soros issa moron, thats needs to convert his money into pennies and shove them up his...... never mind.

Funny that he says that in retrospect, because Soros had PLENTY of opportunity (and money) to have backed a candidate such as Cobb or Nader (even if he'd found Badnarik the ideal candidate, I'd hope Badnarik woulda had the good sense to refuse him).

I still think that if Soros put that campaign money towards the causes he wants the Dems to federalize,it would be a far more effective (and more consistent with a Republic) way to accomplish his ends.

Must be something about the moon or the day, but the loony loopy luddite left is coming out of the woodwork in droves!

Or is it the sucess of the Iraqi Elections which proved them wrong, and now they just cant stand themselves?

Mreoooowwww Pffftt, Pffttttt, hiisssssssss - CAT FIGHT!

John Kerry was a strong candidate. The problem, as I see it, was that many voters felt that good old Dubya was a known quantity in this age of terrorism. He was (apparently), tried and tested. Would you vote for a man who was not? It's a great pity because I think Kerry would have brought back some of the old values Americans hold dear.

The problem, as I see it, was that many voters felt that good old Dubya was a known quantity in this age of terrorism. He was (apparently), tried and tested

Three words: My Pet Goat

Reply By: latour999Posted: Tuesday, February 01, 2005

3 better words" four more years"

I don't guess it had anything to do with people being frightened of megolomaniac puppetmasters buying the White House. I would say Soros himself was enough of a turnoff to amount to the percentage Kerry lost by.

Even Soros wouldn't have near enough money to back a 3rd party candidate. For one thing, he could not directly give him the money per campaign finance laws. 2nd, a 3rd party candidate is nowhere near being close to even getting 7% of the vote, let alone winning.

I don't think Soros really even had much of a difference in the election. If he did, it was probably a negative. Kerry simply lacked any charisma or focus of the issues to win the election. He was a poor candidate against a poor incumbent. Unfortunately, we did not know that at the time of the Iowa caucus.

It's too bad more "men on the street" don't know who Soros is. This guy is comedy gold.

Soros, the biggest contributor to the beat-Bush campaign, said that Kerry was a flawed candidate.

They backed the twit.

"Kerry did not, actually, offer a credible and coherent alternative. That had a lot to do with Bush being re-elected."

Duh. I kept telling liberals that and getting shouted down in that smug superior way so many display.

Democrats, he advised, need to counter "a very effective conservative message machine. There really needs to be an alternative."

Too bad we can't get our P.R. machine working right in the Islamic world.

I would say Soros himself was enough of a turnoff to amount to the percentage Kerry lost by

One of the things that concerned me at the times I pondered a President Kerry was giving Sorros and his ilk the satisfaction of legitimizing their means.

I think Kerry would have brought back some of the old values Americans hold dear.

I think you meant to say "... values the French hold dear." He remains a weasel.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #11 By: Helix the II - 2/2/2005 12:34:30 PM I don't care about Sorros either way but will concurr that Kerry is why Bush won. A flawed candidate couldn't be more truthful....(In retrospect, who isn't a flawed candidate?)...

Yeah, but just how flawed is the major stumbling block.

he might or might not be a 'clown' but he is right about Kerry. I am a democrat but I voted for Bush because I saw Kerry as someone who points out what is wrong but does not have any solutions to make it right. I did not agree with everything Bush did or how he went about it, but Kerry didn't have a real plan to fix it and at least I know what Bush would mess up in.

I also believed that Bush would see his errors and have the insight into his own administration as to what was done wrong to make it right. Kerry would have spent 4 years fixing what Bush broke and he knew that, but had no plan to fix it or a plan for his own accomplishments.

As far as I was concerned we made choices (whether we like them or not) and now we have responsibilities. I think Kerry would have backed out of those responsibilities TOTALLY and without question of dangers.

On top of all of that, he might have made things worst by trying to fix things that were irreversible (like going into Iraq... obviously you can't just pull out). He should have been honest about that and said we have to stay and fix what was broken. He didn't say that.

to stay and fix what was broken. He didn't say that.

He did say that!

If Bush had lost, the analysis would have been: he can't quite say what he means during a debate; his nervous chuckle and struggle with language strip him of charisma; he failed to own up to his mistakes;he didn't fill in the omissions of his tour of duty in the nat'l guard;his "bring 'em on" lapse caused undue casualties; constantly changed the motivation for the mission in Iraq, etc.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT A MAN TO SAY AFTER HE SPENT 26 MILLION DOLLARS ON A LOSING TEAM. THE SAME THING A MAN SAYS WHEN HE COMES BACK FROM VEGAS BROKE - "YEAH BUT I HAD A GREAT TIME" BULLSHIT. SOROS IS BUMMED OUT AND TRYING TO AVOID LOOKING EMBARESSED.

IF SOROS CAN SAY THAT KERRY WAS A FLAWED CANIDATE THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION WHY COULDEN'T HE HAVE SEEN IT THE YEAR BEFORE AND IF HE DID THEN HE DID THE SAME THING ALL THE OTHER DUMBASS DEMOCRATS DID HE VOTED AGAINST BUSH. WHAT A CRAZY MOB ATTITUDE THAT WAS. GO GEORGE !!!

It's a great pity because I think Kerry would have brought back some of the old values Americans hold dear.

Would that have been the old values of America that made America fight the Nazis, liberate Germany, and then give freedom to the German people; or the old values of America that made America try not to enter the war while millions were dying until the war finally reached America?