Who are you Voting for?

Well I started this thread so I guess I have to put in my 2 cents. It's funny. I spent about five years listening to decent folks railing against Clinton for being a draft dodger etc. Then we have a match up like Bush and Kerry. Kerry throws himself into combat out of nothing but pure patriotism. Bush hides out in Alabama, by his own admission, drunk half the time, doing everything possible to avoid going to Nam or to even show up. He picks a plane he knows won't be deployed, and then to make doubley sure, he logs too few flight hours to even be considered for combat. Not one person comes forward to even say they saw him, even once--including his commanding officer. So I'm figuring that some Bush supporter is going to say, "Yeah, we like his politics on guns, but this guy has a serious character issue here, compared with somebody who did the right thing for his country." So, ok, I'll admit that I think that Bush is just rotten to the core, and no matter what anybody says about Kerry (most of which I don't think is true) I think that absolutely anybody, including a hamster, is better for this country than Bush is at this time in our history. Another Republican, pick one, pick anybody. Somebody who knows the difference between right and wrong and will listen to his generals when they tell him he's going the wrong direction. But this guy, and his handler Cheney, and all their friends who are making billions of dollars off our boys' lives, has got to go or we can kiss the bill of rights goodbye, IMHO. Now, how about some honesty about Bush's character for a change? How about some honesty about his attorney general who now has the power to walk into your home, without a warrant, take your guns, arrest you, hold you with no lawyer, no phone call, no nothing. Yeah, I'm a 2nd Amendment fanatic just like many of you, but it just seems to me that it does not mean very much without the 4th Amendment. So how about some honesty from some people here.

 

check out this site it is a site

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

republicans need not look at it

 

Hmmm...I like to look at sites that present information not heard or seen on CNN or other new outlets....but it also says:

When ONE PERSON does all this...I guess I wonder then that most of what is presented would be that one person's bent or point of view.

I am a republican and I do go to sites and read things that don't necessarily fall in line with my thinking...how else will I be able to balance everything out?

EVERYONE feel free to go here:
www.worldmag.com

 

Not for Bush.
I vote for a full time pres.
Not for one that's on vacation more than he works.

 

Vlad, either you're making a LOT of unfounded assumptions, or are reading them somewhere.

First; Neither you nor I know why Kerry joined the Navy. I turned draft-age (18) in '68, and have first-hand memories of the era, and what kids were doing/thinking back then. Some (a fairly small "some") joined the Army or Marines because they wanted a piece of the fight. Most all of those got their wish. A LOT joined the Navy, or Air Force or National Guard if they could qualify, in hopes that those services wouldn't put them in the jungle getting shot at. Or went to college JUST for a draft deferment that would keep them out for a few more years. Or left the country (mostly to Canada) to avoid the draft. Most sat tight and got drafted, almost all into the Army, which was chewing up grunts at a rapid rate, and because everybody was volunteering for the OTHER services, and most were being turned away. And we have a long tradition of people interested in getting into politics doing military service because it looks good on their resume. Why did Kerry join the Navy? We don't know.

And by the way, back then you had to sign a 6 year commitment to join the Navy. 4 years active duty and 2 years of reserve duty IIRC. Kerry was sent home early, and I've not heard anything about how he served out the rest of HIS commitment. Part of that 6 year commitment was a sworn oath to say or do NOTHING derogatory to the service. His anti-war protests were within that period. Theoretically, he could have been court-martialed for them. I'm curious as to why nothing has come out about that.

Bush? First, he did not "pick out" his plane. National Guard has always gotten the hand-me-downs from the Air Force. Still do. F-16 is a good bird, but the newer F-18 hasn't filtered down to the Guard yet, and the new-new F22 won't go to them for many years. Bush was trained for what the Texas Guard was flying at the time. Period. And flew most of his time with Texas, racking up over 3,000 hours flying. That's a LOT of flight, both training missions and coastal alert duty. Remember the Cold War? Bay of Pigs and near-nuke war with Russia over Cuba? Coastal patrols were not joyrides; they were part of national defense, and treated as such. He didn't "hide out in Alabama", he requested and received permission to switch to the Alabama Guard because of his day job duties, and that was and is common as well. The fact that the Guard was phasing out the old F-102s that he trained in was a matter of timing, not his choice. There's a lot of hearsay, a little bit of fact, and a little bit of forgery out there about Bush, but nothing much with any substance. Try this one:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40511

Cheney is his "handler"? Rotten to the core? Raw unsubstantiated opinion, which you'r entitled to, but it's not based on anthing real.

Just like you, I'm not happy with the government's view of the Second, Fourth, and even Fifth and Tenth Amendments. But if you think that's Bush's fault, you haven't been paying attention very long. Most all of the provisions in the Patriot Act were things that the Democrats were trying to get passed through the 90's, and the Republicans stopped them then. Fear after 9/11 stampeded them into the Democrats' territory, but if Gore had been in the White House, Congress still would have written and passed it just as quickly. Remember that every... single... bill that turns into law is done in Congress. The Pres can speak in favor or against it, but his only true power is to either sign or veto it. And Congress can overide a veto if they have the votes. Gore would have signed it in a heartbeat, and Congress ratified it almost unanimously, so they could have overidden a veto anyway. Don't blame it on Bush, blame it on overall cowardice and short-sightedness in Washington.

And Kerry has been a strong long-time opponent of those rights you are worried about, so how exactly is he going to be better?

 

Not the same since Pat Paulson did not run. He ran every election until his death...

But there are still only two viable canidates to win.

A 3rd party is needed but even Ross Perot and Pierre Dupont and Steve Forbes could not bring it about.

 

It costs big money to call my ISP. I just pay the Bank of America bill for the $5.95 each month.

Now Another matter is my credit card company. But that is the core of doing business- the cheapest price appeal to the C Levels- CEO< CFO< CMO It will not go away. The call centers will go to China if they can save a penny. Have you looked at your durable goods? We lamented Kathy Lee sweatshops, and not no shirts are made in america at all. Master Locks are from China, even my General Motors vehicle was 'hecho en Mexico' and the parts to replace it are difficult to obtain.

I was outsourced, I was downsized, I adjust and I survived. 16 yrs of no spending tried to bring up to date over night was expensive on deficits, then cutbacks decimated security for 8 years. I don't see the benefit of changing the man at the helm at this point. I do see a major revolt in about 2 years if we don't have a restructure of affordable housing and jobs.

 

If voting the party line makes someone happy, then more power to them. Me, I choose to look at each candidate and make an informed decision. Makes me feel as if I'm not an idiot blindly voting how someone told me to vote because they're smarter than me somehow. But if that works for some people...fine, I guess. But I have very little in common with someone who walks into a voting booth and fills in the blank for a straight-party vote, who has no idea who the individual candidates are to whom they've just given their vote.

I tend to primarily agree with Democrats, but not always. Sometimes I agree with Republicans. This time around, the Libertarian is working for me for President, while locally I've chosen several Democrats, an Independent, and a Republican. It all depends on the candidate and what he/she has said and done.

 

The logic behind voting a party (other than being too lazy to do your homework) is the overall platform and philosophy of the party, which will generally carry in Congress, regardless of minor differences in the individual members. There is a LOT of pressure by the party bigwigs to toe the party line. (Disclaimer: The actual party line may differ from the campaign platforms that they wave in front of the public. Make sure you know what the party actually stands for on issues that matter to you.)

If I'm looking at two candidates that, as near as I can tell, would each do about as well and be about as good, a party affiliation will tip the balance. But I won't intentionally vote for a jerk just because of the party he's in. Watever the party.

 

I'm voting for Bush. While he may have positions I do not agree with, he is a conservative. And he sticks to his guns and doesn't change his mind with the wind. In a country where everyone can voice their opinion, you can't equally represent them all.

And being a cowboy, he doesn't take any sh*t, and as a consequence other countries don't mess with us. He takes the fight to their house and didn't just lob a rocket hundreds of miles away. He didn't stop the attack at Afghanistan either. As a consequence, countries supporting terrorists are rethinking their ways. I don't care much what the UN and other countries think about our fight. We're being proactive to protect our interests for once, not theirs.

Kerrry's 'friends' in other countries are hoping he'll will win just so they can go back to giving us the shaft.

I do wish Bush would do more about the deficit. Conservative spending in wartime is a must. And spending to sending a man to mars is (IMO) just bad timing. After all, it will be when I am due to retire that SS will be bust and my kids will bear the burden of paying off that debt.

 

I think we ought to get rid of parties. What's the point of them, anyway? If there were no parties, everyone would vote for individuals just like they should. How did parties start, anyway, and what happened to the ones that disappeared, like the Whigs? Maybe we should bring back the Whigs, eh?

Any thoughts on this? GT? Tibbs?

 

I vote for the one who fears(is in awe of) God the most. The God I am talking about is the one in the KJB. Don't confuse that with KGB. Heh, heh.

Before you say anything about "separation of church and state", read the constitution and amendments. The words "separation" and/or "church" do not appear anywhere.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

I second this motion. Too often people vote for the party and not the person. Dead candidates even get voted into office. Sad. And often decisions are made in the interest of the party and not the people.

 

I was under the impression that a president who lies to the people is candidate for impeachment, so Im not so sure that no parties would lead up to that.

 

With the except of the automotons, people freely consider both parties' candidates before voting. Candidates for major elections still have to get support from a large number of voters just to get on the ballot.

But when parties get so much power that they can actually take the right to chose away from the people, then that is dangerous. NYC and NJ are heavy democratic. We've had elections rigged by way of policy to keep a party in control and out of the hands of the voters.

McGreevy lame ducking it past the voter deadline, dead senators switched out after primaries, and judge swapping after elections.

 

Lies? What lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

Tell me why CNN or NBC or ABC or CBS don't ever remind their listeners of what the previous administration believed.

 

Ack...my brain is too full of other things to drag out VERY rusty memories of the Whigs other than that they existed...

 

Because they usually get it wrong.

 

You party pooper you!

The point of a political party is for a bunch of like-minded people to pool their resources to promote candidates that they think (hope) will support their positions. You'll see some "Independents" at local and occasionally county level, but unless you're VERY wealthy, you can't afford to run for a broadly elected position all by yourself. So you go to some people that have money and/or power, convince them that you're just what they need to represent them, and get them to spend money and time helping to promote you. Assume these people organize and run it well, and have a LOT of money/power/access, and a vision for something broader than just one person, and a message that a lot of people can get behind and get enthused about, and they can grow an organization that ends up becoming a political party. At it's most basic, it takes a LOT of money, so you need a fairly large pool of movers and shakers to make it happen.

You can't outlaw political parties; would be a violation of freedom of association. And in a country this large, they're necessary to get anybody's message out to everybody. They may be a necessary evil, buth they're necessary.

Parties have not always been what they are today. Prior to somewhere in the 20th century, party bosses decided who got to run, behind closed doors, and they marketed those people to the party faithful. Eventually, parties started having conventions, with the local party bosses from around the country getting together & having some say. The current open primary system is a relatively new invention, and is not mandated anywhere in law. If Bill Gates (money) and the head of CBS (access) decided to run somebody for president all by themselves, they could pool resources, form a party, and run him. Wouldn't have much chance of success, but they could do it.

 

There is a great apathy in the voting process. A large number of people don't vote and of those that do, don't do their research, but vote the party. Why is it that parties do recruitment drives targeting sectors such as the poor or minorities? Do they truely believe one party is good and the other bad? No, they don't know any better - they just vote what their neighbor votes. Its the automoton factor.

 

Or more importantly, what they DID.

Unless it suits their own agendas. And even then, they don't do it very much, or objectively.

 

How often do they simply create their own stories?

 

I don't know. Ask Dan Rather.

 

http://www.foleyboard.com/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11864.0;id=2874;image


http://www.foleyboard.com/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11864.0;id=2875;image

http://www.foleyboard.com/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11864.0;id=2876;image

http://www.foleyboard.com/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11864.0;id=2877;image


good pictures..................

 

Perhaps, but only if you're a member there...

An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.

 

sorry i will try to up load the pics............
http://Bush.jpg

 

here are the pictures.........tow more to come

 

and here are the other two.

 

LOL. Bush looks a bit like my long since departed grandmother. Dick Cheney actually looks BETTER that way. Must be the make-up.

 

that is a good way to NOT have any of your questions answered.

 

Hey ma!

Look what the cat puked up!

*Looking at punkdude*

I resent being called a moron.

Go hide back behind your monitor, kid.

 

People die in war.


DUH!

 

hay i never said that i liked G.W.BUSH and Co.
read the whole thread....
and i have had 2 friends die ofer there, and my neighbor has been home a total of 3 months in the last year. he keeps getting called up...........like 5 times so far...air national gard

 

You really want me to answer that?

 

Well, I think even less of you.



Like I said, I don't like being called a moron.

While I am being silly, you are being stupid.

If someone from your country was kidnapped, then they put themselves in harm's way, not our government.

In wars, people die, on both sides.

 

I have a question. If they were gunned down, would you be making such a big deal?

Death is death.

Whether beheaded or shot, they both come to the same bloody end.

 

Is your country assisting us?

If so, you have no room to speak.

What country are you in?

 

Solution: Don't live here.

 

Did he go there knowing there was risk?

Don't you dare say no.

You don't go to a war front without expecting some risk of harm.

Don't blame us for terrorists killing your fellow countryman.

 

Nobody here wanted thousands of people to die 9/11.

Didn't stop it from happening, though.

 

9/11 wasn't an act of war?

We were already at war.

 

As far as I am concerned, we were attacked.

That started the war.

As for Saddam...well, he should have been taken care of in Desert Storm.

 

You win a Bozo button. Be smart and back up what you say, leave the name-calling for kindergarten.

 

What people don't realize. .
is the amount of military action everyday.
We (the U.S.) have been bombing countries for years
astablishing military and political thresh holds in many,many countries
and the public hasn't been aware of it the US public
and they won't untill someone opens their mouth or we get bombed

We (the U.S.) most likely piss alot of people off
I do infact see why, yes our country is run by a**holes
but who's isn't,really

we can attack other countries and its ok
but ok for who? not who we are bombing
but for the US pple
( I am not saying its right,nor wrong

no country wants their country to be a battlefield
but when the fighting hits U.S. soil that pisses us off

we where at war just the public didn't know it because the government didn't want us too
if we wheren't then why did we get bombed?
we pissed somebody off

 

no. . it just makes sense

war is war
it sucks but it is a fact of life

nobody is right everyone loses
I don't aprove of war
but I will tell ya now
if ya kill my family. .I am coming after ya

 

You are disrepectful and rude on more than one count. I am not a moron and neither is anyone else who posted here, including yourself -- you are in great error however.

President Bush is not a bible nut and when someone has to reduce his criticism to name calling, then the "discussion" with that individual has already become closed -- because their mind is "closed".

 

Typical election crapola....112 views, 45 votes. 59.8% response. Tsk, Tsk, tsk.

 

I can account for quite a large number of those views, but since I could only vote once...

And actually....59.8% is a DAMN fine turnout for "election crapola".