Say... we had to vote now.. how does ao feel?
Printable View
Say... we had to vote now.. how does ao feel?
is it just me or does Kerry seem flakey (as in he has no opinion of his own)
hes got to be better than bush.
they both suck however, and i think i am going to do 1 of 2 things == nominate mickey mouse as a write in ;) or go with the communist or socialist (still deciding) party guy (if they have one since last election their guy died)
I can't really stand either of them, but i would rather give kerry a chance than to see bush in office for another 4 years.
I hate having to pick the better a-hole. But, since I'm not allowed to vote doesn't matter either way.
for some reason i just can't trust kerry tho, not sure why, but i am actually the opposite of you (if i had to chose one of them) because at least with bush we know what kind of stupid stuff he will do, with kerry it will be a whole new ball game... (that and bill clinton left a slightly sour taste in my mind on democrats)Quote:
Originally posted here by er0k
I can't really stand either of them, but i would rather give kerry a chance than to see bush in office for another 4 years.
Djscribble - Did you type "my" by mistake here? I was almost sure you meant to type "Monica's" Hee! Hee!Quote:
Originally posted here by djscribble
(that and bill clinton left a slightly sour taste in my mind on democrats)
All kidding aside though. I'll take Bush over Kerry. Yeah, I know, BIG SECRET right? Setting the opinions on the war on terrorism aside, I cannot see where Bush has done anything seriously bad for the country. I disagreed with Bush's position on steel tarrifs, but really what is so terrible about President Bush? Now, I am not saying that we should ignore the war or it's ramifications by any means, but I am curious about what horrible things Bush has done to the country. And please do not reference Moore's film as fact, since Moore's skewed opinions can be logically debunked or logically argued as circumspect at best.
Oh - <Edit> EROK sorry about that. <edit> - Not trying to hijack your thread here. Just thought it would be appropriate to try and find out what the issues are that influence an individuals decision to vote for one party or another, or "Mickey Mouse" as the case may be.
I can't vote in the elections obviously, but from what I've seen Kerry's campaign is based around the fact that "I'm not Bush, so vote for me".
I'm a Bush supporter myself. I admire his understanding of the lead/represent paradox that comes wtih political leadership -- Knowing when to act in representation of the masses, and knowing when to lead, even when it means going against the general opinion of the masses.
Kerry, on the other hand, I see as just a puppet of the masses. His opinion always seems to conform to what the general consensus is, hence his ever-changing and always-contradicting stances. Kerry seems far too worried about getting everybody to like him, whereas Bush just doesn't give a care. So, my big concern with Kerry is that he's easily swayed. Pull his strings and watch him dance.
So, that's at the heart of my vote as casted.
*Kerry's campaign is based around the fact that "I'm not Bush, so vote for me".
pwaring,
Even if that was right, that is enough for me. As a veteran who has been deployed overseas, I am tired of having my freedoms imposed upon by bullsh*t legislation that does nothing. Bush is using 9/11 as a crutch. As someone in the IT field I am also very disturbed at his position on offshore outsourcing, which he is very much in favor of by the way.
At least Kerry's campain makes good points on things that matter to me. My freedom and my job.
Don't forget one of the founding fathers of our contry Ben Franklin once said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." or something to that effect. I think in the midst of all the tradgedy we have forgotten who we really are, and where we came from and that is a tradgedy in itself.
it isn't my thready -- i just couldn't sleep last night so i posted a couple of times -- and i think that was what i was trying to get at, but through my insomniac haze, I couldn't get my thoughts outQuote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Not trying to hijack your thread here. Just thought it would be appropriate to try and find out what the issues are that influence an individuals decision to vote for one party or another, or "Mickey Mouse" as the case may be.
I think you need to go to FATCHECK on this one.Quote:
Originally posted here by sysmin770
*At least Kerry's campain makes good points on things that matter to me. My freedom and my job.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=168
Additionally I found this excerpt on many websites. Unfortunately I do not subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, so I cannot pull up the actual article.
Quote:
“Supports” American Businesses Taking Jobs Overseas. “Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that.” (Jerry Seib, John Harwood and Jacob Schlesinger, “Excerpts From An Interview With John Kerry,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/3/04)
In December 2003, Kerry Recognized You Can’t “Just Stop” Outsourcing. “Well, any candidate for president who stands up and tells people, as some are, that they’re going to just stop [outsourcing] by getting tough on trade or whatever, is lying to the American people. Outsourcing is particularly painful at this moment because we haven’t been creating jobs, and we haven’t been creating jobs to some measure because of the overhang of the 1990s, the excess capacity that we were left with and the need to sort of burn it up.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Council On Foreign Relations, New York, NY, http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub6...gn_policy.php, 12/3/03)
If djscribble is serious about voting for a socialist, I think that Kerry is the candidate for you. His proposed tax increases and entitlement increases are so close to the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" mantra put for by Marx that it is sKerry.
Do I like Bush and his police-state policies? No, I don't. But Kerry scares me. He has not said anything about turning back any of the security policies/invasion of privacy issues that most of dislike, but he has promised to take more money out of individuals' pockets and increase government spending significantly. He changing his positions based on who he's speaking to, which makes me real nervous. If he can't take a consistent position during campaigning, how are we to know what to expect when he gets in office?
It seem most of Kerry's support come from people that hate Bush, for whatever reason (and I don't mean I don't understand the reason, I mean that there are multiple reasons). I think that voting against one candidate is the wrong way to decide the president of the US. If you don't like Bush, vote for Nader or the Libertarian Candidate or any other candidate on your ballot that closest matches what you believe in. If we all just vote for the lesser of two evils to keep from "throwing away" our vote, we're going to keep being presented with two evils to vote for.
HQ
The general public does not know the truth. The general public is a slave to sensational media garbage. The truth is that Bush does what he has to do for our country. Speaking with military background and exposure to the truth enlightens me to know only one candidate for the presidency: G. W. Bush. Example: Compare what G. W. Bush has said he is going to do, to what Kerry says he is going to do. Kerry says one thing then changes his mind and says the complete opposite. Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." What in the world, would anyone believe this person? I for one am extremely happy with my tax break that Bush has given me, and I do NOT want Kerry to raise them, as he has already claimed he will do once in office. Plus all they do is "Bush bashing". All I can say is, Kerry tell me some ideas and stop telling me how "bad" Bush is, so I can make a judgment on why you'd be a good canidate for president. Since it's all about Kerry's Vietnam record, I cannot vote for him. I don't care about his war record, it does nothing for this economy!!!!!!
Same here, I will be really worried about my pocketbook if Kerry wins, which is another major reason I'm not voting for him. I can't afford him hiking up taxes, and people like me prove tax breaks aren't just for the rich. I'm anything but...
In 2002, Kerry voted for giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq at his own discretion. What he voted against is the $87 billion needed by Bush (Kerry wanted the $87 billion to come from roll backs on Bush tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes.... the idea was rejected) There's a huge difference between those two.Quote:
Originally posted by RebelToTheEnd
Kerry says one thing then changes his mind and says the complete opposite. Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." What in the world, would anyone believe this person?
Use military force at his own discretion, not spend $87 billion tax-dollars on it.
That'd be like me telling you you can use your own bed to sleep in or to do whatever you want to do in. And then you saying "OK, but I'm going to need a million dollars to do what I want to do in my bed".
Ewwwww Those of us with dirty minds took that the wrong way. That is one hell of an expensive prostitute. LOL. I don't like that analogy. Lets go with a computer related one.Quote:
That'd be like me telling you you can use your own bed to sleep in or to do whatever you want to do in. And then you saying "OK, but I'm going to need a million dollars to do what I want to do in my bed".
You can use your own computer or do whatever and stuff, but you respond saying I need $500 to do that, and then I say WTF go back to bed.
Bed... prostitute... computer... as long as you get the point :D
And that's exactly the point, The Grunt.
I always tend to give examples that are taken the wrong way :)
Perhaps Kerry should have made a better postition, It's the quote that is funny.
Now, this may be an issue of symantecs here, but Kerry said that he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it right? "The" as used in Kerry's sentence, is a singular discriptor. Thus we all understand this to be a singular instance of 87 billion. Hmm... was there really a different 87 billion. Lets see, I can believe Kerry's explanation that he wanted the 87 billion to come from tax increases. But what I cannot believe is Kerry's expectation, that the President was going to raise taxes in order to fund the 87 billion; and I doubt that President Bush ever agreed to raise taxes to fund the 87 billion. That leads one to the question of, "What prompted Kerry to vote for an imagenary 87 billion dollar tax increase, before he voted against the factual 87 billion dollar pricetag for the war on terror?" To me it seems like Kerry is a hero, well....a hero in his own mind that is.Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
In 2002, Kerry voted for giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq at his own discretion. What he voted against is the $87 billion needed by Bush (Kerry wanted the $87 billion to come from roll backs on Bush tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes.... the idea was rejected) There's a huge difference between those two.
Use military force at his own discretion, not spend $87 billion tax-dollars on it.
That'd be like me telling you you can use your own bed to sleep in or to do whatever you want to do in. And then you saying "OK, but I'm going to need a million dollars to do what I want to do in my bed".
or perhaps kerry should have taken a position at all...
Kerry's position was that yes, the president should be authorized to use military force at his own discretion, but no, that doesn't mean he can just have $87 billion for it.
Kerry voted for something, and Bush made that something into $87 billion, not Kerry (since he didn't agree with it).
Or: Kerry voted for something that was later turned into $87 billion by Bush, and in turn turned into a nay vote by Kerry. He shouldn't have said it the way he said it, true.
It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, though :)
Kerry didn't expect the President to raise taxes in order to fund the $87 billion. The proposition was to temporarily roll back the tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes, but was rejected
57 to 42.
Quote:
To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers.
Waita sec. This is still inconsistent. How'd he expect Bush to go to war? With water guns? Did Kerry not understand wars are expensive? Did the $87bill price tag of war actually surprise anyone?
C'mon...
In essence it's termed Back Pedaling.
- First, there was a vote about whether Bush should be granted the authority to go to war, using whatever means he had (not: whatever means he will be needing in the future, not: needing another $87 billion).
- Then, there was the $87 billion vote. Kerry voted against that extra $87 billion (this was long after troops had been sent already).
- As a compromise, a bill was proposed to fund that $87 billion by temporarily suspending the high imcome tax cuts. This was rejected 57-42.
Bush went to war without that $87 billion, and the $87 billion vote was looooong after that.
Quote:
John Kerry
And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.
Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
In 2002, Kerry voted for giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq at his own discretion. What he voted against is the $87 billion needed by Bush (Kerry wanted the $87 billion to come from roll backs on Bush tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes.... the idea was rejected) There's a huge difference between those two.
Use military force at his own discretion, not spend $87 billion tax-dollars on it.
That'd be like me telling you you can use your own bed to sleep in or to do whatever you want to do in. And then you saying "OK, but I'm going to need a million dollars to do what I want to do in my bed".
Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
Kerry's position was that yes, the president should be authorized to use military force at his own discretion, but no, that doesn't mean he can just have $87 billion for it.
Kerry voted for something, and Bush made that something into $87 billion, not Kerry (since he didn't agree with it).
Or: Kerry voted for something that was later turned into $87 billion by Bush, and in turn turned into a nay vote by Kerry. He shouldn't have said it the way he said it, true.
It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, though :)
Kerry didn't expect the President to raise taxes in order to fund the $87 billion. The proposition was to temporarily roll back the tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes, but was rejected
57 to 42.
The SPIN STOPS here (All Kerry's words 12 min worth)Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
- First, there was a vote about whether Bush should be granted the authority to go to war, using whatever means he had (not: whatever means he will be needing in the future, not: needing another $87 billion).
- Then, there was the $87 billion vote. Kerry voted against that extra $87 billion (this was long after troops had been sent already).
- As a compromise, a bill was proposed to fund that $87 billion by temporarily suspending the high imcome tax cuts. This was rejected 57-42.
Bush went to war without that $87 billion, and the $87 billion vote was looooong after that.
Let us have a look on VIDEO (CNN,MSNBC,FOX ect...) what Kerry actually told the nation about the $87Bill.
I believe this is the biggest documentary of flips flops ever pertaining to the $87bill!
I willl post this in the waffle house thread as well as a few more I found.
Lol... if that's a documentary, then Fahrenheit 9/11 definitely is one :D
Kerry has always said that something should be done (9/23/01, 12/11/01, 12/14/01 - they seem to forget that there have been two wars in Iraq... I don't see what that '91 quote is doing in the "documentary"), has always stated that diplomacy should be given every chance it deserves (02/05/02, 05/03/03), and has always been in favor of disarming Saddam (9/23/01, 12/14/01, 05/22/02, 07/29/02, 09/15/02, 10/11/02, 05/03/03), but has since the beginning of the war been against how it was done (05/03/03, 10/12/03, 10/17/03, 03/16/04) like many other people.
What he voted for was indeed a war in Iraq ("as a last resort, if all diplomacy fails"), what he voted against was the way it was done, against giving Bush a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants. If that's flip-flopping, then fine.
What he probably did do wrong, were his 1998 statements.
And what might be considered flip-flopping, is the fact that in 2002, he stated that he agrees with a regime chance in Iraq, where in August 2003, he states that "we did not empower the regime change in the resolution". But then again: he may be right... I didn't read that resolution. It sounds like he didn't agree with it, though (although that's not what he's saying... he's simply saying that the resolution doesn't empower it, and he's probably right).
Note: all dates in my posts are the dates from the "documentary".
Oh: and the "documentary" implies that he changed his position after finding out that being against the war would gain him votes in the pre-elections. We could discuss that for months, and it would be the same discussion as the one we had about Bush going to war for oil... who knows :rolleyes:
Oh, should I use different fonts and colors to get my point across? :D
Aside from the war with Iraq, Bush has done nothing terribly wrong with the country. In fact, he's done nothing at all with the country.
Vote Kerry.
P.S. - Everything in Fahrenheit 9-11 was, at one point, discussed in the regualr media somewhere in the country, it's not pulled from nowhere by Michael Moore.
A_T
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
it seems while in nam kerrry bought an 8mm camera. how many people do you know that came back from VN had home movies...staged ones at that
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc82.htm
A new bombshell book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations (#1 and #3) resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.
The startling Purple Heart accusations, outlined in detail for the first time, are found in UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.
Swift Boat Veterans began to fume after Kerry's campaign used a photograph of John Kerry and 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers [taken at Ton Sun Nuht Air Base on January 22, 1969] in a pro-Kerry advertisement.
William Shumadine, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pictured in the photograph, explains in UNFIT: "John Kerry's use of a photograph with his nineteen comrades, with knowledge that eleven of them comdemn him and six who cannot or do not want to be involved, is a complete misreprentation to the public and a total fraud."
[A major campaign is being planned, beginning next week, over 200 anti-Kerry vets involved, with news conferences in battleground states.]
*****"Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today."*****
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...4802_dnc81.htm
"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
at least bush is who he says he is
Thank you for those wonderous links and information. We are grateful to you my lord *bows*
LOL, but yea anyways that is some interesting stuff... Self inflicticted eh? Maybe I misintrepreted him, he might be dumber than bush. I've got a spin on korps devil thing. How about "better the dumbass you know than the dumbass you don't". I think it fits politictions better. Or big barrell of bullshitters, if you want to put it into "correct" english ;)
That is horribly sad that he spent his time in Nam making recordings. You can tell he's been rich or at least well off his entire life. I wonder what the hardest he's worked to make money is? I wish dearly that we could get a presidential candidate who wasn't ludicrously rich in a position so that they could actually have a chance to win. That would be very interesting.
AffirmativeQuote:
Funny you should post this, I was watching that dramatic video of kerry an hour ago of him in nam, I noticed how relaxed he looked, plus the way he carried his weapon loose. My uncle pointed that out, he was one of many "frogmen"(enemy reffered to as men with green faces) in nam who carried out special op missions and rescues. He obtained way more medals(seven purple hearts, four silver stars ect...) than kerry, he is not believing kerry's "paid off" buddies, especially after what he said about his fellow comrade after he came back.Quote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
it seems while in nam kerrry bought an 8mm camera. how many people do you know that came back from VN had home movies...staged ones at that
dont get me wrong...im not a republican. republicans are far to liberal for my liking. NAFTA, no child left behind, making the government bigger. but with whats happening today hes our only hope of defeating this world threat. kerry would still be waiting for approval from his french buds to act
Federalist?
Nah! if a whimp like clinton can stop it it aint for me. i thought i was a libertarian until the war started...i believe we are fighting to preserve western civilization as we know it. the libertarian party wants no part of it but i think its a little late for staying out of it. we are at war and i stand behind bush. at least he says that the right to bear arms means exactly that and not go join the national guard and he stands up to the un i just wish he'd stand a little taller to them. he believes in god, country and family (well i got the country part but all three are good in a leader) and he does what he says hes going to do. until all this is over he's the man in my book.
Quote:
Originally posted here by The Grunt
Thank you for those wonderous links and information. We are grateful to you my lord *bows*
LOL, but yea anyways that is some interesting stuff... Self inflicticted eh? Maybe I misintrepreted him, he might be dumber than bush. I've got a spin on korps devil thing. How about "better the dumbass you know than the dumbass you don't". I think it fits politictions better. Or big barrell of bullshitters, if you want to put it into "correct" english ;)
That is horribly sad that he spent his time in Nam making recordings. You can tell he's been rich or at least well off his entire life. I wonder what the hardest he's worked to make money is? I wish dearly that we could get a presidential candidate who wasn't ludicrously rich in a position so that they could actually have a chance to win. That would be very interesting.
HAHAHAHAHA You're killing me, man, killing me!!!! I can't stop laughing.
Here's an good one for you. It's an old saying, actually a song, "Money makes the world go round." We are an oligarchy if there ever was one. Maybe not in the purest sense but definitely in spirit. Only those with the greatest means can pay for the privilege of running for the highest offices in the country. Money buys you a paved road in and money buys your way out of nasty, sticky, situations that would otherwise cause a regular man to be sent to jail for a very, very long time. I wish it wasn't so, but that is the sad state of the union at present.
Who's willing to change it. Those with money make more money, and those without can ***** off, cause who cares what they have to say anyway, they don't line our pockets, now, do they?
Now I'm getting depressed, thanks allot!!!
hehehe, not really.
:) Kerry looks like an animated gif with what seems to be a competetive challenge
to the worlds most elongated and stretched noggin. He looks so fake and wound up
from the key in his back, its pathetic.
Anyway, i think they make a great couple.....
I doubt its all right, but I read along time ago that Kerry was a spy for China on a conspiracy site. China gave him so many millions of dollars to campaign. Makes you wonder... China vows to attack Taiwan in 2008, we support Taiwan, Kerry wins, China wins. Simple as that. Kind of makes sense though.
b4s! I am, as most members will attest to, not a Kerry supporter by any stretch of the imagination. However I do not generally buy into the whole conspiracy theory thingys, as applied to either party. Now I'm not saying that it is not possible, just not very plausible. If you want to post some conspiracy theory concerns, at least give us some reference links to follow. Makes for interesting reading at least.
Now, after saying all of that, considering Clinton's dubious connections with the Chineese government, (which we have discussed at length on this site) I find the suspicion the Kerry is accepting funneled campaign funds from the Chineese government to be possible, but I doubt and hope that Kerry would not be stupid enough to become a "SPY" for the Chineese.
Oh well just my thoughts.