the Americans' concept of 'liberal' is pretty twisted. Leftists are very often NOT liberal, especially when it comes to the economy, or, for example, gun control. The 'liberals' support gun control in the US, while the 'conservatives' want to keep their right to own guns. Anyone who's against a certain liberty, is not liberal (at least not in that area).

So, yes, I'm a liberal. I like freedom and stuff. But, I do like to keep certasin things the way they are, so I am also a conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

So, yes, I'm a liberal. I like freedom and stuff. But, I do like to keep certasin things the way they are, so I am also a conservative.

---

Ok, let's try to define you.

... Damn, I can't come up with any good definitions of Liberal. I guess forward-thinking, progressive attitudes with such opinions as using the government as a tool for the common man, equally and for everyone regardless of gender, looks, age or length of lower intestines is one definition?

Quote:

---

... Damn, I can't come up with any good definitions of Liberal. I guess forward-thinking, progressive attitudes with such opinions as using the government as a tool for the common man, equally and for everyone regardless of gender, looks, age or length of lower intestines is one definition?

---

That's just a lefty, enlightened perpective - not necessarily a liberal one. For example, a socialist can be a very enlightened person... but by all means, NOT a liberal. He may want to restrict people's freedom to advance, so that they won't hurt others, and harm equality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

That's just a lefty, enlightened perpective - not necessarily a liberal one. For example, a socialist can be a very enlightened person... but by all means, NOT a liberal. He may want to restrict people's freedom to advance, so that they won't hurt others, and harm equality.

---

Yuup, he was being sarcastic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Leftists are very often NOT liberal, especially when it comes to the economy, or, for example, gun control. The 'liberals' support gun control in the US, while the 'conservatives' want to keep their right to own guns. Anyone who's against a certain liberty, is not liberal (at least not in that area).

---

So...if liberals are against gun ownership and conservatives want to keep them...we can determine...

a) Liberals are against it, so they are against a liberty. Correctly defined liberals would defend gun ownership.

b) Consevatives...want to...conserve? But neoliberalism in economy dosen't conserve nature! But they want to conserve laws such as gun ownership.

Thus:
Conservatives are conservative because they want to conserve gun ownership, but they are also liberals because they are defending a liberty. So they are conservative and liberal at the same time O_O

Paradox! *head explodes*


:D

But I don't use the term liberal or conservative much. I use "people who agree with me" and "fascists" :rolleyes2 (NOTE THE SARCASM, HA-HA, SARCASM)

Why don't we just all agree that politicians are "liberal" or "conservative" only so long as they can be reelected and keep their power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

Why don't we just all agree that politicians are "liberal" or "conservative" only so long as they can be reelected and keep their power.

---

Sure, but we're not talking about politicians anyway. We're talking about me, us, them and all liberals from Jesus to Lincoln and beyond. ;)