reasons not to elect john kerry

amduser · Sep 23, 2004, 08:55 PM

yes i agree on some of your points dom. the american government is in many ways as you said corrupt. the political system is corrupt. the common man has no voice. but i really think he never really had a voice. look back in history. it has always been the affluent and powerful who made the decisions in this country. even though i dont like it i do think it is better than any other alternative.

when i went to college i wrote a paper on vietnam. it was ok. but my professor hated it. she firmly believed it was all our fault. Not the Viet Cong,NVA,Chinese Communists or the Soviet Union. The USA.That really shocked me.

iraq had mostly russian made weapons. yes they did get support from us during the iran-iraq war. alliances change. remember ww2?

i know you don't support premptive strikes. what did you think about president clinton bombing afghanistan?

what do think about our involvment in old yugoslavia?

what do think would have happened say back before this war if one our pilots were shot down in the no fly zone in iraq? think they would have observed the geneva conventions?

the only reason i brought up 1991 was to prove a point. be honest here. what is the difference?

Dom i cannot help but feel angry when i see people point there finger at the USA and blame us for everything wrong in the world. 9/11 is one example. our supposed policies. bullcrap. you and i both know what is wrong with the middle east. religous fanaticism and oppression. people living their whole life in poverty.it makes our poor look rich.can you imagine living like that? i couldn't.their schools teach nothing but hate for western society.

For the terrorists this is a Crusade. they dont want freedom or civil rights. they want complete dominance of every part of society.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 24, 2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

It's the world we live in and I don't see you making it any better. Perhaps if you had a legitimate point for being anti-French I would agree with you.

[color=red]The resistasnce to the war for thier own persinal interests, and to potect thier investment like the billions in pay offs from saddam. [/color]

As I said, it sounded to me like she said something along the lines of; "certain aspects are anti-American". The reported sounded like he asked her why she said "politics are anti-American". I didn't see anything like that happen. I didn't hear any mention of the Bush campaign.

[color=red]Like I said before they showed a muh loner and clearer on CNN or fox news[/color]

Quote:

"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."

[color=red]It's still partial it's not in context[/color][color=red]....[/color][color=red] speaking of people questioning her husband/ his oponets I can't remember the exact words[/color]

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videop...oxMLC=national

[color=red]here is her denying saying it at all... a much better video still looking for the speach. She says she didn't say that and not to put words in her mouth... She's on tape saying it... yet she denies ever saying it... then later she admits it and her and her husband defends it.[/color]

[color=red]Kinda like when kerry talked about meeting with the enemy in war time (treason), and him and others commiting war crimes classic[/color] . [color=red]Also wer he called saddom a terrist, mentioned WMD, and spoke of links to terrisim and roughly saying that no matter what the reason he should be ousted. Even if there are no WMD ... [/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[color=#ff0000]

Quote:

[/color]

Quote:

Cameras were rolling last night when Teresa Heinz Kerry falsely claimed she’d never called Republicans “un-American,” telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Colin McNickle to “shove it” when he persisted in asking her to elaborate. All of the networks thought Mrs. Kerry’s saying “shove it” was more newsworthy than either her calling opponents “un-American” -- a way she also described the GOP during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Sunday -- or her lying about it when caught. Of the three broadcast networks this morning, only ABC’s Good Morning America showed enough videotape for viewers to actually see how Heinz Kerry first decried “some of the creeping un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics,” only to tell McNickle a few moments later that she did not say “un-American.” On The Early Show, CBS held itself to just playing the words “shove it,” while NBC’s Campbell Brown would only go so far as to say that “she reportedly told the reporter to, quote, ‘Shove it!’”
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[color=#ff0000]http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040726pm.asp[/color]
[color=#ff0000]

[/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
So you mean to tell me you searched for sources for several points and the only hits you got led you to the FreeRepublic?

[color=red]No they were the first I mean why should I have to go out and get the source in the first place... I'd don't wate my time it's not a worthy of much effort.... I see all kinda os stuff that I belive you don't other wise you'd have a more iffy openion of things like john Forbes Kerry[/color]

I don't and am still able to find more non-objective sources than you.
[color=red]I don't want spend long looking for text versions to support my factual claims. My news comes from live TV news /discussions/ interviews etc...[/color]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

neon - searching for 'articles' to back up your point is hardly a means of proof...i can back up absolutely ANY opinion i have with 'fact' if that's all it takes.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/no...sold-n15.shtml
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...lled_jfkjr.htm
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=6308610
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...0602_cbsd5.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ry_1&printer=1
http://www.democrats.org/news/200409210001.html
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...&w=RTR&coview=

etc etc....stuff is EASY to dig up

I've said that but dom ikes to see stuff in print. He won't take my word for what I watched on live TV reporting. And more often then not there is not a text counter part.... So unless he spent most the last year waching TV news 12-16 hours a day he will not have seen or herd the things I have. My guess is sine he han't seen it he asumes i've pulled it out of thing air or made it up and I don't blame him either. But I'm ony satateing what I know to be true. weather I have a supporting link or not...

flaherrc · Sep 30, 2004, 11:54 AM

Here are my two cents:

www.scaryjohnkerry.com

Actually, I guess they aren't my two cents but in his own words...

bob

Dom · Sep 30, 2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

I've said that but dom ikes to see stuff in print. He won't take my word for what I watched on live TV reporting. And more often then not there is not a text counter part.... So unless he spent most the last year waching TV news 12-16 hours a day he will not have seen or herd the things I have. My guess is sine he han't seen it he asumes i've pulled it out of thing air or made it up and I don't blame him either. But I'm ony satateing what I know to be true. weather I have a supporting link or not...

I specifically find TV news to be less reliable than newspapers or online articles because when you watch TV news most of it is live. Hence, it is therefore more likely to be inaccurate as compared to print. Live news is often about breaking events, which is fine, but it is equally as often inaccurate, because the information coming in is so raw and unfiltered/varified. News in print is edited and checked for accuracy and is not live.

For instance, if you hear something on a live TV news program and then never hear or read anything else about it again, does that mean what you heard was true? Probably not, especially if you can't find anything about it when looking online for it. The Internet is filled with fact and fiction, so one would think you would be able to find something about what you are talking about, even if it's untrue, no?

I'm not saying that printed news is better than broadcast news, I just prefer print, as I tend to believe more of what I read than hear. But you can't say that what you state is 100% accurate, nor can I. I can, however, show you exactly where I get my information from, as opposed to just picking my information up out of thin air.

I'm sure that if I said I heard on a TV news program that Gerorge W. Bush confessed his homosexuality, you would refute what I said bitterly, especially if I have no proof to back up what I said, and just say; "I heard it on TV. It's gotta be true!"

Now, I am in no way saying Bush is a homosexual, so don't get all testy. It was merely an example.

digitalwanderer · Sep 30, 2004, 12:53 PM

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

The problem is that you can't just list reasons to not elect John Kerry, you have to list reasons to not elect John Kerry over George Bush!

Anything, repeat a n y t h i n g, is better than Bush....and Bush has just went out of his way to prove that.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 30, 2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

The problem is that you can't just list reasons to not elect John Kerry, you have to list reasons to not elect John Kerry over George Bush!

Anything, repeat a n y t h i n g, is better than Bush....and Bush has just went out of his way to prove that.

repeat anything (With the excption of John Kerry

), is better than Bush,

~~p0ps~~ · Oct 1, 2004, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amduser

yes i agree on some of your points dom. the american government is in many ways as you said corrupt. the political system is corrupt. the common man has no voice. but i really think he never really had a voice. look back in history. it has always been the affluent and powerful who made the decisions in this country. even though i dont like it i do think it is better than any other alternative.

when i went to college i wrote a paper on vietnam. it was ok. but my professor hated it. she firmly believed it was all our fault. Not the Viet Cong,NVA,Chinese Communists or the Soviet Union. The USA.That really shocked me.

iraq had mostly russian made weapons. yes they did get support from us during the iran-iraq war. alliances change. remember ww2?

i know you don't support premptive strikes. what did you think about president clinton bombing afghanistan?

what do think about our involvment in old yugoslavia?

what do think would have happened say back before this war if one our pilots were shot down in the no fly zone in iraq? think they would have observed the geneva conventions?

the only reason i brought up 1991 was to prove a point. be honest here. what is the difference?

Dom i cannot help but feel angry when i see people point there finger at the USA and blame us for everything wrong in the world. 9/11 is one example. our supposed policies. bullcrap. you and i both know what is wrong with the middle east. religous fanaticism and oppression. people living their whole life in poverty.it makes our poor look rich.can you imagine living like that? i couldn't.their schools teach nothing but hate for western society.

For the terrorists this is a Crusade. they dont want freedom or civil rights. they want complete dominance of every part of society.

Right on! I agree 100%, Liberalism is very ignorant and will destroy this country. Liberalism leads to Socialism which in turn leads to Communism. Kerry borders on Communism. Look around the world, What good is Socialism.....LOL

BWX · Oct 1, 2004, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0ps

Right on! I agree 100%, Liberalism is very ignorant and will destroy this country. Liberalism leads to Socialism which in turn leads to Communism. Kerry borders on Communism. Look around the world, What good is Socialism.....LOL

You get banned for saying that?

Dom · Oct 1, 2004, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

You get banned for saying that?

No, he was previously banned under another account.

Captn · Oct 1, 2004, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0ps

Right on! I agree 100%, Liberalism is very ignorant and will destroy this country. Liberalism leads to Socialism which in turn leads to Communism. Kerry borders on Communism. Look around the world, What good is Socialism.....LOL

Thats me

BWX · Oct 1, 2004, 01:50 AM

Oh good- I was gonna say... That would have been pretty harsh.. lol

Dom · Oct 1, 2004, 01:55 AM

Let's keep the topic on track, please.

I'll start...

Kerry is the best, Bush is a lamer.

BWX · Oct 1, 2004, 02:06 AM

Kerry sucks! Lurch is gonna loose!!!

Captn · Oct 1, 2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Kerry sucks! Lurch is gonna loose!!!

I do hope you're right. We cant afford another Clinton, Well actually Kerry is worse.

pr0digal jenius · Oct 1, 2004, 03:11 AM

Bush will reinstate the draft....
He has already inked a deal with canada sayign all 'traitors' fleeing the country in time of war will be deported back here. He is also working on making the 'conciencious objector' standpoint less desireable as well

at this point, that alone is why i am voting for kerry

BWX · Oct 1, 2004, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

Bush will reinstate the draft....
He has already inked a deal with canada sayign all 'traitors' fleeing the country in time of war will be deported back here. He is also working on making the 'conciencious objector' standpoint less desireable as well

at this point, that alone is why i am voting for kerry

That is completely wrong man, there is going to be NO DRAFT... Our military will remain a volunteer one. The only party with a bill for the draft is the democratic party so they can dilute people into thinking the republicans are going to do it.. It bull man, there will be no draft. Did you watch the debate?

pr0digal jenius · Oct 1, 2004, 09:57 AM

http://cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Pa...20040927a.html

The bill proposing a new draft (including women and no college deferment) is set for 2005.

Bill S.89 - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.89:
Bill HR 163 - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:

notice neither has been voted on, and won't be until after the election, at which point I wouldn't be surprised if Bush railroaded it through Congress just like the patriot act(which most of them never got to read)

BWX · Oct 1, 2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

http://cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Pa...20040927a.html

The bill proposing a new draft (including women and no college deferment) is set for 2005.

Bill S.89 - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.89:
Bill HR 163 - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:

notice neither has been voted on, and won't be until after the election, at which point I wouldn't be surprised if Bush railroaded it through Congress just like the patriot act(which most of them never got to read)

http://cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Pa...20040927a.html

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Also what do those other things prove? Nothing- no republican is responsible for that.

amduser · Oct 6, 2004, 04:42 PM

im back.

prodigal.. there is no draft nor will there be one. 2 democrats voted for it. the rest did not. end of discussion.

where has this thread gone? none of you have given me a reason to vote for kerry. all i have read is crap about bush. come on give me some reasons.

what is this man going to do about iraq that has not already been done?

what is he going to do improve on a growing economy?

is he going to raise taxes?

what about jobs going overseas? he brought it up so what is he going to do to protect our jobs here?

here is the big question. what will he do if we are attacked again? if the un does not approve military retaliation will he defy them and go alone. Or will he do nothing.

BWX · Oct 6, 2004, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amduser

here is the big question. what will he do if we are attacked again? if the un does not approve military retaliation will he defy them and go alone. Or will he do nothing.

I would say he would pull a Clinton and lob a couple bombs over there (wherever it is) and say that's enough.. Or maybe he would take the "diplomatic" route and try to reason with the blood thirsty virgin envying murderers. Maybe he would get the UN to agree to sanctions and say that is enough. Kerry thinks the UN is the end all- be all.... Notice we have not been attacked since 9/11 on our home turf. Kerry would be a sign of weakness to anyone who would like to attack us- they aren't stupid, they know that all Kerry would do would be to cry to the UN.

Captn · Oct 6, 2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Kerry thinks the UN is the end all- be all.... Notice we have not been attacked since 9/11 on our home turf. Kerry would be a sign of weakness to anyone who would like to attack us- they aren't stupid, they know that all Kerry would do would be to cry to the UN.

I agree with you BWX, I think we need to kick the UN out of America, They are corrupt & could care less about our well being. Kerry is a UN poster child, Very scary.

YeCkeL · Oct 9, 2004, 08:57 PM

But what are we saying if we don’t believe in a UN what type of empire are we becoming making colonies like this o wait nation building sorry

As well he dose have his "plans" available on johnkerry.com but hey and the initial deal is he points out bush was wrong because bush still is doing what he was doing saying well he is still wrong :%. Now why not vote for kerry, bush has never cleaned up a mess of his own so let kerry clean up this one