Why would anyone vote for Kerry

Lookit the wild-eyed desperation :eek:
"Hey, I know: let's create a controversy out of nothing and see if we can't fool the voters with it. I'm sure they'd rather see the troops killed for a lost cause than see them insulted....":barf:

Meh. We'll see how much effect this little stunt had in the next coupla days. I suspect not much.
 
Definitely gave the Repubs a chance to take the focus off them for a few days. It will peter out too soon though. Maybe not effect this election much, but at the least it will hurt Kerry for the future. Really don't think he meant to say it as he did, but even taking totally IN context, he said it, and there was an "education" seque(?) which CAN leave doubt about it being Bush he was talking about at all. He handled it VERY poorly afterwards when he should have been clarifying. HE let the Rep switch from defense to offense.

ANyway, no matter what(or why) he did say THIS time, his contempt for the troops/military is well known, so IF he meant to say it is no surprise, and easy to attach to him that attitude since his false Senate testimony so many years ago. And it does allow yet more light to be focused on his (and so the Democratic) anti-miltary & "lost cause - we should surrender" attitude.

He should have learned not to do try 'stand up' in '04 - he really does suck at it.
 
I am a retired member of the military and an trying to figure out what all the ruckus is about. A politician opened his mouth and made a stupid statement. happens every hour in DC probably.

I tell you what Vets and Soldiers should be insulted about.

That our soldiers got a 2.2 percent pay raise. That the politicians cut funding for IED injuries resulting in damage to the brain and were so busy campaigning they didnt have time to fix it. The fact that they reduced the rates for Tricare reimbursment so that our military members will have fewer doctors to treat them. The list could be made longer.

So why not skip the sideshow and take care of the real business with your anger?
 
Yeah, the "getting back to the issues" speech is all you have after the truth slips out. Please, like the media hasn't punished Bush mercilessly for every verbal slip up. What is good for the goose...
 
I don't think it was a stupid statement, per se. I think it was stupid to make that statement, but the statment is by and large a reflection of reality.
 
Someone would vote for him because we have been trained to believe we have only two choices.

One choice is a party which holds ANTI AMERICA views, and which purports that ALL the world problems stem from the inherent evil which exists in every American Born Caucasion (which can only be removed by joining the Democrat party)


The other is a party which is also ANTI AMERICAN CITIZENRY, (as evidenced by section 1076 of the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007") a party which believes they can tell us that we HAVE to vote for their candidates because the party described above is "Anti-American."

History shows us the only way to repair either party is to leave it for a third party. For example, the Democrat party converted to a socialist party beginning in the forties when the Communist party began to take away membership from them becasue their base felt the Democrats were governing too far to the right.

What you will see after THIS election, is the renovation of the Republican AND Democrat party, due to the Libertarian party receiving a record amount of votes already, and more to come on Nov. 7th.
 
Gary,

I agree with you that the Libertarian party is the way to go (except for their silly, Pollyannnaish foriegn policy stand). But, I think people who care about this country's future will need to vote Republican in races that matter. Some states are on the verge of losing pro-gun, pro-defense candidates to left wing morons. If I was in a state with a nail-biter election like that, I couldn't see voting Libertarian.

OTOH, here in Georgia, I can pretty much vote straight Libertarian. My local Congressmen, Jim Marshall, is a Democrat who has taken nothing but respectable positions on guns and the war. I like his opponent too, but I don't see any reason to vote for him over Jim.
 
The National Guard certainly is service. No one can doubt that, esp. now.

However, not to be a contrarian but having been of age at that time, I know that many folks joined the Guard or tried to at that period of time to avoid VietNam. That being said, being a fighter pilot is good service and dangerous.

So Bush's service is somewhat mixed in motivation.

I wouldn't give you two cents for Bush, Cheney or Kerry. If that is the best we can put forth to be our leaders - we are in a sorry state.

The problem is the oppositional nature of the debate. Those who don't like Kerry tend to overvalue Bush - who objectively is a failed President. And vice versa for Kerry.

We are in serious trouble because the Republicans and Democrats have no one on the horizon with integrity or intellect.
 
Gregg Bell:

Gregg, let me ask you something. The republicans on Oct. 17th, just passed the most draconian gun confiscation act you could imagine.

Although I realize you feel (as I did) that the Republican party is the only solution, because the socialist/communist/dictatorship lovers in the Democrat majority want to take your guns incrementally, I have discovered the "Section 1076 of the John Warner Defense Authrization Act" which allows for the immediate confiscation of your arms on the sole order of one government employee. In fact, they signed another one that says if you resist it, and are found to be a "unlawful enemy combatant" by the very act of resisting against the confiscation, you could be prosecuted under the military commissions act, and the John Warner act is a martial law act, so you could be put to death for it. So which one is worse?????

The Republican party has ignored us. They are the ones who passed the Military Commission Act, the Patriot Act, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act.

Now, when the Democrats get in, they get to use the nefarious, evil and subversive language of those acts to destroy their political enemies, as it also includes words such as "disobedience". Anyone who signed such a law that allows you to be put to death under martial law, if one government employee alone decides to declare martial law, is a despot. Period.

That is why yesterday, I voted for only two Republicans. One was a State Rep. The other is a local J.P. The rest of my votes went to the Libertarians, with only one going to a Democrat running for Attorney General of Texas.


Because "staying the course" of voting for a party, only because the other party sucks more, is no longer my choice. Sorry. I can't vote for a Senator who has just placed my kids and their future get, into the very same type of authoritarian dictatorship the founders rebelled against.

In another three months, I predict you will feel the same. Try reading all of section 1076, public law 109-364 of the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act" and then tell me why this law is necessary, how this law is in pursuance to the Constitution, and how you could vote for anyone at all, who would put the yoke of slavery upon your children and theirs.

I just can't do it any more. I'm done till they come back to their senses, and get off the collective crack pipe.
 
The fact he refuses to apologize, and now says he meant the current administration, and not our troops, just shows another Kerry flip/flop.
Click to expand...
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
John Kerry apologized Wednesday to "any service member, family member or American" offended by remarks... deemed by Republicans and Democrats to be insulting to U.S. forces in Iraq.

He added, he sincerely regretted that his words were...
"misinterpreted to imply anything negative about those in uniform."

He "sincerely" apologized for the fact that he was "misinterpreted"... :D ;)
 
Kerry’s attitude and “value” system are no surprise to those of us who have been watching the “other side”. Here’s a letter published by a Wisconsin college student right after the bluenecks lost in 2004:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/

Here are a few quotes from the letter:

Here in the Blue States, Democrats and Republicans alike generate the lion's share of America's wealth, although it is you Reds who provide the lion's share of the stoop labor. You are our Mexicans, so to speak.
Click to expand...

We do cocaine and smoke fine Canadian buds, not the homebrew crank and cheap Mexican headache reefer you guys are stuck with.
Click to expand...

President Kerry would have helped us to help you, which is all that we ask. It pains us to see you in wage slavery. It pains us to see you so ignorant and uneducated, and so eager to place yourselves in bondage. Yes, we live better; but we wish you to live better too, even if it means sacrifice on our part.
Click to expand...

Don’t read this on a full stomach.
 
invention 45:
Quote:
Let's leave out the "Daddy was rich and in politics and got him out of "stuff".

That smacks of "don't confuse me with the facts".
Click to expand...

It may *smack* of it, but the idea was to address military service rendered, without distractions. That is the only way I know to frame the comarison.

Not to mention that Daddy's direct involvement has never been established as fact. Wishful thinking, never shown to be true, but still hoped for.
 
It was noted earlier that both Bush's and Kerry's service records are public knowledge. This actually isn't so. Only Bush has opened up his records. Kerry still refuses to sign the document necessary for the military to release his records to the public. Inquiring minds want to know why his honorable discharge is dated in (I believe) 1977.

I would also take exception to the opinion that President Bush's presidency is objectively a failure. No more attacks in the US since 9-11; booming economy; great stock market; low unemployment. Iraq is lots stickier than most everyone anticipated, but it's not yet a failure. It'll take a Democrat Congress to cut off funding to make that come about.
 
First tell us about your service and then tell us why you qualify Bush as a dodger.
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't ask me why *I* think he qualifies, but here goes anyway.

draft: involuntary induction into military service; at that time, "draft" pretty much meant Viet Nam.

dodger: one who avoids being the subject of whatever is being dodged, in this case, the draft, which at that time, I repeat, pretty much meant Viet Nam.

So Bush did indeed dodge the draft (i.e., avoid visiting Viet Nam) by, we are to presume, having sheer good luck and/or talent. This knowing full well that his father was eyebrow-deep in wealth and politics.

Now, would I have done any different? Not a chance. I'll come right out and admit that if my mid-range number had been called, I would be a Canadian citizen today.

So, technically, I didn't dodge the draft. But that's academic. I would have in needed be.

But I still would call myself a draft dodger by the operational definition of the phrase at the time, just like I would call Bush one. However, I am not today advocating a similar misadventure, while Bush is.

On the other hand, I'd be very hard-pressed to call Kerry a draft dodger by even that definition.
 
Last edited:
So your saying GW had control over his mission assignment, where he would be deployed, or how the service would task the units he was assigned to? Or do you think his father, also a military pilot with 58 combat missions and winner of the DFC, had that much pull, or would use it IF he had it, as a 1st term congressman?

Just because you may be a coward or have no sense of duty doesn't mean GW is/doesn't. We sure know his "Daddy" was a heroic SOB.
 
So your saying GW had control over his mission assignment, where he would be deployed, or how the service would task the units he was assigned to? Or do you think his father, also a military pilot with 58 combat missions and winner of the DFC, had that much pull, or would use it IF he had it, as a 1st term congressman?
Click to expand...

You need to remember that Bush had a lot of pull in Texas and was able to get a Republican judge to help him out. Never mind that the judge didn't exist, and the only source for this story was a convicted felon who got kicked by his publisher about lying about his own identity and past. I mean, who shouldn't believe someone who put out a contract on another person, and made crap up? Absolutely credible source if you ask me. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top