Here's why one should vote for Kerry...

[bandersnatch45]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20040720.shtml

Various people here, of the conservative persuasion, have asked various other people, of the liberal persuasion, why in the world one should vote for John Kerry. Here's why.... :tongue:

 

[TiderinMiss]

Now, you see, I agree with that.

Mr. Kerry, which is it?

That's what I don't like about Kerry. He speaks out of both corners of his mouth. He's for something, then turns around and is against it.

If he gets in, the good news is, it will only be four years.

 

[PeteTheYankee]

The good news is that if he gets in, you're bound to agree with him on virtually every issue about half the time. :biggrin2:

 

[wisten]

Kerry is the right choice

Kerry is everyone's man. If you are for the war, so is he! If you are against the war, so is he! More governement? Less government? Kerry's your man!

 

[fosterkeats]

Huh???

Would someone plese tell me what Bush has done ovr the lst 3+ years to justify electing him to another term???

Remember, I'm asking for things BUSH has done, not anything about Kerry...

Can you do it???

 

[TexasTide]

Truly a candidate for all people.

At any given time I expect to see him flipping a coin just like Two-Face. Heads = conservative, tails = liberal.

 

[wisten]

Fosterkeats .. neither is a great choice

I am going to be brutally honest.... I am not that impressed with Bush. But my choices are Bush or Kerry, so I'll just stick the one I know rather than the unknown who seems to come across as stark raving mad with his flip-flopping. Now, I have not even heard of a politician that does not flip around on things, but Kerry seems to bring entirely new meaning to the term "wishy-washy".

 

[TiderinMiss]

Would someone plese tell me what Bush has done ovr the lst 3+ years to justify electing him to another term???

Remember, I'm asking for things BUSH has done, not anything about Kerry...

Can you do it???

LOL!! :biggrin:

Dude, you've been telling us why not to vote for Bush. Now, tell us why we should vote for Kerry.

If Bush needs to go, somebody has to be President, right?

I know what would make you happy. You need for America to become Communist. That way, the government would control everything, you wouldn't have to worry about the rich getting tax breaks or anyone else getting ahead of you on the ladder, and being you are programmed to think like them, you wouldn't have to worry too much about them executing you for disagreeing with them.

The only problem is, you would lose a lot of your freedoms, but, what the hey? You would be happy.

 

[fosterkeats]

I'm Waiting...

LOL!! :biggrin:

Dude, you've been telling us why not to vote for Bush. Now, tell us why we should vote for Kerry.

If Bush needs to go, somebody has to be President, right?

I know what would make you happy. You need for America to become Communist. That way, the government would control everything, you wouldn't have to worry about the rich getting tax breaks or anyone else getting ahead of you on the ladder, and being you are programmed to think like them, you wouldn't have to worry too much about them executing you for disagreeing with them.

The only problem is, you would lose a lot of your freedoms, but, what the hey? You would be happy.

I am still waiting on someone to tell me what Bush has done in his term that would justify another 4 yrs...

 

[bandersnatch45]

The question, Foster, is why vote for Kerry. Stay on topic, please.

Here is another reason that some may vote for Kerry: his theme song!

Here are some of the rest of the lyrics from "This Land Is Your Land" and the story behind them. Ol' John has been strumming a guitar and singing this Guthrie dittie at his campaign stops. No news yet on the musical tastes of Young John....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040721.shtml

 

[bandersnatch45]

More reasons to vote for Kerry: the War on Terror...or not....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20040720.shtml

 

[PeteTheYankee]

Would someone plese tell me what Bush has done ovr the lst 3+ years to justify electing him to another term???

Remember, I'm asking for things BUSH has done, not anything about Kerry...

Can you do it???

Not one to be a hypocrite (ahem, fosterkeats)... this is something I'm going to enjoy writing...

Here's why I'll be voting for our President, George W. Bush for re-election in 2004.

National Security & Sovereignty - Bush's handling of 9/11, the aftermath, and National Security issues, while not flawless, has (as far as I'm concerned) been outstanding. Bush is pro-Military, pro-defense, and anti-internationalist. Bending over for the U.N. is not high on my list of presidential traits, and is one probably the only issue that Kerry has yet to flip-flop on.

Afghanistan & Iraq - Well executed in the face of tremendous deceit from political opponents and a huge FUD campaign from the left and liberal media. Iraq is now a free nation and things are getting better all the time. Nevertheless, there's work to be done, still, and I think Bush is up to the task.

Libya - Case in point; a perfect example of the first two in action.

The Bush Boom - After 9/11, the Tech Bubble burst, and a slump in the economy, things are going swimmingly. Granted, I'd be much happier if he weren't spending like a Democrat, but SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS WORKS, and he understands that far better than Kerry does.

Tax Cuts - 'nuff said.

Partial-birth Abortion Ban - self-explanatory.

Gay Marriage Amendment - I'm glad it failed, but I'm also glad that Bush had the cajones to spend the political capital to pursue his beliefs. It was a bold election-year bid, and says to me that he's not just playing the game -- he actually has convictions that he's willing to stand up for.

The Patriot Act - Not entirely his doing, of course, it was clearly one of the most Bi-partisan efforts in a while. It did good things for our justice dept and intelligence services... and despite all the crowing from the ACLU, the abuses (which the left alleges will be copious) have been nil.

No Child Left Behind - now if only he'd fund it (yes, I know, it sounds like it conflicts with the "spend less" point...)

So there ya go. Nobody's perfect, our candidates for public office least of all, but you've gotta pick the best match... and, for me, that's GWB.

 

[TiderinMiss]

I am still waiting on someone to tell me what Bush has done in his term that would justify another 4 yrs...

I'm curious. Are you working for the Kerry/Edwards campaign? Do they pay you to post this stuff? I find it hard to believe that someone could spend so much time researching links that speak so negatively against a candidate without some other form of motivation. It would be different if you were at least objective some of the time. I hate to think you are so hate-filled all of the time.

You made a post a couple of weeks ago about the main reason you post is to "irritate those on the right" or something to that effect. It was in response to a post made by TommyMac.

I used to think you were liberal, but to be liberal, you have to have an open mind. You seem more of a propogandist. If that's the case, it is useless to enage in a conversation with you. When you decide you want to discuss what the president has done the last four years, bring an open mind, and we'll talk.

 

[PeteTheYankee]

I'm curious. Are you working for the Kerry/Edwards campaign? Do they pay you to post this stuff? I find it hard to believe that someone could spend so much time researching links that speak so negatively against a candidate without some other form of motivation. It would be different if you were at least objective some of the time. I hate to think you are so hate-filled all of the time.

Have you not encountered this breed of citizen in your day-to-day yet? I'm rather shocked, because they're EVERYWHERE. These people don't care about objectivity, all they care about is how vehemently they HATE George W. Bush. So much so that many of them cannot even stand to type or say his name, so they resort to childish name-calling (Shrub, Bu****ler, etc...) even when trying to have "serious" political discussions.

I don't think that this necessarily reflects badly on any large group of people (except for those who partake), but it's frighteningly common to see people (especially leftist weenie-whiners) go thermonuclear any time his name is uttered. It's sad, but (at least in a public forum) it's important to rebut this kind of tripe because if people hear things enough they start to believe it -- it breeds itself.

It's sad and pathetic... but that's just how some people are.

/$0.02

 

[fosterkeats]

Here's Why I Won't Vote For That Hammerhead

Now that the Intelligence Report has been released, confirming the faulty CIA intelligence about WMDs, I’ve already begun hearing some disturbing remarks by our administration. I was hoping they wouldn’t start behaving this way, but low and behold, after only one day it has already begun.


Excessive finger-pointing:

When the Bay of Pigs occurred, Kennedy took full responsibility for the screw up. After the Pearl Harbor attack FDR did not go out finger-pointing the next day. True leaders do not blame their subordinates for their actions. As the head of the government, the buck stops with the President and no one else. I have not once heard the President say he takes full responsibility for attacking a country based on faulty intelligence. No, it’s the CIA’s fault, or the Clinton administration’s fault, or it’s the fault of Iraqi informants. It seems the new standard of true leadership in this country is: ALWAYS BLAME YOUR SUBORDINATES and never take responsibility for your actions.


“But mom, everyone else had the same intelligence!”:

Personally I don’t care if 1 million planets worth of countries all believed Iraq had WMDs. It was President Bush that decided to use an interpretation of the information to ATTACK. It doesn’t matter if Britain, President Clinton, France, or any other person/place/thing believed Iraq had WMDs or not. George Bush, and George Bush alone is responsible for his choice to attack. George Bush, not Bill Clinton, not Britain, not France, not Congress(Kerry), not Australia, nor anyone else, decided to use this faulty information to pull together a coalition to attack. It’s one thing to think Iraq had WMDs, it’s a completely different animal to be so positive it’s true that you’re willing to justify a War.

 

[PeteTheYankee]

...speaking of lies and propaganda...

...right on cue!

 

[jthomas666]

To be liberal, you have to have an open mind.

So, TiM, just what are you implying about conservatives, hmmm?
:biggrin2:

 

[TiderinMiss]

So, TiM, just what are you implying about conservatives, hmmm?
:biggrin2:

LOL!! Yeah, good one! :biggrin:

 

[Queasy1]

Now that the Intelligence Report has been released, confirming the faulty CIA intelligence about WMDs, I’ve already begun hearing some disturbing remarks by our administration.

Ahem.
New Report to Back Up Iraq WMD Claims

WASHINGTON — An upcoming report will contain "a good deal of new information" backing up the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein (search) pursued weapons of mass destruction, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (search), R-Va., said Tuesday.

The administration cited Saddam's hunger for such weapons as a main reason to invade Iraq last year.

"I'm not suggesting dramatic discoveries," Warner told reporters, but "bits and pieces that Saddam Hussein was clearly defying" international restrictions, "and he and his government had a continuing interest in maintaining the potential to shift to production of various types of weapons of mass destruction in a short period of time."

The report is by the civilian head of the Iraq Survey Group (search), Charles Duelfer, who reports to the CIA director. Initially the report was expected to be done this summer, but instead it will come out in September, Warner said.

 

[The Tide]

Now that the Intelligence Report has been released, confirming the faulty CIA intelligence about WMDs, I’ve already begun hearing some disturbing remarks by our administration. I was hoping they wouldn’t start behaving this way, but low and behold, after only one day it has already begun.


Excessive finger-pointing:

When the Bay of Pigs occurred, Kennedy took full responsibility for the screw up. After the Pearl Harbor attack FDR did not go out finger-pointing the next day. True leaders do not blame their subordinates for their actions. As the head of the government, the buck stops with the President and no one else. I have not once heard the President say he takes full responsibility for attacking a country based on faulty intelligence. No, it’s the CIA’s fault, or the Clinton administration’s fault, or it’s the fault of Iraqi informants. It seems the new standard of true leadership in this country is: ALWAYS BLAME YOUR SUBORDINATES and never take responsibility for your actions.


“But mom, everyone else had the same intelligence!”:

Personally I don’t care if 1 million planets worth of countries all believed Iraq had WMDs. It was President Bush that decided to use an interpretation of the information to ATTACK. It doesn’t matter if Britain, President Clinton, France, or any other person/place/thing believed Iraq had WMDs or not. George Bush, and George Bush alone is responsible for his choice to attack. George Bush, not Bill Clinton, not Britain, not France, not Congress(Kerry), not Australia, nor anyone else, decided to use this faulty information to pull together a coalition to attack. It’s one thing to think Iraq had WMDs, it’s a completely different animal to be so positive it’s true that you’re willing to justify a War.

It was also British intelligence that got someinformation wrong AND a lot of this poor intelligence stems from human intelligence in the field which has been downgraded the past decade. Want to guess who's fault that was? Mr. Down Sizer.

As far as making a judgement whether to go in and take out a dictator such as Hussein based on intelligence that stated he had WMD, which he did at some point and as far as I am concerned could still exist, was better afe than sorry. I knew when he made that decision that some would lookm down on him for it, but it is a lot better than some nuclear device detonated on American soil and it being linked to Iraq and saying oh if we had only taken action. I am sure you think Britain shouldn't have acted so hastily against Germany after they had attacked Poland. You would probably want them to wait it out.

As far as arguments as to "what has Bush done or hasn't done" as far as I am concerned the liberals have run out of strategies to attack him. The war on terrorism goes well, the economy is picking up, etc. As far as poor education standards for our children and poor health care for our citizens, do you expect Bush to fix it overnight? If so why couldn't Clinton fix it in 8 years?