who ya voting for?

[hjeepxj]

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

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.........



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...

 

[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.