who ya voting for?

[Ramsey]

sure some people dont like to say but whatever. bush is getting mine.

[Economos]

Kerry.

[Beezil]

none of your goddamn business

[juicexj24]

Bush is better for my business of health insurance, just can't stand the flip flopper only like to wear them. Juice

[Economos]

none of your goddamn business

P*ssy.

[Ramsey]

none of your goddamn business
its ok, you dont have to be ashamed that your voting for kerry, just be prepared to lose

[ECKSJAY]

none of your goddamn business

Exactly.

Just curious, how is a vote 'wasted' if it's mine to use how I want?

:twak:

[bocaj]

if i were old enough to vote i'd vote for bush. i hear sumthin about opening up more off road trails

[BajaXJ92]

I'm voting for the all you can eat shrimp buffet.

[GSequoia]

This is gonna turn into a flame war...

[Ramsey]

Exactly.

Just curious, how is a vote 'wasted' if it's mine to use how I want?

:twak:
why did you quote beezil on this?

i said wasted since there is no chance the third party will win. unfortunately the two big boys have him way outgunned

This is gonna turn into a flame war...
yeah there might be a slight chance of that. hows it go, dont talk about religion and politics to strangers?

[casm]

Cameron Diaz, a bottle of tequila, and a hot tub full of lime Jell-o.

[Beezil]

if i were old enough to vote i'd vote for bush. i hear sumthin about opening up more off road trails

I hope thats a ###### joke, because if you would cast a vote that irresponsibly, and disregard the thousands of REAL issues, so you can focus on the candidate that will better ensure you can get your hand-me-down xj dirty on the weekends, makes me glad there's a voting age in this country

[Beezil]

why did you quote beezil on this?


because its his right as an american.

write-in carrottop on '04

[bocaj]

I hope thats a ~ joke, because if you would cast a vote that irresponsibly, and disregard the thousands of REAL issues, so you can focus on the candidate that will better ensure you can get your hand-me-down xj dirty on the weekends, makes me glad there's a voting age in this country
thats not the only reason thats just one reason theres almost no trails round here and it sucks. plus kerry is a ***** and probably would make one of the worst presidents. im i favor of getting people in the middle east. kerry kinda was or is or whatever hes changed his position to many times to trust him.

[Ramsey]

getting people in the middle east? what is that suppose to mean, i am an arab american, even though i look as white as the next honky, my dad is lebanese and all my family from his side lives there still. get people in the middle east, can you elaborate a little more

[bocaj]

getting people in the middle east? what is that suppose to mean, i am an arab american, even though i look as white as the next honky, my dad is lebanese and all my family from his side lives there still. get people in the middle east, can you elaborate a little more
i mean osama and sadam and all those f***en terrorists.

[Art Triggs]

I don't like either candidate much, it comes down to who I like less unfortunately...

[Beezil]

thats not the only reason thats just one reason theres almost no trails round here and it sucks. plus kerry is a ***** and probably would make one of the worst presidents. im i favor of getting people in the middle east. kerry kinda was or is or whatever hes changed his position to many times to trust him.

you didn't watch the debate, did you?

[Sarge]

But does your vote really matter any more? Considering it is the electoral college who actually the pres in and not our own individual votes? And yes, the EC has voted aginst the states wishes at times. Not saying you shouldn't vote, just throwing fuel into the fire.

Sarge

[Beezil]

But does your vote really matter any more? Considering it is the electoral college who actually the pres in and not our own individual votes? And yes, the EC has voted aginst the states wishes at times. Not saying you shouldn't vote, just throwing fuel into the fire.

Sarge

last election, the state of illinois elected gore by only 338 votes (IIRC)

338 votes!

every vote counts.

what is EQUALLY important to each of us, and probably has more direct impact on us PERSONALLY, are the LOCAL elections! Most people that enter a voting booth don't know who the other names are on the ballot, or what they represent. KNOW THE NAMES.

Whats EXTREMELY important about this election is the fact that supreme court seats will be appointed. Supreme Court Justices are APPOINTED. Not ELECTED.

[Sarge]

Beezil,

Not necessarily. There have been 4 times when the dude who got the most actual votes didn't win and 2004 was one. Also there have been times when the state voted one way but the EC for the stae voted the other. In 1988 the voters voted for Dukakis but the EC dude voted for Bentsen.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/campaign2000race.html

Having said that I vote every time and yes, you are very correct the local votes are very important.

Sarge

[Beezil]

Beezil,

Not necessarily. There have been 4 times when the dude who got the most actual votes didn't win and 2004 was one. Also there have been times when the state voted one way but the EC for the stae voted the other. In 1988 the voters voted for Dukakis but the EC dude voted for Bentsen.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/campaign2000race.html

Having said that I vote every time and yes, you are very correct the local votes are very important.

Sarge

I am fully aware of how the electoral college works.

I am merely pointing out the fact that the attitude of "my vote doesn't count" become contageous, it WILL affect the outcome of the election.

I am astonished how many people out in the factory do not intend to vote, nor do they intend to register. Yet, they'll sit around in small groups around the shop during breaktime, and bitch about the state of the world and the country.

UNREAL.

does the existance of the electoral college inspire this poor attitude?

Maybe.

The conversations were lively today, and I hope that those that watched the debates last night have been encouraged to register and cast thier votes.

[ECKSJAY]

Beez, I've always looked at the 'non-voting but bitching' groups as speaking their minds. I personally feel that if they don't like any candidate running then they certainly don't have to vote...and they certainly have the right to bitch about it. If I don't like anyone running and there's no suitable write-in (no, I'm not going to the polls to write in Mickey Mouse) then I think I have every right to complain. Don't like it, don't vote! IMHO the biggest waste of a vote is 'anyone but...' We've always been drilled that the only way for our voices to be heard is to 'get out and vote', but that's not the case...especially with the EC. One of the biggest things the Gov't has going for it is that it has led us all to believe that we can make a difference at the polls. But it's not the President who makes policy anyway...it's the lobbyists you have to look out for. ;)

[red91]

write-in carrottop on '04


This is starting to look like a more feasible choice. :eek:

[Economos]

I am fully aware of how the electoral college works.

I am merely pointing out the fact that the attitude of "my vote doesn't count" become contageous, it WILL affect the outcome of the election.

I am astonished how many people out in the factory do not intend to vote, nor do they intend to register. Yet, they'll sit around in small groups around the shop during breaktime, and bitch about the state of the world and the country.

UNREAL.

does the existance of the electoral college inspire this poor attitude?

Maybe.

The conversations were lively today, and I hope that those that watched the debates last night have been encouraged to register and cast thier votes.

I whole-heartedly AGREE.

[XJ_ranger]

http://www.mycavesucks.com/img/wwodSticker.jpg


www.i-hate-liberals.com (http://www.i-hate-liberals.com)
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

[Glenn B]

http://www.mycavesucks.com/img/wwodSticker.jpg


www.i-hate-liberals.com (http://www.i-hate-liberals.com)
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/
LOL, I like that one. :)

[Osprey413]

I'm sorry, but I just can't stand the fact that the leader of our country failed out of college and lied to us about the situation in Iraq. I fully agreed with the action in Afganistan, that was a given thing that we had to do. But then going into Iraq to look for "weapons of mass destruction"? I don't think so... Let's take a look at the Bush family's wealth and where it comes from. OIL. And what happened before we went into Iraq? Halliburton was promised a major stake of oil in Iraq (a country that isn't even ours to give away). Basically, whether or not you have enough sense to realize it, the whole war in Iraq was so that the Bush's and company could make more $$$$. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction over there, and on top of that we brought crime into a country that before had a 0% crime rate. Yes Sadam is a tyrant, yes he did awful things, but think about history for a second. If any group of people within the country of Iraq honostly didn't like the way things were being run then they would have risen up and had a revolution. And don't give me this "Well they were supressed and couldn't fight off Sadam's army." Our thirteen colonies, with nothing more than a militia, rose up and defeated what was the most powerful army in the world. It has happened many many times. American Revolution, French Revolution, etc. etc.

I love the United States. Don't accuse me of not loving the US. I wouldn't give this place up for anything. But the American people need to realize that we are doing exactly what the British were doing to us when we revolted. The United States is a bully, and we push around everyone we can. Why is there terrorism? Because the United States has tried to push around a culture of people who are willing to die for their country and beliefs. For another history lesson, look at what happened when Russia attempted to take over Afganistan. Russia got their a$$es handed to them. The same holds true to us. The Arabs know that they cannot fight our military might, so their only other option is to attack us internally. We call this terrorism, they call it war. And it is a war, because they are trying to defend themselves from those who are trying to control them.
We are on the brink of another world war, except this time the US is the country commiting mass genocide.

Let the flames begin.

[prljeep]

I read Bush is Anti-XJ...that could explain its disappearance.

Vote Kerry! He's pro-MJ...I heard he is devoting 50% of tax revenue to bring back the MJ! (Which also disappeared when a Bush was in office (circa 1992)!!!)

Think about it! hasta

[Ramsey]

many arabs will fight to the tooth and bone to the last person. my dads always told me a story about a druz(a lebanese person of a certain religion) who was in his 80's. syria was invading lebanon and coming down through the mountains. this 80 year old man went up to the tank and climbed onto it and threw a grenade into it. america does not know what we are getting into. this being said, i still support bush, but we cannot bitch to much about what is going on,other than if you say we shouldnt have gone. what do you expect when you invade someone, they will fight to the last person, still its better to fight over there than over here.

[seanR]

none of your goddamn business


Your just mad 'cause this poll wont let you vote twice!
I have a dead aunt that will vote for you if you want!
Can't beat Chicago politics!
"Vote early, and Vote often!"

[Osprey413]

Quite frankly, Arabs are a warring people. They live to fight. America has sturred up the hornet's nest with this one and we will be fighting it for many years to come, no matter who the president is. What we must ask each other is do we want a president who will provoke more violence or do we want to president who will try and get us out of this mess. I know that Bush will continue his "war" on Iraq and will probably go on to Iran, N. Korea (which if we learned anything from Vietnam, we should stay as far away from Korea as possible), and maybe even France. On the other hand, I don't have alot of confidence in Kerry's ability to attempt to calm the Arabs. What we need to do, and what we should have done is remove Sadam from power with as little violence as possible. Obviously Bush doesn't agree.

[Kejtar]

What we need to do, and what we should have done is remove Sadam from power with as little violence as possible.
I'm curious how you imagine that being done?

I know that Bush will continue his "war" on Iraq and will probably go on to Iran, N. Korea (which if we learned anything from Vietnam, we should stay as far away from Korea as possible), and maybe even France.
France? I'm not going to touch Iran or N Korea as those are topics that have a basis for discussion, but how did you arrive at France as being even remotedly potential target?

[seanR]

none of your goddamn business


Your just mad 'cause this poll wont let you vote twice!
I have a dead aunt that will vote for you if you want!
Can't beat Chicago politics!
"Vote early, and Vote often!"

[Kejtar]

Your just mad 'cause this poll wont let you vote twice!
I have a dead aunt that will vote for you if you want!
Can't beat Chicago politics!
"Vote early, and Vote often!"
deja vu?

[Ramsey]

since we are in there, we dont need to waste the opportunity to try and get some things accomplished instead of just sweeping in and sweeping out like it has been done so many times before. granted this would be a long sweep, but if you pull out now the lives lost will have been lost in vain.

[Osprey413]

France was a joke. Remember when we started this thing in Iraq how much France bashing was going on. I didn't mean that we would literally go after France.

As for removing Sadam from power... Let me restate what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that there were other ways of disarming Sadam (even though he didn't have anything to begin with). We didn't have to go in there and destroy the entire country and kill hundreds of people. We could have gone to the UN, we could have stopped supplying Sadam with weapons, we could have stopped all trade with Iraq, etc. But as I said before, the conflict in Iraq was nothing more than a way for Bush to make money. With Halliburton in place, he can get oil right from the well, instead of having to buy it from Sadam. The whole weapons of mass destruction thing was a hoax, a coverup for Bush's plan to make more money.

[Ramsey]

osprey, even if all that is true, is it or is it not a good thing that saddam is no longer in power

[Kejtar]

France was a joke. Remember when we started this thing in Iraq how much France bashing was going on. I didn't mean that we would literally go after France.

As for removing Sadam from power... Let me restate what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that there were other ways of disarming Sadam (even though he didn't have anything to begin with). We didn't have to go in there and destroy the entire country and kill hundreds of people. We could have gone to the UN, we could have stopped supplying Sadam with weapons, we could have stopped all trade with Iraq, etc. But as I said before, the conflict in Iraq was nothing more than a way for Bush to make money. With Halliburton in place, he can get oil right from the well, instead of having to buy it from Sadam. The whole weapons of mass destruction thing was a hoax, a coverup for Bush's plan to make more money.
Wake up and smell the cofee. You know why France was so opposed to the war? cause they were making money before it started. Even thou the Iraqi airforce was a joke, isn't it odd that the planes (Mirage) were in operating condition with new spare parts? Also I remember reading something about some shady oil transactions that involved France...
And in regards to removing him from power... welll the removal was rather painless but there were (are) few that after wanted to stir up trouble nad their did. I think that if the "few" who stir up trouble and recruit the foot soldiers weren't there... the local government would be happily operating with next to no US help. Anyways, hindsight is 20/20 foresight (or something like that). Oh btw, wasn't Kerry one of the supporters of military action in Iraq? and then suddendly he's against it? Kind of like he was for the war in Vietnam and then later when political winds changed he was against it? Is that who you'd want of a president? Someone whose opinion changes with the change in the direction the wind blows?

[Kejtar]

We could have gone to the UN, we could have stopped supplying Sadam with weapons, we could have stopped all trade with Iraq, etc.
Didn't the UN fail over the previous few years when Iraq kept breaking the rules of the treaty or whatever it is they signed by installing anti aircraft weapons and other things??? What did UN do? Groan and moan and that's about it...

[Darky]

Yeah, I'm not seeing the whole invading France thing happening, ever. And as far as Korea goes, we've been there before. Look right before Vietnam. It was called the Korean War. We fought there, and it was hell, but South Korea is still a free nation. We fought to defend them from invasion from the North, and we succeeded. Where's the problem there? Marines will also fight to the last man. This is where our different nicknames come from. Marines strike fear into opposing fighters. There was a quote from an Iraqi fighter who was captured by some Marines. He said, through an interpreter, that the Americans were a terrifying thing, everywhere they went they brought death. He was referring to the Marines who had just come through their former hideout. It was a safe place that was listed as a no go zone. We have the resources to carry this war. Its a matter of utilizing them. And to those who will say but look at all the dead soldiers! War is bloody. WWII cost some 58,000 deaths a year. And remember Bosnia and Serbia. Clinton took us over there to both to defend them against tyrranny. no one seemed to complain then. People need to open their eyes and quit bashing Bush to bash him. If you don't like what he does look at past presidents who've done the same and ask why didn't I complain then? And the whole oil deal is old and dumb, quit bringing that up. There is no evidence of that. Gas is expensive as ever. I'm done for now...

[Darky]

Sorry, just read the posts that came in while I was typing. The UN is a joke. They have no real power anymore because too many coutries will disagree on everything. Clinton was working the whole UN angle for damn near 8 yrs while in office and nothing came of it. Saddam would say ok, bring in the inspectors, and as soon as the pressure was off, he'd kick them out. This happened repeatedly. I'd bypass the UN too if in that situation. And Clinton went around the UN and attacked Bosnia and Serbia without UN consent. No one made a fuss then. But now Bush did it and everyone calls him all kinds of names.

[jrsxj98]

If you watch the debates last night you would have seen your precious Bush, quivering like a little school girl getting scolded.

[XJJPR]

If you watch the debates last night you would have seen your precious Bush, quivering like a little school girl getting scolded.

Is was sure glad kerry took a shower and washed some of that copper tone spray tan in a can off! :wierd:

hinkley

[steve01XJ]

Let's see, I'm voting for Kerry. "Why?!" some of you may ask. To me, very simple.

Iraq - didn't need to go there, the world is MORE dangerous because of our intervention, cost us over 1000 lives and counting, cost us over $200 billion and counting, no exit strategy, no political solution, no oil flowing from Iraq, Halliburton gets no bid contracts, world hates us.

Economy - net loss of over 900,000 jobs since Bush took office, insignificantly lower federal taxes for most Americans, higher state and local taxes for all Americans, less services, 40 million uninsured for health, most jobs "created" in the last three and a half years do not pay even 60% of what the jobs lost paid, exporting jobs overseas (with government incentives), no energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil - domestic drilling is not a long-term solution. Did it occur to anyone that an alternative source for oil could allow us to be independent of the Middle East for energy?

Terrorism - Osama Bin "Forgotten" in favor of flag-waving over Saddam. There is and was NEVER any link between the two but we were sold a bill of goods to justify invasion. End result has been greater number of potential terrorist threats than existed before 9/11 and a loss of intenational co-operation in our efforts. America looks bad these days.

Education - "No child left behind" legislation merely creates unfunded mandates (picked up by your local school district via increased property taxes) which make teachers teach to test performance rather than actually teaching kids to think.

Health Care - can be helped with improved employment so many more can get group coverage. Prescription drug law passed only to fatten pockets of drug companies. Most seniors who need medicines to stay alive will pay more out of pocket than before. How about allowing for foreign imports to lower prices and create competition?

Tax code - benefits existing wealth and does not reward work. Nothing has "trickled down" to the workers. The only reward the average american gets for earning more money is paying more taxes. How about his one? Did you know that FICA taxes for social security stop at around the first $70,000 in earnings? That means that for everyone making more than that, all of the money they make beyond the $70,000 or so is NOT subject to FICA tax?! Middle class is discriminated against in this tax, It should be extended to no matter how much you make to relieve some of the burden from average taxpayers. The american economy only gets moving when AVERAGE PEOPLE HAVE DISPOSABLE INCOME to spend.

Oh well, enough. Please notice I did not even get into personal attacks when forming m opinion - it is unecessary. Just ask yourself this simple question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" I bet enough people aren't .

[Osprey413]

Ok.
Ramsey: Yes, it is a good thing that Sadam is out of power. I know he was an evil man. BUT, we didn't have to kill civilians or the people who were forced to fight for him. I personally think that the US should start assasinating people. I know alot of people won't like that, but atleast you are only killing one instead of 100. If Bush had said (from the beginning) that the reason we were going into Iraq was because we were going to remove Sadam from power then I wouldn't be so angry. But if I remember correctly Bush's biggest reason for going into Iraq was because they apparently had invisable weapons of mass destruction that only Bush could see.

Kejtar, if you read my other earlier post I said that I don't support Bush OR Kerry. I don't like either of them. Yes, the UN did fail. I know that, which is why I listed the other possibilities. If we could get the UN to take some sort of military action to remove the anti-aircraft weapons, etc. But the US just said "F the world, we're going to do whatever we want!". Also, I know why France was opposed to the war. And just imagine what will happen when Bush takes us into Iran (which he will if he gets re-elected). France and Iran have been in bed together forever. France may even declare war on us if we did that.

BlackSport96: Why didn't I complain then? Becuase our president told us why we were going in, and we did just that. But Bush LIED! Don't you understand? We had no proof that Iraq had any weapons, but that was our reason for going in. Later on, probably when Bush discovered that his bluff fell through, then we were told that we were going in to take Sadam out of power. Does anyone remember when Bush was running for office four years ago? One of the things he said was the he was against nation building. Now, can you explain to me how our action in Iraq isn't nation building?

I have a question to ask to all the Bush OR Kerry supporters. Why are you voting for them? Almost every person I talk to is voting for Bush because "He's cool!", or sometimes I get "Well he's from Texas!". I have yet to hear a good reason from anyone why they will be voting for Bush or Kerry. Please, someone... Give me a good reason to vote for Bush or Kerry.

[Osprey413]

Just read Steve01XJ's post. So I've got some good reasons to vote for Kerry. How about you Bush supporters, why should I vote for him?

[Ramsey]

"We have the resources to carry this war. Its a matter of utilizing them."

i really hope that whoever the next president is will do this, the US needs to become ruthless when dealing with these kinds of situations. and personally i think bush would be the man to do it, before kerry at least. america is a powerful nation, lets strike fear into these people instead of sitting back while they mock us. if we started takign our prisoners from iraq and started beheading them, things might would change. sure a lot of people would htink we were awful, but eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is what is needed badly.

[Kejtar]

Economy - net loss of over 900,000 jobs since Bush took office

Let me pick on that one a bit... how many you think are directly related to Bush taking office and how many are a fallout from the previous administration? Things are not as simple to say that from this date on it's Bush's administration fault.

[steve01XJ]

Let me pick on that one a bit... how many you think are directly related to Bush taking office and how many are a fallout from the previous administration? Things are not as simple to say that from this date on it's Bush's administration fault.


I may even agree with that to some extent - tech bubble and all, however, what positive actions has Bush taken which have resulted directly in the growth of good paying jobs in the US? The answer is unfortunately none, because the tax cuts did not create investment in new businesses or jobs. Replacing a high tech job with stock boy at Wal-Mart and a part time job delivering pizzas does not count as job growth.

[Osprey413]

But the economy was better than it had been for years when Clinton was president, but this is really irrelevant. We can't change the past.

If we use all of our military might to kill all the people who might threaten us, how are we diffirent from Sadam and every other tyrant in history? We can't just go around tactically nuking everyone who badmouths the US.

[Kejtar]

If we use all of our military might to kill all the people who might threaten us, how are we diffirent from Sadam and every other tyrant in history?
Every time I hear this and similar statements I keep remembering how WWII came about. It was due to fear of war and decision not to do anything while a despot ruled and tested his boundaries on many fronts. Only when it was too late teh big powers chose to act with really big losses both in human lifes and in $$.

[steve01XJ]

Every time I hear this and similar statements I keep remembering how WWII came about. It was due to fear of war and decision not to do anything while a despot ruled and tested his boundaries on many fronts. Only when it was too late teh big powers chose to act with really big losses both in human lifes and in $$.


Where were we in Rwanda...... LOTS more people killed there - like millions more.
Your argument presumes that Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the US. Unfortunately, he didn't and now we are in the quicksand.

[Ramsey]

But the economy was better than it had been for years when Clinton was president, but this is really irrelevant. We can't change the past.

If we use all of our military might to kill all the people who might threaten us, how are we diffirent from Sadam and every other tyrant in history? We can't just go around tactically nuking everyone who badmouths the US.
i wasnt implying nuclear weapons, thats a big no no. if that happens, kiss the world goodbye. we do need to become less worried about what people might think

[Osprey413]

I think we took not caring what other people think to an extreme when we went into Iraq. No one supported that, but we still did it. Later we found out that they were right...

[Kejtar]

Where were we in Rwanda...... LOTS more people killed there - like millions more.
I believe US is supposed to help out with Sudan situation (haven't kept up on the news but that's the last I remember reading)

Your argument presumes that Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the US. Unfortunately, he didn't and now we are in the quicksand.
well he was at the very least an indirect threat. Weapons of MD aside there were a lot more aspects to the reasons why the action needed to be taken. UNfortunately it seems that people concentrate only on the WMD as that's an easy point of attack....

[Kejtar]

I think we took not caring what other people think to an extreme when we went into Iraq. No one supported that, but we still did it. Later we found out that they were right...
Umm I believe there were a good half a dozen countries that supported US. There are still quite a few that have troops there alongside americans (granted not as many but still).

[Osprey413]

Who? I don't remember anyone supporting us except for Blair, and he got alot of flak from the British people.

[steve01XJ]

well he was at the very least an indirect threat. Weapons of MD aside there were a lot more aspects to the reasons why the action needed to be taken. UNfortunately it seems that people concentrate only on the WMD as that's an easy point of attack....[/QUOTE]

Kejtar - I'm not focusing on WMD at all - I am focusing what clear and present danger did Hussein present to the US to justify our invasion and occupation? This is the only standard which we should evaluate military intervention by. Absent WMD, there was no threat to the US at all.

Israel gives the UN the high hat all the time and yet we do not invade them. In Rwanda, like two million people were slaughtered and we did nothing. The lack of principled consistency in our foreign policy is something I am ashamed of.

[Darky]

How many nations mess with Israel? They have terrorists, real bad, but no nation has stepped up any time I can remember and threatened them. Why? They're a tiny nation with little dog syndrome. You mess with them, they strike back 10 times worse. I remember when they used to send attack choppers to blow something up in the Palestinian neighborhood every now and then in retaliation for the suicide bombers. But they quit due to pressure from us, and the rest of the world.
If we'd gone to Rwanda you'd say we're trying to change them and there'd be more accusations of warmongering. Besides we can't be everywhere. People say we're overextended now, and we're only fighting in 2 countries.
Why am I voting for Bush? Because I believe he'll stand up and defend our nations interests, he actually has the balls to depart from what the UN says if he thinks it'll benefit the US. Kerry has a happy picture of other nations helping us in Irq with no word as to how he'd accomplish that goal. Other nations want no part in this. Bush tried and when he saw no one would come in and help out, he did what he thought he had to. Why don't I like Kerry? His Vietnam background he likes to throw around and brag that he's a war hero. What war hero throws that around? I've known more than a few men who fought in Vietnam and none of them will even talk about what they did. They'll mention their buddies but won't speak of their own accomplishments.

[Darky]

How many people were murdered by Saddam over the years of his reign? Oh and by the way, we had around 40 nations that supported us, 40 who signed on with the Coalition of the Willing. Germany has ground troops in Iraq now, after they spoke against the whole idea in the beginning. Bush has been working other nations and slowly more are coming in to help out.

[casm]

Please, someone... Give me a good reason to vote for Bush or Kerry.

Because there are no third-party candidates who stand a realistic chance of getting into office. It may not be a *good* reason, but it's the reason why I'm voting the way I am.

And yes, I know that's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy right there, but until people figure out that you don't always have to vote for the same two parties, we're going to be stuck with them.

[jrsxj98]

Let me pick on that one a bit... how many you think are directly related to Bush taking office and how many are a fallout from the previous administration? Things are not as simple to say that from this date on it's Bush's administration fault.


Because Bush has proved that he would rather outsource our jobs, and ship them to forgien countrys. Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever.

[jrsxj98]

Let's see, I'm voting for Kerry. "Why?!" some of you may ask. To me, very simple.

Iraq - didn't need to go there, the world is MORE dangerous because of our intervention, cost us over 1000 lives and counting, cost us over $200 billion and counting, no exit strategy, no political solution, no oil flowing from Iraq, Halliburton gets no bid contracts, world hates us.

Economy - net loss of over 900,000 jobs since Bush took office, insignificantly lower federal taxes for most Americans, higher state and local taxes for all Americans, less services, 40 million uninsured for health, most jobs "created" in the last three and a half years do not pay even 60% of what the jobs lost paid, exporting jobs overseas (with government incentives), no energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil - domestic drilling is not a long-term solution. Did it occur to anyone that an alternative source for oil could allow us to be independent of the Middle East for energy?

Terrorism - Osama Bin "Forgotten" in favor of flag-waving over Saddam. There is and was NEVER any link between the two but we were sold a bill of goods to justify invasion. End result has been greater number of potential terrorist threats than existed before 9/11 and a loss of intenational co-operation in our efforts. America looks bad these days.

Education - "No child left behind" legislation merely creates unfunded mandates (picked up by your local school district via increased property taxes) which make teachers teach to test performance rather than actually teaching kids to think.

Health Care - can be helped with improved employment so many more can get group coverage. Prescription drug law passed only to fatten pockets of drug companies. Most seniors who need medicines to stay alive will pay more out of pocket than before. How about allowing for foreign imports to lower prices and create competition?

Tax code - benefits existing wealth and does not reward work. Nothing has "trickled down" to the workers. The only reward the average american gets for earning more money is paying more taxes. How about his one? Did you know that FICA taxes for social security stop at around the first $70,000 in earnings? That means that for everyone making more than that, all of the money they make beyond the $70,000 or so is NOT subject to FICA tax?! Middle class is discriminated against in this tax, It should be extended to no matter how much you make to relieve some of the burden from average taxpayers. The american economy only gets moving when AVERAGE PEOPLE HAVE DISPOSABLE INCOME to spend.

Oh well, enough. Please notice I did not even get into personal attacks when forming m opinion - it is unecessary. Just ask yourself this simple question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" I bet enough people aren't .

Amen Brother. couldn't have said it better my self....

[casm]

Because Bush has proved that he would rather outsource our jobs, and ship them to forgien countrys.

OK, maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a decision made by industry, not the president. At what point is government to regulate enterprise? I agree that outsourcing jobs to India, Mexico, the Philippines, etc. is a problem, but how exactly is the president responsible for this?

Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever.

I'm not so sure about that - seeing as how I lost my job in the last few days of the Clinton administration and spent a year-and-a-half unemployed after that, from my perspective it seems as though the previous administration created a lot of these issues, not the current one.

[CW]

Wow. Wasn't there that thing called the great depression? I am pretty sure times were slightly worse economicaly then.

[Ronbo]

http://www.fototime.com/{460E433A-37FD-4930-B9B4-714F552818FC}/picture.JPG

W.

[steve01XJ]

How many nations mess with Israel? They have terrorists, real bad, but no nation has stepped up any time I can remember and threatened them. Why? They're a tiny nation with little dog syndrome. You mess with them, they strike back 10 times worse. I remember when they used to send attack choppers to blow something up in the Palestinian neighborhood every now and then in retaliation for the suicide bombers. But they quit due to pressure from us, and the rest of the world.
If we'd gone to Rwanda you'd say we're trying to change them and there'd be more accusations of warmongering. Besides we can't be everywhere. People say we're overextended now, and we're only fighting in 2 countries.
Why am I voting for Bush? Because I believe he'll stand up and defend our nations interests, he actually has the balls to depart from what the UN says if he thinks it'll benefit the US. Kerry has a happy picture of other nations helping us in Irq with no word as to how he'd accomplish that goal. Other nations want no part in this. Bush tried and when he saw no one would come in and help out, he did what he thought he had to. Why don't I like Kerry? His Vietnam background he likes to throw around and brag that he's a war hero. What war hero throws that around? I've known more than a few men who fought in Vietnam and none of them will even talk about what they did. They'll mention their buddies but won't speak of their own accomplishments.


I still have not seen where invading Iraq advances or protects any US interests. If it was because Saddam was a murderer, then we should have gone to Rwanda before anywhere else. I do not advocate either intervention. If we can't be everywhere, then why Iraq? You missed my point. To justify our intervention there must be a clear and present danger to the US. There was none in Iraq or Rwanda. Just becasue we saber rattle and stick to our guns does not mean we are right. This is what the issue is all about - was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do.

[Darky]

I'd say yes. I'd say there was reason to believe he had WMDs. Why would Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out repeatedly? Have you thought of the possibility of them being in Syria now? A lot of troops and people and all kinds of stuff have slipped across the border to Syria, stuff's flowing the other way as well. Hell, there's lots of empty desert to bury stuff. I saw pictures of Iraqi MiGs that were quite literally buried in the sands. The shots were of the jets being excavated.

[Osprey413]

The reason Sadam ever had WMD in the first place is because we gave them to him. I think to ultimately stop the threat we should go to the root of the problem. The US hands out weapons like candy.

[JohnJohn]

Exactly.

Just curious, how is a vote 'wasted' if it's mine to use how I want?

:twak:

ECKSJAY: If you're a true Libertarian I am like minded, but “if wishes were horses all beggars would ride”. I call myself a realist Libertarian. I know it's never going to happen so I support what actually will. W.

ps assumtions made according to your signature, nothing else.

[Captain Ron]

Every time I hear this and similar statements I keep remembering how WWII came about. It was due to fear of war and decision not to do anything while a despot ruled and tested his boundaries on many fronts. Only when it was too late teh big powers chose to act with really big losses both in human lifes and in $$.Careful there Kej, characterzations like that are too simple to have much fact in them.
Umm I believe there were a good half a dozen countries that supported US. There are still quite a few that have troops there alongside americans (granted not as many but still).Not to minimized allied participation, but here's a look at the sacrifices since the end of major hostilities.

KIA:

US=1059
UK=68
OTHER=70
http://www.liracon.com/ron/post/cas.png

Does it look a little lopsided like this?

As of early July, this year...

More than 30 countries have contributed troops to the multinational forces in Iraq.

The US is overwhelmingly the biggest foreign contributor, followed by the UK, Italy and Poland.

Numbers fluctuate as troops are rotated in and out of the country. On 19 July 2004 there were about 133,000 foreign troops in Iraq, of whom about 112,000 were American. Any major engagement with insurgents is run by US forces, except in the south-east, where British forces take the lead.

Baghdad Area of Operations:
About 30,000 foreign soldiers, most from the US 1st Cavalry Division. There are 32 Estonians in the Abu Ghraib district of the city.

Baghdad is also the location of the multinational force headquarters.

Multinational Brigade North (also known as Task Force Olympia):
About 20,000 soldiers, of whom 11,500 are Iraqi security forces (national guard, border patrol and army).

The remaining 8,500 are nearly all American (mostly Third Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (my son is in this group)). There is also an Albanian commando company.

In August 2004, South Korea is due to start deploying 3,000 new troops in Irbil. Most of the 700 South Koreans already in the country have been based in the south-east, but about half are now, reportedly, being redeployed to Irbil.

(Sources: Multinational Brigade North; Globalsecurity.org)

North-Central Area of Operations:
The US 1st Infantry is augmented by contingents from:
Georgia (150)
Latvia (about 40)
Moldova (30)
Macedonia (30)

Western Area of Operations:
The US 1st Marine Division is augmented by contingents from:
Azerbaijan (150)
Tonga (45)

Multinational Division Centre-South:
Poland (2,350)
Ukraine (1,550)
Thailand (450)
Bulgaria (420)
Hungary (290)
Romania (200)
Mongolia (140
Latvia (110)
Slovakia (110)
Lithuania (50)

(Source: Multinational Division Centre-South website, figures dated 16 June 2004, when the Philippines still had 90 troops in the division. They were withdrawn ahead of schedule on 19 July 2004.)

Multinational Division South-East:
UK (8,300, mainly 1st Mechanised Brigade)
Italy (2,800)
The Netherlands (1,300)
Japan (500)
Romania (500)
Denmark (400)
Norway (130, in the process of leaving)
Portugal (124)
Czech Republic (90)
Lithuania (60)
New Zealand (60)

(Source: MND SE spokesman, 7 July 2004)

Others:
The numbers above usually do not include troops involved in logistical support, for example South Korean engineers and medics, or Estonian cargo handlers.

Australia has 850 troops in and around Iraq, mainly carrying out specialist functions such as air traffic control, air transport, aerial maritime patrols and maritime interception.

Singapore has also supplied a transport aircraft, a tank-carrying landing ship and police for training purposes - in total some 200 troops and police.

Some countries have significant numbers of soldiers at headquarters in Baghdad, and on warships or in air bases near Iraq. About 1,150 UK servicemen and women fall into this category. Spain withdrew its 1,300 troops in April. Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Norway and Kazakhstan have either withdrawn their forces, or are in the process of doing so.

(Source: BBC 7 July 2004)


How many people were murdered by Saddam over the years of his reign? Oh and by the way, we had around 40 nations that supported us, 40 who signed on with the Coalition of the Willing. Germany has ground troops in Iraq now, after they spoke against the whole idea in the beginning. Bush has been working other nations and slowly more are coming in to help out.
Most reasonable people agree that this is a US effort. By definition, it is a coalition, but hard pressed to be one in exectution. Do a search, most of these countries are there for a bigger reason than just "100% Support of the US cause".


http://www.fototime.com/{460E433A-37FD-4930-B9B4-714F552818FC}/picture.JPG

W.Hope this helps...

On topic, undecided

--ron

[Ronbo]

Because Bush has proved that he would rather outsource our jobs, and ship them to forgien countrys. Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever.


Did you notice that five of the top ten wealthiest people in the world are 'Waltons'? How did they get there? Americans vote with their wallets, we put them there. We want cheap, we get cheap, we get jobs shipped overseas. Ever blame your neighbors?

Do you even know the unemployment rate?

U.S. Department of Labor statistics: http://stats.bls.gov/

Jan 1994 to Dec 2000 average = 4.96% unemployment
Jan 2001 to Aug 2004 average = 5.55% unemployment

The worst year under Clinton(1994) averaged 6.1% unemployment
The worst year under WBush(2003) averaged 6.0% unemployment

[Osprey413]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? That says that clinton's presidency had less unemployment than bush's.

[OT]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? That says that clinton's presidency had less unemployment than bush's.
4.96% = 7 years
5.55% = 3.5 years

It took Clinton almost 2 terms to get the average that he ended up with.

W's administration has been repairing the late years of the Clinton admin. for only almost one term while engaged in war.

Wait and see in four and a half years and I'll bet W's 2 term average drops below 4.75%.

[Ronbo]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? That says that clinton's presidency had less unemployment than bush's.

I know exactly what it says. I presented the facts, not hype. The "Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever." statement is false.
The worst year in the last eleven was 1994.

[Ronbo]

New John Kerry: "And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq." - 9/30/04

Old John Kerry: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." 9/6/02 Op-Ed The New York Times.

[Ramsey]

i dont like the double talking bastardo either, but some people do change. in this case though, i highly doubt he has changed his beliefs. i dont want a "go with the flow" president

[Beezil]

i dont like the double talking bastardo either, but some people do change. in this case though, i highly doubt he has changed his beliefs. i dont want a "go with the flow" president

The World is a rapidly changing place. I have more faith in those that can recognize and embrace change, and adapt to change by refocusing attention, opinion, emotion and response, rather than those who cannot, who boldly and arrogantly continue through a course, irresponsibly disregarding a new set of parameters.

change is good.

[Poison]

Wait and see in four and a half years and I'll bet W's 2 term average drops below 4.75%.

Yeah in Mexico......

[bocaj]

you didn't watch the debate, did you?
actually i did kerry has changed his position on this many times since he started campianing

[MaXJohnson]

Geeeeze

flash a little Copper Tone and the Michael Moore Democrats come crawling out of the woodwork

[XJJPR]

Just so the numbers are straight, unlike most politicians and Beezil can do, the war is at 119 billion at the end of August. It hasn't gotten to 200 yet. But then Bush can figure exactly how many troops have been trained either.

Continue on.......

hinkley

[LBEXJ]

As with most debates. the best "talker" usually is bestowed the "winner". Though Bush may not have "won" the debate, I appreciate the fact he tried this tactic (talk) but was brave enough to take action when it was obvious it was to no avail. Not too many past Presidents have had the courage to do this. Did he stop negotiating too soon and jump into this war too soon ... maybe, maybe not. Clinton spent 8 years talking ...

Kerry is a good talker. but does he have the courage to make the tough decisions? Is his ability to "change" or "adapt" his position on matters actually a sign of weakness? Is this a sign he is more concerned about maintaining his popularity and re-election prospects?

The President of the United States has the ability to hire or appoint people to his cabinent that are experts. IMO, it is not as important an attribute the President be especially the most brilliant or even the best talker (he can hire that out too), but he must have the courage, and be willing, to make tough and not so popular decisions.

My $.02 ...

Les

PS: Kerry would be a great forum user ... his post count would be right up there with the best.

[Sarge]

Ya know, we weren't the only country whose intelligence services believed Sadam either had WMD or was attempting to get/build some. Just that the press (both US and worldwide) has not mentioned that since prior to the invasion. It is a proven that Sadam diverted the "Oil for Food" program money for weapons and/or other non-food purposes. I'm not saying it was right or wrong tho. I (and most of us here) do not have access to the knowledge we and the 40 supporting nations did when they made the decision to invade.

The biggest reason we haven't gone into Sudan? Just as with Iraq, we are attempting to allow the UN the chance to fix the problem. Just as with Iraq, the UN is failing. Probably for the same reasons. Some member country or countries is making money there and stands to to loose money if we go in to help.

Sarge

[XJEEPER]

But the economy was better than it had been for years when Clinton was president, but this is really irrelevant. We can't change the past.

The key to Clinton's success, says Alice Rivlin, a Brookings Institution scholar who served as his director of management and budget, was adhering to the "pay/go" agreement first forged by President George H. W. Bush and a Democratic Congress, whereby tax cuts or entitlement increases had to be funded on a current basis.

Since you brought up Clinton, let's take a quick look at his record:

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

During the Clinton admin, the military budget was slashed, the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole all went unanswered, and our Commander in Chief was commiting adultery with an intern in the Oval Office.
He then stared us in face and said he didn't have sex with Monica.......but later stated that he was sorry that he betrayed his wife and had sex with Monica.......where I'm from we call that lying and deception.

Oddly enough, Kerry changes his postion in a similar fashion........
Yah, we were much better of with Bill Clinton running the country........what an embarassment, because folks like you elected him. That's what's wrong with our country.

If we use all of our military might to kill all the people who might threaten us, how are we diffirent from Sadam and every other tyrant in history? We can't just go around tactically nuking everyone who badmouths the US.

First of all, if we were to use tactical nuke strikes in Iraq, the war would be over.....and the non-combatant Iraqi body count would be much higher. We haven't done this....lame arguement. If you can't differentiate between the US and Saddam......perhaps you should spend some time in Iraq. There is no parallel.

Can we assassinate the "really bad guys"? This works well if killing Osama or Saddam in a stratigic and precise manner would have made all of their followers throw thier hands in the air, shout "Uncle Mohammad" and immediately begin to do good deeds to their fellow men....... truely delusional.

We've been sending a message for years that we've lost our will to stand up to terrorist and fight for our freedoms, the same message that Kerry sent the other night at the debate......"we'll have more talks with the bad guys".......... and this will make them like us and not want to crash planes into our buildings, murder innocent men, women and children, take children hostage and shoot them in the back, bomb our ships and embassies, rape, murder and pillage, USE WMD"S ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE...........snap out of it.

To say that the US brought this upon ourselves because we're bullies is such a load of crap. This is nothing like the patriot revolt against the British in the 1700's.

What country gives more foreign aid than the US? If the US is such a terrible place, why are folks willing to risk their lives daily to get across our borders and into our country? If this war is all about oil, why are we wasting our time, money and military resources to help liberate the Iraqi people, rebuild, schools and infrastructure? It would be to our advantage to keep the Iraqi's in a state of oppression, so we could suck their country dry of crude, if that were true.
Couldn't we just capture the oil wells and transfer stations, which would be much easier for us to defend?

Sorry folks, not pickin up what's being put down. I don't have a political science degree, come from rich parents or live on welfare. Just a hard working man that believes in fair pay for fair days labor, able to see through the BS that the liberals and the biased media attempt to shove down the US public throat on a daily basis. I'm glad to see folks express their opinions, better than just going along with the herd.

The reality is...this war is about good VS evil, there is no gray area......figure out which side you're on.

[Captain Ron]

Some good stuff here, just wanted to counterpoint a bit...

During the Clinton admin, the military budget was slashed, the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole all went unanswered, and our Commander in Chief was commiting adultery with an intern in the Oval Office...Not entirely accurate, which is the problem with most efforts in simplification.
I ask, "un-answered how?", "Was the adultery the important issue?".

He then stared us in face and said he didn't have sex with Monica.......but later stated that he was sorry that he betrayed his wife and had sex with Monica.......where I'm from we call that lying and deception....Clinton was not the only president to lie and deceive the American public. A president that repeatedly insists on many facts later proven to be completely without basis, as a reasoning to invade another country, may be guilty of lying also. When it comes down to kids from this country doing our sacrificing, connections of context to "sex with Monica" pale a bit.

Oddly enough, Kerry changes his postion in a similar fashion........
Yah, we were much better of with Bill Clinton running the country........what an embarassment, because folks like you elected him. That's what's wrong with our country...Easy now, it's not a "us against them" situation. Keep in mind that the outcome of a vote, and the subsequent path we take as a result is one of the greatest strokes of thinking in modern times, it's one of the things that makes this country adaptable and innovative, and isn't really "what's wrong with our country".

First of all, if we were to use tactical nuke strikes in Iraq, the war would be over...I do not think it would. Somehow, many people have the vision that when a nuke goes down, the other side just stops fighting, just like that. Just because that was close to the case the only time we used it, certainly does not translate to a set outcome of circumstance in every subsequent case.

Just for the record, nukes are an issue of deterence, whether you agree with it or not, that's what they have evolved into as policy for the world. Be the first to break that policy...

Can we assassinate the "really bad guys"? This works well if killing Osama or Saddam in a stratigic and precise manner would have made all of their followers throw thier hands in the air, shout "Uncle Mohammad" and immediately begin to do good deeds to their fellow men....... truely delusional...Indeed.

We've been sending a message for years that we've lost our will to stand up to terrorist and fight for our freedoms, the same message that Kerry sent the other night at the debate......"we'll have more talks with the bad guys".......... and this will make them like us and not want to crash planes into our buildings, murder innocent men, women and children, take children hostage and shoot them in the back, bomb our ships and embassies, rape, murder and pillage, USE WMD"S ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE...........snap out of it. ...It may be that we have been sending a message, but I don't think it has anything to do with our willingness to fight. If the situation was nearly as simple as standing up and fighting for our freedoms, it would have been done along time ago, any president, any time.

The fact is, we are not the only people on this planet, we do not represent the "right" thinking for the world, we were not bestowed with "right" to make everyone live, think, work, act, feel and accept what we believe to be nessesary or within our current zone of comfort. Surprise, but there is a whole planet out there that has the "right" to be considered, no matter how differently they think, or act.

To say that the US brought this upon ourselves because we're bullies is such a load of crap. This is nothing like the patriot revolt against the British in the 1700's...There is alot missing there, conection and context.

What country gives more foreign aid than the US? If the US is such a terrible place, why are folks willing to risk their lives daily to get across our borders and into our country? If this war is all about oil, why are we wasting our time, money and military resources to help liberate the Iraqi people, rebuild, schools and infrastructure? It would be to our advantage to keep the Iraqi's in a state of oppression, so we could suck their country dry of crude, if that were true.
Couldn't we just capture the oil wells and transfer stations, which would be much easier for us to defend?...These are great questions, but please understand they won't stand up as an asked justification.

Sorry folks, not pickin up what's being put down. I don't have a political science degree, come from rich parents or live on welfare. Just a hard working man that believes in fair pay for fair days labor, ...:)

...able to see through the BS that the liberals and the biased media attempt to shove down the US public throat on a daily basis. I'm glad to see folks express their opinions, better than just going along with the herd...A question for all, do you get any of your news from the TV? Do you watch/read any foreign news source in it's native language?

If you intend to vote for Kerry, are you in the Kerry "herd"? What about the Bush "herd"?

...The reality is...this war is about good VS evil, there is no gray area......figure out which side you're on.Man, you really did a great job with this until you got to here. This is one of the single most dangerous statements I have heard anyone make to date. I'm sure you have a more rational and much more complex basis for this than what came out here.

--ron

[WayneXJ]

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

[Ronbo]

During the Clinton admin, the military budget was slashed, the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole all went unanswered, (Snip)

You forgot. Clintoon launched Cruise Missiles and annihilated some empty mud huts.

:laugh2:

[Ramsey]

(Snip)

You forgot. Clintoon launched Cruise Missiles and annihilated some empty mud huts.

:laugh2:
yeah and that really put them in their place and scared them into not doing it again

[XJEEPER]

Not entirely accurate, which is the problem with most efforts in simplification.
I ask, "un-answered how?", "Was the adultery the important
issue?".

When a President is more concerned about his own personal gratification than protecting our country, it's an important issue. The point being that his focus was shifted to his personal problems and away from the problems of the world. Did having sex with Monica cause terrorist acts against the US? No, unless you believe that she's an Al-Quida operative. ;)

Clinton was not the only president to lie and deceive the American public. A president that repeatedly insists on many facts later proven to be completely without basis, as a reasoning to invade another country, may be guilty of lying also. When it comes down to kids from this country doing our sacrificing, connections of context to "sex with Monica" pale a bit.

You're comparing the decision to invade Iraq with Clinton's decision to have sex with Monica and then lie about it? I was not, dig deeper.

Easy now, it's not a "us against them" situation. Keep in mind that the outcome of a vote, and the subsequent path we take as a result is one of the greatest strokes of thinking in modern times, it's one of the things that makes this country adaptable and innovative, and isn't really "what's wrong with our country".

What message does it convey to US citizens and the world community, when we elected Bill Clinton as President? Here's a few easy ones:

It's OK to commit adultery if you don't get caught.
It's OK to commit terrorist acts on the US because we won't fight back.

Are we not judged as a people by the actions of the people that we elect to govern us?


Man, you really did a great job with this until you got to here. This is one of the single most dangerous statements I have heard anyone make to date. I'm sure you have a more rational and much more complex basis for this than what came out here.

Seems to me that there is much more danger created by the rationalization and justification that goes on. It's easy to sit back and QB the country from the comfort of our living rooms. Sure, there are many variables and factors that led us to the war in Iraq.
To all of you, if your family was being oppressed, tortured, raped or murdered, how would you views change? We need to support the good that is being done and condem the acts of those that choose to do evil. We aren't perfect, we don't have all the answers and perhaps we've not done everything right......but it is much worse to be complacent, standing by and doing nothing than to strive to do good and help our fellowman.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing".
I'm personally glad that Pres Bush did something..........

[crookedletterd]

W '04

[Moto]

[QUOTE=Kejtar]Wake up and smell the cofee. You know why France was so opposed to the war? cause they were making money before it started. Even thou the Iraqi airforce was a joke, isn't it odd that the planes (Mirage) were in operating condition with new spare parts? Also I remember reading something about some shady oil transactions that involved France...
And in regards to removing him from power... welll the removal was rather painless but there were (are) few that after wanted to stir up trouble nad their did. I think that if the "few" who stir up trouble and recruit the foot soldiers weren't there... the local government would be happily operating with next to no US help. Anyways, hindsight is 20/20 foresight (or something like that). Oh btw, wasn't Kerry one of the supporters of military action in Iraq? and then suddendly he's against it? Kind of like he was for the war in Vietnam and then later when political winds changed he was against it? Is that who you'd want of a president? Someone whose opinion changes with the change in the direction the wind blows?[/QUOTE

The issue of Kerry changing his mind on issues, is over played and very misleading. The biggest thing that people try and stick to him is that he voted for the war and then voted against it, if you dig deeper into that issue the change in his vote has to do with the topic he was voting on, the second time that it came to him voting for the war there had been something close to 40 amendments and changes, so Kerry decided to vote against it. This has been the case more than once which can account for the supposed "flip flopping"

The biggest issue wish Bush has to be the situation in Iraq, lets go get them before they get us and then bomb them into submission. Other than in WWII in Japan, when has that policy ever worked. WWII the allies bombed Germany to rubble but it took the Soviets heavy casualties fighting door to door to win. Remember when the US had felt the need to contain communism around the world before it spread so we took preemtive measures in Korea, and Vietnam, and we lost alot of men, and dropped millions of bombs and yet never got the desired outcome that we had envisioned. Sure people can make the argument that South Korea is still free, but last check it was still a militarized zone. Using logic like that, Saddam is out of Iraq and the people are now free, but what if we need to keep troops there for the next 50 or so years like in Korea. Is that really a success. How about the terroist problem Russia is having right now, a good number of those Terrorists are coming from Chechnya, so what have the Russians done, they have been there for years now, bombed just about every inch , and have been as ruthless and destructive as a country can be, all for the sake of beating them into submission, and so far is ha been a big failure.

Making the country safe by sheer brute force around the world doesn't work, which is why international politics are so important and is why the U.N needs serious help. The U.N has become a joke, and I think the U.S and other Countries really need to work on this

[StuckXJ]

"We have the resources to carry this war. Its a matter of utilizing them."

i really hope that whoever the next president is will do this, the US needs to become ruthless when dealing with these kinds of situations. and personally i think bush would be the man to do it, before kerry at least. america is a powerful nation, lets strike fear into these people instead of sitting back while they mock us. if we started takign our prisoners from iraq and started beheading them, things might would change. sure a lot of people would htink we were awful, but eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is what is needed badly.
Come on that is the most red neck, stupid, and sick thing I have ever heard. Come on... You want this country to bully people around... So this is what this election is comeing to... people who want the US to be bullies (bush voters) and Those who don't (Kerry voters) No offence to any one personally but come on

[CW]

The biggest issue wish Bush has to be the situation in Iraq, lets go get them before they get us and then bomb them into submission. Other than in WWII in Japan, when has that policy ever worked. WWII the allies bombed Germany to rubble but it took the Soviets heavy casualties fighting door to door to win. Remember when the US had felt the need to contain communism around the world before it spread so we took preemtive measures in Korea, and Vietnam, and we lost alot of men, and dropped millions of bombs and yet never got the desired outcome that we had envisioned. Sure people can make the argument that South Korea is still free, but last check it was still a militarized zone. Using logic like that, Saddam is out of Iraq and the people are now free, but what if we need to keep troops there for the next 50 or so years like in Korea. Is that really a success. How about the terroist problem Russia is having right now, a good number of those Terrorists are coming from Chechnya, so what have the Russians done, they have been there for years now, bombed just about every inch , and have been as ruthless and destructive as a country can be, all for the sake of beating them into submission, and so far is ha been a big failure.

Making the country safe by sheer brute force around the world doesn't work, which is why international politics are so important and is why the U.N needs serious help. The U.N has become a joke, and I think the U.S and other Countries really need to work on this

First of all, comparing the "total war" tactics of WWII to military tactics of today is like comparing apples to oranges. Durring WWII it was acceptable to carpet bomb cities because there was no real reliable way to aim bombs and because of this civilian casualties were very high. Many times the target was just a city. And dropping the bomb on Japan was done to save a U.S. invasion of Japan. That is not our strategy today at all. The world and war fare has changed dramatically since the 1940's. Our airstrikes are presision guided and aimed at military targets, civilian casualties are at a minimum. You can not win a war with air strikes alone as you stated, it takes ground troops to keep the peace and put down the few remaining enemies. As for Russias terrorist problems, Russia has had a cripled government for a while and it is not suprising they can't stop terrorism. Instability breeds terrorism and Russia has lots of it. The US has by no means "bombed every inch" of Iraq and we never will, there is a moral way to fight a war and that is why it is taking longer than expected to stabilize Iraq, if we wanted to use the tactics of the terrorists and behead POW's and detainies, hide in churches, use children to deliver bombs, and suicide bombers we might be able to demoralize them enough to put an end to this, but that is not the moral way to do it, so we won't. Thats what seperates us from them.

[Osprey413]

There is something here that alot of people are missing. Kerry voted for Iraq when Bush was saying that we were going to "disarm him". Kerry voted against the war in Iraq when Bush changed the plan to "we are removing a tyrant." Those are completely different reasons for a war. Many senators other than Kerry voted for the war and then later voted against the war because their first vote was based on a set of lies told by our President. Did Kerry honostly change his mind? I don't think so. He would probably still be in favor of the war if we had continued to do what we set out to do, disarm Sadam.

Another thing about the UN. Although almost everyone agree's that the UN is basically useless at this point, we have to remember that we sent them into Iraq looking for something that didn't exist, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why wouldn't Sadam disarm? Because he didn't have anything to disarm. The UN couldn't find anything, but the that wasn't good enough for Bush so he had to go in and find out for himself. When he couldn't find anything, he changed the purpose of the war from disarming to removing Sadam from power. Giving the UN a bad wrap over them not doing anything about Sadam's WMD isn't fair because he didn't have any WMD.

I think we should all stop the arguement about Clinton. You can't say that because Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, that makes every other Democrat a lier. Republicans lie just as much a Democrats, they just lie about diffirent topics. Bush made told a lie that has cost over 1000 lives and almost $200 billion. If Bush had come out and told us that we were going to fight Iraq and kill thousands in order to remove Sadam, the war would have never happened.
We need to realize that this war was started because of a personal hate for Sadam that Bush has. While Bush Sr. was in office Sadam came very close to assasinating him, now Jr. feels that he needs to get Sadam back for what he did to daddy. I understand that and I don't blame him. I also understand why Bush decided to make the American people take revenge upon Sadam for what he did. It is because Bush, like it or not, is a coward. More so than Kerry. Bush doesn't have the balls to solve his own problems. I'll give you an example that you can relate to. If you have someone you care about and another person threatens to kill them, would you turn to your neighbor and tell them to bring justice against them or would you do it yourself? Say you have a child and someone murders that child. Would you go after that person, or would you ask your friend to take care of it. Bush turned to the American people to take care of Sadam for him.

About Kerry being in the military... atleast he was actually part of it. Yes, Bush was in the reserves.... for a whopping three days. On the fourth day, he didn't show up. Under normal conditions that is considered going AWOL and results in jail time, but not for Bush because his father is an important man. Kerry on the other hand actually served in the military. He actually saw combat... he didn't just run away like Bush did. So don't give me this "Bush is a very courageous man", it's BS.


"it is not as important an attribute the President be especially the most brilliant or even the best talker (he can hire that out too)"

Frankly this scares me to death. You would rather have a blabbering idiot in control than someone who actually knows something. If he has to hire out for his brains and speeches, why don't we elect those people president instead of Bush? According to this statement Bush is nothing more than a talking head. Have you ever seen Bush try to make a speech or answer questions when he doesn't have someone giving him the answers? He either babbles on about something completely off topic, or he simply restates the question. The man doesn't know anything!
Bush's cabinet isn't much better. Dick Cheney is either always missing, or always sick. So he's never around to give much advise, and when he is all he does is campeign to re-elect Bush. Donald Rumsfeld has apparently been shunned from TV apearences because the last time he got on TV he made a complete fool of himself. His speech about what we know about Iraq still tickles me: "We have known knowns, that is we know that we know it. We have unknown knowns, that is we dont know we know it. We have known unknowns, that is we know we dont know it. We have unknown unknowns, that is we dont know we dont know..." I didn't hear the rest because I smashed the TV with hatred when I heard or Secretary of Defense making the stupidest comment known... or unknown... to man. People tell me that it didn't get any better.
These cabinet members are the people who tell Bush what to do!! And they dont even know themselves! The only person I actually trust in Bush's cabinet is Colon Powell, and my guess is that Bush never listens to a word he says.

I fear for the future of this country under the leadership of Bush.

[Moto]

First of all, comparing the "total war" tactics of WWII to military tactics of today is like comparing apples to oranges. Durring WWII it was acceptable to carpet bomb cities because there was no real reliable way to aim bombs and because of this civilian casualties were very high. Many times the target was just a city. And dropping the bomb on Japan was done to save a U.S. invasion of Japan. That is not our strategy today at all. The world and war fare has changed dramatically since the 1940's. Our airstrikes are presision guided and aimed at military targets, civilian casualties are at a minimum. You can not win a war with air strikes alone as you stated, it takes ground troops to keep the peace and put down the few remaining enemies. As for Russias terrorist problems, Russia has had a cripled government for a while and it is not suprising they can't stop terrorism. Instability breeds terrorism and Russia has lots of it. The US has by no means "bombed every inch" of Iraq and we never will, there is a moral way to fight a war and that is why it is taking longer than expected to stabilize Iraq, if we wanted to use the tactics of the terrorists and behead POW's and detainies, hide in churches, use children to deliver bombs, and suicide bombers we might be able to demoralize them enough to put an end to this, but that is not the moral way to do it, so we won't. Thats what seperates us from them.

Yes I understand that war tactics now are very different than 40 or 50 years ago, but my point was that people can not expect to resolve the terrorist issue and the problems in Iraq by bombing them into submission, much more needs to be done, and the current plan for Iraq appears to lack any plans other than that. I was trying to state that the whole eye for an eye tooth for a tooth thing doesn't usually work and that United world political pressure and united cooperation is often underestimated. But does that mean I think if the US is in imminent danger from a known target, or has been attacked that we should sit by and let it happen? Hell no, but You said it your self Instability breeds terrorism, would you say Iraq is more stable now? It clearly isnt so isnt that breeding more terrorism?, which poses a large threat to U.S forces and our own domestic safety. Its a very difficult situation and I for one don't have a working plan to resolve this issue, but I also will not be on the ballot this November

[Glenn B]

Hmm, I seem to remember we occupied Germany for quite a while. Not just Korea.
[QUOTE=Kejtar]Wake up and smell the cofee. You know why France was so opposed to the war? cause they were making money before it started. Even thou the Iraqi airforce was a joke, isn't it odd that the planes (Mirage) were in operating condition with new spare parts? Also I remember reading something about some shady oil transactions that involved France...
And in regards to removing him from power... welll the removal was rather painless but there were (are) few that after wanted to stir up trouble nad their did. I think that if the "few" who stir up trouble and recruit the foot soldiers weren't there... the local government would be happily operating with next to no US help. Anyways, hindsight is 20/20 foresight (or something like that). Oh btw, wasn't Kerry one of the supporters of military action in Iraq? and then suddendly he's against it? Kind of like he was for the war in Vietnam and then later when political winds changed he was against it? Is that who you'd want of a president? Someone whose opinion changes with the change in the direction the wind blows?[/QUOTE

The issue of Kerry changing his mind on issues, is over played and very misleading. The biggest thing that people try and stick to him is that he voted for the war and then voted against it, if you dig deeper into that issue the change in his vote has to do with the topic he was voting on, the second time that it came to him voting for the war there had been something close to 40 amendments and changes, so Kerry decided to vote against it. This has been the case more than once which can account for the supposed "flip flopping"

The biggest issue wish Bush has to be the situation in Iraq, lets go get them before they get us and then bomb them into submission. Other than in WWII in Japan, when has that policy ever worked. WWII the allies bombed Germany to rubble but it took the Soviets heavy casualties fighting door to door to win. Remember when the US had felt the need to contain communism around the world before it spread so we took preemtive measures in Korea, and Vietnam, and we lost alot of men, and dropped millions of bombs and yet never got the desired outcome that we had envisioned. Sure people can make the argument that South Korea is still free, but last check it was still a militarized zone. Using logic like that, Saddam is out of Iraq and the people are now free, but what if we need to keep troops there for the next 50 or so years like in Korea. Is that really a success. How about the terroist problem Russia is having right now, a good number of those Terrorists are coming from Chechnya, so what have the Russians done, they have been there for years now, bombed just about every inch , and have been as ruthless and destructive as a country can be, all for the sake of beating them into submission, and so far is ha been a big failure.

Making the country safe by sheer brute force around the world doesn't work, which is why international politics are so important and is why the U.N needs serious help. The U.N has become a joke, and I think the U.S and other Countries really need to work on this

[Goatman]

I fear for the future of this country under the leadership of Bush.


I feel exactly the same way about Kerry.

Additionally, the prospects of what will happen to access to public lands under Kerry/Edwards is scary, and is a major issue. It was said earlier in this thread that trail protection shouldn't be a major issue compared with other issues, or something to that effect, when considering who to vote for. I disagree.

Internal policies are at least as important, or more important, than foreign policy issues. The gradual and systematic removal of access to public land is a trend that WILL impact future generations, and to some of us it is a very important issue. The economy will go through it's cycles, and health care and welfare issues will always be with us, and the tax code will be modified periodically forever. But, once hard policy has been set to make some huge piece of land inaccessable, it is gone forever.

Some of you further east may not have much land to use, but further west there are millions of acres of wonderful places to see, that will never be seen by many future generations if motorized access is denied. Only a relative handful of people will ever backpack into these places, so motorized access IS very important. Whatever the other issues are, the Bush Administration has worked hard against the cycle that has been used by both green groups and by overzealous greens in the Forest Service and BLM. The cycle is to work hard to close access to major areas, forcing over use in smaller poplular areas, which then can't be maintained properly with Forest Service/BLM resources, which then in turn are closed due to a lack of ability to keep them pristine. Recreationists suffered huge losses under the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration has worked hard to reverse the trend in a way that has some chance of being sustained. A Kerry/Edwards administration would be a devastaing blow to the people that have worked very hard to protect our right to access, and to the policies that have been implemented in the last couple of years.

What anyone other than Bush would have actually done in Iraq is pure speculation. What Congress will do about a variety of other issues under a different administration is anybody's guess. What a Democratic President who is obligated to and swayed by the unbalanced positions and goals of green groups is very predictable. Kerry and Edwards are very liberal, and no matter what anyone thinks about the benefits or detriments of a liberal ideology, liberals are usually lead blindly down the primrose path of environmental issues by the slanted and many times untruthful presentations of environmental group leaders.

I have other issues that I feel strongly about that influence my political views and who I vote for, that I don't have inclination to discuss here. I do, however, want to stress that land use is easily as important an issue as any others that anyone wants to declare as important.

[XJJPR]

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv


hinkley

BTW it is not 200b is't 120b. Sept hasn't cost 80b yet!

[Darky]

Kerry served very faithfully in the Vietnam War. He got 3 purple hearts in 2 months and didn't even take any sick days. What a trooper! And he's persistent too. When his superiors didn't want to write him up for the purple hearts, he wrote himself up. But he is very in touch with what the rest of the country is thinking, very flexible to adapt to what the country thinks. When he returned from Vietnam and saw the state the nation was in and how the war was tearing us apart, his pride in his service quickly turned to disgust. His "hard-earned" medals meant nothing to him and he threw them over the White House fence to show our leaders how angry he was at the atrocities he and his fellow sailors and soldiers had committed. He was awarded a Silver Star as well as a Bronze Star, yet he was only in Vietnam for 2 months! Now that is one valiant man. But he is committed to honesty and the truth. He had his citation rewritten twice for his Silver Star, even though it can only be rewritten in the case of incorrect info (wrong events, incorrect name, etc). He just wanted to simplify it. Make it less misleading. First it said he grounded his boat after a near miss from an RPG and leapt ashore to chase down and kill the fleeing VC soldier who had fired at them. Then he had it rewritten to say he had actually leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area. The final revision said he had leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area and they found a cluster of enemy soldiers and engaged them. That is the man I want leading our nation.

[Darky]

PS that entire post was meant to be sarcastic. Just wanted to let everyone know. My info comes from opinion based on info reported at http://kerry-04.com

[Ramsey]

Kerry served very faithfully in the Vietnam War. He got 3 purple hearts in 2 months and didn't even take any sick days. What a trooper! And he's persistent too. When his superiors didn't want to write him up for the purple hearts, he wrote himself up. But he is very in touch with what the rest of the country is thinking, very flexible to adapt to what the country thinks. When he returned from Vietnam and saw the state the nation was in and how the war was tearing us apart, his pride in his service quickly turned to disgust. His "hard-earned" medals meant nothing to him and he threw them over the White House fence to show our leaders how angry he was at the atrocities he and his fellow sailors and soldiers had committed. He was awarded a Silver Star as well as a Bronze Star, yet he was only in Vietnam for 2 months! Now that is one valiant man. But he is committed to honesty and the truth. He had his citation rewritten twice for his Silver Star, even though it can only be rewritten in the case of incorrect info (wrong events, incorrect name, etc). He just wanted to simplify it. Make it less misleading. First it said he grounded his boat after a near miss from an RPG and leapt ashore to chase down and kill the fleeing VC soldier who had fired at them. Then he had it rewritten to say he had actually leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area. The final revision said he had leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area and they found a cluster of enemy soldiers and engaged them. That is the man I want leading our nation.
wow he sounds like a true hero who should be running our country

[Osprey413]

So what exactly has Bush done in the way of military service?

[Darky]

Well, he's never met with Communist leaders from a nation we're at war with while still in the service. This is unofficial, not for any kind of peace talks or anything. It was Kerry's personal decision.Upon entering the Navy in 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year contract (plus a six-month extension during wartime) and an Officer Candidate contract for five years of active duty and active Naval Reserve. This indicates that Kerry was clearly a commissioned officer at the time of his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris -- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. btw according to the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of our Constitution, this would make him ineligible for any public office...
Um, Bush isn't featured in the Saigon War Remnants Museum, fka War Crimes Museum. Kerry is. Bush served in the Air National Guard, which isn't the reserves as quote by some one else. Bush may not have as colorful of a history as Kerry, but he at least doesn't have transgressions like those in his background. Nor did he stab his fellow servicemen in the back by testifying to Congress that they had all committed war crimes on a daily basis. I know bad stuff happened, but saying everyone did it and knew of it is wrong.

[Darky]

So what exactly has Bush done in the way of military service?
Is that your best response to this? You're told Kerry changes with the changing winds on issues he now uses to bolster himself as a war hero, implicated himself as a war criminal and yet still thinks he is fit to run our nation or even be involved with the policy of our nation and you're only response is, "what's Bush's military serivce?"

[Urban Redneck]

Some thoughts on all of this crap.
1. "Bush dodged the draft" Since when is serving in ANG, dodging the draft? Clinton goes to England, doesn't serve anywhere...that's dodging the draft.

2. "Bush dragged us to war against Saddam with bad intel." This is the same intel Clinton used to blow up an asprin factory, while getting a BJ in the Oval Office. It was the gospel then, why should it be different now.

3. "Bush should have gone to the UN." Are you going to go to the local neighborhood watch group when someone threatens to kill you, or are you going to take the fight to them on your terms? Want a good look at what the All Knowing, All Powerful UN can do? Look at the hurricain relief effort in Haiti. They were rioting during the food delieveries, almost turning over the trucks, not enoough supplies. The UN couldn't find their collective ass with both hands. Do I want to listen to any group of idiots that elects Communist China as a head of human rights? Give me a break.

4. "The election was stolen." Show me one person who was denied the right to vote in Florida. Just one. Not someone who "thinks" they were denied, because being denied and voting for the wrong person cuz you don't know how or take the time to read the ballot are not the same.

It's pretty damn funny that everyone who bashes Bush uses all the examples of what he did/didn't do and the exact same items pertain to Clinton, but he was the "Greatest" thing since sliced bread.

[Ramsey]

sliced bread really isnt all the big a deal, personally i prefer a solid loaf and tearing off a piece. does anyone else think the election is going to be this big of a landslide as it is in this poll. i hope so, that would be great, not just for him to win , but to completely crush kerry. of course he will probably start crying about chad and all his buddies about they went around confusing people and whispering from them to vote the wrong way

[steve01XJ]

The election will not be a landslide this year. Likely it will be decided once again by a few critical states. The bad news for Bush is that the critical states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. If Kerry wins these, the Democrats will win without Florida being a factor.

What will motivate these voters? I am betting on the economy being the issue. I believe that many of these voters have not seen the sense in spending $200 billion on a war because Saddam was a bad guy. That is essentially what the Republicans have been reduced to as far as justification for the war goes. Many of these voters packed up their plants' equipment to ship their own jobs overseas under a system which incents this behavior. Tax incentives and tax cuts mean nothing to the unemployed, and there is no Republican platform which addresses job growth. All these voters see is that their needs are not being met in this economy.

For those voters who care about foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy at the point of a gun is not going to be well received by the Iraqis. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake and will cost the US taxpayer a fortune, not to mention the loss of life, and the instability it is causing in the energy markets.

At the end of the day, lots of people are unemployed or underemployed, without health care benefits, and gas costs over $2 a gallon. The rates of unemployment are irrelevant and cannot be compared year over year, as they do not take into account the thousands of people who have given up looking for a job. The discontented people in the Midwest are the true swing voters who carry the balance of the election in their hands this year. It will be a 52-48 Kerry win in the popular vote and Kerry will win the electoral vote by a slim margin - without winning Florida. The events in the Middle East are out of sight and out of mind for the people in the US who do not have a job.

[Darky]

The election will not be a landslide this year. Likely it will be decided once again by a few critical states. The bad news for Bush is that the critical states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. If Kerry wins these, the Democrats will win without Florida being a factor.

What will motivate these voters? I am betting on the economy being the issue. I believe that many of these voters have not seen the sense in spending $200 billion on a war because Saddam was a bad guy. That is essentially what the Republicans have been reduced to as far as justification for the war goes. Many of these voters packed up their plants' equipment to ship their own jobs overseas under a system which incents this behavior. Tax incentives and tax cuts mean nothing to the unemployed, and there is no Republican platform which addresses job growth. All these voters see is that their needs are not being met in this economy.

For those voters who care about foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy at the point of a gun is not going to be well received by the Iraqis. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake and will cost the US taxpayer a fortune, not to mention the loss of life, and the instability it is causing in the energy markets.

At the end of the day, lots of people are unemployed or underemployed, without health care benefits, and gas costs over $2 a gallon. The rates of unemployment are irrelevant and cannot be compared year over year, as they do not take into account the thousands of people who have given up looking for a job. The discontented people in the Midwest are the true swing voters who carry the balance of the election in their hands this year. It will be a 52-48 Kerry win in the popular vote and Kerry will win the electoral vote by a slim margin - without winning Florida. The events in the Middle East are out of sight and out of mind for the people in the US who do not have a job.
Wow, this guy can see the future! Tell me, when will I get promoted? I think the $200billion number has already been debated and shown wrong. Its 120billion. And so far you haven't shown how its Bush's fault for companies being cheap and wanting to ship jobs over seas where they can pay their employees a lot less. Kerry wants to spend money to raise minmum wage. While that sounds good in theory what happens then? Companies raise prices (those few that still are based here) and convenience stores and supermarkets raise prices to compensate for the larger amount of money being spent on payroll. Other cpmpanies raise prices because now people have more money. Manufacturing companies send more manufacturing jobs overseas to where the minimum wage is lower or non-existent (same thing that they do now) so they get cheaper labor and bigger profits. Corporate greed isn't the fault of the President. Bush or Clinton or, Heaven forbid, Kerry. I despise Clinton, but I'd re-elect him before electing Kerry cuz he at least has a VP with political experience. Not the 5 yrs John Edwards has spent in Senate. That's all his experience in the political arena. Beforehand he was a personal injury lawyer. One of the guys that sues home owners when burgulars hurt themselves on their property. I don't want someone with 5 yrs political experience as next in line for Pres...

[RedBluff]

W

How could anybody vote for a man that calls Jessie Jackson and Ted Kennedy his advisors? A man that has devoted his life to dividing the races and profiting from it and another man that ran and cost a young woman her life. All 3 of them are friggins cowards. I want a president tha cares about my country not about what foreign leaders think about my country.
Them bastards in Europe can pound sand for all I care. We have already had bail thier butts out of 2 wars and what have they learned?

[BornAgainXJer]

I hope thats a ###### joke, because if you would cast a vote that irresponsibly, and disregard the thousands of REAL issues, so you can focus on the candidate that will better ensure you can get your hand-me-down xj dirty on the weekends, makes me glad there's a voting age in this country
amen brother

[steve01XJ]

W

How could anybody vote for a man that calls Jessie Jackson and Ted Kennedy his advisors? A man that has devoted his life to dividing the races and profiting from it and another man that ran and cost a young woman her life. All 3 of them are friggins cowards. I want a president tha cares about my country not about what foreign leaders think about my country.
Them bastards in Europe can pound sand for all I care. We have already had bail thier butts out of 2 wars and what have they learned?


So, how did attacking Iraq demonstrate care for our country? They were no threat to us. People like me ask why, and people like you would rather talk about Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson than answer the question.

This is why political discussion is futile in the age of the pundit. When someone is asked to be held accountable for their decisions, the response is to veer off topic in an attempt to deflect the criticism, ala Rush, Hannity, and yes, Franken and Rather.

It's not about Europe, Kennedy, the UN, or Clinton. It is a referendum on the last four years of W. Who can defend the last four years as successful at anything? The only thing W has had success in is arrogantly pursuing a failed agenda.

[xjj33p3r]

So, how did attacking Iraq demonstrate care for our country? They were no threat to us. People like me ask why, and people like you would rather talk about Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson than answer the question.

This is why political discussion is futile in the age of the pundit. When someone is asked to be held accountable for their decisions, the response is to veer off topic in an attempt to deflect the criticism, ala Rush, Hannity, and yes, Franken and Rather.

It's not about Europe, Kennedy, the UN, or Clinton. It is a referendum on the last four years of W. Who can defend the last four years as successful at anything? The only thing W has had success in is arrogantly pursuing a failed agenda.

Well, Bush has clearly said on many occassions that he had bad intelligence. That's the end of that. There was no dodging. He had bad intelligence, oh well, he caugh Saddam who was funding terrorists like Osama.

And maybe it's true that Iraq was no threat to us, but I guess when someone else in another country is down, it's not right to help them. But when someone needs help over here,lets say a welfare check or two, it's ok because they can't work for some reason. I'd rather save a country and promote a democracy than just let them all die from a dictator.

[Boatwrench]

Wow...

A couple of comments...
You can't become a fighter pilot by only doing four days in the National Guard...no matter who your dad is.
I have seven months of page 7's documenting not reporting for a medical appointment...big deal Bush has 1.
Arnold Schwartzeneger (sic) stated when he announced his run for CA Govenor on Jay Leno that Ted Kennedy was one of his advisors.
The election results won't be anything like this unscientific poll...this forum is probably inhabited by a more conservative populace than say a pot growers forum which would have Kerry winning in a land slide.
Today was the 1st day you could cast absentee votes in California.

Tom

[XJJPR]

So, how did attacking Iraq demonstrate care for our country? They were no threat to us.

Now, even kerry says he was a threat to us and the world. How can you say this, saddam was a threat to his own people.

hinkley

[Darky]

How does talking about who Kerry's mentors and advisors are reflect on him? It tells us who he looks up to and who he takes advice from and who has shaped his persona and ideologies. As far as it being Bush's fault we're in Iraq for what everyone likes to call a lie: "Well, I think the situation in Iraq is a very serious one. Saddam Hussein hates the United States. He's been involved in developing weapons of mass destruction. He's ignored the terms of the cease-fire agreement. He won't allow the weapons inspectors, our weapons inspectors, into the country. So we have a very serious problem there. And we cannot allow him to continue in this effort to develop and foster weapons of mass destruction. And I think the bottom line is it's very difficult to imagine a situation where the world is secure, the United States is secure, while Saddam Hussein is still in power. So, I think how we go about it, the timing of how we go about it, our judgments will have to be made when we finish what we're doing right now. But the reality is, he's a very serious threat to the security of the United States, to the security of the region and, in fact, to the security of the world."

He also acknowledged in October 2003 that he "didn't get misled" about the war by the Bush administration. Edwards claimed in February 2003 not only that he would have gone forward without total UN support, saying Saddam had "not disarmed, the evidence is overwhelming. ... This guy has to be disarmed," but that he would have done it BEFORE 9/11! "We know that he has biological [weapons], we know that he has chemical [weapons]. ... We also know that every single day that goes by he's increasing the likelihood of having nuclear capability," Edwards added. He proclaimed in September 2002 that "I don't think we should be bound by what the United Nations does." What does Bush have to show for his 4 yrs? A liberated Iraq, a liberated Afghanistan, a scrambled Al Qaeda, keeping this country rather stable after the cowardly attacks on 9/11, he's had pretty good approval ratings, even with all the hoopla about ANG and Iraq. Besides, I think Bush's one instance of being AWOL is a much better track record than betraying your fellow sailors and soldiers who are still fighting by coming home after only 2 months with 3 Purple Hearts that didn't even require him to take a day off and recover, and then accusing them of all kinds of horrible acts and protesting against what they are over there still dying for.

[Goatman]

It's not about Europe, Kennedy, the UN, or Clinton. It is a referendum on the last four years of W. Who can defend the last four years as successful at anything? The only thing W has had success in is arrogantly pursuing a failed agenda.

As stated earlier, the Bush administration has made some major improvements in the governments policies regarding land use issues. The previous administration went way overboard in supporting the agendas of over zealous environmentalists both in the governemnt and in environmental groups. Bush has worked very smartly, and quietly, to reverse that trend.

Bush is a friend to recreationists, and Kerry/Edwards will not be. Regardless of your other opinions and positions, you'd think that would at least count for something on a jeep forum.

If polititions continue to pander to radical environmental and land use agendas, our grandchildren will only be able to see much of our great outdoors in coffee table picture books. I consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I have backpacked in the Sierra's, sometimes with my kids, and really enjoy it. However, I don't think it's right to only allow those very few who are able and willing to packback into remote areas the opportunity to enjoy them. My back and knee won't allow me to do that anymore, and now I have grandchildren that I want to go exploring with, and I need to do it in my Jeep.

Some of you may have no presonal experience with these issues, but I have numerous trails within a few hours drive that where closed to access within the eight years of Clinton/Gore. Now, I'm not just blaming them, it's a general trend of politicians and land managers in the Forest Service and BLM who have green agendas, but the Clinton administration enabled them, and it needs to be stopped, and Bush is working to do that. Kerry and Edwards will allow the radical enviros to have their way again.

I think the war is important, and I think welfare and social security are important, as is my neighbors job, but those things will be argued by politicians (and you guys) indefinitely. The fact that I can't go in my Jeep where I once could, and am at risk of being shut out of more areas because of bad science and radical personal agendas, is very close to home to me and is a major political issue. The facts here are hard to argue with, unlike the other subjects you all have been bantering back and forth on.

If people on a Jeep forum say that the future of how our public lands are managed is NOT an important enough issue to be considered in an election, then you guys need to get your heads out of the sand, and definitely your asses out of the garage. You do a disservice to the many, many wheelers and other recreationists who spend more time being politically active than they do recreating to protect YOUR interests.

OK, now back to your marginally meaningful discussion of other "real" issues.

[rockwerks]

As stated earlier, the Bush administration has made some major improvements in the governments policies regarding land use issues. The previous administration went way overboard in supporting the agendas of over zealous environmentalists both in the governemnt and in environmental groups. Bush has worked very smartly, and quietly, to reverse that trend.

Bush is a friend to recreationists, and Kerry/Edwards will not be. Regardless of your other opinions and positions, you'd think that would at least count for something on a jeep forum.

If polititions continue to pander to radical environmental and land use agendas, our grandchildren will only be able to see much of our great outdoors in coffee table picture books. I consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I have backpacked in the Sierra's, sometimes with my kids, and really enjoy it. However, I don't think it's right to only allow those very few who are able and willing to packback into remote areas the opportunity to enjoy them. My back and knee won't allow me to do that anymore, and now I have grandchildren that I want to go exploring with, and I need to do it in my Jeep.

Some of you may have no presonal experience with these issues, but I have numerous trails within a few hours drive that where closed to access within the eight years of Clinton/Gore. Now, I'm not just blaming them, it's a general trend of politicians and land managers in the Forest Service and BLM who have green agendas, but the Clinton administration enabled them, and it needs to be stopped, and Bush is working to do that. Kerry and Edwards will allow the radical enviros to have their way again.

I think the war is important, and I think welfare and social security are important, as is my neighbors job, but those things will be argued by politicians (and you guys) indefinitely. The fact that I can't go in my Jeep where I once could, and am at risk of being shut out of more areas because of bad science and radical personal agendas, is very close to home to me and is a major political issue. The facts here are hard to argue with, unlike the other subjects you all have been bantering back and forth on.

If people on a Jeep forum say that the future of how our public lands are managed is NOT an important enough issue to be considered in an election, then you guys need to get your heads out of the sand, and definitely your asses out of the garage. You do a disservice to the many, many wheelers and other recreationists who spend more time being politically active than they do recreating to protect YOUR interests.

OK, now back to your marginally meaningful discussion of other "real" issues.

I have to totally agree with Goatman on this one
probably a first for me and him.LOL but the written enviromental agenda for Kerry is worse than Clintons. Including a ban on all non major roads through all national forests and publically owned lands. No watercraft in lakes in national forests and sensitive areas. etc checkit out here.


http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/issue-environment.html (http://)

[steve01XJ]

What does Bush have to show for his 4 yrs? A liberated Iraq, a liberated Afghanistan, a scrambled Al Qaeda, keeping this country rather stable after the cowardly attacks on 9/11, he's had pretty good approval ratings, even with all the hoopla about ANG and Iraq. Besides, I think Bush's one instance of being AWOL is a much better track record than betraying your fellow sailors and soldiers who are still fighting by coming home after only 2 months with 3 Purple Hearts that didn't even require him to take a day off and recover, and then accusing them of all kinds of horrible acts and protesting against what they are over there still dying for.[/QUOTE]

A liberated Iraq?? You must be kidding. Yes Saddam is gone, but now three factions are now fighting Americans for control of the country. A liberated Afghanistan? Maybe to some degree, but their leader is still surrounded by armed guards around the clock. Doesn't really speak well to the "stability" we have created there either. As a matter of fact, the oil price situation was more stable before the invasions than it is now. As for Al Qaeda.... well, they may be scrambled a bit, but they are still as big if not a bigger threat than they were before. Just think if we had not invaded Iraq and instead put even a small fraction of those resources into tracking down Osama Bin Forgotten - or jobs for Americans (who don't work for Halliburton) for that matter.

As for the AWOL and swift boat stuff - who cares. This should be about the issues. The world is a more dangerous place today than it was four years ago, and our economy is worse than it was four years ago. And wheeling doesn't much come into play as a voting issue for me if it costs me $2.25 a gallon for gas and I can't afford to take a trip to Moab anyway.

[Gridikal]

Hmm well personally, I think the FAR left can just hop in their time machine and go back to 9/10/01 and stay there for all I care. The FAR right should conceed that there is more to matters than just terrorism. If we lose the economy while fighting terrorism, ( which I think is a must- I'd rather fight them oversees rather than in my back yard) then the attacks on 9/11 have succeeded. They wanted to topple our economy while killing as many people as possible. For all we know they are sitting over there laughing at us because were divided on the issue of fighting them- meanwhile they continue doing what they do best- I think there is no perfect answer. As for everyone in between the extremes, I wonder if we would have done if we had the same intel as the guy sitting in the oval office. -but its the presidents job to justify what he has done- I dont doubt him because as a civiliian, I dont have all the info- he just needs to work on proving it a little better is all.

[Economos]

Besides, I think Bush's one instance of being AWOL is a much better track record than betraying your fellow sailors and soldiers who are still fighting by coming home after only 2 months with 3 Purple Hearts that didn't even require him to take a day off and recover, and then accusing them of all kinds of horrible acts and protesting against what they are over there still dying for.

Kerry didn't protest the sacrifices of the soldiers in Vietnam; he protested the policies in which the war was being run by and he criticised the bureaucrats who were calling the shots from their airconditioned offices back in DC while good men died in their wake. And if you don't think there were atrocious acts committed during Vietnam, go research the Mei Lei Massacre.

[Urban Redneck]

A liberated Afghanistan? Maybe to some degree, but their leader is still surrounded by armed guards around the clock. Doesn't really speak well to the "stability" we have created there either.


So, let me get this right. Kerry gave up his Secret Service detail? NO? Or since Bush and Kerry both have Secret Service details, with full auto arms, that America is unstable? Because the Mayor of every major city has armed bodyguards, is every city in America unstable? Name me one Head of State of any country that doesn't have an armed detail, around the clock. Go back into your bomb shelter, turn on Air America and watch out for the black helicopters. Oh wait, I forgot...Air America doesn't have any more stations carrying it, oh, maybe 1.

[Beezil]

naxja is voting for bush by 73%....

I fig'erd it'd be 81 percent.

[Osprey413]

Well, look at the national polls. It is almost 50-50, and think of all the silent Kerry voters. I don't think that there are any silent Bush voters, because they never know when to shut up.

[Urban Redneck]

Well, look at the national polls. It is almost 50-50, and think of all the silent Kerry voters. I don't think that there are any silent Bush voters, because they never know when to shut up.


Yeah, the "silent" Kerry voters...like in Chicago. Don't matter if you're dead, you still vote Demo-crap-tic...

[rockwerks]

Well, look at the national polls. It is almost 50-50, and think of all the silent Kerry voters. I don't think that there are any silent Bush voters, because they never know when to shut up.


Well the electorial college projection from rassmussen report (who has not been wrong on an ellection) has bush with 321 electorial votes and kerry at 200.

remember the electorial is what matters. if a higher percentage of popular vote goes to one candidate the he receives all the votes for that state. right now Bush owns all the major swing states.

Actually it is proven in past elections that the majority of people who actually answer the questions when called are liberal and democrat. Republicans have better things to do than answer polls

[Ramsey]

Republicans have better things to do than answer polls
like enjoy the outdoors before the liberals take away that too

[Yucca-Man]

Kerry didn't protest the sacrifices of the soldiers in Vietnam; he protested the policies in which the war was being run by and he criticised the bureaucrats who were calling the shots from their airconditioned offices back in DC while good men died in their wake. And if you don't think there were atrocious acts committed during Vietnam, go research the Mei Lei Massacre.You sure you want to stand with that answer?

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. Of course, many of those stories are just that...stories. Several of the "veterans" did not serve, or if they served it was other than in Vietnam. Others who testified and were in-country were in support roles far from the action, including one who recently swore an affidavit that his "testimony" was coerced and fake. No, John Kerry engineered his return trip home, and after doing so he spit in the faces of Americans who were and who had served honorably by selling them out to the North Vietnamese propaganda machine. Of course, he also MET with the North Vietnamese at a time when he was still reportable to the Naval Reserves and in doing so broke several US laws...but that's still no problem for Kerry apologists, is it?

Edited to add time and place of his testimony so we can pin him to a statement at a specific juncture in the space-time continuum...

[choppedzj]

sounds great guys. I got out of the Navy (seabee's) last october because I wanted to be able to be with my wife who I just married. I'm 25 and spent 6 years in the service. I just got a letter a couple of weeks ago and it was a questionnare about possibly calling me up in Jan 05 and how I felt about it. Well, I think it really (your choice of prfanity) sucks! I volunteered to serve my country against enemies foriegn and domestic. But, not for money. I can understand going after O'sama in afghanistan, but we had a huge detour by going to Iraq. I heard someone point out it's like a cop getting a call about a shooting in progress and then seeing a car double parked and going and writing a ticket. I may have butchered that a little but hopefully you got it. I was so ate up when I was in that I would've thought anyone deserved to get smoked has the gov't said it so. Now, I have lost that mentality and think this is pure scandal and crap. It comes down to which is the lesser evil. My wife is heart broken about the possibility of me going over. I don't want to make Bush any more rich nor do I want to let my fellow service men down. Poor decisions have lost over a thousand men and women for what?? Military assets should not be expended on a person's ambition to become more rich. My life is worth more than that. Other service men and women's lives are worth more than that. My buddies off Air Det were bragging when they returned from Iraq in spring of this year. They have it all backwards. They were just looking forward to the excitement of combat and war. I was there to. But not anymore. I know I've babbled alot but I hope that you don't vote thinking to yourself, a thousand dead aint that bad. If you haven't served and you think something like that. May God have mercy upon your soul. Because I won't. I support our members of the service. But, I don't support Bush and his freaking hidden agenda killing our service men and women.
God bless you all

[Darky]

Economos: I know there were bad things happeneing, I'm not disputing that. What I said was that accusing everyone over there fighting and dying of committing crimes like those is wrong. I know not everyone was a good well behaved soldier or Marine. But I also know that not everyone, in fact I'd say not even a majority were doing the things he spoke of. If you read the first writeup for his Silver Star it sounds very much like he himself chased down and shot a fleeing enemy in the back. But then he had it rewritten not once but twice to get rid of the "yucky" stuff that could make him look bad. If people want to read some stuff about Kerry, his past, and his present, check out this site (http://kerry-04.org/). Its got some cool info. Yes it is partisan but if you think they'd be able to get away with making up every bit of info there, you're delusional.

[Yucca-Man]

They gave yo ua questionnaire asking if you wanted to come back? crap - you've still got two obligated years...you are theirs if they want you, questionnaire or not. If I follow your ramblings, you are trying to say that the entire Iraq war was really just a way of fulfilling a "hidden Bush agenda" to kill troops? Ummm...yeah.

[choppedzj]

i think your igonorance proceeds you. A hidden agenda to suck the oil right out of Iraq and for Bush to capitalize on it. So please read more in depth. Did you serve. Would you die for oil. Do you meet the weight and height requirements to even enlist.

[Glenn B]

They gave yo ua questionnaire asking if you wanted to come back? crap - you've still got two obligated years...you are theirs if they want you, questionnaire or not. If I follow your ramblings, you are trying to say that the entire Iraq war was really just a way of fulfilling a "hidden Bush agenda" to kill troops? Ummm...yeah.
That is how I read it too. Unfortunate outlook.

A person enlists, and obligates themselves for a number of years, some active, some subject to recall. That is just the way it works, and is absolutely no surprise. If one is subject to recall to active duty, I wish you the best of luck, but stand tall and do what you agreed to do. Be the best you can and look out for your fellow soldiers, sailors, marines.... even airmen.

You have a duty to do, and a specific job. As much as that may suck, politics is not part of that.

[Glenn B]

i think your igonorance proceeds you. A hidden agenda to suck the oil right out of Iraq and for Bush to capitalize on it. So please read more in depth. Did you serve. Would you die for oil. Do you meet the weight and height requirements to even enlist.
Lets stay civil. No sense getting this thread nuked with personal insults.

[choppedzj]

Thankyou glen, I did enlist and yes I will stand tall. I just wish it was for a better cause. I like the order you put the branches in. Pretty comical. I'll go to Iraq for what I think is write to do and for my obligation, but I'll always have that thought of what I'm there to do. Iraqi elections are in Jan 05, I think this is why we're going.

[Darky]

chopped: Yucca-Man did serve. He was in the Marine Corps. If you wanna know how I knew that its in his interests and on his webpage. I still don't see how Bush is getting rich off Iraq. The one who hadties with Halliburton is Cheney. He was their CEO but no longer stands to benefit in anyway from their profits or lack thereof.
Your ignorance precedes you, choppedzj. What the saying means is your ignorance is so great, it arrives ahead of you. Hence precedes, not proceeds. And as Yucca said, you still have 2 more years of obligated service. Read your contract. Its 8 yrs obligated service. I've known plenty of buddies get caught by stop loss and have to stay in longer. I've known some who got out and were called back in. Were they peeved? Yes, but they did their jobs. You should know this, and so should your wife. My wife has had the details explained to her and she supports me and knows I may have to go away. She wouldn't like it but she accepts that's the sacrifice you make. And I think its ironic that a sailor is questioning a retired Marine as to whther he meets the weight requirements...I've known some chunky sailors. :D

[Darky]

ps, good luck if you do end up havin to go tho.

[choppedzj]

thanks, and yes we have some pretty heavy fellas. It's my opinion as to what i think is going on over there. If you go and I do as well maybe we'll both see up highway 8 the pipes being driven in to pump the oil out. I apologize for putting a retired marine down. But that's 20 years of brainwashing talking to me!!

[choppedzj]

Yucca-man
thankyou for giving all those years to the corps. I was thinking out of pure emotion and not of thought.

One more thing guys, I will go and serve! There is no way around it. I'll do my best and don't want you guys thinking that I won't go and bail to Canada. Eventhough it's nice up there.

[Glenn B]

...............

[Darky]

Just to throw it out there since everyone believes Bush was alone in thinking Saddam had WMDs and that he lied to us...Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...." Apparently John Kerry thought Saddam was a threat and had WMDs also...there's an e-mail going around that has a whole list of Democrat Senators and politicians and quotes from them stating their belief that Saddam is a threat and has WMDs.

[red91]

Just to throw it out there since everyone believes Bush was alone in thinking Saddam had WMDs and that he lied to us... Apparently John Kerry thought Saddam was a threat and had WMDs also...there's an e-mail going around that has a whole list of Democrat Senators and politicians and quotes from them stating their belief that Saddam is a threat and has WMDs.


I'm pretty SURE...saddam didn't just ask the KURDS to take their ball and go home.

Ya know...the thing that ****es me off is that we can find mass graves all over IRAQ and AMERICANS think this is ok as long as we don't find the WMD's.
Where's the Human Rights commision, and why don't they say anything?

[Goatman]

i think your igonorance proceeds you. A hidden agenda to suck the oil right out of Iraq and for Bush to capitalize on it. So please read more in depth. Did you serve. Would you die for oil. Do you meet the weight and height requirements to even enlist.

I can't believe anyone actually thinks that.......it's absurd. A President of this nation sending people to war just to make his family money? Totally rediculous!! I think you're own ignorance is glaringly obvious. You can acuse the President of many things, and you can have any number of disagreements about the war, but to say it's to benefit the wealth of a family, or a particular company, is ignorant and naive.

Regardless of what I think about your opinion on the war, I appreciate your service to our country, and I hope you don't have to go back in.

[Yucca-Man]

FYI - I'm not retired..many years ago I made the poor decision to "show them" and walked away as a Sergeant of Marines from the greatest 12 years of my life. It looked like crap then but as I look back on it I realize I was a small cog in a greater thing. I've known Marines who didn't come back, and I know the families of others. I miss them all, even the ones I have never met but take umbrage at the fantasy-induced thoughts that they died in vain for some profit-driven hidden motive.

I hope you don't have to go, but if you do then keep your head down and do what you can to protect your fellow sailors, Marines, soldiers, even airmen and the people of Iraq.

[red91]

FYI - I'm not retired..many years ago I made the poor decision to "show them" and walked away as a Sergeant of Marines from the greatest 12 years of my life. It looked like crap then but as I look back on it I realize I was a small cog in a greater thing. I've known Marines who didn't come back, and I know the families of others. I miss them all, even the ones I have never met but take umbrage at the fantasy-induced thoughts that they died in vain for some profit-driven hidden motive.

Thank you for your serivce Yucca. :patriot:

I hope you don't have to go, but if you do then keep your head down and do what you can to protect your fellow sailors, Marines, soldiers, even airmen and the people of Iraq.

What he said.

[Economos]

Economos: I know there were bad things happeneing, I'm not disputing that. What I said was that accusing everyone over there fighting and dying of committing crimes like those is wrong. I know not everyone was a good well behaved soldier or Marine. But I also know that not everyone, in fact I'd say not even a majority were doing the things he spoke of. If you read the first writeup for his Silver Star it sounds very much like he himself chased down and shot a fleeing enemy in the back. But then he had it rewritten not once but twice to get rid of the "yucky" stuff that could make him look bad. If people want to read some stuff about Kerry, his past, and his present, check out this site (http://kerry-04.org/). Its got some cool info. Yes it is partisan but if you think they'd be able to get away with making up every bit of info there, you're delusional.

BlackSport, I think you missed my point here. While it is factual that US soldiers did committ war crimes, you also need to be aware that their commanding officers gave the orders. And the orders that were given to them, came from above and so-on... Along the way, mis-interpretation of orders occured and things got messy in some cases. I'm sure that in a lot of cases, soldiers acted on their own and that's no one's fault but their own. And what a lot of people forget about is the war crimes that the NVA and Vietcong committed against civilians and POWs.

Kerry's protests weren't directed to the average soldier fighting in Vietnam; they were directed to the people who were deciding how the war was being run - those who probably had no idea what it was like to fight an enemy like the NVA and Vietcong.

[Urban Redneck]

Where's the Human Rights commision, and why don't they say anything?

Is that being run by Libya or Communist China for the UN? And you wonder why they aren't saying anything...

I don't gave a rats ass on what Kerry "thought" when he spoke out when he came back. He bagged on his fellow soliders. Nuff said. Anyone who "commits a great act of heroism" to get a Bronze Star then goes back and films it is a total Asshat. And when did the Navy hand out Purple Hearts for getting rice imbedded in your ass by a flash bang you set off yourself? Kerry follows in the modern slogan of Demo-craps..."Don't ask what you can do for your country, demand what your country can do for you."

BTW, is Clinton going to be cutting the ribbon up in Canada for the "Ditchers of the War" monument? :greensmok

[red91]

Is that being run by Libya or Communist China for the UN? And you wonder why they aren't saying anything...

actually that would be sarcasm.

I don't gave a rats ass on what Kerry "thought" when he spoke out when he came back. He bagged on his fellow soliders. Nuff said. Anyone who "commits a great act of heroism" to get a Bronze Star then goes back and films it is a total Asshat. And when did the Navy hand out Purple Hearts for getting rice imbedded in your ass by a flash bang you set off yourself? Kerry follows in the modern slogan of Demo-craps..."Don't ask what you can do for your country, demand what your country can do for you."
amazing that he can tell of all the atrocities commited, but yet had nothing to do with them. Seems if he's calling one brother a murderer and a rapist, either he was there and a willing participant, or he's hmmmm LYING !!

BTW, is Clinton going to be cutting the ribbon up in Canada for the "Ditchers of the War" monument? :greensmok

Hillary won't let him.

[Goatman]

As for the AWOL and swift boat stuff - who cares. This should be about the issues. The world is a more dangerous place today than it was four years ago, and our economy is worse than it was four years ago. And wheeling doesn't much come into play as a voting issue for me if it costs me $2.25 a gallon for gas and I can't afford to take a trip to Moab anyway.


world is more dangerous........economy is worse........gas is too expensive.......I can't afford to wheel. :rattle: :rattle:

What a whiner......... :rolleyes:



Yeah, and this is the presidents fault. Terrorists, economic cycles, the world economy, and congress don't have anything to do with it.


Sorry bro', just sounds like a lot of whining to me.

[hjeepxj]

Kerry didn't protest the sacrifices of the soldiers in Vietnam; he protested the policies in which the war was being run by and he criticised the bureaucrats who were calling the shots from their airconditioned offices back in DC while good men died in their wake. And if you don't think there were atrocious acts committed during Vietnam, go research the Mei Lei Massacre.


They had airconditioning in the 60s?

:greensmok :laugh:

[Poison]

world is more dangerous........economy is worse........gas is too expensive.......I can't afford to wheel. :rattle: :rattle:

What a whiner......... :rolleyes:



Yeah, and this is the presidents fault. Terrorists, economic cycles, the world economy, and congress don't have anything to do with it.


Sorry bro', just sounds like a lot of whining to me.


So no effect on anything then why have one?

[CW]

The framers of the constitution purposfully made the executive branch the weakest of the three. Yes, they influence what legislation passes and overall policy but, it is rediculous to say it's the presidents fault for the high price of gas (which is still a lot less than the rest of the world pays) or the economy. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the tech. bubble burst are largely responsible for the slowing down of the economy, not the president.
If you like to go offroading there is one party that adresses your needs a lot better than the other. Trails are beginning to open up around here that were closed five or six years ago and I would hate to see them close up again.

[Osprey413]

The simply fact of the matter is that the Bush family has an overwhelming amount of stock in oil, and Cheney also has an overwhelming amount of stock in oil. To think that Bush didn't think about all the money he could make from this war is neive. Plus, this is a family war for Bush. Sadam threatened his father, so Bush believe's it is his duty to take revenge. We have liberated Iraq from Sadam, and that is it. Crime is up, terrorism is up, economy is down. Iraq is in a state of chaos because we went over there and destroyed their country.
Unfortunently all the Bush supporters keep on referring to a bunch of lies, that have been proven to be lies. Yes, many democrats voted "Yes" for the war in Iraq... when the plan was to disarm Sadam. Yes, many democrats then changed their minds about the war in Iraq... because the main purpose for the war changed. You Republicans keep on saying that the democrats changed their minds when it served them best, which is simply untrue.
I do not hate or bash the troops in Iraq, because they have no choice. I also know that there are troops in Iraq who are completely for and completely against the war in Iraq. So no one here who has served in the military can speak for the entire military. Bush is the reason we are there.

I am through arguing with you people about this subject. The bush supporters will always be bush supporters, and the kerry supporters will always be kerry supporters. My final comment is: In the next four years, Kerry or Bush, when we find out what Bush's actual reason for going into Iraq.... all I will have to say is "I told you so".

[Osprey413]

I just read CW's post that I must respond to. It is the president's fault that gas prices are higher, and it is the presidents fault that we are in Iraq. You know why? Because Bush didn't have approval from congress to go into Iraq, which legally makes this not a war. Bush is solely responsable for our action in Iraq.

[Glenn B]

I just read CW's post that I must respond to. It is the president's fault that gas prices are higher, and it is the presidents fault that we are in Iraq. You know why? Because Bush didn't have approval from congress to go into Iraq, which legally makes this not a war. Bush is solely responsable for our action in Iraq.
Can you show me some verifiable proof that President Bush has raised the gas prices? Likewise, how much would the junior Sen. from Mass be lowering that price, and on what timeline?

As for Iraq. Huh?? Even Kerry said he voted for it, and approved it... in one of his positions.

[Economos]

They had airconditioning in the 60s?

:greensmok :laugh:

Hell if I know mate, I was born in '82. :dunce: :D

[Poison]

The framers of the constitution purposfully made the executive branch the weakest of the three. Yes, they influence what legislation passes and overall policy but, it is rediculous to say it's the presidents fault for the high price of gas (which is still a lot less than the rest of the world pays) or the economy. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the tech. bubble burst are largely responsible for the slowing down of the economy, not the president.
If you like to go offroading there is one party that adresses your needs a lot better than the other. Trails are beginning to open up around here that were closed five or six years ago and I would hate to see them close up again.



I want to vote for the man that will do the best for the USA and it's people, not what's best for their party. Don't see that happening with either man, gotta keep that party money coming in......

[Poison]

They had airconditioning in the 60s?

:greensmok :laugh:


Not at my house.......

[hjeepxj]

Hell if I know mate, I was born in '82. :dunce: :D

Not at my house.......


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Moto]

The two party system that we so often see today, sucks! Why should voting for a president always be between a Democrat or Republican? Or for voting to re-elect the current pres, or vote for the opposite party? Its lame, the two party system is severely flawed and each party is limited and constrained by the the parties themselves. I think that it is a shame that when people push for a 3rd party or someone that is not part of the big two political parties, people say that they are throwing thier vote away. What if neither party has what a voter is looking for, then what? Vote for the least offensive? That is a stupid solution. I think that the media should give more coverage to other political parties, be it Libertarian, Green, America first,Grassroots party, etc... That way some new ideas and issues can make thier way into the politcal mainstreem debates.

[Darky]

The media will give airtime to whoever will give them the best ratings, and quite frankly most of America doesn't care about the "other" parties. As far as Bush not having approval, they voted to give him approval, he wouldn't be able to be over there for such a long time without approval and whether its technically a war or not doesn't matter. Its a war, people are fighting and dying. But not in anywhere near the numbers as they were in previous wars...something like 58,000 a year in WWII vs 1000 in the year we've been in Iraq. We'll always have people calling the shots from "air-conditioned offices", they're the ones who receive intel from everyone and can see the "big picture". The ground commander in charge of his unit will get the directive as we need to take this area. He will then decide how to best do it with what he has. Then the lower level leaders, the NCOs and Platoon commanders will decide how to work with the other platoons to accomplish the goal. It would be chaos if we didn't have people in air-conditioned offices planning and such.

[steve01XJ]

world is more dangerous........economy is worse........gas is too expensive.......I can't afford to wheel. :rattle: :rattle:

What a whiner......... :rolleyes:



Yeah, and this is the presidents fault. Terrorists, economic cycles, the world economy, and congress don't have anything to do with it.


Sorry bro', just sounds like a lot of whining to me.


As I suspected - a non-repsonsive response. Yes, this is the president's fault. HOW he responded to terrorism (going after the wrong guy), how he responded to the economic cyle (giving tax cuts to the rich and leaving the rest of us to hang, spending billions on a war with no exit strategy), how he responded to the world economy (creating greater instability affecting the price of oil, and by effect everything tied to the cost of oil) ; if he were a good leader, he could get Congress to move an effective agenda - one the whole nation could get behind.

It just seems that the sharper the focus gets on the real issues, the more apparent it is that Bush needs to go, and the more apparent it is that those who try to defend his policies must resort to off-point and personal attacks to deflect attention away from the real issues that affect real people.

[Ramsey]

so your saying that if he was a good leader he could get the whole nation to agree on...well anything let alone an "effective agenda". not even the best leader could do this

[Carpenter]

As I suspected - a non-repsonsive response. Yes, this is the president's fault. HOW he responded to terrorism (going after the wrong guy), how he responded to the economic cyle (giving tax cuts to the rich and leaving the rest of us to hang, spending billions on a war with no exit strategy), how he responded to the world economy (creating greater instability affecting the price of oil, and by effect everything tied to the cost of oil) ; if he were a good leader, he could get Congress to move an effective agenda - one the whole nation could get behind.

It just seems that the sharper the focus gets on the real issues, the more apparent it is that Bush needs to go, and the more apparent it is that those who try to defend his policies must resort to off-point and personal attacks to deflect attention away from the real issues that affect real people.

Clinton said Saddam was a threat, had WMDs, and needed to be disarmed. Kerry has said it many times, so has Edwards, Albright, Gore, and Kennedy all said it too. However, it was only a lie (misleading) when Bush and Cheney said it?

Bush's tax cuts were across the board, not for the rich.

Only Kerry and Edwards have said Bush has no plan in Iraq, doesn't make it so.

There is global instability outside of Iraq that affects the price of oil, is that Bush's fault too?

Go search for some better talking points, these are all bogus. Who's really attempting to deflect attention here?

[red91]

Let me pick on that one a bit... how many you think are directly related to Bush taking office and how many are a fallout from the previous administration? Things are not as simple to say that from this date on it's Bush's administration fault.

Thats right. Show me a standing president past or present that has created a job. NONE. Jobs are created by the private sector. The Libs want you to believe that Millionaires are bad people who deserve no breaks. I don't remember any BROKE employers that created jobs, it was the smart, wealthy ones who did.

Lets screw them first, and then complain about OUTSOURCING.

[Urban Redneck]

Clinton said Saddam was a threat, had WMDs, and needed to be disarmed. Kerry has said it many times, so has Edwards, Albright, Gore, and Kennedy all said it too. However, it was only a lie (misleading) when Bush and Cheney said it?

Bush's tax cuts were across the board, not for the rich.

Only Kerry and Edwards have said Bush has no plan in Iraq, doesn't make it so.

There is global instability outside of Iraq that affects the price of oil, is that Bush's fault too?

Go search for some better talking points, these are all bogus. Who's really attempting to deflect attention here?


My points, exactly. So, Steve01, did you give back your tax check when it came back? Are you sending extra money into the IRS to help out? Are you fill and ditch at the local quickymart cuz the price is too high? Yeah, you're right, who better to run the country? Learch who never had a job other than Congress and a lawyer...and Mikeal Moore can run the Propaganda Department for them....


Give me a break...wake up and smell reality.

[Darky]

so your saying that if he was a good leader he could get the whole nation to agree on...well anything let alone an "effective agenda". not even the best leader could do this
Whaddya expect Ramsey, he's backing the same guy who says he cuold get the whole world to come in and help us in Iraq. Because Bush is a bad guy who can't convince everyone to think like him...But Kerry is a great and wonderful man who will singlehandedly unite Congress, the US, and the whole world behind his vision. They talk of how Bush is trying to divide the nation based on race, but I heard a radio ad the other day played on Sean Hannity's show during an interview with Jesse Jackson. It was a Dem ad targeting black people with an announcer from a blaxploitation movie of the 70's. He was talking about how the Republicans stopped blacks from voting in 2000 and that's how he won. The best was the ending, {cue voice of Shaft}"Don't be a damn foo and don't vote for the guy who only cares about rich white guys. Vote for Kerry"{end voice of Shaft}

[Ramsey]

. It was a Dem ad targeting black people with an announcer from a blaxploitation movie of the 70's. He was talking about how the Republicans stopped blacks from voting in 2000 and that's how he won. The best was the ending, {cue voice of Shaft}"Don't be a damn foo and don't vote for the guy who only cares about rich white guys. Vote for Kerry"{end voice of Shaft}
you've got to be shi**ng me. they really played this on air?

[Darky]

Hannity found it somewhere on a radio station and got a copy of it. He asked Jesse Jackson what he thought about the ad and the use of the term "white boys" (since he's a civil rights guy and wants to see equality, supposedly) and Jackson didn't even come close to answering him. He instead almost sounded like he was defending it by trying to talk about the "fact" that blacks were denied the right to vote in 2000. When called on it he couldn't come up with any info to back him up, instead he kept repeating himself.

[Ramsey]

ha! that sounds about right

[red91]

hey jesse....how bout this. CRACKERS for BUSH, ' cause everythings gonna be all white.

GO FIGHTING WHITEYS !!

[Darky]

But I'm only half cracker...I'm an Oreo for Bush, black and white all mixed together into one happy....I can't think of what word to end this on...

[red91]

But I'm only half cracker...I'm an Oreo for Bush, black and white all mixed together into one happy....I can't think of what word to end this on...


You said it was your bottom half that was Black. Now your a SWIRLEY?? Come on make up my mind... :shiver: I can reference your prior remark if you'd like...

[Darky]

The answer to your questions is yes. If Kerry can do it, so can I dag nab it

[red91]

The answer to your questions is yes. If Kerry can do it, so can I dag nab it

OH SURE....Kerry wants to be the first black president...Thought that was Clinton. At least he had some idea of how blues was supposed to be played, even though he wasen't that good.

If KEERY can be the First black president, then I'm gonna change my ID to JEEPIN RABBI... SHALOM.

[Darky]

I meant if Kerry can answer without answering, its good enough for me as well...:D

[Osprey413]

http://www.politicalhell.com/bush-quotes.htm
If this doesn't make you angry, then I don't know what will. Read them all, even if you support Bush.

[Glenn B]

Come up with your own reasons.... not just a google search on quotes. We all could do that all day long.

[Darky]

Why would that make me angry? He screws up words sometimes, so do I, so do you. Look at any public speaker's record and see if they have never made a mistake or said something that didn't make sense. It gets tiresome when people have to continually resort to picking on someone's speaking ability. Its like me picking on people's spelling in here. Its fun, but doesn't prove anything.

[red91]

Why would that make me angry? He screws up words sometimes, so do I, so do you. Look at any public speaker's record and see if they have never made a mistake or said something that didn't make sense. It gets tiresome when people have to continually resort to picking on someone's speaking ability. Its like me picking on people's spelling in here. Its fun, but doesn't prove anything.


UHM...It does prove one thing. Someone needs to proof read that crap first. But other than that...

And we KNOW you have spell check.CHEATER.

[Osprey413]

Did you read "George W. Bush's Resume" at the end of his quote section?

[Darky]

Here's Kerry's resume: John Forbes Kerry's Resume (http://kerry-04.org/about/resume.php)

[red91]

Here's Kerry's resume: John Forbes Kerry's Resume (http://kerry-04.org/about/resume.php)


I smell something burning...in the immortal words of the fantastic 4 ( FLAME ON! )

Edit: I am not participating, condoning, being a party to, or in any other way shape or form, inciting a flame war. :shhh:

[Darky]

No flaming, except maybe of the candidates...btw the resume for Bush is just as much liberal crap propaganda as you'll say the Kerry resume is conservative crap propaganda. But both are based on things that they've done in the past. If Bush did drugs in his past, oh well. A huge majority of people I know did drugs at one point but that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them typical people who are going to "rebel" against whatever or get pressured or whatever reason. I think a more telling thing is what the person's beliefs have been that can actually be shown and proven beyond conjecture (He made his money in oil and that's all he went to Iraq for, etc).

[red91]

No flaming, except maybe of the candidates...btw the resume for Bush is just as much liberal crap propaganda as you'll say the Kerry resume is conservative crap propaganda. But both are based on things that they've done in the past. If Bush did drugs in his past, oh well. A huge majority of people I know did drugs at one point but that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them typical people who are going to "rebel" against whatever or get pressured or whatever reason. I think a more telling thing is what the person's beliefs have been that can actually be shown and proven beyond conjecture (He made his money in oil and that's all he went to Iraq for, etc).


CON-JEC-TURE. Great your using those big words again. Rules say 2 syllables or less.

[Yucca-Man]

CON-JEC-TURE. Great your using those big words again. Rules say 2 syllables or less.Syllables = three of those word sounds in that same word - you lose. Get back, do it again! :nono:

[BIGSLVRXJ]

Not that Im old enough to vote but if I was mine would be going to Bush. My whole family is Republican and I plan to be as well.

[Yucca-Man]

Not that Im old enough to vote but if I was mine would be going to Bush. My whole family is Republican and I plan to be as well.I would encourage voting not by party affiliation but by the candidate's record and position (if they have one). There are many better ways to choose where to place your vote than simply by the -R or -D after the name...glad to hear you're planning to vote when you can though!

[red91]

I would encourage voting not by party affiliation but by the candidate's record and position (if they have one). There are many better ways to choose where to place your vote than simply by the -R or -D after the name...glad to hear you're planning to vote when you can though!


yeah ne to. In Washington for the Primaries that have made a law, currently being challenged, that you have to vote for your party affiliation strait across.

What a bunch of BULL.

[red91]

CON-JEC-TURE-ING. Great your using those big words again. Rules say 2 syllables or less.

[red91]

CON-JEC-TURE-ING. Great your using those big words again. Rules say 3 syllables or less.

Fixed it Yucca. Now who's the little guy on your web site, and how is he doing since you haven't responded. :nono:

[jml1911a1]

Don't know if this was posted anywhere else in this thread, but here it is...

Why you should waste your vote this election! (http://www.wasteyourvote.com)


Read up!

[Urban Redneck]

Funny...all the quotes on that web site are from bleeding heart libs...go figure.

[Gridikal]

Why would that make me angry? He screws up words sometimes, so do I, so do you. Look at any public speaker's record and see if they have never made a mistake or said something that didn't make sense. It gets tiresome when people have to continually resort to picking on someone's speaking ability. Its like me picking on people's spelling in here. Its fun, but doesn't prove anything.lol- hay, we all spel just fyne

[G.Q. Jeeper]

Not going to get into too much detail, I learned from the last thread what can happen, so here is another opinion from "Canadian Guy" LOL (I like that one!!)

Since this is NAXJA = (North American) it includes Mexico and Canada, which are not fans of Bush or the War in Iraq, and hope the US starts working with the world, soon.

I came accross this site, some may take offence to it, others may learn from it, take a look and see for yourself....

btw, in our last election (Federal) are topics were health care, pot smoking (decriminalization of it) and gay marriages, not bad, all we have to do is cover the LCBO = Liqour Control Board of Ontario (which is the second largest booze business in the world) and we are all set LOL.....

take a lookie:

http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html

GQ

[Ed A. Stevens]

Since this is NAXJA = (North American) it includes Mexico and Canada, which are not fans of Bush or the War in Iraq, and hope the US starts working with the world, soon.GQ


When the USA kicks the UN out of New York, you can make a legitimate claim that US fails to work with the world. The UN voted to apply pressure to remove the old government of Iraq, and the US lead 30 nations into the military action.

The US works with the world, despite what some people believe, and some nations in the world do not want to work with the USA (on many issues). Right now the non-players opposing support of government change in Iraq are France and Germany, not a complete boycott by the world (most non-participants are neutral). Winning the favor of these two opposition countries is very likely to result in alienating more than two other countries (participants and neutrals). We gain very little on the world stage by pandering to these "powerful" detractors, at the expense of other supporters and neutrals.

When you separate those opposing war, any war, from those opposing the USA policy of pre-emptive action against terrorism, the fans of USA cooperation and policy quickly grow in size. Many more neutrals favor USA policy and join the active opposition to terrorism.

You are lucky, in that Canada only has a controversial history of removing the children from citizens they deem unfit for inclusion into society. They have very few international conflicts to concern them, only domestic concerns.

[Sarge]

I came accross this site, some may take offence to it, others may learn from it, take a look and see for yourself....

take a lookie:

http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html

GQ

Oh and that's a very factual website...not. We can and do work with the world. Working with the world does not mean we have to all act and think alike tho. Why should we give up our national identity to satisify everyone else? If we were to require that of anyone it would cause a big stink and much more hatred but it's ok for everyone else to wish it for us.

Sarge

[Urban Redneck]

When Canada finishes building their monument to long haired draft dodging hippies. Peace through superior firepower.

[Lupine]

To heck with Bush, I'm voting for Cheney.

[rockwerks]

It is funny I have seen many of these polls on mnay types of sites and bush is leading by at least 10 percent on all polls and 20% on most....Kinda makes me wonder where these pollsters come up with their small differences?

[red91]

Since this is NAXJA = (North American) it includes Mexico and Canada, which are not fans of Bush or the War in Iraq, and hope the US starts working with the world, soon.
GQ

Vincente Fox is not a friend of the US ???? :huh:

The biggest boost to mexicos economy is the money that gets sent to them from workers in the US, not canada.

They damn well like us. Thats why most of them are here.

[Darky]

And a little thing called NAFTA is what made itnice and easy for them to make money here to send back there.
On another topic, Kerry talks about Bush causing an environment where sending jobs overseas is not only accepted but encouraged and that is why our economy supposedly sucks. Yet, he is the husband of the heiress to the Heinz ketchup company who IIRC has few if any American plants yet probably makes the vast majority of their profits here. Hmmm, makes ya wonder....

[GSequoia]

And a little thing called NAFTA is what made itnice and easy for them to make money here to send back there.
On another topic, Kerry talks about Bush causing an environment where sending jobs overseas is not only accepted but encouraged and that is why our economy supposedly sucks. Yet, he is the husband of the heiress to the Heinz ketchup company who IIRC has few if any American plants yet probably makes the vast majority of their profits here. Hmmm, makes ya wonder....
Neither here nor there...

Teresa Heinz does not control Heinz corp, so teh antics of that company cannot fall onto Kerry.

Teresa Heinz Kerry does not "own the Heinz Corporation" — she has no involvement whatsoever with the management or operations of the H.J. Heinz Company, nor does she own anything close to a controlling interest of the company's stock. According to Heinz (http://www.heinz.com/jsp/presidential_statement.pdf) itself, the Heinz family trust which Mrs. Kerry inherited sold most of its shares of Heinz stock back in 1995 and currently holds less than a 4% interest in the company

From http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
Sequoia

[red91]

Neither here nor there...

Teresa Heinz does not control Heinz corp, so teh antics of that company cannot fall onto Kerry.


Sequoia


Yeah. She just calls us scumbags... It's amazing though...in the last debate the ONLY 3 people in Missouri to make more than 200,000 $/yr were Bush, Charles Gibson, and Kerry.

Of course JFK was the only one to point out what a bunch of losers they had in the audience. Boy...this guy is REALLY IN F'ING TOUCH with the middle class.

I bet Kerry had to DISINFECT himself after that was over... with all the great unwashed surrounding him. What a Schmendrik.

[Darky]

Neither here nor there...

Teresa Heinz does not control Heinz corp, so teh antics of that company cannot fall onto Kerry.


Sequoia
I'm still gonna blame him...:D j/k

[GSequoia]

I don't really give a damn, I just don't like SPOBI ;)

[Renklaf]

Kerry can suck dez nutz for all I care and I am sure he would to. This guy is a traitorous communist bastard plain and simple. No ifs ands or buts around it. He should be hanged and his shrine in vietnam should be set a flame. This man has no honor and would suck UN D**K and then deny it while hes on his knees.

Seriously, People complain about how much money we spend on the war. What about all the money we spend on the rest of the world or the money we give to the UN Pu**ys. The US gives more money to the world then any other nation. And we still get crap from those countrys. The majority of the world are bit*hs and need to suck a dirty D**K.

I just need to vent :puke:

[bocaj]

this may influence your vote http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bushkerryfootball.html

[red91]

this may influence your vote http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bushkerryfootball.html


Nice catch with his NOSE !! :D :D

[whoozey1953]

getting people in the middle east? what is that suppose to mean, i am an arab american, even though i look as white as the next honky, my dad is lebanese and all my family from his side lives there still. get people in the middle east, can you elaborate a little more

You are a racist for your HONKY remark.

How do you like being referred to as a "raghead", or " sand monkey"?

Same thing, dude.

:twak:

[Osprey413]

You can't be racist for saying Honky. Honky is not a race. However, Arabs are. They have their own specific genes that make them Arab, or of Middle Eastern decent. There is no "hick" gene.

[Darky]

Actually I think they located the hick/honky/cracka gene. Its intertwined with the plaid flannel and tooth loss gene. They're currently looking into the connection with mullets...:D
But seriously, you can be considered a racist by that as its directed at white folk. But I think you'd have to be digging to accuse someone of racism based on a joking remark. If that's so, I'm horribly racist. Against myself (both black and white), and everyone else. But mainly black, white, and Mexican...

[Ramsey]

You are a racist for your HONKY remark.

How do you like being referred to as a "raghead", or " sand monkey"?

Same thing, dude.

:twak:
wow i just read this and i hope your joking, now calling someone a raghead and sand monkey (maybe you were looking for sand nigg er) in the fashion it seems your doing, not joking, is wrong. i am actually a little offended by it, honky is not being used as a negative or insulting term, hell i was even directing it at myself. get over yourself you damn honky :laugh2:

[Urban Redneck]

I think this thread needs to be moderated by the Blaxja contingent...Where's JJ and Chewy when you need them?

[Darky]

I'm halfway there...half black half honky...I can make fun of everyone! yay! :D

[red91]

You are a racist for your HONKY remark.
How do you like being referred to as a "raghead", or " sand monkey"?
Same thing, dude.

:NAXJA: forum of conduct ( Please read since its obvious you didn't the first time)

Rudeness toward another Forum participant will not be tolerated. Any participant who is intentionally unpleasant, obscene, or disruptive will receive one (1) warning.

Seems to me "RAGHEAD" is pretty F 'ing insensitive... :wstupid:

This post brought to you by a cracker, white bread, lite skinned brother ( with just a touch of soul) Honkey, Bastich, Jew. Any questions??

I figured not. SHALOM.

[red91]

I'm halfway there...half black half honky...I can make fun of everyone! yay! :D


Careful there... Naxja has a small JEWISH community. :eek:


(who left the door open again ?? )

[Yucca-Man]

I'm halfway there...half black half honky...I can make fun of everyone! yay! :DDoes that make you a 'blonky'? or a 'hack'?? :D

[bshaw]

Thought most of you would enjoy this, making fun of Kerry. This was sent to me by freind at work, pretty fun I thought. Here you go:

John Kerry meets with the Queen of England.

He asks her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government?

Are there any tips you can give to me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself

with intelligent people."

Kerry frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really

intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to answer

an intelligent riddle."

The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here,

would you?" Tony Blair walks into the room. "Yes, my Queen?"

The Queen smiles. "Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have

a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," says the Queen.

Kerry goes back home to ask John Edwards, his vice presidential choice the

same question.

"John. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child.

It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says John Edwards. "Let me get back to you on that one."

Edwards goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an

answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin Powell's

shoes in the next stall. Edwards shouts, "Colin! Can you answer this for me?

Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your

sister. Who is it?"

Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's me!"

Edwards smiles, and says, "Thanks!" Then, Edwards goes back to speak with

Kerry. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle.

It's Colin Powell."

Kerry gets up, stomps over to John Edwards, and angrily yells into his face,

"No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!"

[Darky]

Yucca: I like the sound of blonky...rofl :laugh:

[red91]

Yucca: I like the sound of blonky...rofl :laugh:

FUNNY. 81 % of us think your a hack... :thumbup:

[Lawn Cher']

France? I'm not going to touch Iran or N Korea as those are topics that have a basis for discussion, but how did you arrive at France as being even remotedly potential target?

To protect us from the coneheads. DUH!

[shotstopper]

Go Bush!
Flip-Flops are for wearing, not running for President.
Besides Bush is more 4X4 friendly. Not going to try to please the enviormentalists by closing trails.

[red91]

Go Bush!
Flip-Flops are for wearing, not running for President.
Besides Bush is more 4X4 friendly. Not going to try to please the enviormentalists by closing trails.


OH Just wait...Kerry will soon go and say " I've been Four-wheeling as long as I've been a hunter...since about 12 or 13..." (insert witty photo op here)

He was in Oregon up in Hood River to setup a poser Windsurfer shot, but it didn't work out for him.

Be all things to everybody, and give no one anything.

[Lawn Cher']

Careful there... Naxja has a small JEWISH community.

Yeah, but we don't have a good name yet. :dunno:

[WayneXJ]

Seems to me "RAGHEAD" is pretty F 'ing insensitive... :wstupid:

This post brought to you by a cracker, white bread, lite skinned brother ( with just a touch of soul) Honkey, Bastich, Jew. Any questions??

I figured not. SHALOM.


:bawl: :bawl: :bawl:

[fire325]

I'm voting for Bush! We don't need to change Presidents in the middle of the conflict in Iraq. Also, i'm voting for Bush because i'm for the NRA! Bush will make sure we get to keep our guns!!

[shotstopper]

hey red91inwa,
good point. ya never know with that horse.lol
i did see the windsurfer promotional. I spent the last two months in Portland. Talk about pro kerry. I have a bush bumper sticker and got flipped off several times a day.

[ilovjeep]

I am voting for Bush and I don't care what anyone thinks what about me. :us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us:
This is the smart thing to do.

[XJBill]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/jeepimp007/kerrysucks.jpg

Any more questions?

[Darky]

careful, according to the Dems, the secret Police will come get you if they think you're threatening a Presidential Candidate. No, never mind, the secret police only work for us Republicans, not the Dems. You're safe...:D

[shotstopper]

Bush Wins! Sweet!