If U Guys Care About Your Guns/Rights! Go Here ASAP!!

Don't worry about my vote. John Kerry is from Massachusetts, just like Teddy Kennedy. The differnce between the two of them is about a hundred and fifty pounds of ghastly flab, plus Kerry lies and CLAIMS to support the Second Amendment. This would be laughable if wasn't actually dangerous. I'm voting Bush.
 
I won't vote for Kerry because he's handsome.
I won't vote for Kerry because he's a better speaker than Bush.
I won't vote for Kerry because he's better educated.
I won't vote for Kerry because he's on better speeking terms with France and Germany.
I won't vote for Kerry because he's more passionate about social issues.






















And I damned sure won't vote for Kerry because he's a traitor to every vet. :mad:
 
"And I damned sure won't vote for Kerry because he's a traitor to every vet."

Sure, dissenting against a war he (And probably half of the country) felt was immoral after he served in a war zone (More than Bush ever did) is being a traitor? :rolleyes:

The TOTALLY AWESOME :rolleyes: George W. Bush, the one who said he'd sign to renew the AWB, who signed the campaign finance reform bill into law even though he said he thought it was unconstitutional (BUT DID IT ANYWAY). Who has ****ed us in terms of international relations over Iraq and sent over 1000 US soldiers to their graves. Yeah, that's the man i'm going to vote for.

Also let me say this, Kerry is a jackass as well. They both can rot in hell.
 
Well, yes.....

"The TOTALLY AWESOME George W. Bush, the one who said he'd sign to renew the AWB."
*********************************************************

IF it reached his desk....it hasn't. ;)

Of the two, "W" is by far the best choice for gun owners.


*********************************************************
"Who has ****ed us in terms of international relations over Iraq...
*********************************************************


You may be relying a bit much on the "one-worlder's" point of view on that assertion.


*********************************************************
" ....and sent over 1000 US soldiers to their graves."
*********************************************************

Not a committment to be taken lightly....

But-

If the strategy succeeds, the effort will have been justified.

What would Kerry have done? :eek:
 
I can't find the quote button (Does it exist?) in this new version of VB, anyway. The point about the AWB having not reached his desk is a moot point as it A. expires in a week and B. will never reach the president's desk so long as the House is controlled by Republicans.

On this:

"You may be relying a bit much on the "one-worlder's" point of view on that assertion."

Look at all the sympathy the US had in the months after 9/11, almost all of that has now been turned into contempt. Also many of my fellow firearms enthusiasts like to throw around all the French slander as if their (The French) reason for being against the Iraq war was just a shot against the United States.

"Not a committment to be taken lightly....

But-

If the strategy succeeds, the effort will have been justified.

What would Kerry have done?"

I'll agree that Saddam was a horrible dictator and criminal and that his people suffered horribly under him. But setting the precident of destroying sovereign governents premptively because they MIGHT (key word) be a threat in the future is not a road we want to travel down as a nation. Also liberating the Iraqis is noble and all, but the reason we went to war was for non-existant WMDs. Think of what we could've done to real terrorists with the resources and money that have been used on Iraq. Why not do something about North Korea who is a genuine threat to world stability (And also oppresses their citizens more than Saddam ever did), not to mention who now likely has or will have nuclear weapons.

Another point against Bush, budget surplus when he came into office is now a record defeceit. I mean tax cuts and all are grand, but not when it bankrupts the government. You can't run a corporation that way, nor should you be able to run our Federal Government in such a manner.
 
DLoken

Sure, dissenting against a war he (And probably half of the country) felt was immoral after he served in a war zone (More than Bush ever did) is being a traitor?
Click to expand...
First, I was a dissenter who served during the same time period as John F'ing Kerry. That doesn't make anyone a traitor. Lying to congress about the war crimes he did not personally observe doesn't even make him a traitor. It does make him a creep. Kerry had meetings with N. Vietnamese Polititians and high ranking military officials, Sec. General Muoio of the Vietnamese Communist party for one. Kerry gave a press conference advocating the North Vietnamese peace plan in which The U.S. “would have had to pay reparations and agree that we essentially lost the war." He became a spokesman for the communist party. That does make the case for a charge of treason.
The TOTALLY AWESOME George W. Bush, the one who said he'd sign to renew the AWB, who signed the campaign finance reform bill into law even though he said he thought it was unconstitutional (BUT DID IT ANYWAY). Who has ****ed us in terms of international relations over Iraq and sent over 1000 US soldiers to their graves. Yeah, that's the man i'm going to vote for.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "The TOTALLY AWESOME George W. Bush." Do not put words in my mouth. You don't know me well enough to speak for me. I didn't even say I was going to vote for Bush. I might suggest you READ my posts before you reply and save yourself some embarrassment.
 
"I didn't say "The TOTALLY AWESOME George W. Bush." Do not put words in my mouth. You don't know me well enough to speak for me. I didn't even say I was going to vote for Bush. I might suggest you READ my posts before you reply and save yourself some embarrassment."

The entire post was not directed at you, but the entire thread. My post stands.
 
Nope, sorry, I can't justify voting for Bush this time. I'm voting my conscience and voting for the only candidate who truly supports the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

That'd be Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President.
 
"and voting for the only candidate who truly supports the meaning of the 2nd Amendment."

Uh you have heard of the guy running for the Constitution Party haven't you?
Petrouka
We have 2 choices.

S-
 
Get a map DLoken.

The main supporter of Islamic terrorism now has US troops on its east and west borders. It has American allies on its north border and its south-east border. To the south our Navy controles the Persion Gulf.

Iran was and is the problem.

The President has boxed them in and is generating alot of pressure on the religeous leaders by establishing a free nation(s) on their border.

Your Bush hatred has blinded you to the strategic moves we have made.

I have voted for libertarians and republicans over the years. This election cycle it is Bush all the way. A vote for anybody else is a vote for Kerry.
 
To Vote Libertarian. . .

If I lived in Idaho, I'd vote Libertarian for the Presidency, because Idaho will surely vote for Bush in the Electoral College, which is all that really counts.

But I live in Washington right now, which just might be a swing state, although it looks like Kerry country at this moment.

So, I've got to vote for Bush. And I'll do what I can to encourage leftist folks to vote for Ralph Nader.

About Kerry's 'Nam record: I wasn't there, but if I had been there I think I would have been very pissed off about the atrocity testimony he gave when he got back.

If Kerry had never been to 'Nam, I'd still vote Bush as the lesser threat to my 2A rights.
 
you can obviously vote for who you choose but if you vote for anybody else besides Bush it is a vote for kerry. it would be nice to see a third major party but that isn't going to happen in our lifetime. just my opinion
 
you can obviously vote for who you choose but if you vote for anybody else besides Bush it is a vote for kerry. it would be nice to see a third major party but that isn't going to happen in our lifetime. just my opinion
Click to expand...

Only because most people think like yourself and don't vote their conscience, but rather who they think will win. This is why we should have instant runoff voting in the US for national elections.
 
you can obviously vote for who you choose but if you vote for anybody else besides Bush it is a vote for kerry.
Click to expand...
Ah, time for basic math I see.

"George has five votes. John has five votes. If Kathy does not vote for either George or John, how many votes will John have?"

pax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top