I Am Voting For Kerry
I was kicked off this morning because the moderator thought that I was argumentative..
In any case, I want to put my point across without being argumentative (hopefully). I feel that Kerry is the right person for the job because President Bush is definetely not the right person. He has proved it in 4 years of presidency.
Look, we are in a more dangerous world than 911. We have more people dying from a war than before. Protecting the country under a false premise(WMD) by killing people does not justify the end (removing saddam). Poor African(Sudan) countries have been ignored by this war. Our country being rich and powerful should use more smarter means of winning a war than at the expense of human life. Wars have been fought through out history and has not proved anything. So, if you are voting for Bush just because he makes an excellent commander, then you are wrong because you are unaware of power of diplomacy and the strength of non-violence.
Moderator: In politics, you cannot get your point across without being argumentative. You are either FOR a person or AGAINST a person. So, I am hoping this be considered as a Random Ramble than a hostile topic, especially on the eve of a presidential debate. So, hopefully I can get a counter-argument going on in this excellent forum.
Nice summary, Joel...
NC_Yank - excellent reply, I agree 100%
Joel - Thank you
Tzachari - You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?
When one looks at how many lives have been lost in Iraq, what 1000? It doesn't compare to the 3500 lives lost on 9/11. Moreover, these lives lost in 9/11 were civilian lives, not soldier lives who were prepared to die for their country.
Second, when you tell a country that they must give up their WMD's or else an invasion will occur, what do you think will happen when you invade. Do you expect the extremists to have a welcoming party with a plethora of wine, cheeses and guess what.......WMD's! The who middle-east is corrupted with terrorism. Iraq was a great place to start. And if Bush failed to take action, then every liberal democrat out there would have scorned him for it. Look at Kerry........he supported the war at the beginning. So did everyone out there! I haven't seen so many flags before in my life! So now, you liberals will do what you normally do and change direction only to give up on the man who defended your freedom. And, what do the democrats traditionally stand for? Smaller military and bigger government!!! There goes the much respected US powerhouse only to add govt (often top down gov't) where the people are truly not heard. And once you add gov't, it never receeds. So what you end up with is a weak nation and a bunch of know it alls who think they know what the people want.
And lastly, Bush will make sure that cash stays in your pocket. Unlike the dems, the rep party makes people earn their living.
No hard feelings of course......... let the debates begin!
Gino, couldn't have said it better myself.
If airplanes piloted by terrorist had struck Jersey City I'm sure your opinions would be more in line with truth.
Real Estate Investors live in the real world.
doesn't it disturb anyone else that people cannont actually tell you why they're voting for kerry, except for the fact that he's not bush?
I had some girl the other day call me a few choice words b/c of the W04 sticker on my car. She couldn't believe I would vote for someone who would actually stand up to for what he and alot of other people believe in, instead of feeding the millions of starving people here.
when I asked her if she'd rather us stop dropping food to the other parts of the world, she didn't anwser........
dems run on emotions without a logical thought creeping into their head....
"To make peace, you first have to make war"
"It's either gonna be you or them, who do you choose?"
Sugest you join Kofi Anan's chat room at the U.N., perhaps you can invest the diplomatic Oil for food scam.
Where are the U.N. Peacekeepers in Sudan?
They are waiting for U.S. money and firepower.
Lucky for you Jersy City is not a target rich environment.
its seems clear that gw is going to win. his support has been growing. i see so many people that on 9/11 were demanding "when is bush going to do something" and "whats taking him so long" and after he did the same people were codemning him for it. i agree with what our president is going. fighting terror will be a nonending war. there will be no end. we may want it but the terrorist will not have it.......km
"We are in a more dangerous world than 911."
Bad grammar aside, I assume you're trying to say the US is in more danger than it was before 9/11.
Question: Have there been any attacks on US soil since 9/11?
Answer: No.
Question #2: Who do you think Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, etc. would rather have in office, Bush or Kerry?
Answer: Kerry
Therefore, Bush is getting my vote.
[addsig]
"Saddam Hussein is the most imminent and dangerous threat to our country"
--Sen. John Edwards (right before Operation Freedom)
Imminent! Dangerous!
zzzzz, let's roll over and go back to sleep, Kofi will protect us.
(paraphrase)
--Sen. John "French-looking" Kerry
Ahh the spin that I just read sickens me.
First, Kerry and everyone else trusted pres Bush when he said that he knows that Sadam has WMD's. We trusted Bush, and he violated that trust, and know those who know better have said so.
And we went to Iraq before completing the job in afganistan. And now we are streched thin and the enemy knows it.
Whatever happened to the "Dead or Alive" comment made by Bush? Now the hunt Bin Laden is put on the backburner because he's not that important anymore. If thats not a flip-flop, I don't know what is.
Unless you are up on the day-to-day events and news, you can be easily manipulated into what the ones in power want you to be. Be Carefull, before voting, do the research and get all the info you can before you cast your vote. Just know what you are voting for.
Thanx-
Just because there was no attack on the U.S soil since 9-11 does not mean we are any safer. N.Korea might soon test its nukes and so will Iran. If we go with the 'Go it alone' strategy, then I am looking at the Draft re-instated. If that is the case, we will all be in N.Korea holding guns instead of pursuing a peaceful career in Real Estate. I like Kerry's policy of bringing in the U.N in solving these problems as compared to Bush's policy.
bush is the worst presisdent this country ever had , the policies are so incoherent
promote democray inthe middle east while pakistan and saudi arabia our greatest allies are been ruled by dictators, we attacked iraq because we claim they had wmd, north korea says they have wmd and they are ready to sell to the highest bidder and we are trying to bribe them, we created a haven for terrorist in iraq were they can have their internship on our troops, we say we are wageing aglobal war on terrorism but we have alianated over 70% of the rest of the world, we definatley need a regime change or else I fear what kind of country we will leave behind for our children, a country that lacks credibility and is depised by over 70% of the world population or a stronger country. make a wise choice my fellow americans
The following appear to be your reasons to vote for Kerry:
1. He is not Bush
The entirety of your post is a slam against Bush and not, as your subject line suggests, a reason to vote “for Kerry.” You have offered no reason to vote for Kerry—you may as well vote for Nader, Keyes, or heck, massage my ego and write me in. I have found that, without exception, discussing this election with Liberals results in one invariable result—a diatribe rife with half-cocked theories born more of rumor and wishful thinking than of substantiated fact.
It is easy to slam Bush because Bush takes an unwavering stand on each issue in the forum of public debate. Kerry either avoids taking a position or simply takes them both; he is the quintessential equivocal candidate—a man without public principal or moral conviction. Of course it’s easier to criticize Bush…he stands for something.
I haven’t the time or desire to respond to all of the allegations you’ve leveled against Bush, many of which are tired and easily discredited. There are, however, a few things I must leave with you as food for thought:
Believing the cliché that “war is not the answer” flies in the face of every shred of recorded human history. War is, in fact, the answer when it comes to ending despotism, Nazism, terrorism, Fascism, communism, and slavery. To perpetuate this blather that there was no diplomacy involved in our dealings with Saddam is nothing short of baseless deception (which has been par for the course in the Kerry campaign). The actions we took were the culmination of more than 4000 days of negotiations. We followed up the threat of force with actual force (imagine that!) NOT based on WMDs but on violations of 1441 and Saddam’s inability and unwillingness to account for weapons that ought to have been destroyed. Every other reason for toppling that regime was merely icing on the cake. In the realm of human conflict, the sacrifice of a willing few is the only currency sufficient to purchase freedom for the many. Any other assertion is a blatant disregard for history.
Back to the original point, you may as well just vote for me because you know every bit as much about me as you do about Kerry. If you’ll go so far as to vote an unknown quantity into the White House then I pray you avoid the polls altogether. Such action assumes that no one could possibly be worse than Bush and such a conclusion is nothing short of pure unadulterated ignorance. I would, however, recommend closely examining Kerry’s extensive ~20-year career in the Senate—you know, the one he suspiciously doesn’t want to discuss.
On a final note ask yourself the following common sense question: Who's more trustworthy--a man who believes in a God that holds him accountable for his actions both in the public eye and behind closed doors, or a man who has garnered the well-earned reputation of choosing the most politically expedient course of action?
I have read most of the post's on this topic. I live in Columbus, Ohio and everywhere i go I see another stupid "Kerry" sticker. I can not believe that the people of this country did not learn their lesson with Clinton. What a joke he was (not to mention Al Gore...he is even a bigger joke). I read in your post that "there have been more lives lost in this war than any other war". WHAT????!!!! Have you forgotten how America even BECAME America in the first place? Let me take you back a couple years...The Revolutionary War". We earned out freedom by fighting a war. How about the Civil War, or WW1, or WW2. Are you actually saying that there have been more lives lost in Iraq (which is currently at 1000 fatalities) than ever before? My friend, there were 3500 civilians killed on 9/11, and killed in cold blood because we (and you) are the "infidel". These islamic terroists will stop at nothing to kill you, your family and everbody you know. And their onyl reason is because you are NOT Islamic.
As far as policies being "incoherent". Of course they are right now. So was American policy when it was first written. The people are not used to being free. But to top it all off, you have the liberal media going to Iraq and making a joke of our nation and our troops. I am not an American soldier, but I pray that God blesses them for their duty to us and you. You owe them alot. They put their lives on the line so you can have freedom, and to get on this website and say that you are going to vote for a man that wants our soldiers to fight with old weapons, without armor, without the use of some of the strongest fighter planes, helicopters, etc that this country has ever had is ludacris.
I seen another bumper sticker the other day that said "Bush Lied". Who was is that lied to a Grand Jury some years ago about getting some "pleasure" in his office. Yes my friend...it was another liberal.
One guy on this forum hit on it completely. He said that people that are voting for Kerry have no clue why, just that he is not Bush.
We are despised by much less than 70% of this world. There are people everwhere that would love to come to this country and start a new life. did you knwo that foreigners are more likely to become millionaires in our country, than an American? This is because they know the freedom that they have when they live here. They have been where they were not aloud to have anything. They made no money because their governments horded all the money, or because they were so corrupt, that they had no money. For whatever reason, they love being foreign Americans. They have passion about it.
I promise you that this country will change in years to come. It does not matter who the President is. Whoever it ends up being, I will support him and never say a bad word about him. Will I like him? Not if it's Kerry, but I will still support him because our troops salute him, and he would have the presidency. Do I want that????? NO WAY!!!!!!!
I think that you need to get your facts straight. Bush has done more in office than many of the Presidents before him. He showed his leadership when airplanes attacked us on OUR SOIL, and killled many who were not ready to die. He displayed leadership when he told Saddam to shape up, or we are going to ship him out. He is a true and honorable leader. I would expect the next thing you will bring up are Bush's service records, which have been proven false.
I would implore YOU my fellow American. Do not be fooled by the wolf in sheeps clothing. While he is chanting "keep jobs in America, his wife is paying mexicans $1.50 and hour to make her products in factories that are NOT in America. In fact, she owns more factories outside of this country, than inside. Mr. and Mrs. Flip-Flop at their best.
A good leader, leads by example. Jesus, one of the best leaders of all time led by serving others. He led by example. Bush also leads by example. Kerry has not proven anywhere that he has made a good example. He is NOT a good man for the job.
Make a wise choice American(s)...VOTE FOR BUSH (unless you want Kerry to go to Iraq and "apologize" for our insensitivity to their needs and desires. What a crock. I am happy to see that many people on this forum are NOT voting for Mr. Kerry. Vote Bush for a better America. Get your head off of what you feel and start voting smart.
A few minor notes:
Please don't do the old copy and paste from an email or website. The purpose of forums is discussion--provide a link or something. If for no other reason than there's simply no time to read posts so lengthy. Furthermore, we can all run to our favorite political web site and copy text to paste here but that just gets stupid.
Please also understand that my characterization of bush as "unwavering" does not imply that he has not changed his mind at any time; the remark was made in contrast to Kerry who has been consistent only in his inconsistency.
Again, Liberals have nothing to offer--only allegations to level. I ask the same question again: Who is more trustworthy--a man who believes in absolute truth and personal accountability to God or John Kerry who seeks political expediency at every turn?
this issue about who to vote for is a personal issue, bush, kerry and nader are probably not the best canditates our country can produce, but this the best our system can produce and that is okay we need to look at this three men and pick the best, and with that said I think it dose not take a professor to know that kerry is best candidate, all we are having is a mature converstion here there is no need for insult or personal attacks lets be civil about this afterall we are still friends we might disagree about opinons but we are still friends. I see a lot of people going back to history when it comes to iraq I wonder we they can answer these questions for me
1. why did we attack iraq and not north korea knowing fully well that north korea had wmd and said they are willing to sell to the highest bidder. now everybody wants to have wmd because it is a detterent.
2.why are american jobs been shipped oversea in record numbers and unemployment is still record high in the states.
3.why do we have record deficts in the budget and yet we have the highest number of americans leaving below poverty line.
4.why is it that medical insurance are the highest they have ever been and they and they getting ready to cost more next year and yet americans are prevented fromgetting cheaper drugs from overseas
5.why do we have over 250000 troops in irag and less than 100000 in afganistan knowing fully well that is were osama is.
I can go on and on americans but space and time will not permit, this election is not about emotions its about facts and we are worse off under bush, and we lost our crebility under this administation vote for what is best for the future of this country and for your children not on your emotions this administration has brought nothing but disgrace on the american people. lets bring our troops home God bless them[ Edited by adeolajide on Date 09/30/2004 ]
Quote:
WMDs??? How was he able to kill 300K Kurds with the none exhistant Mustard Gas. Looks like mass distruction to me. Syria admitted that they recieved wepons from Iraq. You never saw that in the Mass media?
Bin Laden our CIA admits we have agents in the tribes and on the ground in Afghanistan. We also have a SEAL team "working" in the area. That was a quote from the bias Mass media. Walking in to these territories in a US army uniform would be a death wish.
I will say I agree you should inform yourself of what is going on in politics, and what both cand. Stand for...Just make an informed
Ahh, Lets see- First thing, what kind of weapons did saddam send into Syria? Maybe some rockets and gas canisters, but clearly nothing like a nuke.
Also, mustard gas can be spread out over a large area and stay lingering to the ground for a long time, therefore killing the 300,000 over a length of time.
And lastly, we have just one "seal" team looking for bin laden? is that all we can spare? afganistan is a huge mountainous region, it would take a team of thousands to do a proper search, and since we are streched so thin, how are we able to do that proper search. Says a lot for the priorities in hunting for bin laden.
oh yea, I say this with a tounge and cheek of course....
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"
Man, I USUALLY avoid political discussions like the plague, 'cause as far as I'm concerned, talking politics is like talking religion, you ain't gonna convince me, and I ain't gonna convince you.
Having said that...
How was Bush sooo sure we would find WMD in Iraq? WE HAD THE RECEIPTS WHERE WE SOLD THEM TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! Yep, didn't Bush senior sell them to Irag to use on Iran?
Having said that, I voted for GW the first time, and will vote for him again, mostly because I think he's the lesser of two evils, and frankly Kerry scares the heck outta me.
Oh boy do I love this website! Not just because of all the awesome rei information I get, but also for the common sense used by so many to figure out the right man for president,Bush. so now lets address the "others" on this site. "First, Kerry and everyone else trusted pres Bush when he said that he knows that Sadam has WMD's." guess what? bush trusted someone else! you think president bush was the only one saying that intelligence shows suddam has weapons? come on! CIA and FBI were telling him that and here we are just days after 911 and what do you think we are gonna do? sit on that info and hope its not right? and suddam is the one to blame for ALL of this. he was asked several time to cooperate and let inspectors search ANYWHERE they wanted and several times he played games and would not let them and then let them a few weeks later. let me ask you something, if you were hiding wmds and the UN knocked on your door would you let them search? of course not, you tell them they cant and play games until they forced there way in. guess what? thats what we did. "And we went to Iraq before completing the job in afganistan". anybody heard from bin laden lately? hello? anybody? yeah cuz hes dead. Even the liberal bias news will tell you he is more than likely dead."Just because there was no attack on the U.S soil since 9-11 does not mean we are any safer." actually that is what that means. we now have a seperate entire orginization (homeland security) thats only job is to make us safer from terrorists. they have foiled many attempts of terrorists since 911 so I dont know what you mean by "not safer". are we untouchable safe? no, we have a ways to go, we still have to clean up clintons mess he made of are armed forces and then we will be better. but that may take awhile.
Of all the excuses or allegations I've heard from either side of the partisan walls the facts remain.
1. If Kerry is elected there will be a more peaceful government in every other country But America. Where we live!!!
2. If Kerry is elected He will support the slaughter of thousands more future Americans shrinking our own population because people will not take responsibilty for their actions.
3. If Kerry is elected the country will continue to support the sexual relations between two men/Two woman So they can be "Happy". All the while they are not procreating. Therefore Less people. (Remember kindergarten. You can put a round peg in a square hole.)
Just from a math standpoint it looks as if Kerry is bent on the destruction of every American that will follow him. Call me self centered but I happen to enjoy the freedom That comes from living in this great Country. I will do what it takes to fight or lobby for it. For Example,If your boss treats you unjustly, invades in your private areas are is just a jerk. You find a new boss!!! We found one that believes in the protection of the Country as a whole. Our/His priority is first to the soverignty of the USA. I would rather be hated by all other countries in the world than lower our standards of Freedom and Justice for ALL!!!! Everything else comes second place.
Sincerely
Jar
I will take it that you are therefore pro murder and not pro life and would welcome changing the definition of marriage from one man and one woman.
Good news everyone. Kerry NOW says that if he knew then what he knows now about Iraq, he wouldn't have voted to go to war (despite that he previously said that he would).
I'm glad we got that cleared up.
I agree with those who have stated that Kerry is simply running on a campaign of "not Bush". Kerry can't even run a campaign, how's he supposed to run the country.
[addsig]
those things you speak of are of a personal nature and views that are unique to each person. Besides, you call abortion murder, but conservatives condone the death penalty. Regardless of innocence or guilt, it's still murder nonetheless when you execute a convicted person. How can you be for one and not the other?
Oh, and as far as the "definition" of marriage, it is also a personal belief and one should have the freedom to explore a consenting relationship if they wish no matter the sexual orientation of the marraige.
And you still didnt answer my question, whats so threatining about same sex marriage?
I answered yours, now you answer mine...
I guess I can not find any one of these probush to answer the questions I posted earlier therefore I rest my case.[ Edited by adeolajide on Date 09/30/2004 ]
Quote:
Good news everyone. Kerry NOW says that if he knew then what he knows now about Iraq, he wouldn't have voted to go to war (despite that he previously said that he would).
I'm glad we got that cleared up.
I agree with those who have stated that Kerry is simply running on a campaign of "not Bush". Kerry can't even run a campaign, how's he supposed to run the country.
What do you mean he can't run a campaign? Can you show me how he isnt being effective? It's easy to dismiss the "new guy", but he is up against the GOP machine.
And let me clear up the "clear up"
As I said in a previous post, Kerry- you me and eveyone else trusted Bush when he gave the reasons for going into Iraq, now that Kerry and many Americans know better, knowing what we know now, we would have been against it from the get go, at least for the reasons that were given.
Any more clairification needed?
Hello,
My taxes have lowered, I've made more money, my country is secure, and my president hasn't done something before he didn't do it.
It's very similar to people who say this and that about a guy, but they themselves don't take the same risk as the guy out there bustin' his hump to better himself and to take care of his family.
I now employ three people. If Kerry gets in, uh, I'm sure that I'll then only be able to employ one person; what's more, our country will be weaker than a Catholic priest in a -uh, oh. I can't write that here.
Prosperity,
OTW
:-D
Check out www.cpusa.org...the US communist's website.
Totally supports Kerry & bashes Bush, as they know Kerry's one of them, and Bush isn't.
They've even got a prepared flier to be printed and used.
Oh, we've finnally gotten to the "Name Calling" section of this dialouge. When things get rough, pound your fist on the table and give a round of insults.
Just because liberals want to make sure everyone can get the help they need when they need it doesn't mean communisim. I see where turning the commutinity into communisim, but that's just erroneous and only serves to expose those who don't understand what all that means.
As far as operating a "small business" is concerned, I'm glad that your biz has gotten to the level that you need employees, but the fact that Bush is president when that happened is just a coincidence. Bush doesn't care about small or medium business owners. He only cares about taking care of his constituant buddies that operate mega-corporations, and some of the legislation passed to help them sometimes also helps the small to moderate business person, and gives the appearance of Bush caring if you going under or not.
If anything is to be considered communist, two words...
"CORPORATE WELFARE!"
Keep Em' Commin-
Never before has the US been viewed by the majority of the world in such a negative way. But after 9/11, one of our darkest moments, when the world cried with us, when US embassies from Russia, to China, to nearly every other country in world were surrounded by flowers and notes and the sympathetic prays of millions, we stupidly and arrogantly began a unilateral campaign of proving our enemies right. We gave up our position in the world, and we did it to appease the personal and incompetent agenda of a select few.
What I think some people miss in all this is that many will vote for Kerry just because he's not Bush. Some people think that this is not a valid argument, but unfortunately, it's the scariest valid argument there is. I'm a registered Republican. But I'm voting for Kerry this time, just because he's not Bush. Again, it's not because Kerry is right about everything he says, it's because Bush is so wrong about everything he both says and does. I truly wish there was a better choice. But it'll take much more time than the next President will have, to undue the horrendously incompetent mistakes Bush has made.
I am voting against Bush!!! I am less than lukewarm on Kerry but I think that Bush is a bad president.
1) Morality vs. Practicality- The war on terror is very complex and it is the President's job to protect America Citizens. In doing so we should not try to establish a moral high ground while allying with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It is difficult to sell that you are trying to spread democracy when you are supporting oppressive regimes.
"Don't give me broccoli and tell me it's greens"
2) Execution- I give Bush the benefit of the doubt on every issue, that is that he believes that his policies are what is best for the country. In return we have gotten soaring deficits, a poorly planned war and executed war. Anyone who believes that after bombing peoples families (collateral damage, a requirement of war) that we would be greeted as liberators has bad judgement. That said given that he has done a great number of things that he has said he would do, I think that the country is worse off.
3) I hate philosophical moderates- What I mean is Republicans claim to be the party of small government while seeking to expand the federal government more and more into the personal lives Americal citizens. Democrats want to be the party of individual freedoms and can't(won't) come to a better stance on the second amendment. Republicans make government smaller by staying out of the lives of American citizens. Democrats civil liberties means liberties for all, not just the ones you with whom you agree.
4) Return to traditional values- There is no goal/statement/philosophy that I hate more. The only traditional value I support is that America has always moved forward from oppression to freedom. We have never accepted my country right or wrong. Thus we moved from slavery/jim crow/women's suffrage to the greatest and freest society in history and we are still getting better.
Anyone who votes for Kerry because he's "not bush" might as well vote for Bozo the clown. What you're saying is that out of 300 Million Americans, GWB is THE worst presidential candidate out of all of us. That's 300 Million people who "aren't Bush".
War is obviously a necessary evil. If it weren't for war, we'd all be speaking German right now. That's obvious enough that it's not worth saying more of.
Here's my major concern in all of this. After the first Gulf War, Saadam said that he would do/not do 17 things (the UN's 17 resolutions) and if he was a good boy he could stay in power and keep his country. Guess what.......he didn't keep em. The UN should have been in there years ago, led by Bill Clinton....WMD's or not. The fact is that he failed to keep his side of the bargain. Sure Pres. bush hyped the WMD's. What worries me is that we know that they existed, we know that he had em, but we can't find em. Where are they? Syria? Yemen? New York City?
BTW, guess why Russia, Germany, and France didn't want to go into Iraq??? MONEY. Here we are (the USA) being accused of doing it for oil rights, and at the same time those 3 countries had billion dollar contracts with Iraq. They had a good thing going on. They wanted to make sure to get paid for their work. That's why they didn't join us, NOT because they believed in a higher cause. Those countries are dominant players in the UN. They signed the resolution along with Saadam and the USA.
The fact is that Bush and Tony Blair and the other countries that participated were the only ones who had the guts to enforce the agreements that were signed and do what was not popular.
Since when has America looked to other countries to figure out what is the best thing to do??? America is a Leader....yet now the Democrats want us to start "checking with everyone" (other countries) before we do what we know needs to be done.
This country is going to have four years of H*** if Kerry is elected. Terrible fiscal policies, terrible war strategies, wants big government to keep getting bigger, he's got to check the polls to figure out what he believes in, and he's so out of touch with America it's rediculous.
I promised I wouldn't get sucked into this conversation, but . . .
I have one question. Why do people insist that the Bush Administration/Intelligence officials lied when they said that Hussein had weopons of mass destruction? He obviously had them. HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!! Just because we haven't found the weopons, doesn't mean they don't exist. We found the mass graves and skeletons, didn't we????????????????
Hibby,
Unfortunately, there aren't 300 million people on the ballot. If there were, we might be able to elect a competent and worthy individual. But as there are really only two candidates on the ballot, my vote is against Bush, which sadly, is for Kerry.
As for the motivation of various nations, sure money was a factor. Just like it was a factor in decisions made by the US. Anyone who thinks it wasn't a factor in US decisions is being very naive. No decision for any nation was as simple as just the question of money. Numerous other factors were also involved, and it would be wrong to think that the US was out there doing the honorable thing for all humanity, while other countries were being petty. Especially since our current President put us on this course for less than honorable reasons in a less than honorable way.
All of the Kerry mombo jumbo doesn't mean squat. Do you think that the issues that some people are concerned about will mean anything when we start fighting on our soil. I guess we can have Edwards file a lawsuit and they will go away. I'm sure the tree huggers and the womans rights will be important under some other governments rule (terriots)
Without Bush in office this country is at major risk and while I don't agree with everything he does and says, I surport him for President.
Prepare for war and you will have peace
prepare for peace and you will have war
I would rather fight on their soil than in our country. If you think Our rights are gone now,elect some Kerry or his ilke and you better start arming yourself to protect our families here. The terroists are really afraid of Kerry /Fonda/Edwards/ Jesse Jackson/ and the rest of the Kool aid drinkers. (Thats a real bunch to throw your hat in with)Most of us seem to have forgotten 9-11 and the innocents lives lost their. Had that plane landed on the congress, One would guess that our country would still be united. In my opinion, the plane hit the wrong building.
One has to ask themselves, What has Kerry done in all of his years in Congress? So interesting, that he could go to viet nam for 4 and half months on a swift boat and and become another Audrey Murphy and win medals for splinter cuts. We spend almost 4 times as long in real fire fights and other areas of conflict and there wasn't that many medals handed out to out hold group, but then again we couldn't write our request for medals and ask our freinds to approve them.
Be very careful who you ask to lead this country.
In my opinion, President Bush is the only chose that we have.
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 15:50, dspells wrote:
I am voting against Bush!!! I am less than lukewarm on Kerry but I think that Bush is a bad president.....
Again, there has yet to be a Kerry supporter so much as a Bush-hater. The Dems should've stuck with Dean.
[addsig]
1. why did we attack iraq and not north korea knowing fully well that north korea had wmd and said they are willing to sell to the highest bidder. now everybody wants to have wmd because it is a detterent.
2.why are american jobs been shipped oversea in record numbers and unemployment is still record high in the states.
3.why do we have record deficts in the budget and yet we have the highest number of americans leaving below poverty line.
4.why is it that medical insurance are the highest they have ever been and they and they getting ready to cost more next year and yet americans are prevented fromgetting cheaper drugs from overseas
5.why do we have over 250000 troops in irag and less than 100000 in afganistan knowing fully well that is were osama is.
Okay...would someone please put the Kerry supporters out of their misery. Let's examine your questions, and give you some answers. These are easy...
1.) We attacked Iraq instead of N. Korea because we could. When it comes to Korea, you have to understand history, and also understand that could have been a fatal decsion without the help of other nations. Not only that, but we have not given Korea the time to get rid of their WMD's yet. we are still to this day in talks with that country. We have given Iraq plenty of time to abide by the agreement made with the UN Security Council and it was time to take action. I assure you, Korea, if they do not adhere, will feel the iminent pain that the US can bring.
2.) Why does Ms. Kerry-Heinz own more factories out of the country, than she does in the country? Because it is cheaper labor. That saves American corporation a massive amount of money. If most Americans had better morals and job ethics, then there would be more jobs in the US. Kerry's little tax cut to companies that outsource their production in the US amounts to nothing. Foreign workers work better, harder and faster than do US workers, and they are paid less. Again, is Mrs. Kerry-Heinz going to forfeit her factories outside the US? I think not.
3.) Why the deficit??? Because of the Fed. Reserve. Do an internet search of an article called "billions for the bankers" and then ask this question. Secondly, we help many countries out financially. That is our job as America. Thirdly...9/11 did some disasterous things to the stock market. Why have interest rates been so low? Think about this a bit more and you will find the anser. Kerry will do nothing for the economy, that is up to us.
4.) Medical insurance...this is a good one. As if the american government has anything to do with this. The insurance companies practically run our government. We have large corporations working day in and day out inventing new drugs to finght some of the worst diseases ever. Because of these people dedicating their lives to helping other fight disease, and the time that it takes for these to be developed, produced, approved and manufactured; it cost's money. Plus, with morons suing doctors left and right because of mistakes made, or any other reason their malpractice insurance rates are skyrocketing. This trickles down to the american people who also need insurance. Goverment again has not much of a playing field here.
5.) Troops in Iraq??? I think someone else hit on this in the forum. It would be a death wish to send our soldiers into an area that we do not know (and theenemy does) and let them "hunt" Laden. There are american soldiers over there. Probably more than we know. Many that are undercover and cannot be accounted for, for fear of the terroists finding out. We have to fight differently in that war,a nd I assure you that we are.
GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did I say that Kerry was perfect or that he has never made an error? we all have made such errors be it in action or words.
I'm voting for Kerry because I want to give someone a chance in the white house to clean up the mess that the current administration has made. Both candidates have flaws, both have some valid points. But which one lied to us about the WMD's? Sure you can say that they were shipped out to another country, if so we would have found them already, and if they are out there and we haven't found them, then I guess we don't really care about finding the WMD's.
If only bush would have completed the job in Afganistan, and made that country to be a showcase for democracy for the muslim world to see, then we would have gained sympathy and standing in the world. And we could have still gone after saddam - for the RIGHT reasons after we have taken care of Afganistan.
But no, we just had to rush into Iraq cause of that "imminent danger" and found next to nothing, well except for a few cashe's of small arms and AK-47's But no WMD's
It's true that we sold Iraq weapons, but nothing like a nuke, or any radical chemical weapons.
And someone mentioned Bozo? yea, I'd vote for him if Kerry wasn't running, At least he'd make the world laugh and not hate
All bickering aside- it's all in whats best for you, and if the last 4 years were better than 8 years under Clinton. except for people with a good amount of money, I'm willing to bet that these past 4 years were not as good, even to say they were a lot worse.
It takes hard work to make this country the capitol of freedom, lets not ruin it by making rash decisions based on anger or denial. Instead, rebuild our global credibility, and move on to better things.
Yo joe here is something for you to think about. ok this post is going way off course and at any time it will be deleted, but before it does I want to quickly address gay marriage. so you say freedom for all and let them marry based on whatever they believe? sounds good, so I suppose you would be okay with a person marrying as many people as they want?( polygamy). and I just read a story about a man in utah who believes in marrying and having sex with several girls ages 10 to whatever, I suppose you would be in support of that? and how about people involved in beasteality (having sex with animals) if they decided to get married and get health benefits and tax breaks I assume you would be all for it. so where does it all end? suppose I want to marry a tree, or my mom? is all that okay? be careful how you answer because if its no then your contradicting yourself and if its yes then you have some serious issues(but we already knew that).
In spite of all of the salient points set forth in this thread, my opinion has not waivered from its true course.
I still think that democrats make great tenants!
Hehehe, the old "He wants to marry his horse" line...
So what if someone wants to marry an animal, but we'd have to have that animals consent in order to make it an equitable arrangement. Since animals can't communicate on our level, we just don't know, and on the grounds of possibly violating the animals freewill, this type of marraige isn't a valid one.
As far as the "10 year old girl" situation, the girl doesn't have the decernment to consent or desent the arrangement or understand what fully involves a marraige, and that would violate her freewill as well, and even give her mental issues in the future as well. Not a healthy arrangement for anyone involved. The man trying to marry her really REALLY needs help quick.
Last but not least polygamy. Many cultures have had this arrangement out of nessecity or wanting for a good reason. I think some cultures still practice this today. As long as all parties involved are consenting and their freewill isn't hindered or being manipulated, I see no problems with this type of arrangement. It's all in what consenting adults understand and feel that they want to do.
Anything else? I have ALL night...
Too bad....so sad.
your dad.
What's that supposed to mean? is that some kind of insult? Explain that instead of stooping to that level.
You can do better than that, can you?
Great comments all. All I have to say is that I will be voting for someone for whom I respect. Someone with the back bone and moral fortitude to do what is right. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does, but I have to be able to respect him. Now Kerry had a back bone before he didn't. . . or. . . Oh, I forget. . . Does he have a back bone today or not.
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 17:38, edmeyer wrote:
In spite of all of the salient points set forth in this thread, my opinion has not waivered from its true course.
I still think that democrats make great tenants!
This is sad but true. Of the people we have in houses (6 I have spoken with in the past monthish) 1 is a republican and only 2 are registered to vote/ 1rep. 1dem
Make Great Tenants??? 3 that were late this month would vote Dem. if they were registered.
To me it come down to how is my country the safe, with which man. It is clear how bush stands. Will we be attacted again? Eventually. Kerry bothers me because he has voted over and over to cut our military and with out them we are NOT safe. So I will sleep at night knowing that they will be there to take care of my family. Kerrys record proves they won't.
Let 's ask real estate questions this is a topic with answers that few will agree.
PS The major Pizza chains will let you do a co-op advertising on there boxes. You need to talk to the District manager. Just tell them "I will print your message on half if you will give them out" They are owned by independents mainly (more than likely Republicans, joking) and don't always go by what corporate states.
To much fun here must get back to work.
Sire
Ok just a few things to point out here:
1) a post earlier stated that unemployment is at an all time which is false. Our unemployment numbers are lower now than when Clinton ran for re-election which he boasted about. Look it up they are lower now than when Clinton was running again.
2) Our economy is see some of the best growth it's seen in 20 years. Again look it up if you think I'm wrong
3) Also when Bush came into office we were already in a slumping economy. You add that to 9/11 and I ask you...did you really expect our economy not feel this? Also we lost 1 million jobs in a few months after 9/11.
4) the tax cuts have helped our economy to bounce back. Greenspan even stated that Bush's tax cuts was a big reason for our economy not falling into a deeper recession. Tax cuts help small biz and allows them to expand and hire more empolyees.
5) clinton does deserve some of the blame for 9/11. I'm not saying all of it but under his watch our intelligence agencies were cut hard. Plus under his watch we had embassies attacked in Africa, the USS Cole, The Word Trade Center.. ect... and nothing was done about it. That did nothing but embolden
our enemy.
6) Could someone please tell me what Clinton did in office to create the great economy we had in the 90's? The economy was growing for 9 months before he took office but you never hear that. Also what was put in place before him was a large Contributor along with the new widget introduced called the internet.
Bottom line vote for who you want but don't throw out bogus facts because you read them on www.moveon.org. I love the fact that we can have a open debate like this and I love America for it. Go BUSH.
There's so much more to add but don't have the time. God Bless America and God be with our soldiers and their families.
What it meant was that you cannot win an argument over politics...against true believers(with due appologies to the long-shoreman who wrote book of that title).
And, it is also my response to the guy who said he was voting for Kerry.(which,like my post, makes no sense)
Hows that for succinct?
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 17:38, edmeyer wrote:
In spite of all of the salient points set forth in this thread, my opinion has not waivered from its true course.
I still think that democrats make great tenants!
Of course they do!...the government is sending them welfare checks each month to pay for it!
joe joe, healthy? are you serious? do you even realize what gay peoople engage in? do you even have a clue the amount of child molestors are in fact homosexuals? do some research buddy so you know what your talking about. and to address the 10 year old question. whos to say that she cant make that descision? you? a shrink? so lets say they just came out with a study that says 10 year olds can make sane descisions the same as a grown up. now is it okay to do such a sick thing? the answer is no! because every fiber in mine and people who arent crazys being say it is still wrong. and the first time we all heard about what homosexuality was we thought how wrong it was. now lots of people including yourself say "hey its not so bad" and "as long as they dont bother me". the fact is its perversion no matter how you feal about it. your reply clearly shows me that you cant debate using common sense, and when someone ceases to use common sense then there is no way I can continue to have a real conversation with them. so good luck with your morals and beliefs, I hope you have a good plan for the afterlife.
Seriously though, can anyone tell me why they are supporting/voting for John Kerry without referencing George W? I would be curious to know what you think his qualifications are and why he would do a good job...Again use NO reference to George W....
This thread started with the notion that Kerry would be a better president than Bush, then invited an on-line debate.
To this point in the thread, everyone seems to be focused only on one aspect of foreign policy. Your agreement or disagreement with the current foreign policy and the directiions it seems to be taking us appears to influence your choice of candidate for President.
Noone seems to be discussing how a Bush presidency or a Kerry presidency will affect our daily lives.
It seems to me that Kerry is for an expanded health care system, an expanded welfare system, and more funding for large ticket items such as education, the environment, Medicare, and an expansive prescription drug program. Kerry wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and increase social security benefits. In a nutshell -- bigger government and more expensive government.
I don't have any children, so education funding does not help me directly and the proposed tax credits for children in college don't help me a bit and neither do the proposed increases in Child Tax Credits. I have several years before I am eligible for Social Security, though my financial plan does not really depend upon receiving any benefits. My health care plan already provides an excellent prescription drug feature. All a Kerry presidency will do for me directly is raise my income taxes because (by necessity, government will cost more to run). Even though I am in the 15% tax bracket, rolling back the Bush tax cuts will still increase my income tax liability starting with reinstatement of the "marriage tax" penalty.
I firmly believe that our foreign policy is largely dictated by world events and thus is primarily a reactionary policy to protect our position or interests. This will not change, regardless of which man is sitting in the oval office. In addition, our need to protect our country from international terrorism and the potential terrorist threats will still dictate our homeland security plans -- regardless of which candidate is elected to the Presidency.
As I see it, Kerry will make government bigger and increase my taxes. Bush will not. The Bush domestic economic policies, which encourage individual investment, seem to be more investor friendly and will enrich me faster than a Kerry approach to domestic economic policy.
The question for me is: Will I be wealthier in four years if Bush is re-elected than I will be if Kerry is elected?
I believe the answer is yes. I will vote my wallet.
Pardon me everyone but isn't this a real estate forum.....not a political one?
No, this section of the forums deals with anything else BUT real estate. Therefore its called "Random Ramblings"
Feel free to participate.
"day-to-day we gain a few DOW points, and lose a few, it'll keep doing that for a while due to the higher unemployment"
Correction, Joe: the primary market mover right now is the price of oil. When the price per barrel falls, the market surges, and vice versa. Certainly there are other factors at play here, such as the uncertainty of the election, terrorism, upcoming earnings reports, rising interest rates, economic numbers (uneployment, GDP, consumer sentiment, etc.), but the majority of that is already priced into market and is having little immediate impact right now. Like I said, the main driver is, and has been for many months, the ballooning price of oil.
That said, you'd think GW would just swoop into Iraq, pillage the oil fields, build a surplus and knock prices down.
I mean, according to the liberal yahoos, isn't that supposedly why we invaded Iraq? Wasn't it "blood for oil?"
Okay, there's been plenty of bloodshed. So where's all the oil?
[addsig]
bush looked like the idiot he is last night at the debate, dodging questions, pushing his agenda, it makes me sick to my stomach that even one person believes this guy to be a genuine leader of this country - he is cheney's puppet, the common man for all, the perfect ploy to deceive everyone becuase he is "just like me". He is child of privilege, he is a puppet, he is a man who does give a crap about anybody but himself and his elite base of rich supporters, and he is deluded bordering on psycopathic.
If he is so confident himself, why did he look like a startled monkey MANY times during the debate last night? Twitching his head like a reactive teenager? PRESIDENTS DON'T BEHAVE LIKE THAT, only scared idiots who know their time is up do.
Why don't you all do what i did, and dig deeper, learn about him and his legacy, and you will find out that this man you love so much, that you think is such a great commander-in-chief (who never fought a day in his life), is from a bloodline filled with despicable and evil acts.
Come on folks, there is $36 trillion in oil in those Iraqi fields......the troops are there to make sure the oil gets pumped out of the ground, not make Iraq free.
Everyone is so brainwashed its sickening. Just open up your mouths and let the media dump their crap in, and let them shake your head up and down "yes, thank you, I believe it because you told me it was true"
Biggest problem in this country is lack of discernment and people's ability to question and think for themselves.
I don't trust any politicians that high up, but I do know that the neocons are dangerous, don't give a crap about anyone reading this message, and are out to push their own self-enriching agenda, and I am not buying any of it.
Bush has got to go.....
There is only ONE PERSON on this earth responsible for the invasion of Iraq. And that person is Saddam Hussein.
It's amazing that the Democrats are so willing to give him a pass.
Saddam, whose post-Kuwait existence was contingent on meeting UN terms, refused to do so for a decade, playing obvious cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors. The world was willing to lift sanctions and welcome Iraq back to the community of nations if he simply lived up to his agreements.
So, the real question is not to ask President Bush, Where are the WMDs that you said were there? ....but to ask, Why didn't Saddam comply? The only obvious conclusion is that he had no intention of dismantling his programs, that he expected world resolve to weaken and to eventually lift sanctions on him for his suffering people. He satisfactorily demonstrated the UN's functional impotence.
Well, after 9/11 that proved a foolish gamble on his part.
Our actions were correct and laudible. We gave him ample time to stop our advance. When he refused our deadlines it was all over. His last minute proffered "concessions" were too little too late. The Taliban tried the same thing and our President didn't fall for it.
I thank God we have the president we have today. We definitely need such a man for the future.
Do any of you guys really think your going to convince the other that you are right? I don't think so...no minds will be swayed here...but, just for an FYI...
I voted for bush last term, not real happy with his performance, but i still think it is better than what gore would have done, I liked Kerry in the primarys and then he turned into the biggest poll slut I've ever seen and now, i'm voting for bush or i'm not voting at all, still haven't decided.
Just an FYI
Hmm, your not real happy with bush's performance, but you may vote for him again? wow...
As far as Kerry being a "poll slut" can you or someone give me some examples? I haven't seen this from him yet, he may have re-thought what he wanted to say and clear up what he meant, but that hardly constitues calling him a "poll slut"
Its called the lesser of two evils.
Um, the war on Iraq, his stance on green cars (ever hear that one...talking to some steel union workers "I'm proud to own 3 SUVs, 2 cars, blah blah blah"....about six months later talking to some greenies on the east coast "You know who is on the waiting list for the TOyota Prius? The Edwards and the Kerrys" then someone asks "didn't you say acouple months ago you own a bunch of suvs and other cars that aren't fuel efficient at all?" "Oh, those are the estates vehicles" or something to that effect.)
What else, abortion? "My morals don't agree with it, but I don't want to take that decision away from other people" he said something like that...thats like..."My morals don't agree with wife beating, but I think that decision should be made by a husband..."
It goes on and on and on...And his little lie last night about the NYC subway systems having to be closed for the RNC was real nice too.
I think any resonable person that saw the debate last night and saw the way he responded to questions, will come to the realization that america can do better than this, please for heavens sake this is suppose to be the most civilized country in the and his been led by a man that lacks substance he need to go.
"1. why did we attack iraq and not north korea knowing fully well that north korea had wmd and said they are willing to sell to the highest bidder. now everybody wants to have wmd because it is a detterent."
North Koreans already has nukes vs. one that is trying to get some.
"2.why are american jobs been shipped oversea in record numbers and unemployment is still record high in the states."
One word. Walmart. But really the president doesn't control every company. I think Clinton started the free trade with China if I am not mistaken.
"3.Why do we have record deficts in the budget and yet we have the highest number of americans leaving below poverty line."
One word. Walmart and taxes. If you didn't like your tax refund, you can send it to me.
"4.why is it that medical insurance are the highest they have ever been and they and they getting ready to cost more next year and yet americans are prevented fromgetting cheaper drugs from overseas".
Because of Lawyers like John Edwards and thier lawsuits.
BTW- Who is taking part of the Health Savings Plan that Bush started this year which is a major turn for Health Insurance??
"5.Why do we have over 250000 troops in irag and less than 100000 in afganistan knowing fully well that is were osama is."
You can't start something and leave it undone. That is what we did 10 years ago with Iraq.
Obviously, you don't keep up to date with the day to day activities yourself. OBL is being hunted actively every day by Marines and Special Forces Troops in Afghanistan. He is definitely not on the "back burner". .............wait for the UN to take action........you gotta be joking. The current scandle aside, the UN knew of the atrocities being commited on the Iraqis' (as did Russia and France), yet they choose to turn a blind eye to the 10's of thousands that were being executed.........that maniac needed to be taken down, regardless of the excuse used to do it.......leadership sometimes takes balls, of which some folks lack.
That 250,000 troops in Iraq statement is bugging me. It's more like 135,000. I hate it when people try to make a point and only prove that they aren't educated on the subject they are attempting to make a point about.
I was pointing out the inconsistencies rather than agreeing with one side or the other in the issues...you can cloud over them if you want, but i'd like to understand how you can morally disagree with something and still allow it to happen? You didn't answer that, the wife beating and abortion were just examples...
Kerry IS a poll slut. Bush IS a poll slut. Who isn't a poll slut?
Bush sticks to his tough guy stance because IT WORKS FOR HIM IN THE POLLS with middle america. If it didn't, he would come out in the open as a poll slut, but his disguise is obviously working well.
Again, everyone gets caught up in the us vs. them crap, when it is all the same system, and keeps everyone feuding while the real movers and shakers continue to use governemnets to manipulate human populations for their own enrichment and power.
It is just that hard to get, but you do have to accept that there are some mighty lost and evil people the top of the world power structures, and as much as I used to, I just don't have a problem realizing it.
I can only focus on doing the best i can for people in the world, and in my family and friends.
I hope we all live long and prosper, and that the governmental and banking systems change to something different so we can ALL realize that. Until that time, you will have "the war on terra" as Bush says........a perfect, unending war machine to force, again, enrichment for the multinationals that build those billion dollar weapons systems..... some of you probably believe that Bin Laden actually blewup the trade towers too......gee, we had him cornered, then he just "got away".....good old friends of the Bushes......
No, I'm right, everybody that doesn't agree with me is wrong.
John Kerry remains an enigma. He’s almost laughable; though the man offered a more polished presentation than did the President, he said nothing. He was so busy making outrageous claims that he apparently had no time to delve into such trivial matters as precisely how he intends to accomplish these magnanimous goals of his. There were a lot of “I can do better”s from the Senator but not much in the way of how. “I have a plan” was also popular though, again, rather vague on specifics.
Attention Liberals:
Congratulations on possessing the ability to level criticism. This appears to be your only viable contribution to the political process.
That said, Liberals will continue, as Kerry did last evening, to criticize the President yet they will do so without offering any substantive alternatives. Allow me to document the entirety of the Liberal Playbook 2000-2004 edition:
1. If Bush does anything at all, ever, you are to criticize him for it remembering to use the words “misled” and “Halliburton” as frequently as possible irrespective of such things as relevancy and veracity.
Enough already! We understand that you don’t like the President—one would naturally expect that from the opposing political party, but do you have any core beliefs of your own (aside, of course, from those lofty moral ideals of abortion and homosexuality)?
This thread was started with an “I’m voting for Kerry title” yet it ought to have read “I’m voting against Bush.” All the Libs in this forum have done is criticize Bush. What they haven’t done is talk about Kerry (I wonder why). Let’s see some of that, shall we? My question to you Liberals is: Aside from hating Bush, why are you voting for Kerry?
Oh for crying out loud. This is really getting annoying. Get it through your heads Bushites; there are very few Kerry supporters who are genuinely pro-Kerry. What I mean is that most of the votes that Kerry will get, will be votes against Bush rather than for Kerry. I have no love for Kerry. But Kerry will get my vote because I firmly believe that Bush is both incompetent and far too stupid to be in this role.
It seems that everyone agrees the we are better off without Saddam in power. Does it really matter what "reason" we used to do it?
- He violated UN policies over and over or
-He may have had WMDS or
-He killed several thousands of his own people or
- it was tuesday
I don't really care what the reasons were or what they should have been. we are better off without Saddam and that's all I'm worried about.
Quote:
On 2004-10-01 10:08, Joe_Oh wrote:
Several points to be made by that last post...
1) Democrats would have found a legitimate reason to get rid of saddam, and it was Bush senior that didnt complete the task in the first invasion, cause of some half-cocked excuse about keeping iran in check.
2) About those UN inspectors being kicked out, how would the US feel if we had to have UN inspections cause we were "under suspicion". We'd kick them out too cause we wouldn't want our privacy violated or have someone have the run of our nation. Having saddam out of power is a good thing, but this president went in for the wrong reasons without an exit strategy.
3) And saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, yes he had images of the towers burning, but that was to make the islamic population in Iraq like saddam for him showing that off. Just a popularity stunt.
Anymore?
<font size=-1>[ Edited by Joe_Oh on Date 10/01/2004 ]</font>
Right. I want to vote for someone who when asked this week on Good Morning America if the decision to go into Iraq was the right one, replied “It depends on the outcome” http://www.kerryoniraq.com/
I'm gonna call this the energizer bunny post....keeps going and going
But all giggles aside, I'm gonna go down the line again-
rmdane2000, This is how I can "morally" disagree with something and allow someone
else to do that thing. It's the same as neo-nazi's being allowed to print and publish
racist material even though I think it's wrong to try to cause racial divides and
spread hatered based soley on race or ethnic background. But we do live in a
democracy, and the basis for democracy is compromise. If we compromise that
compromise, our democracy loses focus and credibility.
davehays, you're right when you say it's all just smoke and mirrors and the real
players are just pulling the strings. But I want to try to change something even
if it's just a slight change. Both Kerry and Bush are members of "Skull and Bones"
secret society, and they are cousins, I forget how far removed, but related
nontheless.
wide_awake, it's not about leveling critizism, it's about knowing what happened in the
correct context. The news media has a funny way of clipping video, or sound bytes.
and about that "not Bush" attitude, it's not becuase that he is Bush, but what he
has done, and not done that made my mind up. Not becuase of the name or party.
and if the title was "I'm voting against bush" that'd be inaccurate. I mean are they
also voting for Nader or Kerry? Stop making this an ego-centrical campaign and
everyone is out to "Get Bush"
nic3456, What about other countries that violated UN resolutions? Why did we go
after Iraq with a vengence? Remember, Bush had an extreme interest in Iraq from
the get go. Well, It can't be the WMD's where are they? if they existed, we
would have found them already, or someone else would know and try to use
them against the US effort already. Apparently we have to define "WMD"'s Are we
talking about rockets and some mustard gas, or megaton nukes? both cause
damage, it's the amount of damage that each produces. but if any of those were
to be used against someone, it would be mass destruction to the person
getting attacked.
Posts comming up when I'm still trying to reply to others, man this is great.
As far as that website is concerned, and that "depends on what the outcome is" can be spinned anyway you want, I'd have to see what question was asked and the complete answer word for word exactly in order to make my determination. Though it's true that saddam was a threat, it's what KIND of threat he was and the priority level of that threat he was.
Yes! Go for Kerry if you want the war in the US. Yes, we lost many lives in Iraq...but it would be MUCH SMARTER to fight there than here.
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 00:09, Gino wrote:
And lastly, Bush will make sure that cash stays in your pocket. Unlike the dems, the rep party makes people earn their living.
Why can't people see...
It is very difficult for people to "earn their living" in a country that keeps exporting our jobs!
Let me ask...Do you really think that YOUR job is safe (here in the U.S.) under the rule of Bush???? OR could your job be done in another country - for less cost to your employer?
I say: EXPORT TIRES NOT JOBS!
Quote:
Yes! Go for Kerry if you want the war in the US. Yes, we lost many lives in Iraq...but it would be MUCH SMARTER to fight there than here
Guess what? Kerry wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. And its not very smart losing soldiers lives in a war that wasn't nessesary. And if we would have just stayed the course in Afganistan, we'd be well on our way to making new allies and strengthing ties we already have. Now look where Bush led us, 1000+ dead in a frivilous war. What a waste, I hope the rest of our soldiers make it home safe and sound.
Kerry' said aptly in yestrday's speech.
Invading Irag after 911 ia akin to invading Mexico after pearl harbor and bringing down Fidel Castro.
The truth of the matter is Bush is a person who does not think rationallly and logically, instead he relies on his gut feeling to make decisions. Is that what you want in your President? Gut feeling.. I need a President who is smart and who can think rationally under heavy stress. I feel that after 911, he became over-emotional and irrational and he probably got the wrong advice and he attacked Iraq instead. Hello!! The war is in Afganisthan!!
If he was sitting in the board room facing Donald Trump - He would have been FIRED for making a collossal mistake.
Case closed.
That was such a weak response to what I was asking i really shouldn't even respond.
Kerry's 11 Positions
On The War In Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry On Whether The Iraq War Was Worth It: "It Depends On The Outcome." DIANE SAWYER: "Was the war in Iraq worth it?" KERRY: "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." SAWYER: "So it was not worth it?" KERRY: "We should not - it depends on the outcome ultimately, and that depends on the leadership." (ABC’s "Good Morning America," 9/29/04)
1. October 2002: Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)
2. April 2003: Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began, But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge And Called For "Regime Change In The United States." (Glen Johnson, "Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric," The Boston Globe, 3/11/03; Glen Johnson, "Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’" The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
3. May 2003: In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
4. September 2003: Kerry Said Voting Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Would Be "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to - to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS’s "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)
5. October 2003: Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
6. January 2004: After Voting For War And Trailing Candidate Howard Dean In The Democrat Primaries, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 1/6/04)
7. August 2004: In Response To President’s Question About How He Would Have Voted If He Knew Then What He Knows Now, Kerry Confirmed That He Would Still Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." (CNN’s "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)
8. September 2004: Kerry: Iraq Is "The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time." "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq ‘the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term." (Patricia Wilson, " Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", Reuters, 9/6/04)
9. September 2004: Kerry Says There Were No Circumstances Under Which We Should Have Gone To War, But He Was Still Right To Vote For It. IMUS: "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" KERRY: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)
10. Kerry Said That The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Left America "Less Secure." KERRY: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction - The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)
11. Kerry On Whether The Iraq War Was Worth It: "It Depends On The Outcome." DIANE SAWYER: "Was the war in Iraq worth it?" KERRY: "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." SAWYER: "So it was not worth it?" KERRY: "We should not - it depends on the outcome ultimately, and that depends on the leadership." (ABC’s "Good Morning America," 9/29/04)
rmdane2000, could you please respond, how was that a "weak" response?
what are the flaws you see in my response? please reply-
4KASH, thanx for posting the exact question and quote, this is what Kerry meant when
he responded to Sawyer was now that we are in the conflict we will know if it was worth
it or not, and right now- it's not looking "worth it" even Cheny said that sending troops
into Iraq would not be worth the loss to try to get rid of saddam. I think that was in 1992
or 91' sometime in the early 90's. now look at Cheny, happy as ever his company is in
Iraq making out like a bandit. He's still part of Halliburton you know. Explain that.
I said this before, when kerry and edwards voted to give the president the authority
to go into Iraq, they were trusting that Bush was telling the truth on Iraq and WMD's.
Turns out someone gave that info to Bush, but he should have triple-checked that info
before running with it. It was the bit of info that he wanted just so he can go into Iraq
and wanted to so bad he didn't even bother to double-check it. And if he did check it,
and found anything in the report to be false and still ran with it, I want to see
impeachment proceedings a.s.a.p.! but it wont matter, Kerry wins in a landslide!
kerry voted against the 87 billion because it would give the whitehouse a "blank check"
to whomever is gonna run the operation. He would have voted for (I think it was) a 60B
dollar amount. these companies are just some of the worst hogs I ever seen.
remember, kerry and many others including us the american public trusted what
Bush has considered valid info and even said that there were WMD's in Iraq, he
didn't say he think there may be, he says there were in fact in that country.
Lets let the dead horse lie. We are not going to agree. Some like Bush some like Kerry. I will vote the way that will help protect and prosper my God and family. Next I protect my country. It is quit easy, for me. Nothing is getting accomplished here. If maybe we had end goals...
How abouth this
DOES anyone here use account debted for there tenants? If so how do you use? Wanting to find a new company
Sire
I'm not here to change minds or votes, just stating the facts as they sit. Hopefully I cleared up somethings that may matter to some. The political horse will never stop being beaten, as long as we have any form of election. Some questions I have posted here havne't got an answer like I requested, which goes to show some people like to spew and spew and then crawl under a rock and fester in denial in whats really going on. I only hope these people change for the better before it's too late for them.
Great disscusion folks, go out and vote!
Joe,
When you find out what the facts really are, let us know.
Look, I don't agree with everything Bush does, I don't agree with his stance on stem cell research, I don't agree with his stance on the death penalty. But at least I know where he stands, and I know what to expect from him.
The only thing I know about Kerry is he changes his mind depending on how the wind blows. He has already said he is going to increase taxes. Of course he may change his mind there too, but I believe he will. This means fewer jobs, increased risk of recession, and more money out of my pocket. Not to mention the increased liklihood that I will have to learn French, Arabic, or some other language depending on who he eventually surrenders to. Kerry's answer to most problems will generally be more regulation and higher taxes. Both will stifle economic growth and infringe on my liberties.
Not for me thank you. I will vote for Bush.
September 2003: Kerry Said Voting Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Would Be "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to - to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS’s "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)
October 2003: Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
You want facts? here's a few
We're already in a slump and the economy is growing oh so slowly.
Kerry will increase taxes for the uber-wealthy while keeping them down for the lower income brackets for the most part.
Oh and about that "$87 billion dollar package" issue he didn't vote for, it had too many spending flaws and after seeing the final version of that amendment and seeing the spending irresponsibility in that amendment, he voted no. He would have voted for a previously smaller purposed amendment that was to have been about $60 Billion or so, but $87 Billion would have been too much with the flaws containted in that $87 Billion amendment, understand? Or do I need to explain it another way cause people like to beat that dead horse until they are told this...
I am not sure I am 100% behind either candidate but looking at the options gives me very little choice. Kerry only makes decisions after the fact, sorry but that may be a bit late. We here are all in business and it would be nice to make decisions on deals in hindsite but of course that is to late. Bush has to live with the decisions he has made and as President you have to look forward not afterward. We may also look at the healthcare issue being a problem, well not one thing was done since about the Johnson administration years ago and so Bush does something and the hindsiters are ready to bite him for that decision. Kerry gets in and Edwards has anything to do with heatlhcare hold on to your bandages because we will be litagated to death since Edwards full support is from trail lawyers. Come on real estate investors lets go out and talk up Bush and make sure he gets elected the alternative is definitely not better. Hard to believe this is the best the Dems could put up.
I believe that NO ONE will ever increase taxes on the "uber-wealthy." In order to do that, there'd have to be a complete revamping of the tax code as it applied to corporate taxation and other business entities. IMO, when you start screwing around with business entity tax code, you're screwing around with the economy in general, which is then bad for everybody, regardless of your tax bracket. That said, if you DON'T change tax code as it applies to business, then the uber-wealthy will continue to pay less taxes because they will continue to offset their tax liability with business losses. So, though many may disagree, I feel that following through with such a promise is going to prove impossible for John Kerry, unless he plans to dismantle our economy as a whole. Who then benefits from that?
oh little joe it seams the only thing you regard as fact are what you say or what somebody else says that you agree with. if only you could take a step back and read all your replys and see the truth of your bias ways. I can gurantee you have not changed anyones mind or even gotten anybody to consider what you are saying. they say ignorant people talk the loudest, and you have proven that to be true. again, just because you say something doesnt make it true or right. you have yet to back up your so called "facts" with anything but "I say so" or "go look it up". and let me guess were you want us to check your "facts", to a book written by somebody as deluted as you? crazy plus crazy = crazy. so go ahead and sleep tonight thinking you are smarter and better informed than the rest of us, at least it will be that way in your dreams.
You can't be at war and be politically correct at the same www.time.The reason America is hated by other countries is not just because of religion and culture. The problem is how US does not want them to develop WMDs. I know it has to do with falling into the wrong hands, but how is that defined?Now if you look at it from their point of view, it seems US is trying to take over. US has lots of nukes.Why are no other countries "allowed" to have nuclear weapons? If China, Russia or N. Korea told us to "dis-arm or else", wouldn't we resist? How many other countries have used H-bombs in combat? Why do we have to spend billions to destroy and then billions to re-build? Why do we "have to" send money to Africa?
I'm new here and I was more interested in investment than politics. However, I think in this case Bush and the radical Neocons are selling us out to their own interests. Bush's depletion of our wealth into a quagmire in Iraq (his own fater said so) is making our money worth less and lining the pockets of special interests. This reckless bold venture into Empire to secure access to Middle East oil has come at too high a cost. People hate us now and we are not safe to travel in the world. That may affect our grandchildren in ways we may never know. Deliberate attack is not in compliance with the international law we helped to create. It is in opposition to the true free democracy America was supposed to represent. The one Bush claims he is trying to create now in Iraq. Do you wonder who he was worried about when he refused to sign the treaty for International court?Remember, Bush planned to go into Iraq before Sept 11. Kerry stated that we are currently building 14 bases in Iraq. Bush did not deny this. If you choose to follow the Neocons, I hope you are informed of their plans. Bush is not a true conservative he has pushed us to the far right. Its valid to vote against Bush regardless of what you think of Kerry personally. Another four years could bankrupt our economy. Maybe you are better off financially than you were four years ago, but most of America is worse. Maybe if we just have a change of leadership a few of the people who hate us because we killed their family members in the past two years will be able to start to let go and we might all be a little safer. It would seem to make common sense that a war hero might be a good choice just based on that alone considering the mess were in. I'm an independent, but I won't vote for Bush. I can't understand why anyone would unless its because they pay less tax. Lower taxes are not worth selling out to fear and endless war.
Don't listen to the spin. Who benefits from this war? Read (the media is a joke). Vote based on policy not spin (propaganda), personality, or who looks good. Bush is not Ronald Regan.
I sure wish we had better choices. We can't control whats going to happen. We can hope they will at least count our vote. I would rather think about good investments than politics.
[quote]
On 2004-10-02 06:45, Joe_Oh wrote:
jeff12002, ok lemme ask you this, if we knew that Iraq only had simple rockets or gas
canisters and korea having the nukes and posed a more real threat, THEN WHY THE
HELL DID WE GO AFTER SADDAM AND NOT KOREA?!?!
Joe,
Korea didn't have a nuclear weapons program 10 years ago. No UN sanctions etc. No one here is indicating that Korea is not still a threat, and the believe me, the Big-Bad GOP is not ignoring the situation. Just because you don't get the story on the CBS evening news, doesn't mean that we're not talking with Korea, and attempting to work out a diplomatic solution. (The UN failed to enforce their own resolutions in Iraq for over 10 years)
Like it or not, this country is not a democracy. It is and always has been a democratically elected Republic. That Republic was established by Christian people, using Christian fundamentals. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So, you might as well get used to it. There will always be some religious influences in your life.
I don't know if you have something to gain personally by having gay marriage allowed or not, I really don't care. It doesn't seem fair to have a same sex couple work a lifetime establishing a life together, only to have some family member snatch 1/2 the couples assets when one of them dies, just because the probate system doesn't recognize that the surviving partner should have the same survival benefits as the surviving member of a married couple would enjoy. I could go on and on with examples, and I'm sure you can as well. However, although I feel that there needs to be some revision in the tax code, the probate system, and the health care industry regarding this, I still feel that "Marriage" is and should remain the union of a man and a woman.
So, while I agree with you that there should be some provisions made to address this issue, no matter how badly you want it to be. There is and always should be a difference between same-sex unions, and the traditional Marriage we all grew up with.
In my opinion, there are far more important issues that this country has to deal with in this election for this topic to swing my vote. There are three branches of government in this country, as I'm pretty sure you know. I would encourage you to continue to fight this battle in the courts.
Have a nice day,
Jeff (Voting Republican)
Love George Bush, would never think of handing over our nations sovereinty to the international thugs in the UN by voting for Kerry or clintons or any other UN lovers :-D
No, Kerry will finish the job in Iraq by trying to bring in other nations to help with that burden.
Korea is just one example, we also can say the same thing for trying to help out Sudan, or any other country that harbors terrorist and has a hideous record on human rights abuses.
Afganistan was, and in some ways still has al-qaeda members working there. Thats why we went there in the first place, cause that's where the network operated from. not Korea or Iraq. Iraq is just a diversion from the real problem we have from extremo-muslim facists. Iraq was totally an elective war, not even close to being nessesary.
As far as the UN goes, it's just like any other organazation, it has it's purpose, as well as it's flaws. But it's a central hub for international relations. And when the world seen us abandon that hub to go on a wild goose chase, they took that as blatent disrespect to the world stage, and rightfully so.
Quote:
On 2004-10-02 16:04, Joe_Oh wrote:
No, Kerry will finish the job in Iraq by trying to bring in other nations to help with that burden.
Joe,
What other nations? They have already said no regardless of who is president. Kerry i s a legend in his own mind. He doesn't have any special relationship with other heads of state. His statements about his so called international relationship is right up there with his remembering Christmas in Cambodia.
Quote:
On 2004-10-01 20:52, Joe_Oh wrote:
You want facts? here's a few
We're already in a slump and the economy is growing oh so slowly.
Joe, How is it a slump if it is in your words, "growing[
Kerry will increase taxes for the uber-wealthy while keeping them down for the lower income brackets for the most part.
I don't think I have ever heard Kerry use the term uber-wealthy, but regardless, this is not a fact, it is your opinion. What data or facts do you have to back up your opinion here?
Oh and about that "$87 billion dollar package" issue he didn't vote for, it had too many spending flaws and after seeing the final version of that amendment and seeing the spending irresponsibility in that amendment, he voted no.
Exactly what spending flaws are you talking about here? Again, no data, no facts.
He would have voted for a previously smaller purposed amendment that was to have been about $60 Billion or so, but $87 Billion would have been too much with the flaws containted in that $87 Billion amendment, understand? Or do I need to explain it another way cause
Yes, please explain it a different way. I am confused about how you know what Kerry would have done. I don't have the power to read someone else's mind. I can only go on what someone else does. The fact is that he voted for the war, voted against funding it, said that doing so would be irresponsible. . .
people like to beat that dead horse until they are told this...
Until they are told what? Please let me know so I can stop beating the dead horse.
I do like one thing Kerry said, when he talked about someone having a, "big hat with no cattle." I have yet to hear fact one from you, Joe, and have yet to hear a clear plan from Kerry. In fact the only thing I have heard from you is opinion, and from Kerry, a lot of waffling. So to you, Joe, and to Kerry, I can only say, if the hat fits, wear it.
I didn't say growing, I said growing slowly, and even then the Dow industrial average goes up and down a few points a day, maybe a bit more, but still, it's pretty much stagnant with the exception of a few sectors of the economy. you people really know how to mince words.
as far as the 87$ billion package stands, there was a previous bill for the same thing, and it was about 60$ billion, but then there was some things added to tack on another 27$ billion to the pricetag. sure wish I could tack on an extra 27$ billion to my fee.
Unless I do some web research and verification I don't know the spending structure that the final bill had in it. If you don't trust me, do the research yourself and check back here.
If you need the last part explained differently, It's just like I said before, do the research yourself so you know you're getting the information unfiltered. and let me get this clear once and for all....
KERRY VOTED FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE TRUSTED THE PRESIDENT!! AND SO DID WE!
Kerry THEN was against the war when he and the rest of us found out that the president gave us FALSE reasons for going to war. Clear??
Kerry IS for funding the war we are currently in. He is however against using this war as an excuse to pass financially bloated bills that will only have the money sqaundered away and not used for the war effort.
yo joe it looks like you like to avoid direct questions, so I will ask again. is it alright with you if a law passes that people can marry whom and whatever they want? not just man to man or woman to woman but everything. animals, relatives, children, anything? my question is where does it end? so does it end with same sex and affter that you will not agree with what someone might want to marry? or is it completely up to the individual to determine what is "right". because there are some pretty sick people out there and I need to know that if you agree in same sex marriage then you need to uphold the rights of all people, even the ones that may be into something really demented. and just in case you want some facts, this country was founded on the bible. granted this country is not perfect(because humans will never be) but we are without a doubt the greatest country in the world. and the one difference between us and everyone else is that our nation was founded by godfearing people. and I read earlier where you said dont bring religion into this, I'm pretty sure your not telling me what to do tough guy, but I just wanted to make sure.
I think I need to weigh in on this. First, I have experience in being in a stinky, hot, and hostile place. It sucked and if I had to do it again, THE INTELLIGENCE HAD BEST BE RIGHT!! If Joe Schmo worked for you and came to you with a hot RE tip that you invested in from his foolproof knowledge, would you keep him as an employee if you lost your a$$? Second, since GWB came to office, both me and my wife have both been laid off. Thankfully, it only took me six months to find a job, but my wife is still unemployed. Oddly enough, the cost of living has gone up and just to be able to work again, I had to take a considerable pay cut. Vote for Bush? I would rather eat glass than go through four more years of this!!
Dlitedan, I already explained how marrying animals or children is a violation of their freewill and there fore wrong. go back a few pages and you'll find that post with the explanations.
Also, hetero-couples do some so-called "demented" things too, give me you're email address and I show you some really messed up pictures to show that both hetero/homosexual couples are demented as well as modest in their "actions"
If something seems right for YOU it may not seem right for someone else to live by or accept as a standard of living.
People should be allowed to marry into a all-party consenting relationship. I have already stated how animals or children don't have the ability or understanding to give such consent.
I'm only telling you to be objective, you assume that all same sex arrangements are "demented". They're no more or no less "demented" than hetero-relationships go.
Anything else I need to clear up?
Your post in support of Kerry is vague and without substance. Kerry is a ship without a rudder, ever wandering - searching for a course. Eloquent, even "Presidential" - Kerry is without substance or conviction.
George Bush is a poor orator, but rock-solid in his belief and conviction. Were I voting for the figurehead that is displayed on the bow of the ship - Kerry would be my man. I am however inclined to elect the less polished, seasoned and committed captain upon whom I can place my trust to steer the ship of state through turbulent seas.
This is the day for a "fighter" not a whiner!
While you "whine" your support for Kerry - I will prouldly stand on Dubya's record and support him prouldly!
bnorton, ok- PROVE that I don't know what I'm talking about. Do the research yourself and post that here, Even if I would have told you what I found, you would still doubt it. Just because I don't know the exact particulars of a bill doesn't mean I don't have the right idea of whats going on.
Quote:
Joe, I am not so sure I would have admitted this one. You obviously spend your time on the internet doing some very unusual things
Ahh yes, more of the personal attacks. Is that all you can do? It's sad to see someone stoop to that level to try to make a lame point. Grow up-
Besides, I'm not doing any of the crazy stuff these hetero-couple are doing, I just know it happens. Stop living under a rock and see what goes on around you all the time.
Quote:
I know I am taking a real leap here, but I am assuming you were in the Marines. First let me say, thank you for serving.
When you assume, you make an ass- Well you know the saying. I was never in the marines and I fail to see the relevance of my previous posted question. Please stick to the question at hand as I have, and don't change subjects. Another sign of a shifty postition.
joyflnzz, My support isn't vauge as you claim. He's for raising the minimum wage, He's pro-choice, He's pro-international support and relations, He's far more thoughtfull and collected than bush can ever be. Just look at the debates this past thursday. It's as if he didnt even practice for the event. "Uh, Uh, Uhhhh Uhhhhhh". Sure someone can have some difficulty performing on stage, but his preparation for this highly scripted event was lacking to say the least.
Anyone can make "rock-solid" desicions on the spot, and be quick about them. But without planning and forethought, Those decisions can easily backfire. One thing I can say for this administration, they really stand behind their disasters and mistakes like no other. I don't want a leader that's in constant denial of the situation, I want someone who can fix it, and bush has had 4 years to try, and failed miserably.
About that "Whining" comment, you try not to whine if you were to get laid off due to your job getting shipped overseas, or don't whine cause you get sub-standard healthcare after returning home from fighting in Iraq, try not to whine when your vote doenst get counted or someone conveinently forgot to process your voter registration.
People "whine" for a reason, and they do it when something is usually wrong and needs to be addresed ASAP. And bush is ignoring these problems, and if he's re-elected, the "Whining" will only increase. Who knows, even you may join the ever growing chorus for some unforeseen reason.
Quote:
On 2004-10-03 12:49, Joe_Oh wrote:
About that "Whining" comment, you try not to whine if you were to get laid off due to your job getting shipped overseas, or don't whine cause you get sub-standard healthcare after returning home from fighting in Iraq, try not to whine when your vote doenst get counted or someone conveinently forgot to process your voter registration.
So you did serve. Then I owe you my gratitude as well. I understand you are bitter. But, George Bush did not downsize the military and decrease your VA medical benefits. He also did not forget to process your voter registration. He also did not ship your job overseas. I am not in your position, but if I were, I think I would be pretty bitter.
I am going to tell you the same thing I told Leatherneck. I think you are in a better position because you are now investing in real estate. You can choose to be successful or you can choose to fail. It is up to you. Your success or failure is directly related to how you channel your energy. You can choose to move forward, or you can choose to be bitter and live in the past. Lord knows you have every excuse you want to fail. The choice is yours.
You and others who have fought in war should know better than anyone what will happen if you have a weak leader. John Kerry is a master debater. He out performed GW by miles. And still, he lacks substance and strenght. I don't want a weak leader bringing this war to my home.
joe, yes there are some more things you can clear up. I stated that marriage is between a man and a woman only and you said that is my opinion and people should be able to do what they want. okay, then if that is your stance then you can not come to me and say a child or teenager(or animal) doesnt have the ability to make a consentual descision about marriage. I am pretty sure that is your opinion. unless you can show me some facts that back that up and even then it would just be the OPINION of someone else(which I am sure you cant since you have yet to give any facts to back up what you say despite the pleading of others for you to show us) so it seems that you want me to keep my opinions to myself and let people marry same sex, but that sure does change when it is asked of you. again, can you show me facts that teenagers and children do not have the ability to make a right descision regarding marriage? and yes you still are avoiding another part of the question. what about relatives? grown up relatives? if your mom gets divorced from your dad and you 2 fall in love is it ok for you to get married and receive all the benefits and rights of a marriage? please stop reading my replys and picking and choosing what you would like to address and that which you can not. I am ready for a ill-logic and circular response from you so go ahead and bring it.
It always seems amazing to me how people decide who to vote for based on the person running for office. (Who they like better)
Even more amazing is that the man who is or runs for president is perceived to have so much power that he can merely say this is "What I will do" and things will be better. Poor ol Jimmy Carter, a great leader, a terrible president. He was sent to Washington and would not deal. Both sides of the aisle shut him down.
Congress submits the legislation and the president approves or vetoes it.
Folks, I am here to tell you that politicians (all of them) know how to play the game. They have been this way all of their lives. Most of them are born into prosperity. Where else do they get the money to win elections?
As for me I vote republican. The platform of the party aligns with my economic and social beliefs and it’s just that simple. Lower taxes, smaller government, better defense, personal responsibility, etc.
The handouts that Republicans give go to the wealthy and the democratic handouts go to the poor. Here is the scoop; the average (FAMILY) income in the US is under $42,000. The avg poverty level is around $12,000 annual per family. How many of us find ourselves under these averages?
We need to grow the economy with jobs and incentives to invest. That being said, every well paying job that I ever received was not financed by a poor man.
It seems as though Joe_Oh is the only person EMOTIONALLY charged in this entire string of posts.
Sshe? may be correct that a woman president is slated for the future, as well.
However, this persons view of politics is based on what is said on the evening news. Maybe a bit more research is needed to be an educated consumer of politics.
Two Questions:
Approve, Veto, Figurehead - Which two of these are actually responsibilities of the President of the United States?
What job (that went oversees) did YOU really desire?
jaypee, I'm no more or less emotionally charged than anyone else here. Sure the 2 jobs are to be the figurehead and veto or approve bills, but people still look to the president when things get rough either way, and that's just as important. Oh yes, I don;t really watch the news, it's too spinny and shows too much bias for the current administration, though I do get in peeks once in a while usually c-span. Where do I get my info then? listening to online talkshows like AirAmericaRadio and reading articles in general on the net.
What job do I want, the ones that pay well thats what.
bnorton, I went back and looked and looked closer at that post, I didnt realize that "Leatherneck" was another person, I thought you were using a weird description for my so-called service, my mistake. My bad.
Bush himself didn't ship the jobs out, but he let legislation pass that did let the jobs get exported in the first place. wait- if he signed that into law, then I guess he did help send them out. Heh, weird.
joe oh, defects in a child if relatives get married(have sex) is true, very good. but homosexual relationship is responsible for the epademic we call aids. I think I would call aids a defect since it kills you. your move.
I am in the miltary and do not want Kerry to be my Commander in Chief. Bush has done a good job, not great one, in protecting the US. The next president needs to focus on OUR economy and stop worring about all the LITTLE countries out there. We need to stop being the saviour for all the countries that say "HELP" and worry about the problems we have here.
US Navy
Active Duty 17 Years
Tim[ Edited by 8ball007 on Date 10/03/2004 ]
dlitedan, aids is also a heterosexual problem too, you also gotta take into account dirty needles and accidental contaimination of blood transfusions. both gay and straight people are just as permiscuous or modest as anyone else. you want to talk about an epidemic? Look to south africa...
jeff12002, Though it is true we do have some help, we are the bulk of armed forces there now. Even Britain is even pulling back some of it's forces, and others are doing so or pulling out all togeather. If only we would have taken care of Afganistan first and competely THEN we wouldn't be so shorthanded and need help this bad. Conflict of interest was also had by some U.S. companies that dick cheny's associated with, so just about everyone was gettin' a peice of that Iraq pie too. More than enough to go around it seems.
You talk about trying to get jobs back here, you need first to get rid of those tax incentives. It's not a matter of companies not being able to afford to work in the US, it's a matter of greed and being cheap where and when they can. Much like you making 100k profit a year, then someone offers to pay you 25k to move somewhere else and then you get to pay less for the same services in that new location. Would you stay or move? THAT's what going on with these job exports.
Unemployment is higher than it was under the Clinton-Gore administration. Go look it up yourself and compare the numbers.
Home ownership is up cause of the low-low interest rates and high competition amoung lenders, unlike 15 years ago, but that's the reason we are having so many foreclosures and many more will follow for the next year or so, and then maybe level off.
Sure, Ohio's economy isn't the measuring stick for the entire USA, just a good chunk of it.
Quote:
On 2004-10-03 20:47, Joe_Oh wrote:
jeff12002, Though it is true we do have some help, we are the bulk of armed forces there now. Even Britain is even pulling back some of it's forces, and others are doing so or pulling out all togeather. If only we would have taken care of Afganistan first and competely THEN we wouldn't be so shorthanded and need help this bad. Conflict of interest was also had by some U.S. companies that dick cheny's associated with, so just about everyone was gettin' a peice of that Iraq pie too. More than enough to go around it seems.
You talk about trying to get jobs back here, you need first to get rid of those tax incentives. It's not a matter of companies not being able to afford to work in the US, it's a matter of greed and being cheap where and when they can. Much like you making 100k profit a year, then someone offers to pay you 25k to move somewhere else and then you get to pay less for the same services in that new location. Would you stay or move? THAT's what going on with these job exports.
Unemployment is higher than it was under the Clinton-Gore administration. Go look it up yourself and compare the numbers.
Home ownership is up cause of the low-low interest rates and high competition amoung lenders, unlike 15 years ago, but that's the reason we are having so many foreclosures and many more will follow for the next year or so, and then maybe level off.
Sure, Ohio's economy isn't the measuring stick for the entire USA, just a good chunk of it.
We are the lone superpower in the world, and the single country that has the assets to be able to handle something like this without the help of the rest of the world. That does not make us wrong.
I'm haven't been the one talking about the jobs moving away, You have. To you it is an epidemic, to me, It's not a symptom of the last four years.
The unemployment rate is not higher than the average during Clinton-Gore. I have looked it up. You might do the same. Look at the current numbers, not those that keep coming up from two and three years ago.
You and I finally agree on some of the reasons that homeownership is up, but not on why there are more foreclosures. Money has been too easy to get. People that should have remained tenants are now homeowners. lenders were too anxious to get loans out there, and the debt to income ratios that lenders were using left people with too much debt to manage well. New home sales are a major contributor to help drive an economy. Durable goods sales increase, as do manufacturing of those goods etc.
I'm not sure that Ohio's economy is a big a chunk of the greater US's economy as you think. California and Texas each by themselves are both among the top ten economies in the world. Not so with Ohio. I'm not saying that it's nothing, but it's not a "Major" part.
My turn to stir this political pot
I will be voting for bush not that he is the best candidate, but he is the best candidate of choice.
Bush is investor friendly just take a look at the Top Industries and amounts of donations, this guy is investor friendly!
Retired $19,343,749
Lawyers/Law Firms $10,661,131
Real Estate $9,500,426
Securities & Investment $7,560,445
Misc Business $6,911,616
Health Professionals $5,718,853
Misc Finance $5,101,491
General Contractors $3,336,681
Business Services $3,235,297
Commercial Banks $2,900,567
Insurance $2,862,173
Civil Servants/Public Officials $2,389,894
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $2,293,378
Oil & Gas $2,191,885
Automotive $2,175,618
Education $1,826,407
Computers/Internet $1,718,855
Accountants $1,716,920
Construction Services $1,404,518
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $1,388,952
Personal Financial Disclosure
Bush http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf
Kerry http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00000245_2003.pdf
In weighing the two, bush has my vote
Bush says making his signature tax cuts permanent is priority No. 1 because households and entrepreneurs need tax certainty to make key economic decisions. Kerry says cutting the federal deficit in half would help hold interest rates down and keep the economy chugging.
Bush wants to see his single-family housing development tax credit passed to ease the inventory crunch for starter homes
Bush wants to put money into roads and highways to help close the commuting gap for households that must search far from their jobs to find affordable housing.
Bush defends the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's initiative earlier this year to remove federally chartered banks from certain state regulatory controls.
BUSH wants to Increase the availability of affordable housing. To this end, I have proposed a $2.54 billion, five-year Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit. The credit to developers is for up to 50 percent of housing rehabilitation and construction costs, provided the new homes are offered to buyers with incomes of up to 80 percent of area median income. I've also taken steps to increase housing availability through the American Dream Downpayment Act, signed in 2003, that will help some 40,000 families a year with downpayment and closing cost assistance.
BUSH supports the rights of state legislatures to pass laws restricting the use of eminent domain as they see fit, within the context of the constitutional protection of eminent domain as a power granted to local government.
BUSH wants to aid states with their budget shortfalls, Congress approved $20 billion in payments to the states in 2003. And the record federal tax relief we've passed is leaving more money in the hands of families, helping economic growth, which improves state and local budgets so they don't have to raise taxes.
Although property taxes in some municipalities are increasing, tax rates in some areas are falling in response to the strong and steady growth in property values. The record level of homeownership in our country indicates that people can afford homes and current property tax rates.
BUSH Supports The OCC uniform federal standards under which its banks must operate, and it outlined additional consumer protections available to national bank customers, including provisions that target predatory lending. The regulation also provides that national banks shall not engage in unfair or deceptive practices. Individual states would remain free to regulate state banks as they deem appropriate. My administration believes strongly in the dual banking system and the balance of responsibilities between federal and state regulators.
BUSH supports The U.S. Department of Energy provided funding for the Rebuild America Program, which has formed more than 450 voluntary community partnerships to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings. And the expansion of the EPA's Energy Star program will help reduce pollution from commercial buildings by encouraging energy efficient design. Also, my proposed National Energy Policy encourages construction of buildings that are more energy efficient.
BUSH proposed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act to help ensure that our transportation system is safe, secure, efficient, and productive. Preserving flexible funding initiatives for states will allow them to direct funds to meet their state and local transportation needs.
Under the six-year SAFETEA proposal, highway funding will grow by 21 percent over the previous six-year bill, TEA 21. The Federal Highway Administration is working to deploy the Intelligent Transportations Systems infrastructure in more states to improve pavement condition, bridges, and infrastructural investment decisions.
To target traffic choke points, I have proposed an infrastructure program that would provide funding for "ready-to-go" projects to alleviate congestion.
We are all investors and we must as businesspersons select the candidate that will support our efforts in business.
John Michael
[addsig]
Joe,
I am impressed that you checked the facts again. You are going to vote your conscience regardless of what we say here. I only have two things to add.
1. Check the facts again with your candidates. JohnMichael is correct with everything he said in here.
2. To borrow from the Cash Flow Quadrant, you were hurt as an "E". Bush didn't do it to you, but that is not relevent right now. Your involvement in TCI shows that you want to move beyond being an "E". One of the things you need to do is to stop thinking like an "E". When you train your mind to think like someone anywhere else in the quadrant, you will look at this whole situation differently. The choice you make may have a very large impact on your ability to move beyond the "E".
As for me, I am very happily unemployable. There is no job I want, and no one in their right mind would hire me. I would make an impossible employee now. Bush gets my vote because I will be more successful, and more financially secure more easily with him as president. It isn't that he has control over everything, he doesn't. But, his philosophy sets the tone for the government, and that is what I want. I wish you luck, and success. I also hope that you stay happy with which ever decision you make.
Joe, again true but again you contradict. birth defects are also something that happens to people other than relatives but is highly more probable when you are related. so just the same aids does happen to people other than homosexuals but is highly more probable when you are one. once again, you cant pick and choose what you think is "okay" for marriage and that which is not. if you are going to be for same sex marriage then you better be able to go all the way down the line and uphold the rights of all people. even if birth defects only happened with relatives, whats to stop two related people to say "yeah we know there is a chance that our kids will have birth defects, but we are willing to take that risk and that is our choice". there again if you say "hey you cant do that" oops, there you go again stomping on the rights of people to marry. and please dont bring up the rights of the children, although we have not discussed this, I am gonna take a wild guess and say you are pro-abortion.
It's easy to live by an ideology, but life isn't as clear cut as someone would hope. Thats why some people live in La-La land and try to twist everything into their mindset while others take into consideration that not everything is as clear as it seems.
So, how is same sex marriage a threat to you as a person? No one has answered that yet, just with more round-about reasoning. If something is right for YOU, it may not be right for the next person, how would you feel if someone forced you to live their way cause they just didn't like your lifestyle or made them feel "unconfortable"
I am however pro-reality, pro-practicality, and anti-LaLa land ideals that restrict other people freedoms and the inherant dignity that goes with it.
What if someone gets raped, should she still have that rapists child? I know the notion of sending that child to an orphanage, but that leads a child to wonder why their mother left them there. And when the child finds out why, usually years of therapy will follow.
Not to mention serious and or dibilitating birth defects or a birth that going to end the life of the mother and child unless the child is euthinized.
Not everyone has the perfect scenario to have that wonderfull life, abortion is a nessesary evil whether you like it or not.
Reality is a strange creature to say the least. And ideology usually tries to mask it at the cost of others freedoms or dignity. Either face what goes on around you ALL the time, or move on.
joe,"So, how is same sex marriage a threat to you as a person?" how is relatives having children with birth defects a threat to you? you said you would not support that, but its not athreat against you. and if my neighbor killed my other neighbor for whatever reason I wouldnt support that, even though it wouldnt be a threat to me as a person."how would you feel if someone forced you to live their way cause they just didn't like your lifestyle or made them feel "unconfortable". again I would refer back to you not supporting the right to marry relatives and how you make them feal by forcing them to marry in a way they dont want."I am however pro-reality, pro-practicality, and anti-LaLa land ideals that restrict other people freedoms and the inherant dignity that goes with it. " what is reality and practicality? you mean how you define it? or me? or the several million other different opinions on that subject?
"What if someone gets raped, should she still have that rapists child?" Rape is a tragedy and I wish it would never happen, but killing a baby is not going to make that a better situation. and even if killing a baby could make it better. there are lots of problems in lots of peoples lives and justifying killing something innocent would not be right."but that leads a child to wonder why their mother left them there. And when the child finds out why, usually years of therapy will follow. "
"Not to mention serious and or dibilitating birth defects or a birth that going to end the life of the mother and child unless the child is euthinized."
wow joe, you know how every child that goes to an orphanage is going to turn out? bottom line is you dont, your just assuming. not to mention there are thousands of families and couples on a waiting list to adopt babies." Either face what goes on around you ALL the time, or move on." well I will when you do. I am still waiting for you to say that all people of all beliefs should be able to marry anyone and anything they want. but you stopped at relatives and that was just the beginning of the list. and the reason you wont say that is because if that was true then there would be total chaos. you see the problem joe is you think with your feelings and emotions. whats wrong with that you ask? well yesterday I felt really good and happy, and today I am pretty upset. so if I let my emotions and feelings make my descisions then its going to change from day to day or year to year. just like everyone elses will. we need to look to someone smarter and wiser than you and i will ever be, if you need to know who it is let me know, but I think you already do.
[quote]
On 2004-09-30 11:08, wide_awake wrote:
A few minor notes:
. . .
Ahhhh, an eloquent, reasonably argued post...
I think I know you!
FReegards!
Joe_Oh...
Thanks for your reply and thank God and TCI for the opportunity to air our disagreements without violence, hatred, and the fear of government reprisals!
I appreciate all the info on what Kerry is "going to do". How about backing-up some of these promises with his 20 year record in Congress. I am not too worried about Kerry winning ,as based on his record - he may not even show-up!
I have lost more jobs than I can count on all of my (and your) fingers and toes. Instead of dwelling on the negative, I have approached each disappointment as an opportunity to learn - bettering myself at every opportunity.
Forget about the lost job. It was only holding you down anyway! From reading your post, I perceive that you are intelligent and passionate. Why not channel that energy and passion in a direction that will lift YOU AND OTHERS UP instead of dragging your tail in the dirt. When you are personally sucessful, your whole attitude will change and you will look for the good in every president, situation and economy. Situations are just bumps in the road. How long are you gonna drive over the same bump? I was almost always disappointed by Bill Clinton, but never gave a passing thought to how he affected my life.
My last job (4 years back) paid 70K per year. My SPENDABLE income last year was over 4X that amount. When I quit my job, even my wife was scared to death. I, however was confident that all of my past jobs and experience had uniquely situated me to be sucessful in the real estate business. Now one of my greatest joys in helping others to build their real estate income and portfolio.
I hope GWB is elected and I fear the character of Kerry is lacking. How can you respect a man that's major financial plan is marrying two millionaire wives? Nevertheless, if Kerry is elected, I will be dissapointed for a few days, but will get right back to work and probably think about Kerry again in about four years.
I don't know how your real estate career is progressing, but I would encourage you to pursue success through education and positive mentoring from proven sucessful (and POSITIVE minded mentors). I might suggest Scott Britton's University of Real Estate", Robert Kyosaki and Jack Miller writings.
Best wishes for your happiness and success!
Joe Locklear
Oliver North Replies to John Kerry, I think he speaks for many of us.
Kerry said:
"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry
Oliver North replies to John ...
Dear John,
As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.
I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.
This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."
Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.
But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.
When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote
"The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.
On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."
And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."
Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:
Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.
Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.
Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.
John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.
One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something .. to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."
Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
Check out what Brian Tracy has to say about the candidates. Very important:
http://www.briantracy.com/r.asp?LID=1890
jlarock...at long last SOMEBODY has it right! To pick up where you left off, I think it's crucial that every American understand that the planes were being remotely operated from Roswell, New Mexico by Jimmy Hoffa who has been acting strangely every since he became CEO of Haliburton and President Kennedy's brain was transplanted into his head.
wide_awake,
Glad to meet you.
It was Area 51 get your facts straight.
John $Cash$ Locke
[addsig]
Kerry will give you lip service all the way...is that what you want in a president? Example: Kerry totes the fact that Bush should've used more diplomacy before going to war with Iraq BUT Kerry stated during the debate that diplomacy is NOT the way to go with North Korea? Didn't Kerry vote to go to war with Iraq? Given Kerry's position in the senate, he had the same information that Bush did regarding Iraq and voted accordingly! Of course, that was one of the few days that he was in his senate seat. How many sanctions can be broken before someone takes responsibility for a dictators actions? Of course, according to Kerry, he will change and inforce gun laws to thwart the terrorists...Come on people, this man may have served his country, but what has he done for any of us lately (last 20 years)...a vacant seat and a lot of lip service...just what I want to see in a leader. My, my how people see things through rose colored glasses...take them off and see the light before November 2, 2004.
Jlarock...
Do you really think its in our countries best interest to disclose everything they know about the terrorists attacks? I certainly do not. The average American needs to be told that everything is ok and they need to believe it. THEY DO NOT NEED ALL THE FACTS. Do you really think that your goverment told your fathers generation, or his fathers generation the entire truth, wake up! No way!
I think it is a presidents duty to do what is best for the country which includes hiding things if he deems it necessary. After all, we elected him president to LEAD our country, not to answer to every knee-jerk liberal.
Oh by the way, I also am one of those who feel that the treatment of the prisoners in Iraq was correct. Guess what, we are at war, and in war, things happen. Is it pretty, probably not, but it IS necessary.
Quite frankly I believe that one of our famous generals had it right. Read about Black Jack Pershing and how he dealt with muslim radicals.
http://wwwnexus.com/Black_Jack_Pershing.JPG
We are at war. The liberal press needs to take a powder and let the warriors finish the war without a minute by minute body count.
Just my 3.5 cents worth.
[ Edited by telemon on Date 10/05/2004 ]
Telemon,
You said, "Oh by the way, I also am one of those who feel that the treatment of the prisoners in Iraq was correct. Guess what, we are at war, and in war, things happen. Is it pretty, probably not, but it IS necessary."
Well I wouldn't blame you for missing the news item about how our soldiers raped and allegedly murdered INNOCENT WOMEN in Iraq...after all, Fox news isn't going to broadcast it to you. These were women who were rounded up only because our soldiers merely SUSPECTED their brothers or husbands or fathers MAY have been involved in the insurgency. Just take a look at these pictures (warning, they are extremely difficult to view):
http://joevialls.altermedia.info/myahudi/rape.html
http://aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm
It truly saddens me that this treatment is okay with you (or anybody else), that you feel this is justified because we went to war with a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 (unless you believe Bush & Co.), and that was NOT an imminent threat (see my NY Times article above). It breaks my heart that anyone would think this kind of treatment is "ok", no matter what the circumstances. And no, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, this just makes me utterly sick, what these women have been put through. Oh, and did you know that as many as 90% of all the prisoners in Iraq have been deemed innocent?
(If you think these articles and photos were made up, just do a search on the 'Net for "abu ghraib rape" and you will find plenty, if you have the stomach for it. Soldiers were apparently passing these photos around like "baseball cards" to their buddies.)
And although I agree with you that the government should keep information secret that would truly risk our national security, I think this government uses "security reasons" to keep just about everything from us. I would prefer to know the truth than live in the dark believing everything they say. They have already proven themselves to be dishonest to the American public, as well as to Congress. So why take anything they say at face value, without checking the facts out for yourself?
There I agree with you, to some degree, that neither candidate is the "end all". However, we already know what four more years with Bush will entail, which is more of the same--never-ending wars (Iran is next, by the way), a draft starting as soon as next year (that is quietly going through Congress, and Bush denies it) that will probably take women and men, ages 18-34 (any of you have kids in that age range?), massive deficits, etc. etc. So to me, even if Kerry is the unknown, I'd rather take my chances with him than vote for the the "known" of world domination for the sake of oil. Just my personal preference. We're certainly all free to choose. I just wish more people would turn off the tube and start reading about what's really going on.
WOW ! YOU KERRY KOOL AID DRINKERS SCARE ME! KERRY IN 19 YEARS VOTED TO KILL EVERY WEAPONS PROGRAM, GUT THE FBI, CIA, ETC (911 COMMISION LADY ON THE COMM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE !! SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE AGENCY'S TO SHARE INFO BECAUSE AT THE TIME CLINTON & MONICA WERE PLAYING !! SO INTEL ON THE HIJACKERS COULD NOT BE SHARED) kERRY IN ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE BUT MISSED 76% OF MEETINGS BEFORE 911 & ALL SINCE !!BUT HE SAY'S WE WERE MISS LED & PRES BUSH LIED WHEN BUSH WENT BY INTELL WE HAD & BRITISH & OTHERS SAID SADAM HAD WMD. BUT KERRY VOTED TO CUT INTEL FUNDING ! HOW CAN YOU WE KNOW WHAT POSITION KERRY WILL TAKE WHEN HE FLIP FLOPS ON EVERY ISSUE.!!
I am a first time voter and really don't trust any politicians. I am neither liberal nor conservative, but.....
Kerry will most certainly get my vote. No way I want Bush in there four more years.
Suntzu18
Yeah. Lets bring in the U.N. so we can wait 12 years to act. They sure did a great job of making up their mind in IRAQ. Boy.. I feel better already. I'm sure that France and Germany would never veto anything we wanted to do.
[addsig]
I'm w/you!
Did you hear that Kerry cheated on the debate as well. He brought notes out of his coat after he shortly arrived. Yes... this is the type of person I want running the country. Someone who can't even be honest on a simple debat.
Quote:
On 2004-10-05 17:24, REYPALMER wrote:
WOW ! YOU KERRY KOOL AID DRINKERS SCARE ME! KERRY IN 19 YEARS VOTED TO KILL EVERY WEAPONS PROGRAM, GUT THE FBI, CIA, ETC (911 COMMISION LADY ON THE COMM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE !! SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE AGENCY'S TO SHARE INFO BECAUSE AT THE TIME CLINTON & MONICA WERE PLAYING !! SO INTEL ON THE HIJACKERS COULD NOT BE SHARED) kERRY IN ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE BUT MISSED 76% OF MEETINGS BEFORE 911 & ALL SINCE !!BUT HE SAY'S WE WERE MISS LED & PRES BUSH LIED WHEN BUSH WENT BY INTELL WE HAD & BRITISH & OTHERS SAID SADAM HAD WMD. BUT KERRY VOTED TO CUT INTEL FUNDING ! HOW CAN YOU WE KNOW WHAT POSITION KERRY WILL TAKE WHEN HE FLIP FLOPS ON EVERY ISSUE.!!
Yup! The reason why attacks are picking up in IRAQ is because we are being making progress. Common sense. Bush gets my vote! Kerry gets in, he'll pull out the troops and the terrorists would have basically won. NICE.. REAL NICE.. Try reading the book The Pentagon's New Map. By the way.. it was written by a democrat. And he agrees to what Bush is doing...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399151753/103-9645292-6616610?v=glance
GO BUSH!
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 06:10, monkfish wrote:
"We are in a more dangerous world than 911."
Bad grammar aside, I assume you're trying to say the US is in more danger than it was before 9/11.
Question: Have there been any attacks on US soil since 9/11?
Answer: No.
Question #2: Who do you think Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, etc. would rather have in office, Bush or Kerry?
Answer: Kerry
Therefore, Bush is getting my vote.
Are yall having fun? If you spent this much energy doing real estate deals, all of you would be rich.
Have you changed anyone's mind? I doubt it.
Send me $49.00 for a 30 day membership in my web site..."The Real Truth" about Kerry and Bush. No refunds if not satisfied.
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 08:57, tzachari wrote:
Just because there was no attack on the U.S soil since 9-11 does not mean we are any safer. N.Korea might soon test its nukes and so will Iran. If we go with the 'Go it alone' strategy, then I am looking at the Draft re-instated. If that is the case, we will all be in N.Korea holding guns instead of pursuing a peaceful career in Real Estate. I like Kerry's policy of bringing in the U.N in solving these problems as compared to Bush's policy.
U.N.??? Solve problems? Thats funny. They make resolutions and never enforce them. The UN is completely useless.
Intel pointed to WMD's in Iraq. Every resource we had pointed to WMDs in Iraq. I think its funny that people in the public think they can make an educated decision about these things... The President has so many intelligence gathering resources at his disposal ... Unfortunately, it appears Intel was wrong this time. I think we all agree on that. That doesnt make Bush a liar.
Does anyone really think he lied about this? If he knew there were no WMD's then he must also know that the public would soon find out the truth and eat his lunch.
No he was wrong based on wrong info. Crap happens. Its not like its a far fetched assumption that they had WMD's. They had plenty of them last time we were there (before inspectors were kicked out in i think 1998).
We destroyed hundreds of TONS of his chemical and biological weapons. He HAS used them before (against his people and others) .
But it's a moot point -- He had to go. Does anyone give a crap about the people of Iraq who have tormented and tortured under Saddams rule for decades? He should have been taken out in the first Gulf War. It was time to go... a long time ago. It's a mess right now but Democracy will spread and 50 years from now we will all look back at Bush as the man that brought freedom to the cesspool that is the Middle East.
Hind site is 20/20... Looking back, would anyone object to taking out Hitler a few years before he rose to power ? Well thats the way people should think of Saddam, who is in many ways worse than Hitler.
One more thing... we will NEVER know how many attacks have been avoided, thanks to our President and his policies, and especially thanks to our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And yes we are spread to thin... around the world , not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. At any time we have trooops in dozens of countries, conducting special ops, as well as humanitarian missions.
Thank Clinton and his liberals for our downsized military, which cant be built back up overnight.
"Does anyone really think he lied about this? If he knew there were no WMD's then he must also know that the public would soon find out the truth and eat his lunch. "
Government is business, and Bush doesn't care if people catch him in a lie, he is the puppet who, like Nixon, will stand for the powers that be and take the fall if necessary, for the greater self-enrichment good.
Greed drives these people, greed for power and domination, but also greed for money.......
All this back stabbing & second guessing by news media is doing what the terrorist want, splitting the country!!! If this was done in WW 2 we would be speaking German now !! In Vietnam we won all major battles but lost the country because of the press!!! PEOPLE WE ARE AT WAR WITH RADICAL MUSSLIMS TERRORIST who want to kill ALL AMERICANS! NOW THAT WERE IN IT, LET'S WIN IT!!! WE MUST KILL ALL THE RADICAL TERRORIST( how do you reason with a suicide bomber looking for 72 virgins) FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD LET'S DO IT IN IRAQ & NOT IN THE GOOD OLD U S A !!
Today's Washington Post is the very first mainstream news source to broach the subject. This author clearly left clues for the rest of us to research on our own, however without stating a position of her own, or insulting the 9/11 commissioners. I have supplied a link to the video at the bottom of this post for those of you who wish to view it.
Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet
By Carol Morello
Working from his home office in a small town in England, Darren Williams spent four weeks this summer making a short but startling video that raises novel questions about the 2001 attack on the Pentagon.
The video, "9/11: Pentagon Strike," suggests that it was not American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon, but a missile or a small plane.
With rock music as a backdrop, the video offers flashes of photographs taken shortly after impact, interspersed with witness accounts. The pictures seem incompatible with damage caused by a jumbo jet, and no one mentions seeing one. Red arrows point to unbroken windows in the burning building. Firefighters stand outside a perfectly round hole in a Pentagon wall where the Boeing 757 punched through; it is less than 20 feet in diameter.
Propelled by word of mouth, Internet search engines and e-mail, the video has been downloaded by millions of people around the world.
American history is rife with conspiracy theories. Extremists have fed rumors of secret plots by Masons, bankers, Catholics and Communists. But now urban legends have become cyberlegends, and suspicions speed their way globally not over months and weeks but within days and hours on the Web.
"The dissemination is almost immediate," said Doug Thomas, a University of Southern California communications professor who teaches classes on technology and subgroups. "It's not just one Web site saying, 'Hey, look at this.' It's 10,000 people sending e-mails to 10 friends, and then they send it on."
The Pentagon video could be a case study. Williams created a Web site for the video, www.pentagonstrike.co.uk. Then he e-mailed a copy to Laura Knight-Jadczyk, an American author living in France whose books include one on alien abduction. Williams, 31, a systems analyst, belongs to an online group hosted by Knight-Jadczyk that blends discussions of science, politics and the paranormal.
On Aug. 23, Knight-Jadczyk posted a link to the video on the group's Web site, www.Cassiopaea.org. Within 36 hours, Williams's site collapsed under the crush of tens of thousands of visitors. But there were others to fill the void.
In Texas, a former casino worker who downloaded the video began drawing almost 700,000 visitors a day to his libertarian site. In Louisiana, a young Navy specialist put the video on his personal Web page, usually visited by a few friends and relatives; suddenly, the site was inundated by more than 20,000 hits. In Alberta, traffic to a cabdriver's site shot up more than sixfold after he supplied a link to the video.
Across thousands of sites, demand for the video was so great that some webmasters solicited donations to pay for the extra bandwidth.
"Pentagon Strike" is just the latest and flashiest example of a growing number of Web sites, books and videos contending that something other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.
Most make their case through the selective use of photographs and eyewitness accounts reported during the confusion of the first hours after the attack. They say they don't know what really happened to American Airlines Flight 77 and don't offer other explanations. The doubters say they are just asking questions that have not been answered satisfactorily.
The ready and growing audience for conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been particularly galling to those who worked on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the bipartisan panel known as the 9/11 commission.
"We discussed the theories," said Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."
Conspiracy theories are common after traumatic events. Michael Barkun, a political scientist at Syracuse University who has written books on the culture of conspiracies, said contradictory and inconclusive eyewitness accounts often leave room for different interpretations of events.
"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control," Barkun said. "Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring. Because what they say is that everything is connected, nothing happens by accident, and that there is some kind of order in the world, even if it's produced by evil forces. I think psychologically, it's in a way consoling to a lot of people."
The belief that the government is lying about the Sept. 11 attacks is coming from both the right and the left. Experts say more than suspicion of the Bush administration is at work.
"It seems that since the end of the Cold War, the enemy is the United States government, the enemy is within," said Rick Ross, whose Ross Institute of New Jersey monitors cults and other controversial groups, many of which see manipulative forces working behind the scenes. "Instead of projecting conspiracy theories out, it's become internalized."
Zelikow, for example, lacks credibility with many who question the work of the 9/11 commission because he wrote a book with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. He believes that it is futile to discuss evidence with people convinced of a conspiracy.
"The hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed," Zelikow said. "They'd have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That's not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body."
David Ray Griffin considers himself an unlikely recruit to what is called the "9/11 Truth Movement." The retired theologian, who taught religion for three decades at Claremont School of Theology, initially dismissed the notion that it was not an airliner that hit the Pentagon. But after visiting several Internet sites raising questions about the attack, he ended up writing a book. "The New Pearl Harbor," published in the spring, argues that a Boeing 757 would have caused far more damage and left more wreckage strewn around the Pentagon.
"There are reasons why people doubt the official story," he said. "There are photographs taken, and there is no Boeing in sight."
Suspicions formed as the Pentagon still smoldered.
For 2 1/2 years, the attack on the Pentagon has been discussed and researched by members of Knight-Jadczyk's online group, the Quantum Future School.
The group's talks formed the basis for articles in which Knight-Jadczyk argues that after the attack on the World Trade Center, eyewitnesses at the Pentagon were predisposed to see a large airliner. She believes that the Pentagon was attacked by a smaller plane and that members of the Bush administration were somehow complicit because it was beneficial for war-profiteers and Israel.
Interviewed by telephone from what she said is a 17-bedroom castle outside Toulouse, where she lives with her Polish physicist husband and five children, Knight-Jadczyk acknowledged that her group is considered "fringe."
Knight-Jadczyk, 52, a Florida native, has been a psychic and a channeler. She is now involved in experiments in what she calls "superluminal communication," which she described as involving "time loops" that would enable people to communicate with their former selves.
Knight-Jadczyk said she never imagined anyone outside her group would ever view "Pentagon Strike."
"The fact everybody's been sending it to his brother and his cousin, almost frenetically, reflects the fact that there is a deep unease," she said. "They don't come out and say it. They don't want to be accused of being with terrorists, anti-American or anti-patriotic. But they still feel something's wrong."
Bret Dean of Fort Worth said he considers it "baloney" to question whether a plane hit the Pentagon. But he also believes that the government ignored warning of the attacks.
After posting a link to the video on his libertarian site, www.freedomunderground.org, Dean recorded more than 8 million hits. At least one came from inside the Defense Department, he said.
"I don't think the video is an instigator," said Dean, 45, a former casino worker. "It's a symptom. A lot of people don't trust the government's explanation because the government's classified all the information."
Asked if there were unreleased photographs of the attack that would convince the doubters, Zelikow, of the 9/11 commission, said, "No."
"The question of whether American 77 hit the Pentagon is indisputable," Zelikow said. "One reason you tend to doubt conspiracy theories when you've worked in government is because you know government is not nearly competent enough to carry off elaborate theories. It's a banal explanation, but imagine how efficient it would need to be."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13059-2004Oct6.html
Video here: http://www4.neilrogers.com/features/2004091001.html#Main
I rather have a war hero, than a war dodger for my president. GW sending people to fight a war that in the pass he avoided to do.By the way is that iraq or iran that's making the bomb?Wrong neighborhood.
dude 9/11 brought us americans closer. and do u beleivin gay marriages well if u do may god b w/ u. and do u beleive in abortion? i know this church that donates millions of dollars to planned parenthood so what for. for these girls to kill their babys. kno there dumb they need to use protection. duh. well vote for bush.
Sorry for the delay in responding to the new posts. I'm using a friends computer cause mine is having some problems and I'm trying to save some data before I do a complete format/reinstall.
Anyhoo, Everyone here here has their reasons for who they are going to vote for and why. Religous discussions for the purpose of politics can go on forever, or at least seem that long. But my reasons for wanting Kerry into office are as follows:
1) Bush said that they have found WMD's in Iraq, yet the WMD report recently put out said that Iraq had no means of creating viable WMD's let alone have them period. So if Iraq didn't have WMD"s and Bush said they have found WMD's there, What gives? Bush should have triple-checked the info and since he didn't do his due diligence he's just as responsible for that info's accuracy as the source is.
2) Bush tries to make Kerry out to be "for the war and against the war" this is not so, Kerry voted for approval for the war ON THE CONDITION that Iraq has WMD's and bush said that they have found weapons that weren't there in the first place. Kerry was lied to like the rest of us, and when he found out his support was reversed due to that condition, and rightfully so. But now Kerry will complete the job and clean up the mess in Iraq and Afganistan, not quit the war like the RNC spin machine would like you to believe.
3) Third and finnally, Bush has been slacking on the job due to that overused vacation time, and that shows a blatent disregard for the office and it sets a bad example for the ones who are working tirelessly to get the nessesary things done.
All above are proven, recorded, and accurate FACTS of the situation. I'm sick sick sick and tired of people saying that even those facts are facts that we "democrats" are just saying those facts cause well, we're liberal and we are just basing Bush, and all that B.S.
Bnorton, If you wish to know the "Technique" to further you're awareness contact me @ **Please See My Profile** so we can start you off on this. Each person has to do this technique a little different from each other. If interested contact me at that email, and I'll get you started on it. The technique is easy, but it takes some time to notice the effects.
As far as this thread is concerned, I'm done with it- I'll check back of course out of curiosity, but I doubt I'll post anymore on this thread. It was a nice diversion, but I need to concentrate on other things.
Nice posting, Peace~
Well I am glad to see that your moving on to something else, it must get tiring dodging questions you dont have answers to and just basically repeating yourself when asked to explain something. once again, bush had the same info everybody else did. what is triple checking? asking the same source 3 times? because you hate bush you make it out to be like bush thought there were wmds and everybody was saying no and he said I dont believe you lets go get them, cmon. not to mention it is a FACT that suddam was playing games and not letting the un search ANYWHERE they wanted. now, correct me if I am wrong, but if you were hiding something would you try and play games and stall? or would you just let anyone search anywhere? again, cmon. we had just had the biggest terrorist attack on american soil and when it comes to my life I would rather be safe than sorry. suddam should of known america was a very concerned about wmds considering what had happened. but hes crazy and he doesnt care and he hates us. in all your talk I dont see you to concerned with the facts that suddam killed and tortured thousands of iraqis for many years. granted iraq is not perfect now but it will be better off without him. the problem is you are like so many americans, if it doesnt affect you, then you dont care. funny that is your stance on marriage and the same is true for iraq. "hey if they dont have wmds and are not going to kill me then let him stay in power and kill iraqis". and as far as your "self enlightning" or what ever you do, keep in mind that our discussions on bush and kerry will never be settled. I will always think I am right and the same with you. but unfortunately our little debate on life after death will not go unsettled. you and I will die someday, and you better pray to whoever that what you believe is right. because once your dead, theres no changing your mind. I wish you the best in your pursuits.
I really don't see what the fuss is all about. As long as I can still make $$'s, and still have my freedom as an american, WHO cares!. But I am still voting for Bush.
Whoever wins, I hope that that he starts to think of the economy and what impact the staggering deficit has on us...
I wish and hope for the day that a future generation can have an economy that actually has a true surplus.
Hey, why don't yall go find a politics board somewhere and quit clogging up the TCI board? This stuff has no place here!
Bob (recovering from Ivan, now come on down to Pensacola and BUY SOME REAL ESTATE!!)
8-)
[addsig]
But, this does have to do with real estate. The decisions the future president makes is going to affect our businesses. Negatively, I think , if Kerry wins. He is going to tax us out of our earnings. How is he planning to pay for all those social programs? I would just like to keep the money I have worked my @$&% off for. (am I alowed to say that?)
October 2002: Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)
September 2003: Kerry Said Voting Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Would Be "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to - to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS’s "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)
October 2003: Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Said That The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Left America "Safer." KERRY: “Those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president of the United States.”
(Sen John Kerry, 12/16/2003, Des Moines, IA)
Kerry Said That The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Left America "Less Secure." KERRY: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction - The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."
(Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)
Kerry On Whether The Iraq War Was Worth It: "It Depends On The Outcome." DIANE SAWYER: "Was the war in Iraq worth it?" KERRY: "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." SAWYER: "So it was not worth it?" KERRY: "We should not - it depends on the outcome ultimately, and that depends on the leadership." (ABC’s "Good Morning America," 9/29/04)
May 2003: In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
http://www.kerryoniraq.com/
It amazes me how Liberals seem to lok past the truth with such ease. As though terrorism would have disappeared if we never went to Iraq. If we do not go on the offensive we will end up where the passivist led us in world war II. An enemy who gained power by people sitting back saying he was not a threat. I hope we do not end up with another liberal in office, Clinton dismantled the military enough, Regean defeated communism in Russia and put Libia in its place by a show of power not trying to negotiate with tyrants. But we all have a right to vote and believe in our own ideology. Thats what makes this country great.
The republicans are distracting the public by throwing at them all kinds of information about Kerry's misstatements. The truth of the matter is that I care less about his misstatements because ALL politicians are like that. As a matter of fact, all human beings are like that. I look at the bottomline after 4 years and I see that the quality of the middle class has deteriorated. Its all about JOBS, JOBS and JOBS. If people don't have Jobs, there is no point flipping properties because there ain't going to be any buyers. Accept the fact, you and me sell properties to middleclass, and if there is no strong middleclass, there is no point pursuing Real Estate. I care about the next four years and how I can earn in the next four years. I see a brighter future with Kerry compared to Bush.
Misstatements?? How many misstatements can one man make in such a short period of time?
A misstatement would be "I'm against the war in Iran..." (which should be Iraq for you liberals who didn't catch that)
I find it difficult to believe that you could speak on one topic on two different occasions and "mistakenly" have completely opposing points of view. Especially over and over and over and over and over and over again.....
If that's his personality then holy s**t. What kind of misstatements would he make to the Chinese premier? We could end up in WWIII before you know it because of a "misstatement"
Jobs, Jobs , Jobs, Jobs?????? it will be hard to have a job if we are dead. you think the people who died in 9/11 would be voting on a president because he might bring more jobs? you liberals can keep your more jobs, I would rather keep my life. and with out a strong president going after terrorists we are going to be in danger. 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!
Thats one of the best responses I've seen yet. You never knew a dead man to complain about unemployment!!!!LOL
how about a president who can create jobs and still go after the terrorsists! That's John Kerry. Bush just knows one thing.
So, if you are voting for Bush just because he makes an excellent commander, then you are wrong because you are unaware of power of diplomacy and the strength of non-violence.
Strength of non violence is what caused the trade centers to get attacked A SECOND TIME!
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs where would they be if 9/11 didn't happen ??? Pres Bush_only____ only created i.5 mil or so since then, say dems ! I think that's not bad after the effects of 9/11 on our economy! Unemployment at 5.4% about the same as when Clinton was in office!! If he & monica were not playing leap frog, the dems might have allowed the CIA & FBI to share intel and maybe, just maybe stopped 9/11..Remember FLIP FLOP KERRY voted for napta & voted for the war than changed when he saw Dean's anti war stance was getting support!! How can anyone trust him!!
"For those who think Kerry is after their wallets.... who do you think is going to pay for this 120+ Billion (not millions...BILLIONS) war? You are, as well as your kids and your grandkids. For what.... WMD that were not there?? To liberate the Iraqi people??? because someone....anyone has to pay for 9/11 even if they had nothing to do with it???
- and the comment about getting a one-way ticket to the African country one member express concern about... shows how arrogant and apathetic some Americans can be. (No wonder the rest of the world can't stand us.)
The African Country the poster was speaking of is Sudan, where a million of people have been slaughter by Muslim Extermist back by the Sudan Government to rid a group of people. Burning villages, killing the men and male children and raping the girls and women. 30 years from now the whole world will say what a terrible thing that that happen.
Last rant:
IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
...a lot of Saudis did though
But I guess a lot of Americans can tell one Arab from another.
And as us being safer now, don't kid yourself... we've created more terrorist than we've gotten rid of. Think about it ... if you are a 12 year old boy who's Mom was blown up...what's your MO going to be for the rest of your life.
FACT 1993 trade center attacked.
FACT 1996 2 us embassey were attacked.
FACT 1998 cole war ship was attacked.
CLINTON DID NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1996 OSAMA was in the sudan and the cia asked clinton did he want to stop OSAMA from going to sudan, CLINTON SAID NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
maybe CLINTON should chase terriost and not ASS(ugly girls at that)
I am ashamed of those 8 years of that scumbag!!!!!!!
Kerry read the same intel as bush and ALLOWED bush to go to war.
Kerry is a liar,coward,cheat and flip flopps. I am not rep or dem but vote the person. PLEASE RESEARCH KERRY/EDWARDS records.
Kerry has voted to raise taxes (when he showed up to vote) If he will not show up to his job now why do you think he will as president. Anyone voting for kerry i will send you my tax bills after kerry raises them..
1991 gulf war the first f16 in we had a pilot Scott spiegler shot down and CLINTON NEVER WENT TO SAVE HIM.
His family is on tv now with proof he was held all these years .How do you feel about these people. KERRY IS ANOTHER CLINTON.
I think kerry is gomer pyle.
Kerry called OUR allies a joke and he will get the reall allias to join. Well russia,france,germany have said no matter who wins NO DEAL.
And why would we want russia,france,germany they stole from the iraqis. And anyone that feels sorry for saddam meet some of the people he rapped,tortured and starved!!!!
Too many conflicts of interest in the Bush administration.
George W. was an unsuccessful Texas oilman.
Papa Bush, past president and ex-cia director is part of the Carlisle group, a $12 billion dollar international equities firm, heavily invested in defense and telcommunications.
Vice-president Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from '95-2000. It's the world's largest oil field services company. Halliburton sold spare parts to Iraq's oil industry, despite U.N. santions and had the contracts to rebuild oil infrastructures destroyed by papa Bush's Gulf war. Cheney and Halliburton are currently under investigation by the Securities Exchange Commission due to accounting inflation that was followed by Cheney selling $59 million dollars worth of his shares.
Cheney STILL receives annual payments from Halliburton, which by the way was awarded the contract to put out potential oil field fires in Iraq.
Hmmmm, what a coincidence. A group of oil men leading a war in an oil rich country as a response to an attack that the country had nothing to do with.
In ANY business situation this would never be allowed due to the obvious conflict of interest.
Is Kerry the answer? Nope.
But it's obvious Bush(s) will never leave the oil rich middle east alone.
It's the classic case of white rich men sending poor young men to fight for their empires. History repeats itself until the people stand up.
Kerry has has no ties to oil and gets my vote. That and he isn't using the church in the election quite as much as Bush is.
Oops,
I forgot to add:
"FACT 1993 trade center attacked.
FACT 1996 2 us embassey were attacked.
FACT 1998 cole war ship was attacked.
CLINTON DID NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
There is only one thing worse than doing nothing. That is doing the wrong thing.
bnorton-
I beg to differ. Making a wrong decision that resulted in over 1,000 U.S. kids dieing is not better than making no decision.
That was a terrible mistake and from Bush's own admission, he learned nothing of it.
If you are in a car and evryone in the car is yelling 'stop' and you decide to 'go' and everyone gets wiped, that is a bad decision. Of course the analogy really isn't valid because the example given of the car accident required a split second decision.
If you are making a decision that does not require split second response and you make the wrong choice, resulting in injusry to others, than it would have been better to do nothing at that time.
I agree..Its better not to make any decision rather make a stupid decision. Going to war was a Stupid decision. Look at money and people getting wasted every day. Once again, the war against terrorism is in Afghanistan and it is Osama we should be after. Such a simple thing and people just don't get it. Instead, they get muddled in historical facts, finger pointing against kerry etc etc. Bush could have easily gone after Osama and captured him, and he could have easily won the elections. Its like attacking Mexico after pearl harbour!!. Go Kerry, Go Clinton and Go Democrats!
I completely agree. I would rather have someone in office who was willing to fight for our country than back down. Kerry is so wishy washy on any topic you mention... it seriously scares me. Kerry would say anything to get into office. I would love to have all of the liberals in this forum write down the promises that Kerry has made. If he makes it to office.. you'll see him fail and putting many of them into practice. Bush has my vote. Neither side is perfect but I would rather have someone in office who knows what they stand for. Having someone in office who can be swayed by the public popularity so easily is asking for trouble. Sometimes a president has to make though decisions. Kerry would never be up for that job. Again.. Bush has my vote.
Quote:
On 2004-09-30 06:10, monkfish wrote:
"We are in a more dangerous world than 911."
Bad grammar aside, I assume you're trying to say the US is in more danger than it was before 9/11.
Question: Have there been any attacks on US soil since 9/11?
Answer: No.
Question #2: Who do you think Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, etc. would rather have in office, Bush or Kerry?
Answer: Kerry
Therefore, Bush is getting my vote.
If war has not proved anything, then civil war for you was just a fantasy. Because of those early wars, we have our status as "great nation". Why allow those "fundamentalist" kill us in our own land if we could fight the war overseas.
The military people that are dying right now, at the beginning of their(our) enlistment, we raised our hand and promised to "defend the constitution". Defending the constitution and following whoever is in the office(president) could mean death. Since there are people like you in this country(like Kerry), more kids are joining the military not knowing that their life is at stake once they raise their right hand.
Everybody that is for Bush just watch Farenheit 9/11 before you vote.. Even if one thing in the whole movie is true we have the wrong man in the White House :-o :-o :-o
Charlotte -
Um, Clinton was 2 elections ago. Ok, that's over.
Also, in case u missed it ,Al Queda and wmd's are not in Iraq.
"Taking action" by going to the wrong country isn't heroic, it's ignorant. By standing firm on his convictions, Bush isn't showing leadership, he's being irrational. Like the guy who stands on the corner saying the world is going to end on Friday. He's there every Friday.
He's standing firm. Not admitting maybe there is another option.
There's a disturbing leftover 'rah-rah' America group, that equate questioning authority to being unpatriotic. This isn't ww2, it's the Bush family war. Been going on for a while.
This country was built on people who had the guts to stand up and say the government is wrong. The ones who always agree with a particular party are the ones known as the 'masses'. The masses are always behind the curve and are easily influenced. The masses held on to slavery for ages. The masses thought women shouldn't vote. The REAL players, the ones who disagreed with these notions are the true patriots.
Of course at the time they were considered enemies of the state.
Iraq poses no threat to us. Did u miss the memo?
We are wasting resources and lives in Iraq.
Arguing what past Democrats may or may not have done in the past, shows lack of understanding in the present situation.
Everybody that is for Bush just watch Farenheit 9/11 before you vote.. Even if one thing in the whole movie is true we have the wrong man in the White House :-o :-o :-o
Bnorton -
I appreciate your civil tone and reasoning.
I truly don't think if we blink that we will be attacked by terrorists. I think the THREAT of that happening is being fostered by the present administration, however, as a way to gain support for this war. I don't buy into the yellow, orange, etc alerts. To issue alerts without facts or instruction on how were are supposed to proceed is cruel and most likely b.s.
just my 2centavos.
watch farenhype 9/11 not the fat basterd
First off, I am voting for Bush and I support the war in Iraq.
But I think that people (on both sides) need to be more accurate when they state facts and figures to back up their arguments.
Someone wrote that losing 1000 lives in Iraq is nothing compared to the 3500 that died on September 11th. This is a onesided argument that is ignorant from a global standpoint.
The enemy we fight is Terror and those who invoke it.
The war in Iraq has cost more than the 1000 soldiers lives. The best estimates are that between 13,000 and 15,000 (www.iraqbodycount.net) Iraqi civilians have died during this war. Just as our soldiers have made the choice to sacrifice, and the 3500 murder victims had their lives taken away on 911, do not overlook the toll this war has and will continue to take on the very people we are trying to liberate.
1,000 soldiers and even the 15,000 civilians makes this one of the least bloody wars in out history. Compare it to Vietnam, the World Wars, The Civil War, etc and Iraq is small - but widely televised.
Finally, I'm tired of the same people who voted for Bill Clinton (who dodged the Vietnam draft and fled to Canada) calling GW Bush a War dodger. He served in the Guard and missed a physical. Get over it. My dad was drafted, but the war ended before he saw combat. Should I hold that against him?
joemac1241
Good points.
This is the first year I'm voting democrat after 7 years of voting for presidential elections. I voted for Bush last time around.
Everyone should see f911, even if you are a republican. Don't take it at face value, just check out the facts afterwards. I realize Moore is less than a class act. But to not at least see it is actually UnAmercican, i feel. See it and disagree - that's great. Just don't ignore the opportunity to the viewpoint provided.
I'm most disturbed by the death toll and I feel it will be higher under Bush than anyone else. That's really the main reason I'm voting to oust him.
Saying this country was built under the hand of God is fine, I guess. I believe in God and I feel God loves the whole world as much as he loves us. Yet we are killing many innocent people without any real remorse. People from other countries are as valuable as we are and I think we need to remember this.
Taxes? I'll pay them. Maybe I'll fight against them later, who knows? But first on my agenda is to reduce the killing.
THE BURDEN OF BEING A REPUBLICAN
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving and military record
is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an
illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
THE REASON ARABS ARE DIEING UNDER BUSH IS CLINTON NEVER WENT AFTER ANY OF THE TERRIORST.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THE HEAD CASHIER AT WALMART TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
THE PRESIDENT IS INCHARGE OF THIS COUNTRY AND SHOULD PROTECT IT AS A FATHER WOULD HIS CHILD AND IF GOING AFTER THE EVIL ONES IS UN POPULAR THAN SO BE IT.
NOT SCUM SUCKING CLINTON HE WAS SCARED OF HIS SHADOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I GUESS IF CLINTON DID NOT CARE ABOUT HIS FAMILY THAN WHY SHOULD WE BE SHOCKED AT HIS NOT CARING ABOUT THIS COUNTRY.
CLINTON FAVORITE QUOTE
(ANYONE GOT A CIGAR)
FACT 1993 trade center attacked.
FACT 1996 2 us embassey were attacked.
FACT 1998 cole war ship was attacked.
CLINTON DID NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1996 OSAMA was in the sudan and the cia asked clinton did he want to stop OSAMA from going to sudan, CLINTON SAID NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
maybe CLINTON should chase terriost and not ASS(ugly girls at that)
I am ashamed of those 8 years of that scumbag!!!!!!!
Kerry read the same intel as bush and ALLOWED bush to go to war.
Kerry is a liar,coward,cheat and flip flopps. I am not rep or dem but vote the person. PLEASE RESEARCH KERRY/EDWARDS records.
Kerry has voted to raise taxes (when he showed up to vote) If he will not show up to his job now why do you think he will as president. Anyone voting for kerry i will send you my tax bills after kerry raises them..
1991 gulf war the first f16 in we had a pilot Scott spiegler shot down and CLINTON NEVER WENT TO SAVE HIM.
His family is on tv now with proof he was held all these years .How do you feel about these people. KERRY IS ANOTHER CLINTON.
I think kerry is gomer pyle.
Kerry called OUR allies a joke and he will get the reall allias to join. Well russia,france,germany have said no matter who wins NO DEAL.
And why would we want russia,france,germany they stole from the iraqis. And anyone that feels sorry for saddam meet some of the people he rapped,tortured and starved!!!!
Quote:
On 2004-10-25 16:35, tzachari wrote:
THE BURDEN OF BEING A REPUBLICAN
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
I don't get it. Why do I have to think Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him. Better than the Iranians does not qualify one as a good guy.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
I don't agree with the policy any more than I agree with your statement. Why do I have to believe this to be a Republican?
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
Our highest national priority is protecting our country. It has nothing to do with the UN. Why should we get out of the UN? Again, I don't get it.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.
Okay, killing any human being who can survive outside the womb is murder. Plain and simple. That has nothing to do with corporate decision making. I have yet to hear a Republican say corporations should be able to operate without any regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Not all Republicans are Christians. Some are Jewish, Moslem, etc. Believing in Jesus has nothing to do with being a Republican. We don't hate homosexuals, but the whole issue has gotten way out of hand. I think I will start a "Straight Pride Day." The fact is that I don't ask for special priveledges just because I am attracted to the opposite sex. I also don't hate Hilliary. I don't like her politics, but I don't even know the woman. She is not that important for me to spend time hating her.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Where are you getting this stuff? Have you been watching Michael Moore?Personally, I think the best way to impove military morale is to send them to war, and not fund it!
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
Again, I have yet to hear a Republican make an asanine statement like that.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Kind of like the way Kerry belittled the leader of Iraq!
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
It is socialism regardless of who is getting state sponsored benefits.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Why do I have to believe that to be a Republican?
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy.
Clinton lied under oath, Bush made decisions based on the best information at the time. That was the same information that Kerry saw that made him support the war before he didn't, then he did, then he didn't again.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving and military record
is none of our business.
I don't know about Hilliary's cattle trades. Sounds like a lot of bull. But Bush signed the paperwork to release his records. Too bad we cannot say the same for Kerry.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an
illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
I agree that it is a crime regardless of who you are. Why do I have to believe in the double standard to be a Republican?
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
No
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
We know what Bush did in the 80s. It isn't any more relevant than what Kerry did in the 60s and 70s. What is relevent is what they both did while holding office.
Answers were getting short at the end. I am tired. Social programs are just that social programs, and by definition are based on Socialist belief. Robin Hood was a Socialist. He robbed from the rich to give to the poor. It is a nice thought, but it kills all motivation to excel. It is the same as taking points from your A and B students and giving them to your D and F students so everyone has a C.
While I won't vote for him, I personally hope Kerry gets elected. That way I can quit busting my hump to get ahead, and live the life of luxury on welfare. That way you can pay my way through the rest of my life, and I don't have to put forth any effort whatsoever.
I cant believe anyone would base their vote for President of the United States, the greatest country in the world, on a movie, especially a movie with an extremeist viewpoint. F911 is one extremeists view not based in fact at all. You need to get the facts from newspapers, news reports, internet news sites. To say that it is unAmerican to choose to not see a movie, come on. It is completely American to make my own choice, even if it is not your choice.
All I can say is if you want a guy who will say whatever you want to hear to one group and say something different to another then go ahead and vote for Kerry he's the perfect candidate. You just don't really know what he stands for....hummmm
I just can't believe that people can vote for someone who has never accomploshed anything in the senate because he is too far to the left...20 YEARS THAT'S A LONG TIME, went to war for WHAT 4 months and run his campaign on that, let's get a reality check....and Michael Moore is a big LOSER
"I cant believe anyone would base their vote for President of the United States, the greatest country in the world, on a movie, especially a movie with an extremeist viewpoint. F911 is one extremeists view not based in fact at all. You need to get the facts from newspapers, news reports, internet news sites. To say that it is unAmerican to choose to not see a movie, come on. It is completely American to make my own choice, even if it is not your choice"
I agree. NOONE should base their vote on a movie. I said I feel everyone should view the film, check out the facts and make a decision. There is very important info in the film that isn't readily available in mainstrem media.
To not see the movie and judge it is wrong. You can choose not to see it, of course, but you really should not have a stance on it then. Does that make sense?
I think M. Moore is somewhat of a boor, myself. He has, however, put together a very interesting piece about the administration that I didn't know about prior to the movie. Actually, several points come to mind.
Am I basing my vote on the movie? Nope. But it did motivate me to check out other sources and THEN I made up my mind.
Research and decide who you feel will make the best president.
Also, someone mentioned not wanting to 'line M. Moore's pockets.' That's a cop-out. Borrow it from someone.
Actually, no, that does not make sense. I absolutely have an opinion of Michael Moore and his movie. I know enough of him to know he is not always honest. He is critical of everything American, not just republicans. He hates America. This is not the kind of man I want to get information from, I cannot trust it. I do not need to know all his opinions, and half truths to be informed. And I completely refuse to support him in anyway.
Actually, no, that does not make sense. I absolutely have an opinion of Michael "Moore and his movie. I know enough of him to know he is not always honest. He is critical of everything American, not just republicans. He hates America. This is not the kind of man I want to get information from, I cannot trust it. I do not need to know all his opinions, and half truths to be informed. And I completely refuse to support him in anyway"
Lol. But you'll vote, right?
Absolutely!
You guys really can't see something and then research it? That's the fun part!
Go find where he's wrong (I'm sure there are plenty of cases where he's twisted the truth) and come back and make a case.
Saying someone is bad or unAmerican or whatever you want to say is great, just explain why. I don't mean generalizations that you heard on t.v. or heard on the radio. If Moore says Bush has ties with the Bin Ladens, for example - research it and come back and explain why it's a lie.
It's easy, you can do it! I have been known to watch Fox on occasion, I'm not scared of it. It won't brainwash you to listen to the other side before making decisions.
Kerry has voted against virtually every weapons system in use today by the U.S military. For Kerry to come out tough on terrorists and war now, as long as we have plenty of allies with us in a war effort, is utterly ridiculous because he voted against the FIRST Gulf War even though we had tremendous support from not only a broad global coalition, including much of Western Europe, but full backing from the U.N.
Senator Kerry Voted Against the first Gulf War in 1991 even in the face of a huge global coalition.
Senator Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-15. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-16. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff And Landing Jet Fighters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System For U.S. Submarines. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
" I think I will start a "Straight Pride Day." The fact is that I don't ask for special priveledges just because I am attracted to the opposite sex. "
Who's asking for special priveliges?
The fact of the matter is Bin laden is still alive, hale and healthy, taunting us sitting on top of a mountain about 911. This administration has not captured him after 3 years. This itself is good reason enough why Mr. Bush has to leave the office. Did you hear about the new bin laden tape. What's the point in having captured Saddam hussain and all the good stuff of George Bush being a Man of Conviction, if he hasn't captured bin laden who killed 3000 people??