Why would anyone vote for Kerry

Just because you may be a coward or have no sense of duty...
Click to expand...

Did I have a duty to South Viet Nam? If so, what was it? To facilitate the spraying of its citizens who might be sympathizers with the North (or might not) with napalm and 2,4,5-T? Call it being cowardly if you like, but that was somebody else's dogfight. I call it being smart enough to realize, even at that age, to plan around getting myself used as fodder in such horsecrap.

As an F-102 pilot said when this crap started, you couldn't fly the Delta Dart and be a coward.
Click to expand...

While this may or may not be the case, compare flying an airplane (you may assume you actually did fly the plane, and were NOT AWOL) with being in the middle of the Tet Offensive for me, would ya? Or, on a more related note, compare it with being ANYWHERE in Viet Nam back then, such as on a Swift Boat.
 
I think its funny that in a topic about Kerry, that Bush is being brought up at all. If this issue is Kerry, what does it matter what Bush did or didn't do.

Either something is right or wrong. Whether someone else does it doesn't make it any more right. I just means there are two people doing something wrong.

I'm not saying Bush charged up san juan hill during vietnam or anything of the sort. However those of you that continually bring up Bush's alleged (cause if we are honest thats what they are) shortcomings in regard to his service everytime when someone points out a Kerry gaffe, it blatantly displays your bias.

Call a spade a spade and leave it at that.
 
I think its funny that in a topic about Kerry, that Bush is being brought up at all. If this issue is Kerry, what does it matter what Bush did or didn't do.
Click to expand...

The original question was: "Why would anyone vote for Kerry?".

Sombeody postulated that a vote for Kerry was really a vote against Bush, which I would agree with in some cases.

Seems to me that makes the topics inseparable.
 
Gary Connor:
Excellent post. My sentiments exactly.

I voted for John Kerry in '04 and I'm not ashamed to say so.

I was faced with electing a gun-grabber or a Theocrat and I picked the lessor of two evils.

I cannot stand Bush's we-are-religious-and-we-know-what's-best-for-you philosophy.

Kowboy
 
I cannot stand Bush's we-are-religious-and-we-know-what's-best-for-you philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yes, the "we know what's best for you" philosophy is so much more palatable with a slathering of secular humanism heaped on it delivered with a Bostonian accent.:rolleyes:

If you aren't a veteran, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I am tired of having my life governed, in part, by people who think their opinions on national security matter just because they are breathing and over 18.
 
invention45 said:
Sombeody postulated that a vote for Kerry was really a vote against Bush,
Click to expand...
Faulty logic, right there. However, I have come to understand that this does happen. It is wasteful of a rare and valuable right, in my opinion.

Kowboy said:
I voted for John Kerry in '04 and I'm not ashamed to say so.

I was faced with electing a gun-grabber or a Theocrat and I picked the lessor of two evils.
Click to expand...
Wow. So you would give up your 2nd Amendment rights to defeat a Pres candidate you disagreed with on Theocratic grounds? Or is it religious grounds? Or is it on secular grounds? He'll be gone in 4 or 8 years. Once your 2nd Amendment rights are gone, you're taking quite a chance they'll be back. As for the dangers of a theocrat in office, remember, we had a Liberal Socialist in office for 8 years and we're still here. ;) Does being a practicing Christian, publicly admitting it and holding national office make you a theocrat? I thought a theocrat was one who ruled in or believed in a theocracy, i.e., a government ruled by or subject to religious authority. I think those are common in the mideast. 'Haven't seen or heard of one over here.

Is socialism the anti-Theocracy medicine we need ... ? Is it the end that makes the difference. Is method immaterial? Does it make any difference that the means for achieving socialism are well known to be quasi-legal, practiced in misrepresentation of facts and legislation from the bench, since we'll all be equal? ;) Does that make it okay? But since our latest holder of the highest office in the land is a self-admitted Christian, he is a theocrat by definition. Ya. Okay.
 
Last edited:
Faulty logic,
Click to expand...

Um. The statement of what somebody said isn't remotely connected to the concept of logic.

While actually making a postulate might be thought of as the seed of a logical (or usualy illogical) argument, saying that somebody postulated something when they did, in writing is a mere statement of fact. No logic involved.
 
If you aren't a veteran, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I am tired of having my life governed, in part, by people who think their opinions on national security matter just because they are breathing and over 18.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Mine is there should be a minimum IQ requirement to vote.

Good thing for everybody we don't get our wish.
 
If you aren't a veteran, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I am tired of having my life governed, in part, by people who think their opinions on national security matter just because they are breathing and over 18.
Click to expand...

What's that thing I keep hearing?

Ah, yes. 'If you don't like it, leave'.
 
The only requirement I think might be useful is that you actually pay Federal Income tax to vote. If your Income tax bill slips below zero, then you have no part in governance.


This is much closer to the founder's intent. They presumed only property owners (taxpayers, since there was no income tax) would have a say.
 
Damn! Greg, that was beautiful... ;)
And right on too! :)

Bud Helms
Your post #66 was really well done... :)
It too, was right on!
 
Last edited:
Boats
Yes, the "we know what's best for you" philosophy is so much more palatable with a slathering of secular humanism heaped on it delivered with a Bostonian accent.
Click to expand...
Burn Baby Burn! :D :D
If you aren't a veteran, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...
Well, if you aren't at least willing to be a Veteran... ;)

Greg Bell
The only requirement I think might be useful is that you actually pay Federal Income tax to vote.
Click to expand...

I liked it better when it was "property tax". ;)

Invention_45
there should be a minimum IQ requirement to vote.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but if we must be taxpayers, Veterans and smart too... It would please Kerry and only Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich could vote!! :D :D
 
"Wow. So you would give up your 2nd Amendment rights to defeat a Pres candidate you disagreed with on Theocratic grounds? Or is it religious grounds? Or is it on secular grounds? Does being a practicing Christian, publicly admitting it and holding national office make you a theocrat? I thought a theocrat was one who ruled in or believed in a theocracy, i.e., a government ruled by or subject to religious authority. I think those are common in the mideast. 'Haven't seen or heard of one over here. "

Bud:

I diasgree with Bush on Theocratic, religious and secular grounds. I find it frightening that a fundamentalist Christian who believes that God will soon end the world by fire has his finger on the nuclear trigger. Why not pull it, it's God's will right?

I think if my wife is brain dead and hasn't made her wishes clear, it's reasonable to think it's MY call as to what should be done. Not with the fundies. The big government has this all figured out for me and they know best. That's what I'm talkin' about. Much more frightening than fighting about 2A .

Kowboy
 
Kowboy:
I find it frightening that a fundamentalist Christian who believes that God will soon end the world by fire has his finger on the nuclear trigger. Why not pull it, it's God's will right?
Click to expand...

:confused: Where did that come from? Fundamentalist? "... God will soon end the world by fire ...? On which planet do you live?
 
I think if my wife is brain dead and hasn't made her wishes clear, it's reasonable to think it's MY call as to what should be done. Not with the fundies. The big government has this all figured out for me and they know best. That's what I'm talkin' about. Much more frightening than fighting about 2A .
Click to expand...

I have to take this up. If there is anyone out there that dosen't think the most frightening thing our government could attemt is takind our 2nd Amendment rights away, you just haven't thought it through.

If they take your guns, how are you going to prevent them from taking everything else? Voting??? Thats as absurd as John Kerry saying he crawls on his belly with a 12 guage to hunt deer.
 
I would not vote for kerry either, he not only insulted this generation of soldiers but past generations as well.We enlisted for different reasons but this doesn't make us slow.I enlisted and after I was finished with my stint, I went on to college and got a degree.Now 20 years later, I'm back at college to go on to get a higher degree.I enlisted as an 19 yr old kid and came out a man feeling like I could do absolutely anything and be successful.


Kerrys' joke wasn't taken as funny by me.It shows his lack of maturity and respect.It was very insulting.An apology wouldn't be good enough,Id rather he went back to where-ever he came from and stay there.


just my .02 cents worth.
 
If there is anyone out there that dosen't think the most frightening thing our government could attemt is takind our 2nd Amendment rights away, you just haven't thought it through.
Click to expand...

What killed most of the Koresh Crew (unlike Bill Bennett, not still smoking)? The guns or the gasoline?

Yes, our gun rights are important rights. But most of us possess, unlicensed and uncontrolled, sufficient gasoline to create quite a mess should the government become too oppressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top