The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Palomar · 2004-07-08 09:08:03

What are the positive things that Bush has promised to do that will make him a great president,

*He's already had 4 years to make good on his previous promises. Whether or not he's made good on them is, I suppose, a matter of much contention.

If he's not a great President by now (also debatable of course), will another 4 years "do it"?

Kerry seems lost in a fog.

"The future's so bright I've got to wear "

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-08 09:28:58

Clark lists some good points on the Bush side, some of which I disagree with. Bush has kept some campaign promises (Prescription Drug Coverage) while backing off on others (signing Campaign Finance Reform) These are two big black marks on his record in my book. Others, such as that whole "no nation building" thing just don't hold up after 9/11. Unless we accept bombing offending host countries into the stone age and leaving them in smoking holes acceptable.

Again, not a Bush fan. Kerry... on specific current issues he's without substance. His record in the past is far, far too liberal for my tastes. Bad choices all around.

Bush will never be a "great" President, but overall he may in retrospect be a "good" President for his time. It seems reasonable to expect that Kerry will at best be a Clintonesque poll reader who accomplishes nothing of note. Aside from maybe expanding some social programs, enacting tougher but usesless gun laws, or lowering America's force profile on the world stage, Kerry is an "un-choice." Most likely Kerry, like Clinton, would be a place marker, nothing more. In fifty years people will remember George W. Bush and the response to 9/11. Bill Clinton will be a footnote. Unless Kerry does a profound turnaround in the coming months, he's firmly in footnote territory, his name attached to a few ill-conceived proposals, but nothing of lasting significance in a positive sense. We can disagree with Bush on some issues, I certainly do, but Kerry gives us nothing to work with. In essence, Kerry wins if Bush loses the referendum on Bush. Hardly inspiring, rather troubling in fact.

Palomar · 2004-07-08 09:46:11

Kerry is an "un-choice." Most likely Kerry, like Clinton, would be a place marker, nothing more. In fifty years people will remember George W. Bush and the response to 9/11.

*Yes Cobra -- I see your reasoning. I agree with most of it.

I just hope in 50 years (I could still be alive then...) people will also remember all the claims of WMD's -- and all the soldiers who've been killed and injured in Iraq.

Don't want to beat the "WMD" issue again -- but we still have yet to turn those up. And I'd have some peace of mind if they did.

Yes, Kerry is an un-choice.

What a dilemma.

--Cindy

Algol · 2004-07-08 09:49:37

Bush will certainly be remembered in 50 years time - its why and how he is remembered that will be interesting.

Don't want to beat the "WMD" issue again -- but we still have yet to turn those up. And I'd have some peace of mind if they did.

Personally, the whole outlawing gay marriage in the constitution thing was the final straw for me.

clark · 2004-07-08 09:58:16

Personally, the whole outlawing gay marriage in the constitution thing was the final straw for me.

Exactly. Enshrining bigotry into the Constution is wrong. You can have your religious beliefs, but don't put them into the framework of our social contract.

Aside from maybe expanding some social programs, enacting tougher but usesless gun laws, or lowering America's force profile on the world stage, Kerry is an "un-choice."

Kerry has agreed (even when he was losing Democratic support during the primary to Dean) that America was justified in invading Iraq, and that we would be justified in acting unilateraly. He pretty much agrees with Bush on this point. He would have done it differently though, which is what we go on and on about. Something to think about...

Remember, Kerry would be a democratic president with a Republican controlled Congress. It's not like he would get everything- like we see with Bush.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-08 10:27:20

Ok, I'll try to give some positive points about Kerry. Now, I haven't read too much about him (because I already decided against Bush), but here's what I understand.

1. Kerry is a poll reader. To me this is a good thing. In a Republic people elect representatives, not kings. Our president should represent our ideas and values, so if they change so should he. Kerry's wishy-washy voting record is a sign that he is constantly reevaluating his ideas, you know... thinking. I have changed my political ideas in the past and I expect to change even more as I grow and learn more. Why shouldn't Kerry?

2. Kerry has an energy policy. I just read an article in the Reader's Digest that asked Kerry and Bush about their energy policies. Bush basically complained that for the last three years congress wouldn't pass his policy. On the other hand, Kerry's answer was straight forward. He wants to have 20% renewable energy by 2020 (I don't remember the precise date). I agree with the environmental side of Kerry, and in this case he seemed more decisive than Bush.

3. Abortion. Personally Kerry's against it, but he doesn't want to outlaw it. He thinks it should be used sparingly (a.k.a. not just as another form of birth control). That's pretty much my view on the situation, as well. Bush sounded like he wanted to "encourage" good christian values to kill the desire for abortions. If I recall correctly, his words were, "encourage life". It just sounded too much like he would use propaganda to spread the anti-abortion message.

4. Gun Control. It sounds like Kerry likes guns but sees a need to regulate them. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Kerry's doesn't seem extreme, but he is thinking about the issues.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-08 10:43:31

Personally, the whole outlawing gay marriage in the constitution thing was the final straw for me.

Exactly. Enshrining bigotry into the Constution is wrong. You can have your religious beliefs, but don't put them into the framework of our social contract.

Yes, why should we have to change the Constitution, they're the ones that want to change the law.

1. Kerry is a poll reader. To me this is a good thing. In a Republic people elect representatives, not kings. Our president should represent our ideas and values, so if they change so should he. Kerry's wishy-washy voting record is a sign that he is constantly reevaluating his ideas, you know... thinking. I have changed my political ideas in the past and I expect to change even more as I grow and learn more. Why shouldn't Kerry?

To change one's views based on honest evaluation of data is one thing, to change the views one expresses based on what the largest number appear to want at any given time is quite another. I'd rather have leaders that honestly disagree with me than those that cynically pander because of a poll.

On the other hand, Kerry's answer was straight forward. He wants to have 20% renewable energy by 2020 (I don't remember the precise date). I agree with the environmental side of Kerry, and in this case he seemed more decisive than Bush.

That's a wish, not a policy. Kerry has never been able to come up with the details, even roughly. I want 100% renewable energy by tomorrow afternoon, vote for me. :hm:

4. Gun Control. It sounds like Kerry likes guns but sees a need to regulate them. Sounds like a good idea to me.

That's the image he's putting out because the 2000 and 2002 elections showed that blatant "gun control" stances don't win elections. Viewing his "sportsman" facade as a cynical ploy is perfectly consistent with his record and his backers, to take it at face value requires a level of doublethink I've as yet been unable to muster.

Kerry's doesn't seem extreme, but he is thinking about the issues.

With regards to what stands will win him the White House, regardless of what he actually believes. I'd have more respect for him if he came out as the flaming liberal his voting record in the Senate suggests he is. But then I'm not going to vote for him either way, so I'm not the target audience of this bout of propagandizing. Enjoy the show.

Algol · 2004-07-08 10:49:26

Yes, why should we have to change the Constitution, they're the ones that want to change the law.

And in what way, exactly, is gay marriage unlawful? I fully support efforts to legalise it.

You can say many thing about Kerry, but what does it tell us about Bush when he tries to write that into the Constitution?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-08 10:57:57

You can say many thing about Kerry, but what does it tell us about Bush when he tries to write that into the Constitution?

And that's one of the points where I disagree with Bush. Not on opposing gay marriage, but on amending the Constitution to that end.

clark · 2004-07-08 11:04:47

I have a religious belief that informs me that heterosexual marriage is against god's will.

The above is the reversal of the situation we now find ourselves in, constutional change or not. It's silly. Like my imaginary god.

Just keep it to yourself buddy.

Palomar · 2004-07-08 11:05:48

Yes, why should we have to change the Constitution, they're the ones that want to change the law.
And in what way, exactly, is gay marriage unlawful? I fully support efforts to legalise it.

*Algol, you're from England.

Why do issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution and rights issues interest you? Just curious (not a challenge).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-08 11:49:35

I have a religious belief that informs me that heterosexual marriage is against god's will.
The above is the reversal of the situation we now find ourselves in, constutional change or not. It's silly. Like my imaginary god.

I'm not too concerned with anyone's imaginary god. Atheist. My opposition is on more earthly grounds.

Marriage is understood by all as being between a man and a woman. It exists not as a method for extending health insurance or other such things, but primarily as a means of keeping parents together for the purpose of raising children. Homosexual couples can't have children, therefore they don't need marriage. Civil unions of some sort, fine. But don't redefine a piece of our societal foundation solely because some people feel left out because they're different. It's not even an equal rights issue, a gay man has the same rights to marry a woman as I do. He just doesn't want to. Fine. Why should we change the definition of marriage because a small minority thinks it should mean something other than it does?

Nothing against homosexuals, but they need to understand that theirs is a lifestyle that the majority of people look on as deviant. It will never be considered normal, to try and make it so is an exercise in fantasy. Grant them the priveleges, but call it something else. Expanding "marriage" will undermine it and lead to far more social division than is necessary.

clark · 2004-07-08 12:03:10

Marriage is understood by all as being between a man and a woman.

Marriage is not understood by all as being defined in this manner. Some wish to define it as such. Why not do away with marriage and call everything a simple union of two individuals?

Homosexual couples can't have children, therefore they don't need marriage.

If a heterosexual couple can't conceive, do they need marriage then to? Can it be denied on this basis? See how it falls apart. This is just stupid.

Also, given the advances in science, homosexual couples can have children, and the option of adoption always exsists, so this argument makes even less sense today than 50 years ago.

. But don't redefine a piece of our societal foundation solely because some people feel left out because they're different.

They used the same concept with "seperate, but equal". They are being purposely excluded for no good reason. Here is the thing- if your religion says it's a man and a woman, fine. Now, there are some religions that would allow homosecual marriage. This would be sanctified in a church, and according to their belief, recognized by god. The only problem is that you have the secular state, and these other religions, saying, "no". What's wrong with two individuals (not multiples, we don't have to slip down that far), both adults, making a decision that only affects themselves. As declaring their union together?

It's not even an equal rights issue, a gay man has the same rights to marry a woman as I do.

It's not the kind of choice they want. they want the choice to marry the individual they want. It's exactly like the old inter racial marriage bans. We are moving towards a gender neutral and gender blind society- this is but one more step. We are individuals, let each individual have their own choice.

Why should we change the definition of marriage because a small minority thinks it should mean something other than it does?

It's not changing the definition- it's not keeping the definition static. Marriage is an instution between two people- two individuals. Why does it have to be only between a man/woman dichatomy? It all ends up coming back to some invisble god.

Nothing against homosexuals, but they need to understand that theirs is a lifestyle that the majority of people look on as deviant. It will never be considered normal, to try and make it so is an exercise in fantasy.

Divorce was considered deviant. Sex before marriage was considered deviant. Attitudes change. We can either move forward, or stagnant by hanging onto our parents and their parents ignorance.

Expanding "marriage" will undermine it and lead to far more social division than is necessary.

How so? It strengthens the instution by creating more people who commit themselves to th same social instution. We learn from each other.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-08 12:29:59

Would anyone other than Cobra like to comment about Kerry's positive aspects.

Ok, I've thought long and hard about this, I think I'll vote for Cindy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-08 12:42:22

Marriage is not understood by all as being defined in this manner. Some wish to define it as such. Why not do away with marriage and call everything a simple union of two individuals?

They very fact that it's such a contentious issue illustrates that it is understood as defined in that manner.

If a heterosexual couple can't conceive, do they need marriage then to? Can it be denied on this basis? See how it falls apart. This is just stupid.

No, they don't need it then. It's pointless, but as you point out there are other ways, either artificial or adoption.

Also, given the advances in science, homosexual couples can have children, and the option of adoption always exsists, so this argument makes even less sense today than 50 years ago.

This is an ethical dilemma all it's own. Should we allow children to be adopted into small deviant family units? Should the family enviroment be a factor in the decision at all?

They used the same concept with "seperate, but equal".

No, it isn't the same thing. Marriage has a history reaching back thousands of years and is a fundamental part of human society. "Separate but equal" was a peculiar legal construct with a brief period of existence.

The only problem is that you have the secular state, and these other religions, saying, "no". What's wrong with two individuals (not multiples, we don't have to slip down that far), both adults, making a decision that only affects themselves. As declaring their union together?

And there's the problem with the argument. Why not multiples? If we say it can be between two men or two women as well as a man and a woman, then why not a man and two women? Why not a man and a dog, or three women and two men, or any other combination you can conjure? You can't say we need to change an age-old institution and then immediately say "no" to other variations, some of which actually have historical and cultural precedent. If you're going to say that we have to let homosexuals marry as they see fit, then surely you can't deny Muslims or Mormons the right to have multiple wives, can you? Where's that line?

It's not the kind of choice they want. they want the choice to marry the individual they want. It's exactly like the old inter racial marriage bans.

Well actually, inter-racial marriage bans are at the heart of the problem. Why do you need a license, not just to marry, but for anything? A license is permission from the state to do that which is otherwise illegal. So is marriage illegal by default?

There was a time when people didn't get marriage licenses. They just let the locals know of their intent, had the ceremony and it was done. Inter-racial marriage was illegal, because inter-racial relations were illegal. In time, it was licensed in certain cases. That licensing expanded in time to all cases, giving us the legal marriage concept we have today.

So yes, let's dump the legal basis of marriage. Any two people, or more, who choose to live together in some sort of union can do so. They can have whatever ceremony they wish or none at all, and it's done. The divorce lawyers will fume over it, but hey, let the vultures suffer for a while.

Incidently, some divorce lawyers are drueling over the prospect of gay marriages.

Dump the whole legal framework, remove marriage provisions from the tax code or replace them with a "household" option, let insurance companies come up with their own guidelines of who is and isn't acceptable to add to a policy, the market will sort things out.

It's not changing the definition- it's not keeping the definition static.

Oh, then it's all okay. Any seeming breach of law or precedent can be attributed to 'not keeping the definition static' so relax, it's progress. Well, "due process" can mean so many things... :;):

It's important to know what words mean, especially in a legal sense.

Divorce was considered deviant. Sex before marriage was considered deviant. Attitudes change.

Like or not, those attitudes served a valuable societal function, as attested to by the increased percentage of single parents.

Would anyone other than Cobra like to comment about Kerry's positive aspects.

He isn't George Bush. Top that!

C M Edwards · 2004-07-08 14:58:50

Ok, I've thought long and hard about this, I think I'll vote for Cindy.

We should start our own political party.

It's too late to register Cindy to run for US President or Senate in the coming national election, but the good news is we won't need a criminal background check.

Just wait till 2008. Hillary Clinton's got a thing or two coming! :angry:

Cindy for President! :realllymad:
Cindy for President! :realllymad:
Cindy for President! :realllymad:

:laugh:

(Note: At the time of this posting, Cindy has neither confirmed nor denied her candidacy - the mark of the consumate modern political strategist...)

clark · 2004-07-08 15:24:04

Speaking of what Bush has done for us lately...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ … html]House refuses to curb Patriot Act

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-led House bowed to a White House veto threat Thursday and stood by the USA Patriot Act, defeating an effort to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that helps the government investigate people's reading habits.
The effort to defy Bush and bridle the law's powers lost by 210-210, with a majority needed to prevail. The amendment appeared on its way to victory as the roll call's normal 15-minute time limit expired, but Republican leaders kept the vote open for about 20 more minutes as they persuaded about 10 Republicans who initially supported the provision to change their votes.

A future of Freedom awaits...

C M Edwards · 2004-07-08 16:24:34

Years ago, here in Louisiana, we had an election for governor in which the main candidates were Buddy Roemer (our unpopular but relatively straight-laced governor), Edwin Edwards (our popular but known to be crooked former governor, who later went to prison on an investigation begun eight years before the election), and David Duke (a known former Grand Dragon of a Ku-Klux-Klan splinter group, who also later went to jail for tax evasion and bilking his bigot buddies). Roemer was so unpopular that he didn’t make the run-off, so we were left voting for either Edwards or Duke.

This led to the amusing campaign slogan: “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.”

That’s rather the way I feel about the Bush vs. Kerry situation.

I know Kerry isn’t the best possible choice. But I know he’s better than Bush.

The vigorous support for USAPATRIOT Act is just one of many problems I have with the current US administration. (FYI: Real patriots don’t need an act.)

So, I’ve finally made up my mind to vote for the Waffler.

It’s important.

PS. Cindy can wait till the next election.

smurf975 · 2004-07-08 16:48:01

I don't know to much about American local politics. Can someone please explain how much powers a governor has?

What is a governor able to do and what not? And then how much do counties (regional governments) have and what each do.

Also about taxes. Your state government taxes you and so does the federal but who manages what?

On international news they don't really seem to talk about this.

Palomar · 2004-07-08 18:43:28

:laugh:

Wow, I posted my Marsian "constitution" today and less than 6 hours later I've got 2 nominations for the Presidency? Have I missed my calling??

--Cindy :;):

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-08 22:35:22

Hey, Cindy, have you picked a running mate yet? I might lack foreign policy experience, but I would add a young (15 years, younger than Galileo [the probe], may it rest in peices), charismatic touch that southerners would identify with (Lived in Phoenix, AZ so far). Sound like anyone familiar? :laugh:

I can see the bumper stickers now (Just what is your last name, anyway?):

Infame/Atkinson in '04!

Well, the New Mars Party will get at least three votes this year. Now to the serious matters:

All (Okay, most) of the pro-Bush arguments are weak, flawed, or both. About same-sex marriage, look people (By that I mean Cobra), marriage is suposed to be a union between two people who love each other very much and want to signify that by marrying each other. Anyone here married (Duh, yes)? Now, I don't speak from experience, but as far as I can tell this is true. So, why should we care about the sexual orientation of those being married? Does it really matter? As for the argument that we "must protect the sanctity of marriage," it doesn't stand up. Perhaps we should protect the "sanctity of marriage" by keeping these interracial couple from gettin' together. Maybe we should segregate our water fountains to keep the black germs away from the good white folk. 30 years from now I guaruntee you that people will view this issue in the same light, and those that opposed gay marriage will look horribly discriminating. I'm not telling you how to live your life, I'm just throwing in my two cents, use them however you please.

What about the argument that since the dawn of civilization marriage has been between a man and a woman? True, but think about this, since the dawn of civilization, in nearly every culture women have been treated as property, livestock, inferior to men, and in some cases it was questioned that they had souls. Should we follow this precedent as well? How about this, in nearly every culture religion was brought to the forefront of everything and science was considered a menace that should be repelled. Where would we be thinking like this? A lot of us wouldn't be here, that's for sure, a few centuries ago half of all humans didn't live past age ten. It's a tough world out there, being dynamic and shifting the paradigm is what has kept us alive and kept us living well. Why stop now?

Euler · 2004-07-08 23:35:00

Hey, Cindy, have you picked a running mate yet? I might lack foreign policy experience, but I would add a young (15 years, younger than Galileo [the probe], may it rest in peices), charismatic touch that southerners would identify with (Lived in Phoenix, AZ so far). Sound like anyone familiar?
I can see the bumper stickers now (Just what is your last name, anyway?):
Infame/Atkinson in '04!

Unfortunately, you must be 35 years old to become the president (or vice-president). Atkinson '24?

Palomar · 2004-07-09 05:39:11

Hey, Cindy, have you picked a running mate yet? I might lack foreign policy experience, but I would add a young (15 years, younger than Galileo [the probe], may it rest in peices), charismatic touch that southerners would identify with (Lived in Phoenix, AZ so far). Sound like anyone familiar? :laugh:

*Hi Mad Grad: Your proposal has merit. You're very intelligent, mature, you're obviously in touch with the younger generation as you're part of it (whereas I'm likely very out of touch with your generation), likely you are super computer literate whereas I "manage"...hmmmmm.

But you know, the jokes Bush Sr. and Barbara got in D.C. about looking like mother and son will surely pale by comparison to the ribbing you and I would get (considering I am old enough to be your mother and undoubtedly we would look so as well!). And yep, Euler's right about the age minimum.

Ah well...back on topic...

--Cindy :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-09 06:03:00

I know Kerry isn’t the best possible choice. But I know he’s better than Bush.

Judging by your post it seems you feel he's better than Bush. There's a difference.

Wow, I posted my Marsian "constitution" today and less than 6 hours later I've got 2 nominations for the Presidency? Have I missed my calling??
--Cindy

We could certainly do alot worse. And this election we probably will, whatever the outcome. :;):

And now on to the sparring.

All (Okay, most) of the pro-Bush arguments are weak, flawed, or both.

And there are no pro-Kerry arguments, only anti-Bush arguments. Rhetoric, mostly.

. About same-sex marriage, look people (By that I mean Cobra), marriage is suposed to be a union between two people who love each other very much and want to signify that by marrying each other.

No, it isn't. The primary reason for it is children. Certainly there are married couples who don't plan to have any, but that's the underlying purpose.

So, why should we care about the sexual orientation of those being married? Does it really matter? As for the argument that we "must protect the sanctity of marriage," it doesn't stand up.

I'm not particularly concerned with the "sanctity of marriage" in a religious sense, but in a legal sense we'll have a problem. I can't stress this enough, when you start redifining legal terms on a whim you undermine and eventually destroy the legal concepts those terms represent. We all know what marriage means, until we redefine the term to include something else.

We have two options, really. Leave the matter as it is, or abolish the legal relevance of marriage altogether. Redefining the term essentially does the latter while we all pretend to have done the former, it's an ill-conceived half-measure, and that some people actually have the gall to compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement is absurd.

What about the argument that since the dawn of civilization marriage has been between a man and a woman? True, but think about this, since the dawn of civilization, in nearly every culture women have been treated as property, livestock, inferior to men, and in some cases it was questioned that they had souls. Should we follow this precedent as well?

This is a phantom argument, devoid of substance. Try this, first ask what is the purpose of marriage? If, as I have asserted, it is to bond a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children, then gay marriage is pointless. If, as you assert, it is to show a union between two people who love each other, then again, gay marriage is pointless. They can already do that.

It always comes down to two real issues. One, they want insurance benefits, visitation rights, joint taxation and other such mundane practicalities. Fine, institute some sort of civil union, similar to marriage but not. But of course this isn't good enough, for the second reason, which is that certain segments of the homosexual community want to flaunt it. They aren't content with tolerance or even acceptance, they want to be in your face with it.

Algol · 2004-07-09 07:02:52

*Algol, you're from England.
Why do issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution and rights issues interest you? Just curious (not a challenge).
--Cindy

No problem Cindy.

In 1952 Alan Turing, a mathematical genius who had led the teams to break both ENIGMA and CIPHER as well as concieving of and helping to build the first computer in history, a man awarded and OBE and given the highest security clearance personally by both Winston Churchill and the White House, was convicted of being a homosexual.

From then on as an alternative to imprisonment he was forced to have regular injections of oestrogen designed to eliminate his sexual drive and control his 'urges'. During the Cold War, homosexuals were considered a security risk and after his conviction, he became ineligible for security clearance and he was forced to stop his work.

Two years later he poisoned himself with cyanide to avoid further 'embarassment'.

How times have changed.

Many countries are making moves towards creaing equal rights for both homosexual and hetrosexual couples to marry.
I feel that a country which claims to be 'the land of the free' has a lot to answer from when its president tries to ban homosexual marriage in its constitution.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-07-08 09:08:03

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#152 2004-07-08 09:28:58

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#153 2004-07-08 09:46:11

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#154 2004-07-08 09:49:37

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#155 2004-07-08 09:58:16

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#156 2004-07-08 10:27:20

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#157 2004-07-08 10:43:31

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#158 2004-07-08 10:49:26

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#159 2004-07-08 10:57:57

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#160 2004-07-08 11:04:47

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#161 2004-07-08 11:05:48

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#162 2004-07-08 11:49:35

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#163 2004-07-08 12:03:10

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#164 2004-07-08 12:29:59

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#165 2004-07-08 12:42:22

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#166 2004-07-08 14:58:50

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#167 2004-07-08 15:24:04

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#168 2004-07-08 16:24:34

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#169 2004-07-08 16:48:01

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#170 2004-07-08 18:43:28

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#171 2004-07-08 22:35:22

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#172 2004-07-08 23:35:00

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#173 2004-07-09 05:39:11

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#174 2004-07-09 06:03:00

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#175 2004-07-09 07:02:52

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer