whether pro or against, i thought these were pretty funny...they are JOKES people, let's leave it at that.

"President Bush went out touting his economic record in Ohio last week.
Now this is a state that lost 225,000 jobs since Bush took office. You
know, if Bush wants to tout his record, he should do it somewhere where
the Bush economy has actually created jobs, like India, or Thailand, or
China." -- Jay Leno

"President Bush has unveiled his first campaign commercial,
highlighting all of his accomplishes in office. That's why it's a
60-second spot." -- Jay Leno

"President Bush says he has just one question for the American
voters, 'Is the rich person you're working for better off now than they
were four years ago?'" -- Jay Leno

"The election is in full-swing. Republicans have taken out
round-the-clock ads promoting George Bush. Don't we already have that?
It's called Fox News." -- Craig Kilborn

"Kerry is well on his way to reaching his magic number of 2,162.
That's the total number of delegates he needs to win the Democratic
nomination. See for President Bush it's different, his magic number is
5. That's the number of Supreme Court judges needed to win." -- Jay
Leno

"There was a scare in Washington when a man climbed over the White
House wall and arrested. This marks the first time a person has gotten
into the White House unlawfully since President Bush." -- David
Letterman

"A new poll says that if the election were held today, John Kerry would
beat President Bush by a double digit margin. The White House is so
worried about this, they're now thinking of moving up the capture of
Osama Bin Laden to next month." -- Jay Leno

"The White House is now backtracking from its prediction that 2.6
million new jobs will be created in the U.S. this year. They say they
were off by roughly 2.6 million jobs." -- Jay Leno

"In Louisiana, President Bush met with over 15,000 National Guard
troops. Here's the weird part, nobody remembers seeing him there." --
Craig Kilborn

"President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in
San Francisco. He said on important issues like this the people should
make the decision, not judges. Unless of course we're choosing a
president, then he prefers judges." -- Jay Leno

"The White House has now released military documents that they say
prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big
deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election." -- Jay
Leno

"There was an embarrassing moment in the White House earlier today.
They were looking around while searching for George Bush's military
records. They actually found some old Al Gore ballots." -- David
Letterman

"The big story now is that President Bush is coming under attack for
his service in the National Guard. The commanding officers can't
remember seeing Bush between May and October of '72. President Bush
said, 'Remember me? I'm the drunk guy.'" -- Jay Leno

"On 'Meet the Press' yesterday President Bush was asked what he would
do if he lost the election and Bush said, 'Phhh, you mean like last
time?'" -- Jay Leno

"This week, both John Kerry and Wesley Clark are making campaign
appearance with the guys who saved their lives in Vietnam. Meanwhile
President Bush is campaigning with a guy that once took a math test for
him." -- Conan O'Brien

"President Bush released his new $2.4 trillion federal budget. It has
two parts: smoke and mirrors." -- Jay Leno

"Bush admitted that his pre-war intelligence wasn't what it should have
been. We knew that when we elected him!" -- Jay Leno

"A new poll says that if the election were held today, John Kerry would
beat President Bush by a double digit margin. The White House is so
worried about this, they're now thinking of moving up the capture of
Osama Bin Laden to next month." -- Jay Leno

:histerica :histerica :rockon :histerica :histerica

"The White House has now released military documents that they say
prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big
deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election." -- Jay
Leno


:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

Please join us by calling on Senator John F. Kerry to resign his seat in
the U.S. Senate.

John Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and
comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of North
Vietnam. Kerry. By his own account, Kerry violated the UCMJ, the Geneva
Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he
further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S.
Constitution which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy
in time of warfare.

Thus, in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section
3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously
taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who
has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof," We, the People of the United States,
demand that Kerry resign his seat in the Senate.

Please join fellow Patriots and sign the petition demanding John Kerry's
resignation. Link to --

http://PatriotPetitions.US/Kerry

(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to:
sign-Kerry@PatriotPetitions.US
Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the
petition.)

(Circulation of this petition is being sponsored by The Federalist Patriot,
the most widely read conservative e-journal on the Internet. If you have
not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving The Federalist Patriot,
we encourage you to do so. This highly acclaimed conservative digest of
news, policy and opinion will be delivered FREE by e-mail to your inbox
each week. Simply link to --

http://FederalistPatriot.com/subscribe/patriots.asp

If you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to
<fedlist-subscribe@thefed.com> and you will be subscribed automatically.)

Founder's Quote: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
--George Washington

PRIVACY POLICY: Patriot Petitions is not a commercial site and does NOT
release any identifiable information on our petitioners to any third party
under any circumstances, nor do we accept any third party advertising to
our lists.



CLICK ME TOO IM MAKING FUN OF KERRY!!!! (http://kerry-04.com/) :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

John Kerry named John Edwards (D, NC) for VP nominee. So now there are a couple of 'johns' running. :D

Did I really say that? :eek:

I think they're gonna catch a lotta shit, especially being a couple of loos.

~Critter

anyone else realize that this anti-"kerry" thread is spelled incorrectly... i mean, i'm not pro-kerry, but how are you going to make a good political stance when you cant even spell the competitions name correctly? :shrug

Food for thought, friends. Food for thought.

:histerica :lolup :stupid

i noticed it misspelled wrongs, but hey typos do occur...food for thought friend.


I also saw on CNN that the Bush campain called John Edwards a liberal. Cmon he is, however to the liberal CNN, is that all you can come up with. holy chit, that is why i dont watch that channel.

anyone else realize that this anti-"kerry" thread is spelled incorrectly... i mean, i'm not pro-kerry, but how are you going to make a good political stance when you cant even spell the competitions name correctly? :shrug

Food for thought, friends. Food for thought.

Today, 01:24 AM

Enough said biatch :twak

I sent the following out to my clients today:

Like other political junkies around the country, I’ve been pondering the meaning and impact of Senator Kerry’s selection of Senator Edwards as his VP candidate.

At first glance, there seems to be a good deal to recommend this choice. Edwards brings a great deal to the ticket that Kerry lacks… some obvious strengths that Kerry will attempt to exploit. But at the same time, Edwards brings many weaknesses to the table that Kerry must be knowledgeable about, but is choosing to ignore based on a gut-feeling “Clinton Rule.”

Edwards is everything that Kerry is not. Politically speaking, Edwards brings what amounts to charisma, movie star good looks, and (only hopefully) a wedge into the southern states. Kerry has all the charisma of a bookend and he reeks of superior, Yankee, arrogance. As for appearance, David Letterman said it best when he remarked, “the Kerry Campaign has again denied that Senator John Kerry has used Botox or has had plastic surgery. They did admit, however, that Kerry takes a 'gaunt' pill every day.”

On the surface, my take is that this represents the only set of reasons that Kerry would choose Edwards. For Kerry, the “Clinton Rule” of choosing style over substance is definitely at play here.

Edwards brings nothing else to the table but his looks and charisma. He has no distinguished record in any area of public life; his elevation represents a direct threat to the business community, essentially guaranteeing major increases in funding for Bush-Cheney as the national Chamber has already, effectively, lost their collective minds over the selection of the poster child for everything that’s wrong with the civil court system in this country.

Additionally, Edwards helps to kill any superiority Kerry may have over Bush based on his military record.

Think about it for a moment. Edwards avoided service in Vietnam by using a college deferment. He is everything the ultra-leftists have complained about (Their hypocrisy and short-term memory over Clinton’s draft-dodging efforts notwithstanding) in this election when it comes to the military service question.

By selecting Edwards, Kerry has acknowledged that service in Vietnam specifically, or even the military generally, is meaningless when it comes to the question of qualifications to be President of the United States.

If Kerry says one word about the superiority of his military service over that of Mr. Bush, he is leaving himself wide open for charges of hypocrisy… charges that would be easy to stick.

It is shear folly to, on one hand, attempt to make such a big deal over their respective military records and then, on the other hand, pick some one who has no military record of any kind… an action that completely marginalizes Kerry’s own military record and, ultimately, eliminates one of the primary justifications Kerry has trumpeted for getting rid of Bush.

By selecting Edwards, Kerry is attempting to reduce the election to more of a beauty contest than an election on the issues. The problem for Kerry, however, is that by the time November rolls around, Edwards will have been so marginalized as an empty-suit that the attraction will be gone. And post 9-11, the question is this: are Americans more or less likely to vote for just another pretty face?

The other problem is their politics. A balanced ticket would consist of Kerry choosing a running mate that would differ from his own political perspective. While Senator Kerry is rated as the most liberal member of Congress, Senator Edwards is rated as the 4th most liberal… even more liberal than Senator Kennedy… if that’s possible.

In the end, the negatives outweigh the positives for this choice. This selection will bring in millions of dollars for Bush that might have otherwise stayed home from the business sector so threatened by this selection. His lack of meaningful legislative experience, a senatorial career as undistinguished as Kerry’s, his complete lack of knowledge in foreign policy… all will combine to make him little more than Kerry’s hood ornament next November… a choice Kerry will come to regret.

I dunno the whole thing seemed weak to me, like they are trying to whip up little points into larger ones...............

Who gives a shit??? The last election proved your vote doesn't count anyway...:shrug

Who gives a shit??? The last election proved your vote doesn't count anyway...:shrug

Only if you live in Florida.

Only if you live in Florida.


and can't work a punchcard

The problem in Florida was that Gore's people were so anxious to 'get out the vote' that they didn't teach them HOW to vote. I guess they paid them anyway.

If Kerry wins I am putting in a transfer for four years in Germany...Kuck Ferry!

I like that plan.
F Kerry

whatever. reading that reminded me of how little i know or care about politics right now. :shrug

Who gives a shit??? The last election proved your vote doesn't count anyway...:shrug


Bush wasnt elected, he was appointed.

Bush was elected, the recounts proved it.
Edwards is a shameless lawyer that preys on large business with class action suits, like big tobacco, get the money where you can. Kerry needed to get someone close to the south since he is not in touch with the southern voter, I'm not impressed.

Im not impressed with any of them. All these politicians suck.

id rather have beavis and butthead in office than any of these greedy bastids.

im not impressed with either choice. looks like another 4 years of the same ole chit.

In Kerry's last Senate run, he did the same thing he's done this time; mortgage 'his half' of his wife's house. The only problem is that the annual interest due is about $50k more than his salary as a Senator! Illegal contribution from his wife? Hmmmmmm! He already has his lawyers in place to challenge every state he loses. (And he didn't pick Edwards; the DNC did.)

Edwards doesn't earn a salary. He incorporated himself as a law firm and only takes dividends from the stock. That saves a whole bunch on Social Security and Medicare taxes. Neat tax dodge! He only has to pay on his Senate salary. And I wonder how much of his personal expenses are written off as 'business' expense?

i wasn't going to do this, but - sigh - idiocy has reared its ugly head and i just can't help myself in pointing it out. i know i will open a can of worms here, and i really am not a political junkie, but....

95 bxl, just a few observations:

edwards, kerry's vp, has no military service...but what you conveniently avoid pointing out is - neither does cheney, bush's vp. your argument sorta goes out the window with that. compare kerry and bush, or edwards and cheney, ok. but trying to infer that edward's military experience, or lack thereof, somehow detracts from kerry's edge against bush in that dept., is simply absurd. kerry's military service is superior to bush's - that's a fact. neither vp has military experience. that's a fact. if i were kerry, i would be harping on my experience vs. my opponent - picking a vp who doesn't have the same experience as me is simply not hypocritical, despite your self-serving conclusion that it is so.

ditto your arguments that this is a beauty contest rather than an election on the issues. edwards is a senator since 1999. you think that is not a "distinguished record" in public life? really? have you run for the senate lately? i'd hate to be your son and try to live up to your expectations "well, son, you only made it to senator? gawd damn failure, you are. shame you didn't make something of yourself." puhleassse. sweeping over-generalizations like you make over and over in your post, without any support, simply do little to lend credence to your points. even on those where i agree with you!!

and what is sheer (not shear, that is what you do to a sheep) folly is your final assertion that kerry should pick someone who should differ from his own "political perspective." like who, Rush Limbaugh? c'mon. be serious. a "balanced ticket" as you put it doesn't exactly make sense. liberal democrats stick with liberal democrats. just as right wing conservative republicans stick with birds of their feather. if i am running for prez, i want someone in the no. 2 chair who thinks like i do. i can pick a guy who comes from a different part of the country, yes, but ideologically different from myself? in a word, no.

just my .02. and i'm no fan of either candidate.

.

i wasn't going to do this, but - sigh - idiocy has reared its ugly head and i just can't help myself in pointing it out. i know i will open a can of worms here, and i really am not a political junkie, but....

95 bxl, just a few observations:

edwards, kerry's vp, has no military service...but what you conveniently avoid pointing out is - neither does cheney, bush's vp. your argument sorta goes out the window with that.

Nope, sorry. That issue is huge.

I didn't mention it because most everyone paying even remote attention to this stuff already knew it. The problem for Kerry is that he marginalizes his own argument by selecting a VP that has even less military experience than Bush. That decision is proof, on it's face, that the military experience issue is of absolutely no real importance, thereby kicking the legs out from under the democrats insistent whining in THIS election (conveniently overlooked by democrats in the Clinton-Bush I and Clinton-Dole elections) that Kerry's military service somehow makes him more qualified than Bush.

Remember, THIS time, the issue is of MAJOR importance to democrats. But we all know that the importance of that issue for democrats is, to put it politely, "situational," or they never would have supported Clinton.

First, if it was never a big deal when it came to Clinton, then it's not a big deal now. Second, that Kerry selected Edwards is tacit acknowledgment of that fact.

Your claim that my argument “goes out the window” because Cheney didn't serve entirely misses the point, a point that Kerry will live to regret: You cannot continue to have your surrogates beat the hell out of Cheney for using a deferment to stay out of Vietnam when your own VP candidate did EXACTLY the same thing. Nor can Kerry continue to claim that his service is somehow a pivotal issue in this election, given his decision to choose a VP that never set foot in uniform.

You see, it's either important... or it isn't. And if it IS important, then you damned sure don't pick someone to be your VP who, in essence, is no better than your opponents.

Because he's done that, he destroys his own, carefully nurtured but obviously false conclusion that his service makes him a better choice. It doesn't.

compare kerry and bush, or edwards and cheney, ok. but trying to infer that edward's military experience, or lack thereof, somehow detracts from kerry's edge against bush in that dept., is simply absurd. kerry's military service is superior to bush's - that's a fact.

And, I do not claim otherwise. The problem for Kerry is that the military service issue in no way infers a greater level of qualification for Kerry to be president then it does any other combat veteran. And, if it did somehow make such an inference, then there are literally tens of thousands of veterans even MORE qualified for the job than Kerry.

I repeat: Kerry's choice of a non-veteran for VP decimates the importance of the issue altogether. If being a combat veteran specifically, or even a veteran in general, is so important to becoming president (as Kerry and the democrats would have us all believe, for THIS election, at least,) then his selection of a non-veteran for VP is a disastrous choice... as the VP is, after all, only one heart beat away from the Oval Office.


neither vp has military experience. that's a fact. if i were kerry, i would be harping on my experience vs. my opponent - picking a vp who doesn't have the same experience as me is simply not hypocritical, despite your self-serving conclusion that it is so.

"Self-serving?" I'm not running for anything.

You cannot realistically expect that on one hand, you can make such a big deal about how important military service is in this matter, and then prove how unimportant it REALLY is by choosing a non-veteran VP…. Can you?

Democrats need to remember: If it wasn't important for you when Clinton was running, then it isn't important now... and Kerry's choice of Edwards proves that. To suggest otherwise is the height of that which you deny... specifically, hypocrisy.

Remember... its the democrats that insisted on bringing this subject up and attempting to make it so important. The actions of Kerry disprove the theorem quite nicely.

ditto your arguments that this is a beauty contest rather than an election on the issues. edwards is a senator since 1999. you think that is not a "distinguished record" in public life? really? have you run for the senate lately?

By all means, list Edwards many accomplishments while a Senator. Tell us about his programs, the legislative initiatives he's seen thru to fruition. The programs he's authored and passed that effect any of us in our every day life.

You cannot, of course, because like Kerry, they have accomplished absolutely nothing during their respective tenures.

As for my position that this is was an effort to reduce the election to a beauty contest, that position is shared by a few others... William Safire, Lyn Nofziger, Dick Morris... the Wall Street Journal, among others, seem to share my peculiar perspective.

Politicians are not gods. There are senators who are undeniably men and women of great ability and accomplishment. There are also mediocre and poor senators, relative to everything else.

Getting to the position does not determine how distinguished your record is. After all, such luminaries as Mel "The Monkey Spanker" Reynolds, Dan "Here, let me lick that stamp for you" Rostenkowski, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Brock Adams, Richard Nixon... all reached high elective office... and all disgraced the office once they arrived.

No... what distinguishes one is what one does once they arrive. I'm surprised you didn't know that, but I guess your little self-serving vignette wouldn’t allow for that... now would it?


i'd hate to be your son and try to live up to your expectations "well, son, you only made it to senator? gawd damn failure, you are. shame you didn't make something of yourself."

Confused, are you? You act as if election to the senate is the end of the journey... and not the beginning of one's opportunity to serve. Does Jon Corzine, for example, have a “distinguished record” because he’s a senator? Or is it because the simple idiot spent over $60 million of his OWN money to buy the job?


puhleassse. sweeping over-generalizations like you make over and over in your post, without any support, simply do little to lend credence to your points. even on those where i agree with you!!

Without naming a single instance where I “over-generalized,” I would venture to say that each and every point I’ve made is backed by the facts and common sense. Your bizarre perspective notwithstanding, Edwards has accomplished embarrassingly little during his term in office. Or did I just overlook the list you so thoughtfully left out?


and what is sheer (not shear, that is what you do to a sheep) folly is your final assertion that kerry should pick someone who should differ from his own "political perspective." like who, Rush Limbaugh? c'mon. be serious. a "balanced ticket" as you put it doesn't exactly make sense.

Thus the explanation for Gore’s defeat last time around? Or do you view Gore and Lieberman as just two peas in a pod? Or Reagan/Bush 1?

Here’s a little snapshot for you: Even one of the Boston papers complained these guys were, combined, too far to the left, which is what you get when Kerry (Most liberal senator) picks Edwards (4th most liberal senator). A balanced ticket is vital to unseat an incumbent. Two Senators to the left of Lenin ain’t gonna get it done.


liberal democrats stick with liberal democrats. just as right wing conservative republicans stick with birds of their feather. if i am running for prez, i want someone in the no. 2 chair who thinks like i do. i can pick a guy who comes from a different part of the country, yes, but ideologically different from myself? in a word, no.

So… your explanation about Gore/Lieberman is what, again?

To win this, Kerry has to march to the right. How can the most liberal senator there is make the trip? And how can the 4th most liberal senator help him?

He can’t. We all know Kerry wanted McCain… now, why do you suppose that is… because McCain shares Kerry’s ultra-leftist positions? Or because Kerry was desperate to win Arizona?

Hardly.

And this, of course, just serves as more evidence, now being expounded in many different corners, that Edwards got the job because he is, after all, just another pretty face.

In closing, as far as your idiocy is concerned… I wouldn’t be nearly so hard on yourself. Based on our little chat here, it’s more likely just a matter of your political ignorance than anything else. Next election, pay a little closer attention, and you’ll be amazed at what you can learn.

As those of you who have served or are serving knows, things are usually better for the military when the republicans are in office...I just don't see Kerry/Edwards doing anything to help the military.

As those of you who have served or are serving knows, things are usually better for the military when the republicans are in office...I just don't see Kerry/Edwards doing anything to help the military.

other than getting them out of the shithole of the world, (no, not texas, iraq)

other than getting them out of the shithole of the world, (no, not texas, iraq)

Pulling out before we were finished is what led us BACK! And I don't want to have to send more of my brethren over there AGAIN if I can help it. What needs to happen, is these cells and cults, or whatever they call themselves, that think the entire world is evil, and EVERYONE must die need to be eradicated. Yeah, it's kinda like Genocide, but that's what they want.... Although, about 400 people is a hell of a lot less than 5.6 BILLION innocent lives they want to destroy. My family has fought in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq (I'm not sure if my dad was in Desert Storm, but my Cousin got back in march from a 12 month tour) And even though Vietnam fell, that does not lessen the seriousness and greatness that we were fighting for, that we are still fighting for.

The freedom to choose who we want to lead us, as a free state in this world, and where they take us. Our republic cannot back down now. The men who have died will have died in vain if we do not allow them to complete what was started. I may be just a civillian, but I'll be DAMNED if some panzy that feels we should not be over there and pulls out our troops allows another 9-11 or any attack on american soil.

September 11th, 2001 was the first attack on the continuous 48 states since the Civil War (the Mex-American war don't count as an attack, cuz it wasn't our land till afterwards). The last direct attack of that magnatude was Pearl Harbor in 1941.

I will not stand for it again.

~Critter

Amen, WhoaDammit!

Sorry for the double post; I think something from my CD player got in the way.

WhoaDammit! true true....if we pull out now it will have been a total waste of time and lives. As much as I hate to have to go back, I am sure it is just a matter of time. If Clinton hadn't cut the military and closed alot of bases we would still have six month rotations instead of 12+ month rotations. And yes I would say by this time next year i'll be back.

I only wish Dr. Bill Frist (from the great state of Tennessee!) would run with Colin Powell as his VP!

people complain that we shouldnt be over there, we should be here defending our borders. What do you think we are doing over there. Im sorry you think guys like BMC, hulk, and the rest that are or have been over there are fighting for their borders. No we are over there stopping future threats to our borders. I am sorry but is it that difficult to see that. My best friends are over there. The only complaint they have is the chow hall food sucks. They are risking their lives for people of this country to be safe from 9/11s and you complain about it. I mean what is wrong in your head. We have fellow bronco lovers and bronco lovers family and friends that are over there. Guys you shoot the chit with everyday. The guys that try to say what is going on and you dont pay any attention other then they should be brought back. Should we just pull our troops back, halt all forms of transportation and station check points at every street searching people. Will that save us. Or just piss of some more people. If we pull all our troops around the world an attack can still happen unless you do just that. Not only are we currently protecting our borders but our allies. We help them because that is what we do and it is just like protecting our borders. Yeah it sucks that good men have to die, but that is war. It isnt like we are just going around picking fights with the world. Though sometimes i think we should, keep people from thinking they can walk over us. And when we get these left wing democrats that will "bring our boys home", oh sure they bring them home but cut military spending, close more bases then we should (which by the way makes thousands loose their jobs per base closed, cause not everyone on a base is military), and reduce our fighting capabilities. Unfortunantly we have the strongest, most advanced military in the world, closely trailed only by Russia and Britain(though not strong but has our advancements in weaponry). BMC is right, Kerry will not bring anything good for our military. I can guarentee one of two things if he wins. We will stay there, just a cut back on man power there which will reduce our fighting capabilities. If by some chance we are pulled out the countries will go to hell in a handbasket quick and that opens the doors to attacks on more then as we are seeing on CNN, yalls favorite network. Just like what has happened in Somolia. It was going to hell, we went in and calmed it down, but cause CNN got a hold of news from a bad accident where left wing and Clinton freaked out we were pulled out and millions more have died. Just like 91 though that was the UNs fault not ours. Should we have backed out of WWII after the first year just cause we lost more men then we did in the first few months then we did in all of this war. Would that have solved a damn thing for what we were fighting for. im sorry if you cant see my point, i know people with your point that i talk to that are real good friends that have explained their points. no Bush hasnt made me 100% happy, but he has made me 200 times happier then if Kerry gets in office. I am with BMC, im requesting overseas. and whoa said it good, my brothers would have died in vain. All my family that has fought in EVERY war this country has had would have fought for nothing. If we pulled out it would be like we are opening the door for them to come in and do whatever the hell they want. That would make them bold, that would make them think we are scared. that would make them think even worse about us. And that would make the ones who went in with us think we arent holding up to what we said we would do. and 10 more years down the road we will be back there and people will be saying oh bush didnt finish the job. how can we finish the job if we pull out. Karma you have contridicted yourself with that statement. In earlier posts you do just that, complain that Sr didnt finish the job, and now you want us to pull out. Just so you can say in 10 years that Jr did the same thing as his daddy. I must apologize that i just dont understand your mindset. i dont understand how you can come to believe these things. maybe im just a simple person that believes in what we are doing over there. Maybe it is just the fact that i spent my whole life some how involved with the military. Maybe it was the 13 years of my life my father was gone TDY, deployed, and risking his life for his family every day. The fact he was the first wave into Bosnia, was in Kosovo (though no one complains we are there and there is fighting there and troops die there), Iraq and Saudi, Korea, and every where else in this world cleaning up the bombs. Maybe it is the fact that i am currently serving. Maybe it is the fact that all my friends from HS are serving, whether home or abroad. Maybe it is because my fiancee's brother is a Navy Corpsmen for Marine Recon, another friend is a corpsmen, one works on F-15s, one is army signal corps, lots of C-130 buddies, B-52, B-2,B-1, 16s, 135s and just about every other aircraft.maybe the ones that are infantry. Maybe because one just got back from Uzebekistan, some from the desert. maybe it is because of the ones that are members of this very website. maybe it is the fact i was told last week be prepared to leave the beginning of december. Looks like my unit is moving from Kyrgystan doing missions for OEF to Iraq or kuwait that month. I dont know. But it is the right thing for us to do. I know i can sleep in peace at night knowing who is watching our backs right now, who are risking their lives, who are away from friends and family. I know i would proudly shed blood for these guys if asked to. I know i made an oath under God about 2 1/2 years to uphold the constitution and defend this country. This country doesnt mean our physical borders, it means allies, and fellow bretheren that are in trouble

by the way JOE FOR PRESIDENT

people complain that we shouldnt be over there, we should be here defending our borders. What do you think we are doing over there. Im sorry you think guys like BMC, hulk, and the rest that are or have been over there are fighting for their borders. No we are over there stopping future threats to our borders. I am sorry but is it that difficult to see that. My best friends are over there. The only complaint they have is the chow hall food sucks. They are risking their lives for people of this country to be safe from 9/11s and you complain about it. I mean what is wrong in your head. We have fellow bronco lovers and bronco lovers family and friends that are over there. Guys you shoot the chit with everyday. The guys that try to say what is going on and you dont pay any attention other then they should be brought back. Should we just pull our troops back, halt all forms of transportation and station check points at every street searching people. Will that save us. Or just piss of some more people. If we pull all our troops around the world an attack can still happen unless you do just that. Not only are we currently protecting our borders but our allies. We help them because that is what we do and it is just like protecting our borders. Yeah it sucks that good men have to die, but that is war. It isnt like we are just going around picking fights with the world. Though sometimes i think we should, keep people from thinking they can walk over us. And when we get these left wing democrats that will "bring our boys home", oh sure they bring them home but cut military spending, close more bases then we should (which by the way makes thousands loose their jobs per base closed, cause not everyone on a base is military), and reduce our fighting capabilities. Unfortunantly we have the strongest, most advanced military in the world, closely trailed only by Russia and Britain(though not strong but has our advancements in weaponry). BMC is right, Kerry will not bring anything good for our military. I can guarentee one of two things if he wins. We will stay there, just a cut back on man power there which will reduce our fighting capabilities. If by some chance we are pulled out the countries will go to hell in a handbasket quick and that opens the doors to attacks on more then as we are seeing on CNN, yalls favorite network. Just like what has happened in Somolia. It was going to hell, we went in and calmed it down, but cause CNN got a hold of news from a bad accident where left wing and Clinton freaked out we were pulled out and millions more have died. Just like 91 though that was the UNs fault not ours. Should we have backed out of WWII after the first year just cause we lost more men then we did in the first few months then we did in all of this war. Would that have solved a damn thing for what we were fighting for. im sorry if you cant see my point, i know people with your point that i talk to that are real good friends that have explained their points. no Bush hasnt made me 100% happy, but he has made me 200 times happier then if Kerry gets in office. I am with BMC, im requesting overseas. and whoa said it good, my brothers would have died in vain. All my family that has fought in EVERY war this country has had would have fought for nothing. If we pulled out it would be like we are opening the door for them to come in and do whatever the hell they want. That would make them bold, that would make them think we are scared. that would make them think even worse about us. And that would make the ones who went in with us think we arent holding up to what we said we would do. and 10 more years down the road we will be back there and people will be saying oh bush didnt finish the job. how can we finish the job if we pull out. Karma you have contridicted yourself with that statement. In earlier posts you do just that, complain that Sr didnt finish the job, and now you want us to pull out. Just so you can say in 10 years that Jr did the same thing as his daddy. I must apologize that i just dont understand your mindset. i dont understand how you can come to believe these things. maybe im just a simple person that believes in what we are doing over there. Maybe it is just the fact that i spent my whole life some how involved with the military. Maybe it was the 13 years of my life my father was gone TDY, deployed, and risking his life for his family every day. The fact he was the first wave into Bosnia, was in Kosovo (though no one complains we are there and there is fighting there and troops die there), Iraq and Saudi, Korea, and every where else in this world cleaning up the bombs. Maybe it is the fact that i am currently serving. Maybe it is the fact that all my friends from HS are serving, whether home or abroad. Maybe it is because my fiancee's brother is a Navy Corpsmen for Marine Recon, another friend is a corpsmen, one works on F-15s, one is army signal corps, lots of C-130 buddies, B-52, B-2,B-1, 16s, 135s and just about every other aircraft.maybe the ones that are infantry. Maybe because one just got back from Uzebekistan, some from the desert. maybe it is because of the ones that are members of this very website. maybe it is the fact i was told last week be prepared to leave the beginning of december. Looks like my unit is moving from Kyrgystan doing missions for OEF to Iraq or kuwait that month. I dont know. But it is the right thing for us to do. I know i can sleep in peace at night knowing who is watching our backs right now, who are risking their lives, who are away from friends and family. I know i would proudly shed blood for these guys if asked to. I know i made an oath under God about 2 1/2 years to uphold the constitution and defend this country. This country doesnt mean our physical borders, it means allies, and fellow bretheren that are in trouble

:usa :usa :usa :usa :clap :clap :clap :rockon :rockon :rockon :beer :beer :beer

VERY WELL PUT BRO. :rockon Its guys like you that allow me to sleep at night knowing that my little girl will have a safe place to grow up! I :clap you for what you and all the rest of the great guys and gals on the site do for this country!! :usa

damn...by the way Kosovo/Bosnia was Clinton's brainchild and we are still there!

Even as I say that I am reminded that the President can not just decide to go to war anytime they please, ya'll remember in Social Science class that part on the checks and balances? So it is not Clinton's fault or Bush's fault completely that we are there.

and if anybody really cares, we still have troops that are still going to Vietnam and Laos...

and if anybody really cares, we still have troops that are still going to Vietnam and Laos...

You mean the embassy is still there? I guess someone has to gaurd that....

I am definately hoping my Cousin makes it out alive, and hopefully never goes back to Iraq. Things just won't be settled til my 390 matches up to his 383TPI K5.

All I can say to SrATEX is:

DON'T GET YOURSELF KILLED!!! we want to go wheelin' with ya, so you must come back...

~Critter

hilary clinton for president in '08.

hilary clinton for president in '08.

:wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko :wacko

This is a real war against some really bad radicals.

Picture a map of that part of the world. There's a Terrorist Crescent from Morocco in Northwest Africa to Indonesia in Southeast Asia. It's full of people who want to kill not only Americans, but all of Western civilization because they think they know better.

Here's what Bush has done. Afganistan and Iraq have driven wedges into that crescent; Pakistan and Lybia have become really big cracks. It's not over by a long shot, but the war is over there, not here!

Every time I take a shower, I see the reminders of Laos on my belly and my side. I know how tough it is for our guys in Afganistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, the Philipines, Yemen and Southeast Saudi Arabia. Our guys are there to keep them from coming here.

Nobody's gonna cart me off to some mosque!

Im not impressed with any of them. All these politicians suck.

id rather have beavis and butthead in office than any of these greedy bastids.


:stupid


every election the choices get worse and worse. i cant wait till 08' :uke:
i wonder what winners we will have to choose from then.

This is a real war against some really bad radicals.

Picture a map of that part of the world. There's a Terrorist Crescent from Morocco in Northwest Africa to Indonesia in Southeast Asia. It's full of people who want to kill not only Americans, but all of Western civilization because they think they know better.
Here's what Bush has done. Afganistan and Iraq have driven wedges into that crescent; Pakistan and Lybia have become really big cracks. It's not over by a long shot, but the war is over there, not here!

Every time I take a shower, I see the reminders of Laos on my belly and my side. I know how tough it is for our guys in Afganistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, the Philipines, Yemen and Southeast Saudi Arabia. Our guys are there to keep them from coming here.

Nobody's gonna cart me off to some mosque!

Did anyone think it's because WE think we know better . We have been shoving our way of thinking down the throats of many countries and now it's coming back to haunt us. Who do we think we are , after only 228 years to tell other civilizations that have been around for thousands of years how to think , act and worship . I am not just talking about modern day Iraq but all the past decades also . If the U.S.A didn't go around sticking their noses where it did not belong , we would have more friends and less trouble .

There is a time to fight ie...WWI & II , and a time and a time to watch and listen . The trouble is we are too eager to fight . There are no winners in a war . There are no losers in peace .

As those of you who have served or are serving knows, things are usually better for the military when the republicans are in office...I just don't see Kerry/Edwards doing anything to help the military.

agreed, I don't know anyone who has served (including myself) that likes kerry. I know a few guys that don't like bush but they completely resent Kerry for his pacifist actions after he returned from vietnam.

If he gets elected the first thing he will do is pull out, leaving the country to be overrun by muslim terrorists. Can you guess what that means? We'll be back in 10 years because they'll have nukes aimed at us and they don't care what kind of ecological impact it will have. But the wacko tree huggers don't think about that do they? I for one don't want to be in a cold war with these ######## because the lefties don't have the guts to finish the job.

On the other hand I don't belive the the iraqi people as a whole are civilized enough to govern themselves. As soon as someone steps up to start a government, they will be killed. They will slip into a dictatorship and the ones that have the capacity for a republic-type government will be exported or killed. These people are just a collection of mobs that beleive in only violence.

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out...

How many of you guys knew that Afghanistan had a King? I was able to visit his palace while in Kabul. They are rebuilding the old one and have remodeled a newer one. They have a president also. But check this out...(kinda long)

Muhammad Zahir Shah - Once and future king?

Muhammad Zahir Shah, who ruled Afghanistan until 1973, seems to the West like "an authentic Afghani leader" suited to ruling for a transitional period. But there are doubts about the elderly king's legitimacy and political capability in the Afghan arena

By Nitzan Horowitz

Three colors - the colors of the Afghani flag - enveloped Kabul way back in 1933: black, the color of mourning, symbolic of the era of invasions by enemies and colonial forces; red, the color of blood, which marks the sacrifice of the liberation and independence movement; and green, the color of hope, which expresses "peace and the flourishing of Islam." The occasion was rather bleak. A few hours earlier, King Nader Shah Muhammad had been killed by a shot from a pistol carried by a student at an award ceremony. The king's brother, Muhammad Aziz, had been assassinated five months earlier in Nazi Berlin. International plots thickened once again in the air of the mountain kingdom. The future looked more bleak than ever.

All eyes were turned toward the royal heir, Muhammed Zahir, the son of the late king. He was only 19, but had already helped his father stabilize his regime and had served as a minister. At a hasty ceremony, the young prince was crowned king. He took the title "Confident in God, Follower of the Firm Religion of Islam." No one thought that this would happen, but the coronation ushered in a period of 40 years that many Afghanis call an era of "peace and quiet." But the years of Zahir Shah's reign were not as tranquil as the devotees of nostalgia now describe them. Afghanistan knew difficult days and great upheavals. But compared to the troubles that came to the country after he was deposed, it is little wonder that many people have pinned their hopes on him, seeing in him the only savior if and when the Taliban regime is toppled in an American attack.

During the years of his reign, the real power was in the hands of his uncles who ruled the country as prime ministers. With the outbreak of World War II and in its aftermath, the king steered Afghanistan along the path of neutrality. This was a wise choice: Foreign aid flowed into Kabul not only from Moscow, but also from Washington. Those who came after him did not follow in his footsteps. In retrospect, the king now says that the great decline of his country during the 1980s and the 1990s came about because Afghanistan became "a pawn in the game between the powers on the Asian continent, and the clear results can be seen today." But the bulk of his criticism is directed at Pakistan. Only in 1963 did the king fully grasp the reins of power. A year later he initiated reforms that led to the establishment of a parliament, to elections and to a relatively free press. Political parties were not legal, but the king did allow a certain amount of political activity. Members of the royal family were barred from holding public office and, in effect, a constitutional monarchy was established in Afghanistan. The king himself was then perceived by the power centers in his country as an indecisive ruler and court intrigues were relentless. Yet his reign brought to Afghanistan a long period of peace, during which time irrigation projects were developed and roads were paved. These years were the greatest period of growth in the country's history. The king was quite well-loved by the masses, but in the twilight of his regime, affections began to wane. At the end of the 1960s there were violent demonstrations against him. A terrible drought at the beginning of the 1970s exacted tens of thousands of victims. The Pashtun tribes in the border areas with Pakistan pressed for autonomy.

Zahir Shah traveled abroad a great deal. During one of these trips, as he was enjoying the mud-baths at therapeutic springs near Naples, he was deposed. The coup was led by his cousin Muahmmad Daoud Khan, the son of Muhammad Aziz, who had been murdered in Berlin 40 years earlier. Daoud declared a republic and appointed himself its first president.

The deposed king remained in Italy, this time as an exile. He settled into a modest four-bedroom villa and was effectively forgotten. No one, not even Zahir Shah himself, imagined that the day of the Afghani monarchy would come again. It came in the wake of the terror attacks in New York and Washington.

The elderly king, who is 86, has become a object of pilgrimage: Afghani opposition movements, opponents of the Taliban, journalists, confidential advisors, secret agents and in particular senior American representatives. They all flock to him to clarify their understandings of his intentions and to make bold proposals to him.

A symbolic figure

The main source of encouragement is Washington. The Americans have reached the conclusion that an "authentic Afghani leader" is now needed; one who can pose a legitimate alternative to the Taliban regime. After the killing of Ahmad Shah Masoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance (the main force within Afghanistan that is opposed to the Taliban) the former king remains the only figure who might be acceptable to both "the people" and the international community. All this is premised on the assumption that a power vacuum will appear in Kabul.

The scenario put forward by the experts poses Zahir Shah as a symbolic figure who will head "a transitional framework" that will take the government of Afghanistan into its hands if the Taliban regime is defeated because of its cooperation with Osama Bin Laden. However, this scenario, if only from the king's point of view, is very problematic. Zahir Shah is an old man. His health is good, but his ability to govern and maneuver in the tangle of rivalries in his strife-torn country is in doubt. The extent to which he is familiar with the new forces active in his country is also unclear. He left Afghanistan 28 years ago and never returned. In a country where most of the inhabitants are under the age of 15, not many people remember the period of his rule.

According to diplomatic reports from Rome, Zahir Shah is prepared to head a transitional government in Afghanistan, but as "head of state" and not as king. Would such a regime be legitimate? "As far as the international community is concerned, the legitimacy of a given government regime often depends on the extent of its success in governing the country effectively," says Dr. Eyal Gross, of Tel Aviv University, a specialist on international law. "Though in recent years there has been an evident desire to base international recognition on criteria of justice, democracy or self-determination, there have been many situations in which a regime came to power in an illegitimate and sometimes bloody way, but have nevertheless won sweeping international support."

In this context, Gross notes the tension that exists in international law between the aspiration to establish norms for recognizing a regime, "so as not to be apologetic to power," and the practice and reality on the ground that is based on effective governance and on international interests.

In Afghanistan, a strange situation prevails in this respect: The Taliban does in fact rule effectively in many areas of the country, but their regime is not recognized by the international community. In Afghanistan, the government that is recognized by the world is that of Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was deposed by the Taliban five years ago. In most of the Afghani embassies around the world, for example, sit representatives of the Rabbani government. However, in neighboring Pakistan, a friend of the current regime in Kabul, sits the ambassador of the Taliban.

"If there are upheavals in the regime in Kabul as a result of forthcoming developments, it may be assumed that the international elements involved will try to present the new regime as legitimate on the grounds of "representing the people" or "authentic leadership," even though it is not clear whether such a government will be established in a democratic way," says Dr. Gross. Judging from the trend now prevailing in U.S. President George Bush's coalition, a new regime in Kabul, under the auspices of the aged king, would be recognized in a very accelerated process. It may assumed with certainty that such a regime would also be given very significant aid.

Against foreign intervention

Until this happens, the king has already been issuing political statements that indicate a clear direction. A delegation of members of the U.S. Congress came to see him in Rome, and heard from him that he would stand by the United States in the struggle against terror and that he would support actions, led by the United States, to overthrow the Taliban. "Our aim is to establish as quickly as possible a united Afghani state on a national platform," he told the French media. The king aspires to convene Afghanistan's traditional "national council" (the Loya Jirga) as soon as possible. Sources in the office of the former king have said that senior members in the Afghani forces that are opposed to the Taliban have agreed to set up a council of war, consisting of commanders, tribal elders and former military officers. The nature and standing of such a body is not clear. In the field, too, the situation with respect to the king is not especially promising. The Northern Alliance has made it clear that any foreign help in bringing the king back to power will lead to further disturbances. The rebel commanders have announced that although Zahir Shah could be of help in finding a solution to Afghanistan's problems, he will not be able to return to power under conditions dictated by the West.

"If Zahir Shah comes back with the support of the West, his fate is predetermined," said Northern Alliance spokesman Sayid Najibollah Hashimi. "Any foreign intervention of this sort is unacceptable and unjustified." Statements by the Taliban about this matter are even more vehement. "The king is old and too weak," said Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar in a rare interview to an Iranian newspaper, "and anyway, there is no leadership vacuum in Afghanistan. Puppets who are forced on us by the West have no future.

The king, of course, does not see himself as a puppet. He has been telling his American guests that his vision is of a two-year interim period of transition toward democracy, and that he hopes that foreign forces will not be present in Afghanistan over the longer term. Were he but able, he would return to his country at once. "The situation is tragic," he has said in the past few days. "With every moment that goes by, I feel my people's pain. I am praying fervently that God will save our country that has suffered for so long, and set it on the path of peace. As for me - I see only one role for myself: peacemaker. I am 86 and I must go home."

There is a time to fight ie...WWI & II...Right. After the Lusitania! After Pearl Harbor! After the WTC and the Pentagon and Flight 93!

How many people have to die to wake us up? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you.

Right. After the Lusitania! After Pearl Harbor! After the WTC and the Pentagon and Flight 93!

How many people have to die to wake us up? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you.


I agree. Keeping our nose to ourselves has invited more violence than it has prevented. Isolationism is not the answer. We decided to become the police after world war II. We decided that we did not want another war on that scale. And there has not been one since for a reason.

~Critter

~CLICKY~ (http://www.jibjab.com/MovieViewer.aspx?contentid=162) :histerica

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :thumbup

kerry won 3 purple hearts? damn

:histerica :histerica

That was great. I didnt know about the purple hearts either.

kerry won 3 purple hearts? damn


To straighten that out...you dont "win" a purple heart, you are awarded the citation for being wounded in the combat arena, and not necessarily in "action". I was never awarded a purple heart, and i was hit by fragmentation that penetrated my left upper arm and through and through frag wound to my right lower leg....my boss never put in for it and to tell you the truth i'm glad he didn't. My wounds did not disable me for more than a few days, and i was right back to work, so to take a PH there would've been morally corrupt to say the least.

Now, take a look at Kerry's citations...all were bullshit that was less damaging than the frag wounds i took......makes you wonder what type of glory seeker he was trying to be. BTW he WAS the boss in his boat unit, so he pyut himself in for the PH citations. He wanted to come home with a chest full of medals because he thought that was "cool" and so he set himself up to look like a hero.....he is not the only person from his era to pull that bullshit, and sadly he wont be the last. Where i come from, you get caught trying to amplify your status or service record.....may god have mercy on your soul, cause no one else ever will.......

09... I think they were kidding. Take a chill pill, dude.

I think I read that he was never out of "work" for more trhan two days on any of those...I know some people who have been out alot longer than that and they aren't getting them.

I took a grenade fragment in my right side in Laos in '59. No PH because the rule then was it had to be "...inflicted by the enemy in a combat zone". No war - no combat zone - no 'enemy' - no PH!

Now they're given away for training accidents.

Canada has now pissed me off with their floppy heads and beady eyes...This being Canada, the amount of anti-Americanism that was found is not surprising. What is significant is the high number of teens who used the word "evil" to describe our southern neighbour. As Misty Harris pointed out in her column in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, evil is usually associated with serial killers and "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." These teens appear to equate George W. Bush and Americans with Osama bin Laden and Hitler,

of course the fact that their borders are protected in large part thanks to us, and the fact that only 9% of those teens polled ever thought that a terrorist attack in Canada was possible...

Did anyone think it's because WE think we know better . We have been shoving our way of thinking down the throats of many countries and now it's coming back to haunt us. Who do we think we are , after only 228 years to tell other civilizations that have been around for thousands of years how to think , act and worship . I am not just talking about modern day Iraq but all the past decades also . If the U.S.A didn't go around sticking their noses where it did not belong , we would have more friends and less trouble .

There is a time to fight ie...WWI & II , and a time and a time to watch and listen . The trouble is we are too eager to fight . There are no winners in a war . There are no losers in peace .


yes some dont like us for that reason. however as one of the last super powers we are generally called by then UN/NATO to stick our noses in other places business. As I said before take the Bosnia and Kosovo. IFOR and KFOR are becuase we were called in to assist as peacekeepers. So WWI+II were justified but this war isn't. As Marv said how many people have to die at home for us to wake up. WWII we were sending supplies to England and France then we cut off oil to Japan. That is why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, to cripple so and to force as back into giving to them. What were we doing to deserve to be attacked on 9/11. Going to work, enjoying our lives, wealth and prosperity, keeping our nose to ourselves. So you are telling me if we sit here and do nothing around the world we will be safe. Hmmmm well we tried that 9/11 happened. So that theory is void. And as of right now, Darrely Worley said it best in my opinion. People say were out looking for a fight. After 9/11 Id have to say thats right. Why should we sit back and watch an area destroy itself and try to destroy us, harbor to ones trying to destroy us, and supplying those trying to destroy us. And you are right there are no winners in war. The first casualty of war is innocence. However you need to wake up. As long as there are people on this earth with different views and beliefs there will be war. War is the oldest thing in the world. Before great civilizations there were tribal wars. The only time there will ever be peace is when God sets his feet on this Earth. Quite frankly I am tired of all this make love not war crap. It isnt gonna happen. And anyone tell me to do that I will tell them to shove it.

As long as there are people on this earth with different views and beliefs there will be war. War is the oldest thing in the world.

"If you want peace and quiet, take yourself to a deserted South Pacific island. If you want conflict, bring a friend along. Such is life!" I heard that a long time ago, and I think it'll always be true.

Having said that, once it was German colonialism; then Italian Fascism, German Nazism and Japanese colonialism; then Soviet expansionism; and now Islamic terrorism. Next it might be Chinese colonialism (they've already taken the right to vote away from Hong Kong).

If I find that South Pacific island, should I take my wife along, or just my Broncos?

I took a grenade fragment in my right side in Laos in '59. No PH because the rule then was it had to be "...inflicted by the enemy in a combat zone". No war - no combat zone - no 'enemy' - no PH!

Now they're given away for training accidents.
Very true.....but like i said, in my situation i dont htink it was warranted, and neither did my boss - he was a very intelligent man.

In your case, serious injury should've required the citation (IMHO).

The whole subject is confusing....i'm not bitchin, like i said i didnt want it, didnt need it and i was back to work right away.

If I find that South Pacific island, should I take my wife along, or just my Broncos?

Take both.. That way when ya wheel on the island you would have started war with your wife. :thumbup :goodfinge

people complain that we shouldnt be over there, we should be here defending our borders. What do you think we are doing over there. Im sorry you think guys like BMC, hulk, and the rest that are or have been over there are fighting for their borders. No we are over there stopping future threats to our borders. I am sorry but is it that difficult to see that. My best friends are over there. The only complaint they have is the chow hall food sucks. They are risking their lives for people of this country to be safe from 9/11s and you complain about it. I mean what is wrong in your head. We have fellow bronco lovers and bronco lovers family and friends that are over there. Guys you shoot the chit with everyday. The guys that try to say what is going on and you dont pay any attention other then they should be brought back. Should we just pull our troops back, halt all forms of transportation and station check points at every street searching people. Will that save us. Or just piss of some more people. If we pull all our troops around the world an attack can still happen unless you do just that. Not only are we currently protecting our borders but our allies. We help them because that is what we do and it is just like protecting our borders. Yeah it sucks that good men have to die, but that is war. It isnt like we are just going around picking fights with the world. Though sometimes i think we should, keep people from thinking they can walk over us. And when we get these left wing democrats that will "bring our boys home", oh sure they bring them home but cut military spending, close more bases then we should (which by the way makes thousands loose their jobs per base closed, cause not everyone on a base is military), and reduce our fighting capabilities. Unfortunantly we have the strongest, most advanced military in the world, closely trailed only by Russia and Britain(though not strong but has our advancements in weaponry). BMC is right, Kerry will not bring anything good for our military. I can guarentee one of two things if he wins. We will stay there, just a cut back on man power there which will reduce our fighting capabilities. If by some chance we are pulled out the countries will go to hell in a handbasket quick and that opens the doors to attacks on more then as we are seeing on CNN, yalls favorite network. Just like what has happened in Somolia. It was going to hell, we went in and calmed it down, but cause CNN got a hold of news from a bad accident where left wing and Clinton freaked out we were pulled out and millions more have died. Just like 91 though that was the UNs fault not ours. Should we have backed out of WWII after the first year just cause we lost more men then we did in the first few months then we did in all of this war. Would that have solved a damn thing for what we were fighting for. im sorry if you cant see my point, i know people with your point that i talk to that are real good friends that have explained their points. no Bush hasnt made me 100% happy, but he has made me 200 times happier then if Kerry gets in office. I am with BMC, im requesting overseas. and whoa said it good, my brothers would have died in vain. All my family that has fought in EVERY war this country has had would have fought for nothing. If we pulled out it would be like we are opening the door for them to come in and do whatever the hell they want. That would make them bold, that would make them think we are scared. that would make them think even worse about us. And that would make the ones who went in with us think we arent holding up to what we said we would do. and 10 more years down the road we will be back there and people will be saying oh bush didnt finish the job. how can we finish the job if we pull out. Karma you have contridicted yourself with that statement. In earlier posts you do just that, complain that Sr didnt finish the job, and now you want us to pull out. Just so you can say in 10 years that Jr did the same thing as his daddy. I must apologize that i just dont understand your mindset. i dont understand how you can come to believe these things. maybe im just a simple person that believes in what we are doing over there. Maybe it is just the fact that i spent my whole life some how involved with the military. Maybe it was the 13 years of my life my father was gone TDY, deployed, and risking his life for his family every day. The fact he was the first wave into Bosnia, was in Kosovo (though no one complains we are there and there is fighting there and troops die there), Iraq and Saudi, Korea, and every where else in this world cleaning up the bombs. Maybe it is the fact that i am currently serving. Maybe it is the fact that all my friends from HS are serving, whether home or abroad. Maybe it is because my fiancee's brother is a Navy Corpsmen for Marine Recon, another friend is a corpsmen, one works on F-15s, one is army signal corps, lots of C-130 buddies, B-52, B-2,B-1, 16s, 135s and just about every other aircraft.maybe the ones that are infantry. Maybe because one just got back from Uzebekistan, some from the desert. maybe it is because of the ones that are members of this very website. maybe it is the fact i was told last week be prepared to leave the beginning of december. Looks like my unit is moving from Kyrgystan doing missions for OEF to Iraq or kuwait that month. I dont know. But it is the right thing for us to do. I know i can sleep in peace at night knowing who is watching our backs right now, who are risking their lives, who are away from friends and family. I know i would proudly shed blood for these guys if asked to. I know i made an oath under God about 2 1/2 years to uphold the constitution and defend this country. This country doesnt mean our physical borders, it means allies, and fellow bretheren that are in trouble


Well Said

There are no losers in peace . That only applies when all parties agree to a peaceful co-existence, and demonstrably stick to it. Jihadistan ain't gonna' do that.

Trust, but verify!

Bush v. Kerry
http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica
****dialup warning!!!*****

Thanks, I needed that. :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :goodfinge :goodfinge :clap :clap

This is all I'm gettin:

Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Server Too Busy
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.Web.HttpException: Server Too Busy

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

That was Great !!! Worth the wait.
:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :clap :clap :clap :clap

Johnski, keep trying, got that a couple times myself

Well done.. :thumbup

Nope, sorry. That issue is huge.

I didn't mention it because most everyone paying even remote attention to this stuff already knew it. The problem for Kerry is that he marginalizes his own argument by selecting a VP that has even less military experience than Bush. That decision is proof, on it's face, that the military experience issue is of absolutely no real importance, thereby kicking the legs out from under the democrats insistent whining in THIS election (conveniently overlooked by democrats in the Clinton-Bush I and Clinton-Dole elections) that Kerry's military service somehow makes him more qualified than Bush.

Remember, THIS time, the issue is of MAJOR importance to democrats. But we all know that the importance of that issue for democrats is, to put it politely, "situational," or they never would have supported Clinton.

First, if it was never a big deal when it came to Clinton, then it's not a big deal now. Second, that Kerry selected Edwards is tacit acknowledgment of that fact.

Your claim that my argument “goes out the window” because Cheney didn't serve entirely misses the point, a point that Kerry will live to regret: You cannot continue to have your surrogates beat the hell out of Cheney for using a deferment to stay out of Vietnam when your own VP candidate did EXACTLY the same thing. Nor can Kerry continue to claim that his service is somehow a pivotal issue in this election, given his decision to choose a VP that never set foot in uniform.

You see, it's either important... or it isn't. And if it IS important, then you damned sure don't pick someone to be your VP who, in essence, is no better than your opponents.

Because he's done that, he destroys his own, carefully nurtured but obviously false conclusion that his service makes him a better choice. It doesn't.



And, I do not claim otherwise. The problem for Kerry is that the military service issue in no way infers a greater level of qualification for Kerry to be president then it does any other combat veteran. And, if it did somehow make such an inference, then there are literally tens of thousands of veterans even MORE qualified for the job than Kerry.

I repeat: Kerry's choice of a non-veteran for VP decimates the importance of the issue altogether. If being a combat veteran specifically, or even a veteran in general, is so important to becoming president (as Kerry and the democrats would have us all believe, for THIS election, at least,) then his selection of a non-veteran for VP is a disastrous choice... as the VP is, after all, only one heart beat away from the Oval Office.



"Self-serving?" I'm not running for anything.

You cannot realistically expect that on one hand, you can make such a big deal about how important military service is in this matter, and then prove how unimportant it REALLY is by choosing a non-veteran VP…. Can you?

Democrats need to remember: If it wasn't important for you when Clinton was running, then it isn't important now... and Kerry's choice of Edwards proves that. To suggest otherwise is the height of that which you deny... specifically, hypocrisy.

Remember... its the democrats that insisted on bringing this subject up and attempting to make it so important. The actions of Kerry disprove the theorem quite nicely.



By all means, list Edwards many accomplishments while a Senator. Tell us about his programs, the legislative initiatives he's seen thru to fruition. The programs he's authored and passed that effect any of us in our every day life.

You cannot, of course, because like Kerry, they have accomplished absolutely nothing during their respective tenures.

As for my position that this is was an effort to reduce the election to a beauty contest, that position is shared by a few others... William Safire, Lyn Nofziger, Dick Morris... the Wall Street Journal, among others, seem to share my peculiar perspective.

Politicians are not gods. There are senators who are undeniably men and women of great ability and accomplishment. There are also mediocre and poor senators, relative to everything else.

Getting to the position does not determine how distinguished your record is. After all, such luminaries as Mel "The Monkey Spanker" Reynolds, Dan "Here, let me lick that stamp for you" Rostenkowski, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Brock Adams, Richard Nixon... all reached high elective office... and all disgraced the office once they arrived.

No... what distinguishes one is what one does once they arrive. I'm surprised you didn't know that, but I guess your little self-serving vignette wouldn’t allow for that... now would it?



Confused, are you? You act as if election to the senate is the end of the journey... and not the beginning of one's opportunity to serve. Does Jon Corzine, for example, have a “distinguished record” because he’s a senator? Or is it because the simple idiot spent over $60 million of his OWN money to buy the job?



Without naming a single instance where I “over-generalized,” I would venture to say that each and every point I’ve made is backed by the facts and common sense. Your bizarre perspective notwithstanding, Edwards has accomplished embarrassingly little during his term in office. Or did I just overlook the list you so thoughtfully left out?



Thus the explanation for Gore’s defeat last time around? Or do you view Gore and Lieberman as just two peas in a pod? Or Reagan/Bush 1?

Here’s a little snapshot for you: Even one of the Boston papers complained these guys were, combined, too far to the left, which is what you get when Kerry (Most liberal senator) picks Edwards (4th most liberal senator). A balanced ticket is vital to unseat an incumbent. Two Senators to the left of Lenin ain’t gonna get it done.



So… your explanation about Gore/Lieberman is what, again?

To win this, Kerry has to march to the right. How can the most liberal senator there is make the trip? And how can the 4th most liberal senator help him?

He can’t. We all know Kerry wanted McCain… now, why do you suppose that is… because McCain shares Kerry’s ultra-leftist positions? Or because Kerry was desperate to win Arizona?

Hardly.

And this, of course, just serves as more evidence, now being expounded in many different corners, that Edwards got the job because he is, after all, just another pretty face.

In closing, as far as your idiocy is concerned… I wouldn’t be nearly so hard on yourself. Based on our little chat here, it’s more likely just a matter of your political ignorance than anything else. Next election, pay a little closer attention, and you’ll be amazed at what you can learn.

you political hacks weary me. i haven't the time or energy to respond to the ludicrous statements you've made above, but i note you still misused the word "shear" :goodfinge

you political hacks weary me. i haven't the time or energy to respond to the ludicrous statements you've made above, but i note you still misused the word "shear" :goodfinge

Actually, what you lack is the ability. Except for your role as a spelling nazi, you're better off sticking to Broncos.

I ripped this flash off the site early yesterday morning for the users of dslreports.com who were the ones that were causing the "Site Busy" errors on jibjab. If its still showing busy you can download it here to view with the standalone flash player available at www.macromedia.com. Its RAR'ed in an attempt to save space.. www.rarsoft.com for the decompression software if you dont have it.

http://2e.img.fjeer.us/thisland.rar

:histerica :histerica

It's a general election year and there have been a number of threads here on who oughta be President.

green party all the way baby!!!!!!!

green party all the way baby!!!!!!!
Lets all vote for this guyhttp://home.kcbx.net/~bdenneen/billtree1.jpg

Lets all vote for this guyhttp://home.kcbx.net/~bdenneen/billtree1.jpg

damn scott i thought you shaved for your job :histerica :histerica

you forgot one option on your poll .


VOTE FOR FREE BEER :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud :drinkbud

...you forgot one option on your poll...Well, chit happens. :smash

Well, chit happens. :smash


:lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup :lolup

yall know where i stand

I think my politics are clear as well.

This poll is pointless, 90% of FSB is republicans.

The other 10% of us don't give a shit....Beer as a write in anyone??? :beer

I vote Bush, the lesser of three Morons!!!

Jesse Ventura in 2008!!!!

The other 10% of us don't give a shit....Beer as a write in anyone??? :beer
and don't forget his running mate...
http://www.jagermeister.com/welcome/img/logo.gif
beer affects me more than politics :thumbup

POLLs not valid anyway... LIBERTARIANS ALL THE WAY! :rockon

I'm always in the wrong place at the wrong time - the county I live in mostly Republican (word is if you want to get ahead or get any favors done at the courthouse, you should be registered Republican) and FSB is mostly Republican.

I'll just got sit in the Democrat corner now ... :banghead Either that or reevaluate my politics.

Is SpongeBob on the ballot?

beer & jager 2004 :rockon

Have you guys seen the new campain that Bush is running on tv? The one where Kerry doesn't have time to vote for most stuff, but DID have the time to vote NO for the Laci Petterson Law? :shrug

What do you guys think about that? I myself think that it is crazy for him to vote no. just wondering what you ppl thought.

Of course, I think alot of things Kerry does is weird

I think it was kind of weird that Bush heard about the twin towers and sat in a classroom with children and read a story for 30 minutes.

US --> :slap <--Kerry

I vote Bush, the lesser of three Morons!!!
:stupid

I think it was kind of weird that Bush heard about the twin towers and sat in a classroom with children and read a story for 30 minutes.

First time no one knew what was really going on. Second plane hit at 9:06 am, by 9:30 he had already wrote part of a speech to address the nation. Even before that he had been on a secure phone with washington with the vice president, while parts of washington were being evacuated. By 9:57 am he was in airforce one.

Have you guys seen the new campain that Bush is running on tv? The one where Kerry doesn't have time to vote for most stuff, but DID have the time to vote NO for the Laci Petterson Law? :shrug

What do you guys think about that? I myself think that it is crazy for him to vote no. just wondering what you ppl thought.

Kerry most likely voted no on the Peterson bill because his platform on abortion is pro-choice. That bill threatens abortions rights and Roe v. Wade, particularly if Bush stays in office and one of the Supreme Court judges retires (there's two that they've speculated may go in the next term - Rehnquist & O'Connor).

I think it was smart for him to vote no. Had he voted yes, he would have angered a lot of his voters and would have lost a lot of support for the upcoming election.

I am voting ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
He is a farcking moron. Hope he dies, nuff said, thats my shitty opinion. I have one just like y'all's :toothless

Perhaps... but his vote did result in a dandy campaign commercial.

Kerry most likely voted no on the Peterson bill because his platform on abortion is pro-choice.Pretty slick for a guy that just announced that his position is that life begins at conception.

Oops! Did I say "slick"...as in Willy? :eek:

Pretty slick for a guy that just announced that his position is that life begins at conception.

Oops! Did I say "slick"...as in Willy? :eek:

Kerry announced that he that he doesn't believe in abortion on a personal level. He said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

But politically he is pro-choice. As a matter of fact, Kerry is taking the same position that the majority of pro-choice voters take. It's not about for- or against-abortion, it's about the right to choose in ANY case and the right to be safe and control their own lives. "He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God."

This belief is touted as something that will serve no purpose but to confuse the voters by the opposing camps, but personally, I think Kerry's doing what Bush should be doing: keeping the separation of Church and State strong. Kerry is a Catholic who opposes abortion in his own life but that doesn't mean he's going to force that belief on every one.

I couldn't agree more with Kallure.

Have you guys seen the new campain that Bush is running on tv? The one where Kerry doesn't have time to vote for most stuff, but DID have the time to vote NO for the Laci Petterson Law? :shrug

What do you guys think about that? I myself think that it is crazy for him to vote no. just wondering what you ppl thought.

I think it's crazy that anyone can fully believe ANY political ads. When they come on TV, I change the channel. I research on my own, then make an informed decision based on what I learned, not on what the political propagandists fed me.

:stupid

I'll just got sit in the Democrat corner now ... :banghead Either that or reevaluate my politics.

Most wimmen are democrats, but if you think about it, they oppose the stuff you like! They oppose big gas guzzling broncos, and the people who drive them, and you seem to have an interest in both. Democratic polititions act like they are for the common man but carreer politicains on both sides are just a$$holes who only care about lining there own pockets.

Bush all the way.
Edwards is the reason my health insurance went up 100% last year, malpractice lawyers suck!

I am voting ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
He is a farcking moron. Hope he dies, nuff said, thats my shitty opinion. I have one just like y'all's :toothless

I think you're opinion is gay AND shitty :goodfinge :beer

Everyone should know my stand.

Most wimmen are democrats, but if you think about it, they oppose the stuff you like! They oppose big gas guzzling broncos.

:twak :twak :boxing :boxing DON'T EVEN PUT ME IN THAT CATAGORY!

The bigger the rig and thursty big engine is what I want and I have three of them. I am 100% republican and I don't care what people think. :rockon :rockon :rockon

I am backing my Commander and Chief.

Mommy always said never argue about politics or religion 'cause you will never win. Just voice your beliefs and be done with it.

Bush all the way.
Edwards is the reason my health insurance went up 100% last year, malpractice lawyers suck!

whats health Insurance? I haven't had that since I was a kid, You must be rich!

Most wimmen are democrats, but if you think about it, they oppose the stuff you like! They oppose big gas guzzling broncos, and the people who drive them, and you seem to have an interest in both.

I would like to second the :twak's you received previously, as I am both very much a Republican and very much a wimmens.

I oppose generalizations.

I think it's crazy that anyone can fully believe ANY political ads. When they come on TV, I change the channel. I research on my own, then make an informed decision based on what I learned, not on what the political propagandists fed me.
:stupid

Scary thing is, many people do believe them, just like they believe the crap spewed by Michael Moore

:twak :twak :boxing :boxing DON'T EVEN PUT ME IN THAT CATAGORY!

The bigger the rig and thursty big engine is what I want and I have three of them. I am 100% republican and I don't care what people think. :rockon :rockon :rockon

Republican Women with Broncos, it don't get much better than that :thumbup

This poll is pointless, 90% of FSB is republicans.

Thank god for that. :goodfinge

Republican Women with Broncos, it don't get much better than that :thumbup

I'm just a fan of hot chicks! :hump

Thank god for that. :goodfinge

I second that

Edwards & Kerry, 2 lawyers, 2 liberal, 2 much.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion = pro-death. Pro-life means that human egg fertilized by human sperm is human and ain't gonna grow into an oak tree! That's my opinion, and I'm a pro-life atheist! :deal

And how about the pro-choicers that protest against the death penalty? :wacko

:stupid

Scary thing is, many people do believe them, just like they believe the crap spewed by Michael Moore

I'd agree with you on Michael Moore. The liberal camp holds him up as this almost demi-god because they think he's exposing all these hard truths that the administration has been covering up. But it's all crap, all of it. While there may be some facts hidden in work, it has such a steep, steep liberal slant that it serves as the exact opposite of what the extreme conservative camps are going to feed you. I think Moore is very narrow-minded and tunnel-visioned. He's just lucky enough to have a vehicle and the popularity to share that with everyone else.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion = pro-death. Pro-life means that human egg fertilized by human sperm is human and ain't gonna grow into an oak tree! That's my opinion, and I'm a pro-life atheist! :deal

And how about the pro-choicers that protest against the death penalty? :wacko

This is a whole other thread.

Sorry about that stangmata50l, post #9 kinda set me off.

Sorry about that stangmata50l, post #9 kinda set me off.

It's cool bro. :beer

I live my life in accordance to my beliefs and values. I can just about do anything I need or what to do, someone will provide it (ie: could even be illegally). I can vote for whom I believe will support my beliefs and values and that is all I can do. So I will continue to do as I see fit and to heck! with all the political promises.

Kerry announced that he that he doesn't believe in abortion on a personal level. He said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

But politically he is pro-choice. As a matter of fact, Kerry is taking the same position that the majority of pro-choice voters take. It's not about for- or against-abortion, it's about the right to choose in ANY case and the right to be safe and control their own lives. "He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God."

This belief is touted as something that will serve no purpose but to confuse the voters by the opposing camps, but personally, I think Kerry's doing what Bush should be doing: keeping the separation of Church and State strong. Kerry is a Catholic who opposes abortion in his own life but that doesn't mean he's going to force that belief on every one.
I like how you can have your "own personal point of view" and then your "own political point of view for when i need votes".

Very interesting set of social paradigms.......Kerry is the typical liberal all singing all dancing shit of the nation. Some things never change.

Generally I'm reading what allot of you have to say to hopefully learn more about the losers that I won't vote for but will likely become my president.
Normally I would stay out of this... and especially with the abortion issue's, but "zeronine" I gotta say that I think your statement is absolutely ridicules.

Are you so far to the right that you will take any opportunity to blast on the liberal whether or not it makes good sense? Because... to me, what is stated above is the way politics HAVE to be handled and more often than not... aren't. Maybe I'm just mis-understanding your statement. :shrug

My point:
Personal Beliefs are how you live your own life, raise your own family and generally conduct your personal business. An individuals personal beliefs are exactly that... PERSONAL.
Political Beliefs are how you think the government as an entity should effect and/or enforce policies or laws across all states and to all citizens and what those laws should or should not be.

Let's simplify this a little.
Just because I think wearing boots when riding a motorcycle is important and may enforce that belief with my family... by no means (if I were president) should I force all American citizens to wear boots when riding. So...
My personal belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle should wear protective foot equipment.
My political belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle is responsible for their won safety and has the choice to protect themselves or not. It should not be an issue that concerns the government.

This example is extremely small and inconsequential... but the point is the same.
And this doesn't even touch State Legislation (ie: what may be a good law in New York may be an asinine law in Montana, and that's why states have local government... but Fed Gov. is always sticking their noses where they aren't needed... blah blah)

Generally I'm reading what allot of you have to say to hopefully learn more about the losers that I won't vote for but will likely become my president.
Normally I would stay out of this... and especially with the abortion issue's, but "zeronine" I gotta say that I think your statement is absolutely ridicules.

Are you so far to the right that you will take any opportunity to blast on the liberal whether or not it makes good sense? Because... to me, what is stated above is the way politics HAVE to be handled and more often than not... aren't. Maybe I'm just mis-understanding your statement. :shrug

My point:
Personal Beliefs are how you live your own life, raise your own family and generally conduct your personal business. An individuals personal beliefs are exactly that... PERSONAL.
Political Beliefs are how you think the government as an entity should effect and/or enforce policies or laws across all states and to all citizens and what those laws should or should not be.

Let's simplify this a little.
Just because I think wearing boots when riding a motorcycle is important and may enforce that belief with my family... by no means (if I were president) should I force all American citizens to wear boots when riding. So...
My personal belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle should wear protective foot equipment.
My political belief = Anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle is responsible for their won safety and has the choice to protect themselves or not. It should not be an issue that concerns the government.

This example is extremely small and inconsequential... but the point is the same.
And this doesn't even touch State Legislation (ie: what may be a good law in New York may be an asinine law in Montana, and that's why states have local government... but Fed Gov. is always sticking their noses where they aren't needed... blah blah)

First i'd like to say that i didnt make any stand on abortion issues in my statement (maybe you should re-read that). My statement related to how a politician like Kerry will play both sides of the issue all the way to the end so he gets all the votes he can (and consequently all the money that he can). Once again, my statement had NOTHING to do with abortion issues - i could care less what goes on in the world of abortions (i feel this is a pimple on the ass of life as far as importance of topics at this particular time in the world).


It's okay that i think Kerry is Coward, a Moron, and an Imbecile.....in fact it's my right to feel this way about him (I am an American after all - as a matter of fact i'm a veteran). You can say whatever you'd like about GW and i dont get offended (go ahead and call him worse names oooooh)....he's not my first choice either, but given the circumstances i have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils - which leaves me voting for GW so i dont end up funding more and more welfare babies for the next four years. See my problem isn't Kerry or Bush, my problem is paying 30% of my paycheck to pay for shit that other F*CKERS should be out there earning for themselves. I could be mistaken, but isn't Kerry really about BIG government and the socialization of EVERYTHING? Maybe i'm incorrect, but i wont apologize if i am wrong....i owe nothing.....my thoughts are free and so is my speech.

So thats where i'm at....it has nothing to do with "blasting" a liberal jsut for the sake of doing so....it has to do with the fact that i see a guy like Kerry doing harm to my future and will do ANYTHING to stop that from happening.

BTW: Do you really think that if Kerry agrees that all should wear riding boots and a bill comes floating across his desk that is to introduce a law requiring the use of said boots that this wont "assist" him in making his decision? If you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you.

All politicians are F*CKHOLE liars and all of them get paid massive quantities of money to tell us stories and get us to choose sides. In the end i know that the only thing that counts is the ability to make those F*CKHOLE liars accountable for their promises......in this case i feel that Bush can be held more accountable than Kerry. After all Bush has done a great majority of what he promised he would and therefor is at least a hair trustworthy (but not much more than a hair). You see, i dont really like any of them, so NO, i didn't just "blast" Kerry for the sake of blasting him....he needs blasting, he's a pathetic liar and a Coward (among other titles).

So, in the end, i guess there's no reason to jump all over me like that or "blast" me. I expressed my displeasure with the way our politicians conduct themselves......this doesn't make me a bad guy, relax.

And this doesn't even touch State Legislation (ie: what may be a good law in New York may be an asinine law in Montana, and that's why states have local government... but Fed Gov. is always sticking their noses where they aren't needed... blah blah)[/QUOTE]

Pepe, most of the republican platform is giving power back to the states an example is school voutchers, maybe not all issues but alot more than people know, you might be republican and just don't know it yet. Just giving you chit, dude.

Edwards & Kerry, 2 lawyers, 2 liberal, 2 much.

too gay?
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

:histerica :histerica

too gay?
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

:histerica :histerica

:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

I'm not of any political party. I vote on basis of what good are they going to do?

Bush- Ends the farce once and for all, or

Kerry- pulls out, leaves it for another, better man to finish.

Not hard when you have family in the military

~Critter

That is funny, I dont care who you are.

But see this is where i stand on the peterson law. Kerry voted no on a law that would make a 8 month old fetus his/her own person. Well my lil girl was born 2 1/2 months premature. She only weighed 2lbs 12oz. And she was alive, therefore she was her own person.

i cant wait till this election is over.

i cant wait till this election is over.


me neither.....

~Critter

Kerry announced that he that he doesn't believe in abortion on a personal level. He said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

But politically he is pro-choice. As a matter of fact, Kerry is taking the same position that the majority of pro-choice voters take. It's not about for- or against-abortion, it's about the right to choose in ANY case and the right to be safe and control their own lives. "He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God."

This belief is touted as something that will serve no purpose but to confuse the voters by the opposing camps, but personally, I think Kerry's doing what Bush should be doing: keeping the separation of Church and State strong. Kerry is a Catholic who opposes abortion in his own life but that doesn't mean he's going to force that belief on every one.

It is called not having the courage to stand for what you personally believe in and not selling your soul for a vote....GO BUSH...

Pro-choice = pro-abortion = pro-death. Pro-life means that human egg fertilized by human sperm is human and ain't gonna grow into an oak tree! That's my opinion, and I'm a pro-life atheist! :deal

And how about the pro-choicers that protest against the death penalty? :wacko

How about the pro-lifers that murder the doctors that do abortions
:wacko :twak

Kerry most likely voted no on the Peterson bill because his platform on abortion is pro-choice. That bill threatens abortions rights and Roe v. Wade, particularly if Bush stays in office and one of the Supreme Court judges retires (there's two that they've speculated may go in the next term - Rehnquist & O'Connor).

I think it was smart for him to vote no. Had he voted yes, he would have angered a lot of his voters and would have lost a lot of support for the upcoming election.

Hey, at least he bothered to show up and vote that time
:thumbup

WTG Kerry! Must have been a free spot in his schedule.

Kerry has his head on straight. He is personally against abortion, but he realizes that his is America, land of the free, and his views don't have to be forced on other people. The right thing is for other people to have a cho