I am convinced that Kerry could cure cancer

And the typical DU response would be:

"My MOTHER died of cancer last year! Where was Kerry and his "cure" then? Too little too late!!"

With hundreds of responses like "Yeah! Useless bastard! Millions of people dead of cancer and he waits till NOW to find the cure? Please!"

x( There's a thread tonight making me very, very angry, and if you Kerrycrats are smart cookies, you can figure out which one.

complaining how Kerry is evil and about the 04 election. Funny how they appear from nowhere each time that Kerry says something important.

And by funny, I mean suspicious as hell.

Hah, sorry I didn't have an "all of the above" option on my poll... but that would've been just TOO easy. I wanted to see what the consensus opinion was of their main motivation. I tend to be caught between the two choices people picked, although I secretly think they are Satan. :P

there is one person who ONLY pops up in threads about Kerry and attacking him for not calling to get out of Iraq now. even though Kerry has gone further than others. he never shows up in other threads on that issue. so that shows he isn't as concerned about getting out of Iraq as much as just attacking Kerry.

many of the posts bring up 2008.

so you have to view these people as not really caring about the issues but being more focused on a 2008 campaign.

there are also some that remind me of Bush supporters and keep talking about balls, being tough etc. like Bush they only care for having "balls and being tough" in a way to cover up for the real issues that matter.

:hi:

I think we should use it liberally when we think the rules are violated. I just re-read Skinner's post and I believe that is what he is telling us. Unfortunately, the mods won't always agree with us whether the rules were violated. But the more of us try, when we have a reasonable case, the more likely that we will be listened to, I think.

For your handy reference, here is an excerpt of "The Rules":

the inspectors were in Iraq before the IWR vote.

I had not seen this argument before last week. Do anybody know where it comes from, as I have been seeing it more and more by several different posters.

they can't stand it that it was Kerry who went further than those they claim are anti war.

so they are now trying to say that Kerry forced Bush to go to war and stop the inspections. just making up shit as always since whoever they support hasn't really come out with anything to support.

i bet the Tom Hayden thing is really getting to them. just as Cindy Sheehan putting Kerry on her hall of fame list.

also, using their logic one can say the United Nations supported and gave Bush permission to go to war since they voted and passed a resolution AFTER the iwr.

it ticks them off that Kerry gave the speech rather than someone else (their favorites).

they wanted it to be whoever is their guy. and then they would have made posts attacking Kerry for not saying the same thing.

that's why the attacks on Kerry increase whenever he does something positive.

Just like with the KAP post.

*Years* before. And the point that the neocons were making, which was difficult to refute, was that anything could have happened in the meantime.

Even though we had Iraq theoretically under our thumb, we knew money was being diverted and Saddam was at least trying to rebuild his weapons programs. And he was trying to make the world think that, because the sanctions situation was also protecting them. If we basically dropped sanctions and pulled out, then Iraq is vulnerable to attacks (and political destabilization) from others in the MidEast. So, he had to pretend to be rebuilding, and we didn't know absolutely that he wasn't having some success.

But that is way too much logic and historical context for certain people.