What in the frick is wrong with Kerry? Says would still vote for the war?

[The Sushi Bandit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

"he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."

I'm Sorry but...This is a bullshit statement... where is Dennis Kucinich when we need him??

[papau]

1. Not quite - vote for Authority - but try all UN efforts first - and no WMD

report by inspectors would have ended it.

[mstrsplinter326]

2. I wish that were a bad joke.

The biggest fallacy is thinking that RW statements like that will win him votes.

[emulatorloo]

5. Read what he said, not what you THINK he said

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html

My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"

[peacetalksforall]

12. I envy you for your support...

imo it was the responsibility of our leaders to have answers from those imperialistic nuts before they put their OK on anything that was asked of them.

They are equally to blame for the death and destruction and the blatant imperialism. All the Senators and Congresspeople and their staffs let us down. THEY are supposed to get the details before they go wildly validating madness.

It was a transparent open and shut case as to what we were about. And they averted their eyes, ears, and souls.

[emulatorloo]

15. Can you separate the principal of non proliferation of weapons from the

specific botched execution/abuse by GWB?

As to your other point, it is my understanding that powell promised them that everything would be done to avoid invasion. diplomacy, un resolution, allies, pressure , sanctions, inspectors etc etc.

If GWB had done that, no weapons found. No invasion.

However, now we know Powell was out of the loop.

[TexasSissy]

168. That's not the part people are questioning.

He definitely said that, knowing what we know now (there are no WMD), would he still vote for the resolution? He said yes, because he thinks the Pres. needs that authority.

That is MOST distressing. MOST distressing. And to hell with Kucinich....I'm closer to a moderate than to the Kucinich progressives, and I have a BIG problem with his response to that question.

[David Dunham]

3. A majority of Americans agree with Kerry's position.

They backed the resolution but now think Bush mishandled Iraq.

[goodhue]

16. a majority of Americans think Iraq had something to do with 9/11

eom

[emulatorloo]

29. not the same

Look, I am against weapons proliferation.

Always have been, always will be.

OTOH, I am against the horrible botched mess that BUSH is responsible for. He did not support the inspectors.

If the inspectors had been allowed to do their job, there would have been no invasion.

[goodhue]

40. If there had been no IWR, there would have been no invasion.

eom

[emulatorloo]

52. sorry, kind of a non-sequiter. . . . .

[shivaji]

170. YOU GOT IT EXACTLY RIGHT, BRO

Without the IWR resolution, chimpy had his hands
tied behind his back from getting into mis-adventures
in Iraq, no way, no how.

[bowens43]

4. Kerry didn't vote for the war. No one did.

There wasn't a vote for or against the war.

[gWbush is Mabus]

6. yes, everyone keep repeating this!!!

[RoundRockD]

11. Do you want the repubs to start calling him a flip flopper again?

What is so hard to understand about his position on Iraq?

[Snivi Yllom]

28. the President has the power to order use of military force w/o a vote

Kerry did not have to ok the use of force. Kerry knew exactly what he was voting for. A greenlight to invade Iraq.

[Barret]

159. Wrong

War powers act limits troop deployment to 90 days with out congressional approval.

[bowens43]

164. You're almost right.

The president didn't need the authorization. that's true. The IWR was not a green light for invasion it was an attempt to put a process in place where none existed. It was an attempt to slow the march to war. It was an attempt to force the president to take certain actions before resorting to war. The president chose not to abide by the resolution.

[TexasSissy]

169. I don't buy that explanation.

I know what you're saying. And I know that was Kerry's and others' intent. But I read the resolution. It seems to me that it clearly gave to Bush the sole authority to handle the situation with Iraq, including the use of force. It's a war resolution.

Bush made a half hearted attempt at handling the situation diplomatically and through inspections. But he didn't just ignore that part. He did indeed rush to war. But the decision to go to war was expressly given in that resolution. No Democrat signing the resolution, incl. Kerry, has denied that.

[CTLawGuy]

175. if it was a means to stop war

then why was Bush in favor of Congress passing that particular resolution? If it tied his hands, wouldn't he be for a more open ended resolution?

[CTLawGuy]

174. Whatever, Mr. Orwell....

NT

[depakid]

7. Major blunder

and Bush is now crowing about it-

The corporate media will never let go of this one. He's either taken a huge issue off of the table or he'll be seen as a flip flopper.

[annxburns]

13. Bull ...

If Kerry has said no, I wouldn't of voted for it then Bush would of called him a flip-flopper and said that he didn't think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.

Kerry played this right. He can say to Bush "Look I gave you the authority, I gave you what you wanted and you screwed everything up. It was your responsibility to use that authority wisely. You did not."

[depakid]

20. Knowing what we know now

was how the question was prefaced. And the obvious answer to that should be no.

All of the "nuanced" discussion here is irrelevant. It's all about how the media is playing it- and they're all over it. They're going to distort this as approval for the war. And they're going to keep doing it all the way til November. Wait and see.

[Bombtrack]

8. THERE WAS NEVER A "VOTE FOR THE WAR"

This is the biggest myth spread by morons in the last decade. There was never a vote in congress "for" or "against" the war. Even if some infallable dem primary candidate set his whole campaign on that lie.

[Snivi Yllom]

24. of course there was a vote for the war

You dont give the ok to go to war unless you fully intended to go to war. If there was the slightest bit of doubt war was not justified, he should have voted no.

[DaveinMD]

32. he voted to

authorize the war so that we could get the inspectors in the country. That was the right course and he wanted the inspections to take their course. The natural outgrowth would have been no war.

[Bombtrack]

44. But he didn't "authorize the war" even. "the war" is a simplistic,

misleading summation for any number of hypothetical processes which could or couldn't have happened.
It's like saying that Kerry voting against the Lacy Peterson law was a vote for baby-murder.

[Snivi Yllom]

79. cmon, how naive could Kerry have been

Do you think Kerry thought Bush was not serious? Did he really think Bush was not hellbent on invading Iraq? In either case, I see no good reason why Kerry should have voted to support the use of military force then, and Kerry's comments yesterday stating he would STILL vote the same way is completely unfathomable to me.

[bowens43]

165. There was not a vote that gave the ok to go to war.

[goodhue]

83. The vote was to authorize use of forces against Iraq.

DOC>



<[Page 1497>]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<[Page 116 STAT. 1498>]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

<[Page 116 STAT. 1499>]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

<[Page 116 STAT. 1500>]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

[Guaranteed]

171. Sure doesn't sound like that's what he's saying. nt

[emulatorloo]

9. Prove to me that John Kerry said what you say he said

Because I am not seeing it.


Snip>

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

But Kerry has charged that the president and his advisers badly mishandled the war, and in the news conference he posed sharp questions for Bush.

"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" he asked. "Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?"

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war?" he added. "Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"

Snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

25. The world is not going to care about your "Protest Vote"

I am sorry, if Bush is elected, our friends around the world will despise us, our allies will actively join against us. Right now the American people are being given the benefit of the doubt, because after all, GORE REALLY WON.

But if Bush is elected this time, all bets are going to be off.

The world is not going to care about your "Protest Vote." You will have helped elect Bush.

If you want to punish john kerry, send him a hateful letter.

If you want to punish the US and The World, make your protest vote.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

39. bullshit

the same crap we heard 4 years ago. Gore would not have gone to war in Iraq without letting the inspection process go forward and neither would Kerry. There are such differences between the two candidates and parties. On economic issues, Republicans want major tax cuts for the rich and to cut all social programs. Democrats want to rescind tax cuts on the rich to pay for expanding access to health care and to pay for helping people afford college education. ON choice, Republicans want to pass a constituitonal amendment banning abortion. Democrats want to protect a woman's right to choose. Republicans want to abolish affirmative action, Democrats don't. Republicans want to drill in the arctic, Democrats want to explore alternative injury. These are just a few of the differences.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

55. other countries

will get involved because they can make money off it. That's how the real world works.

Calling the differences minor is complete bullshit. The differences are huge. They are not minor. Bush wants to push a destructive economic policy to undue over 50 years of progressive change. HE wants to take us back to the 1920s. If you call that a minor change you just don't know what you are talking about.

[Sean Reynolds]

58. Not really....

NOT if the public doesn't support the war. These nations aren't stupid, they're not going to get involved in a war that will kill their citizens, thus creating an anti-governmental swing within the country. Even if they can get money off of it, that doesn't really stop the fact that their people will be dying......

:)

[DaveinMD]

65. countries

go to war all the time over money. Other nations will come forward to help because they trust Kerry to involve them in decision making. This will become a NATO operation and allow us to bring our troops home sooner. Your voting intention means a guarantee of no change in policy. I hope you've enjoyed the Bush presidency, because you it seems you want it to continue.

[Sean Reynolds]

70. No...not quite.

If nations went to war just for money, many would have joined President Bush from the start. They didn't, I wonder why? Maybe it's because a lot of these leaders knew it'd be political suicide if they involved their country in these wars. I guess making money is always a plus, unless you happen to be voted out of office because of your support.

Look what happened in Spain and look what CAN happen to Tony Blair. These people aren't going to support the war just because Kerry is the president. They'll only support the war when it's calmed down. The only way that'll happen is if the US ends its occupation and gets out of Iraq.

They're not going to do that under Bush or Kerry. Thus the violence will continue and most nations will sit idly by watching.

[DaveinMD]

76. maybe

because Bush horded all the profit for Haliburton. He screwed France and Germany out of any money. That's why they didn't join up. If the US shows it will work with other nations, popular support will be built. IF the US asks for help so the rebuilding is finish quicker, other nations will help out President Kerry.

[Sean Reynolds]

84. I doubt it.

Now that the war is as unpopular as ever.

Which hinders a lot of support...if you know what I mean.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bogus W Potus]

93. Ha-ha.

I hope they teach you more intelligent aspects of life in college.

My point is that you are not living independently and are supported by your parents. You don't have as much to lose as other people and you're not even a registered Democrat. You don't support John Kerry and you've already been banned from DU once before(you requested it). Now you're back and you're still savaging John Kerry, which is clearly against DU rules. You are not supposed to continually criticize the nominee as you have been doing. So stop.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

116. he should follow

his candidate. Dean is supporting John Kerry and will likely be part of his administration.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

130. Personal attacks, I LOVE IT!

:)

Anyway, when did I ever say I was smart or the second coming of Einstein? I'm afraid you just like to belittle people, correct?

Belittle me all you want, you've all just shown your true colors. You can't have a debate without trashing the person in which you're debating. It's sad.

Actually, I've lost a lot of respect for Dean since he dropped out. So I don't know why you're even bringing him up.

But do as you must, I won't stop ya!

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

148. As is voting, I guess?

Sad, sad country we live in.

[DaveinMD]

153. do you want

better or nothing. The country made great strides during the Clinton years. We've gone back. I choose better over nothing. Better beats nothing any day of the week and twice on sundays.

[Sean Reynolds]

158. But can it change?

Unless we change the leaders themselves.

The last president we had that actually changed the social landscape was LBJ. Since then we've had a bunch of reactionists and enablers. The Democratic Party has gone from the party of social justice, to the party of social compromise.

Where has it gotten us? No where. It's 2004 and we're still seeing the same social injustice we saw in the 1960s. Yes, the roles may be different, but they're still there.

I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me. I've tried my hardest to support what they want and what they do. But I can't because that means I'm compromising MY beliefs. That eats me up inside because I can't sit by and watch the horrors of war on TV. Or the gays in this country get treated like 2nd class citizens. I can't watch the mothers who try and make it day by day, not knowing if tomorrow they'll have any food for their children. I can't watch the eroding of our social class system because Democrats and Republicans are too busy working on ways to invade yet another nation.

We are spending BILLIONS in Iraq, while American cities look exactly like war ravaged Baghdad. Except this blight wasn't caused by bombs. It was caused by neglect. Neglect not just from Republican presidents, but from Democratic ones as well.

Detroit today is the same ghettoized Detroit it was under Clinton, under Reagan, under Carter, under Nixon.

The trend continues and what has the US government done to stop it? Nothing. That is why I'm pissed. I'm not pissed at Kerry. I don't hate Kerry. Rather, I'm angered at his politics. I'm angered at the system....because so many problems go unnoticed.

I grew up in a lower-income house. I also grew up in the 1990s. The wonderful Clinton economy ignored a lot of people in my neighborhood. Welfare reform hurt a lot of my hard working neighbors. I went to schools where the books were dated from the 1970s. So sorry if I'm a bit skeptical of Kerry, because I remember what it was like under Clinton. And I can tell you, not much was different.

Blast me all you want, but it's the truth. I know a lot of Americans that had it hard under Clinton and are still having it hard under Bush. But that is because these politicians are so out of touch with the lower class. They don't understand that the cities need rebuilding. That the schools are in horrible shape. This is why I'm opposed to NCLB, because it blames the teachers. Not realizing that the problems stem from funding and class size. You can't expect to teach well when your books are dated and there are 30 kids within your class. Nor can you expect to teach well when in the summer you have no AC and in the winter your heater hardly works.

THAT is America. It hasn't changed in the past 30 years, and we've had both Democrats and Republicans as presidents.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

162. Tell that to my family.....

I guess I lied there too, huh?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

27. Enjoy

a second Bush term and the supreme court justices he appoints, the two new wars he'll fight and so on. I hope you aren't eligible to be drafted, because that is what's coming. I hope you or your children enjoy your high horse when they are marching into Damascus.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

48. But will appoint an anti-choice judge...

IF he believes that person is fit to serve, correct?

Please tell me how Kerry will end the presence in Iraq faster than Bush? Do you really believe the international community will just open their arms up to Kerry once he's elected? If so, you're as gullible as Kerry was when he supported Bush's war.

In fact, I'm willing to bet Kerry will have a tough time GETTING international support because the war PROBABLY will be just as bad next year as it is today. Countries won't be willing to send their citizens to die in a war they believe to be unjust......no matter WHO is president.

Clinton's foreign policy also killed many innocent Iraqi's and Serbs, but I guess that is just a footnote, right?

[DaveinMD]

51. and some innocent

Germans died in WWII, but it saved the world. The bombing of Serbia had to take place to stop genocide.

Kerry will not appoint anti-choice judges. He has a perfect NARAL record. He is the most prochoice person ever nominated by this party. Kerry has said he will bring the troops home sooner than Bush. And other countries will aid in Iraq if they get some economic benefit out of it. The country won't be run by Haliburton anymore.

[Sean Reynolds]

56. Na', not quite like WWII.

Albanians weren't so innocent themselves.

Anyway, Kerry has stated he'd appoint an anti-choice judge, just as long as they withheld Roe Vs Wade. But to me it's like giving a loaded gun to a child and saying they can play with it, just as long as they don't shoot it.

In other words, quite deadly.

[DaveinMD]

61. if you

uphold roe v wade, you are a pro-choice judge. He is going to appoint judges that respect the right to privacy, and that is what Roe is based on.

And you know that Bush will appoint anti-choice judges. Scalia will be Chief Justice if Bush wins. Ginsburg if Kerry wins. Yep. No difference there. :eyes:

[Sean Reynolds]

63. Again, if he appoints an anti-choice judge....

What makes you think that judge won't turn on Kerry and vote their ideology?

Gasp, like a judge has never voted their ideology before!

Just because they're not supposed to doesn't mean they won't.

[DaveinMD]

68. he's going to appoint

judges that come from a Democratic ideology. This means he will appoint judges that will uphold Roe. He's incredibly pro-choice and has been his entire career. Enjoy a Bush second term because that is what you want.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

91. Sangho

What prediction? I'm just using Kerry's words.

:)

:hi:

[Sean Reynolds]

89. You're not getting it, are you!

Kerry has STATED he's appoint an anti-choice JUDGE to the courts! He may be pro-choice, but that doesn't change the fact he'd be willing to appoint an anti-choice judge.

So I don't get what you're trying to do here.

I'll say it again. Anti-choice is anti-choice! Doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

100. Another attempt at distorting the truth

That quote doesn't say anything about APPOINTING judges like Scalia.

Try again

[Sean Reynolds]

103. It doesn't?

"But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court, I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

It's as clear as day sangho....clear as day. He's saying that he'd appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view, then uses Scalia as an example. Meaning, he'd not be opposed to appointing a Scalia type figure to the courts.

[DaveinMD]

105. he said

he voted for Scalia. Which he did. That was not his appointment and the balance of the court was not at stake. He will only appoint pro-choice judges. Why would NARAL have endorsed him otherwise. Nice try at another lie.

[Sean Reynolds]

108. But what if the balance isn't at stake?

Is it ok for him to vote for it at that time?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

111. he just doesn't get it

Kerry is the most pro-choice nominee of any party in this country's history. He will appoint pro-choice justices. More importantly, he will appoint justices who respect the right to privacy.

[Sean Reynolds]

112. Re-read it in the context...mkay!

"But that doesn't doesn't is the key word here. mean that if that's not the balance of the court, I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

Take out doesn't and your point is valid. But add doesn't and he's saying....


"But that does not mean that if that's not the balance of the court, I would not be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

Basically, it means he'd not be opposed to it.

[sangh0]

117. You left out the context

SCOTUS is 5-4 repukes.

I guess you just forgot about that. Quelle coincidence!!

[Sean Reynolds]

119. Which is exactly my point!

IF the courts weren't 5-4 Kerry COULD appoint an anti-choice judge. THAT is scary!

[sangh0]

121. SCOTUS is 5-4

but don't let that dispel your scary nightmare. Some people need to use the fear in their campaign

[DaveinMD]

123. nope

it just meant there wouldn't be a one issue test. He will appoint justices who believe in the right to privacy. NARAL supports him completely. Are you claiming to know him more than they do?

[Sean Reynolds]

131. Again, that doesn't change the fact he'd be OPEN to supporting

An anti-choice judge. Just being OPEN scares the hell out of me. I think it should scare the hell out of ANY liberal!

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

141. Awww

You're cute!

[sangh0]

151. And

you're scared

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

99. Kerry is 100 percent pro-choice

and will appoint pro choice justices. Who should we trust on this. Sean Reynolds or NARAL Pro Choice America. They trust Kerry on this and its the only issue they care about. What's your next lie.

[Sean Reynolds]

101. Kerry's words:

"But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court, I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

He may vote pro-choice, but if he's going to appoint a judge like Scalia, he's anti-choice in my book!

[DaveinMD]

104. he voted

for justices based on the Presidential perogative. He did not say he would appoint anti-choice justices. Another lie from Sean. The balance of the court is at stake and he will only appoint pro-choice judges. Nice try, but yet another lie. You belong at FOX.

[Sean Reynolds]

107. How is that a lie?

He's open to appointing anti-choice judges.....he said it himself!

Yeesh.

See this is what is so great about Kerry, he's all over the radar screen on so many issues that it's hard to even figure out what he's saying.

Two-way Kerry.

[DaveinMD]

113. He said

he will appoint pro-choice justices because the balance of the court is at stake. But I should trust your intepreatation instead of NARAL. You really have no clue.

[Sean Reynolds]

115. He said ONLY if the balance of the court was at stake.

Big difference, no?

[sangh0]

118. SCOTUS is 5-4 repuke

something you forgot to mention even though you've made such a big thing out of "the context"

I'm sure it was just a coincidental accident on your part.

[DaveinMD]

120. the balance of

the court is at stake. Kerry will appoint pro-choice judges. You take one quote out of context and ignore all the other quotes and all his life's work. He's the most pro-choice nominee ever. You need to wake up.

[Sean Reynolds]

124. Yes, but how long will it be at stake?

Say two retire...Kerry gets to appoint two, that changes the picture, no?

But I think you're missing the bigger point here.....that he'd even CONSIDER it scares me!

[DaveinMD]

127. NARAL

is not worried and they know him very well. But you refuse to acknowledge this fact. He won't appoint any anti choice justices.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

132. Sangho, what're you talking about?

You're funny!

I like you.

[emulatorloo]

50. you take half of what Kerry says, ignore half and make a big case of it

Kerry says I would appoint a Judge who was personally against abortion as long as that ***judge didn't let his personal beliefs get in the way of the law***

Cool - judges who don't confuse the law with their own ideology.

You take the first half of the sentence and drop the second half.

JK' position is a reasonable position and it is the OPPOSITE OF WHAT GEORGE BUSH WOULD DO.

George Bush appoints judges WHO LET THEIR IDEOLOGY GET IN THE WAY OF THE LAW.

[Sean Reynolds]

60. Uh....riiiiight.

Like I said in another post, it's like giving a kid a loaded gun and saying that they can play with it just as long as they didn't shoot the thing.

[emulatorloo]

86. Sorry Doesn't Follow

Kerry is personally against abortion, yet he consistently supports women's right to choose.

If you want to willfully believe Repugs and Dems are the same, there is not much anybody can do to convince you otherwise.

But I will tell you I used to think the same way - that there was no difference --- and then Reagan got his second term.

[Sean Reynolds]

94. BIG difference about being against abortion and being anti-choice.

Kerry's words were, and I quote, "But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

So he'd be open to supporting an anti-choice judge, like Scalia?!?!

WOW!

[emulatorloo]

137. again, you leave out the rest of what he said

that he regrets Scalia confirmation.

you are only able to make your points by leaving out half of the facts.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

142. Yea I lie...

Even though I've shown records that prove what I say.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

152. I didn't take anything out of context.

Kerry said that he'd think about appointing a judge that didn't share his political beliefs. That was in the context of supporting a anti-choice judge.

So while Kerry may not appoint an anti-choice judge with the court being in favor of the Republicans, he's open to the idea. THAT scares me, as I've said many times.....

But I guess I'm the only one.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

96. Than why such the fuss?

If my vote doesn't 'matter' why are you all crying about my not supporting Kerry? :shrug:

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

143. Show me where I lied.....

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

155. He would be open to it.

THAT was what I said.

THAT was my point.

[greensforpeace]

45. What is the difference?

One cannot vote for a "with these caveats" war.

You either are for it, or you are against it...the middleground is where people get run over from both directions.

[Sean Reynolds]

62. Exactly....

I think it's pretty clear Kerry was for war. Whether or not he supported Bush's actions shouldn't be debated. Rather the thought that John Kerry even SUPPORTED such a thing pisses me off.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

114. SHOULD they rush into war.

Why didn't Kerry see them already RUSHING into war? Is he that blind? Wow...and this guy wants to be the leader of the United States? I saw them rushing to war, many protesters saw them running to war, why didn't Kerry?

So yeah, Bush lied...Kerry believed the lie.

:)

[DaveinMD]

125. Kerry

gave the inspections a chance to work, which was right to do. Bush is the person that did the wrong thing. Not Kerry.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

144. They're both at fault.

Bush for lying, Kerry for not researching or asking questions before the war began. Instead, he blindly gave support.

:(

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

156. He voted knowing very well President Bush could by-pass the UN.

He could have raised questions, could have held out his votes until he got a solid answer. He did not. Remember, the senior senator from his state had no problems voting NO! Yet Kerry did.

I wonder why?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that Kerry was running for president in a few months, and Kennedy wasn't?

[emulatorloo]

150. The difference is War as the Last Resort and War as the First Resort

War as the last resort after everything else has failed.

Versus charging in without trying to avoid it.

[Parche]

10. vote

It is for the use of force, not war
GW Bush illegally invaded Iraq, that is war

157. the distinction between force and war

probably doesn't make much difference to the people getting killed

[peacetalksforall]

14. 9-11 was a crime. The U.S. insisted that it would be handled as a war

from the very instant the first response came from them. They have never relented or let slip any word or thought that it was a crime. It was always a war with them and all the leaders who have spoken out about it.

It was a war because that is what they wanted - a war - they didn't want anything that involved a jury. They had lands to grab, new war theories to test, new weapons to test, and buckets of profits to be made. And humans to be tortured. And funds for more think tanks who figure out how to create war.

Consciously or unconsciously, our leaders let the war rip - right out of control.

Good-bye Iraqis and our youth - their mortal souls, limbs, immune systems, and organs, including their minds. Hello to more handicapped and missing lovers and parents and friends on two soils. Rise up oil and profits.

[wurzel]

17. He should regret his vote to give Bush the authority.

And he should have the guts to say so. He trusted a man he must have known he couldn't trust.

[emulatorloo]

21. So it is all Kerry's fault, not Bush's?

Sounds like you want to excuse Bush. But it was Bush who rushed to war, not Kerry.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"

[wurzel]

59. Bush was known to be thoroughly untrustworthy before this vote.

I'm "excusing" Bush in the sense that he is what he is. There is no hope there. Kerry, I hope, is something different.

[emulatorloo]

71. maybe, but people trusted Powell

who evidently promised that everything was gonna be done to avoid war (diplomacy, UN, allies, inspections), that war would be the last resort, and they just needed the threat of force to get the inspections done. . . . .

Now of course we know powell was "out of the loop"

[wurzel]

176. The problem is that Kerry never read the intelligence report.

This report was made available to members of congress only. They had to go to a special room. Hardly any member actually went. That is why Bush can keep goading Kerry about "seeing the same information as he did". Knowing perfectly well, of course, that Kerry along with most Democrats, just didn't bother to read it. Kerry can't possibly admit to that. That is the jam Kerry is in.

[wildmanj]

19. vote to authorize

follow the money trail---the invasion of iraq has much deeper meaning for those brave enough to go there

[LittleApple81]

22. All I know is that Bush is using HIS VERSION of what Kerry said to

advantage. And that is all that matters. That is what the country is going to hear, not what Kerry will say to "clarify". He should be VERY EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT HE SAYS AND HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

I AM TOTALLY PISSED AT THIS POLITICAL GAMES. But Kerry should be prepared because he knows BushCo.

[Snivi Yllom]

23. it's very simple, he screwed us

He taked to the left to win the nomination, and now is returning to the right, and in fact gave the most hawkish democratic convention speech I have ever heard.

[DaveinMD]

30. more crap

He never ran away from his vote. He stands by his vote to put teeth in the inspections and criticizes the PResident for how he used that vote. Nothing inconsistent at all. John Kerry will be a great President that all of us can be proud of.

[Snivi Yllom]

87. If you buy that the inspections heed a threat to back them up

You also must buy into the concept of not just threatening the use of force, but following through on the use of force.

[DaveinMD]

98. you follow thru

if the inspections are not allowed, but they were being allowed. Hussein had kicked inspectors out before. You needed the threat to get the inspectors in. The problem was Bush wasn't interested in seeing the inspections completed as Kerry would have allowed.

[sandnsea]

26. That's NOT the quote

I should know better than to not read articles myself. Geez. THIS is what he said:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Yes, it was still the right authority because we still needed to get inspectors into Iraq and have a plan for long term stability. Doesn't mean Bush had to rush to war on faulty intelligence, etc. Same position he's always had. Just shitty reporting and reactionary lefties. Should have known.

[sangh0]

31. Posters with no argument have to make stuff up about Kerry

How sad is that?

[JohnKleeb]

34. theres more sad things than that

The fact that people use the war as their only factor to judge candiates on, I am not gonna forget that Kerry has a great career, not at all because of one vote that wasnt even ethuisatic, I dont know who has the quote in his sig but it expresses Kerry's intentions.

[goodhue]

35. Poster did not make it up, it is verbatim from the Washington Post!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page A01

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

. . .

[DaveinMD]

42. that is

what the reporter said he said, not what he actually said.

[sangh0]

43. The poster made it up

Kerry did not say what the poster quoted Kerry as saying.

[goodhue]

54. the poster was QUOTING the washington post!

The poster made NOTHING up!

Perhaps Washington Post Staff Writer Jim VandeHei made it up, although I suspect he would stand by his lead statement as fair and accurate.

In any event, the story as written by the POSt is the story and although I appreciate the more subtle point that many here are making, please realize that it will totally be lost on the populace.

Kerry needs to Keep It Simple Stupid otherwise he plays into Bush's hands.

[sangh0]

67. The poster made it up. Kerry never said that

A reporter did, and the poster believed the media.

[goodhue]

78. the poster made nothing up

The poster simply reproduced the lead in the story.
Please stop making things up about the poster.

[sangh0]

90. The poster made it up

Kerry never said it, but the OP blames Kerry for saying it

[sandnsea]

47. Verbatim from the reporter, NOT Kerry

Gads. People are all in a tizz over what a reporter said again. We know they lie, why do we only believe the lies against Kerry? Totally misinterpreting what Kerry actually said. The AUTHORITY to go to war to hold Saddam accountable to UN WMD disarmament standards is NOT the same thing as approving of the war itself.

[emulatorloo]

57. Kerry did not write the ***MISLEADING**** HEADLINE!!!!!

You and other posters are attributing the misleading headline to Kerry. . .

[goodhue]

64. I never attributed it to Kerry.

Neither did I belittle the original poster for making things up.
I'm sorry that the news lead is not entirely accurate in the opinion of some but the reality is that it is now the news whether folks like it or not.

[sangh0]

69. The original poster attributed it to Kerry

The OP has a quote, and then blames Kerry for it, even though Kerry never said that.

[goodhue]

80. the poster was quoting the washington post, not Kerry!

[sangh0]

92. "What in the frick is wrong with Kerry? Says would still vote for the war?

Is what the OP says

[greensforpeace]

36. He previously said Bush Lied!

I don't get this either. It is obvious Bush lied, so why is Kerry suddenly a hawk?

Where's Dean, we need him to set Kerry straight.

[emulatorloo]

77. Please Read the REST OF WHAT KERRY SAID. . .

But Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, extended his attack
on President Bush's prosecution of the war, saying he had
not used the Congressional authority effectively.

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war
without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters
here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a
yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do
the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he
said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to
war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in
order to support American troops in the way that we deserve
it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html?ex=1093148035&ei=1&en=be262e45751d6d66

[Guaranteed]

172. "Why did he start a needless war?" seems more to the point,

and more accurate.

[BayouBengal07]

38. Well its a slippery question

If I were asked, I guess my answer would be "Yes, I would have voted for it because I tought we were going to approach it from a multilateral angle and work with the United Nations and the world to come to a concensus on the threat and how to deal with it." But in that statement, one can brand Kerry as a UN appeaser (RW idiologues love to tell everyone that Kerry would hand over US security to the UN) and that he still believes Iraq was a threat.

But that doesn't really answer the question, if you consider knowing then what we know now to be the equivalence of Bush going before Congress and saying "Iraq is a threat, despite having no WMD stockpiles or active programs, a nuclear program in dissaray, and an infrastructure crippled by sanctions and weapons inspection teams. So please vote yes to go to war to protect the US." Would you vote for that?

I guess by saying he would have still voted for the war, he still believes in the mission of "liberating the Iraqi people". It can't be that he still believes in the threat; that's been pretty well discredited (despite what Bush talking heads will tell you).

So I don't know where Kerry is getting off by saying he would have supported the war; besides this being a political effort to avoid scaring away moderates.

[Julien Sorel]

66. How many of these threads will there be?

And Kucinich is wherever people who get crushed in a primary because they are so far out of the mainstream go. And that's exactly where we need him.

[lunarboy13]

128. As Many As Karl Rove Can Start

[emulatorloo]

138. Well Put EOM

[eridani]

166. Yeah, right

Out of the mainstream. That's why 80% of the Democratic delegates want immediate pullout, and 95% were against the war.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Sushi Bandit]

167. 167 posts on this... did I start someting or what!!

This is still a hot button topic... look at all the deleted posts!

[Sugarbleus]

173. LOL........ hothothot...

everyone is talking about this and other topics related all over the place: forums, radio, print. Whew!