Did you ever wonder why people in the military endorse bush? I'll tell you why. Because their lives sit in the hands of the presidents decisions. And what exactly was Kerry's decisions? As we all know, he voted to take action against Iraq. Many dems blame the president for going to Iraq, but in reality we wouldn't be there right now if all the dems would've voted against going to war. Second, Mr. Kerry votes against the 87 billion dollars to fund armor for the troops. Umm excuse me but what kind of guy votes to go to war but votes against giving money for armor to the troops? (funny thing was he accused bush in the first debate of not giving armor to the troops. You never saw me more confused and mad at the same time) Really, I dont care how bad anyone says bush screwed us over with gas prices or the economy. What kind of guy wants to send troops into war without armor?! Dont tell me anything differently like thats not all the 87 billion was for cause its bullshit. Im a freshman in highschool and am seriously thinking about going into the marines. I personally do NOT want this guy to be my boss. Life>$

Yes, you are confused.
The military is always for the right wing candidate.
That is the nature of the military in most nations in most eras.
If you are judging by that, you are NOT thinking for yourself.
Shame on you.

care to support your thoughts?
and I explained why militarys are for the right wing candidates. Cause they know whats goin on and are smarter than the fat lazy americans who sit behind a desk making 150,000 a year and feel they have to ##### about making more money.

That is a very novel idea.
That the military attracts the best and the brightest.
That is quite obviously not true.
It is a fascist tendency to overly admire military leaders.
Look in the mirror.

The military often does attract the best and brightest. Often those best and brightest are willing to sacrifice pay and social advancement in order to do what they think is best for their country.

Washington, Truman, Eisenhower, others, if you will Kerry and Bush, have all served int he military. They didn't have to.




No, its a tendency of the dogmatic to dismiss admirable people based on a like or dislike of that persons profession or their service.

Let us say there are admirable people in all walks of life and to overly admire anyone, ie to the point of being blind to their weaknesses is not a good thing.

Look I dont want this to turn into a discussion about the morality of the men and women serving overseas and here in the U.S.. They're all putting their country first unlike any of us (yet). So show them some respect. The point is that Kerry voted to go to war and voted against giving protection to the soldiers. Done. Thats it, I didn't say anything else, except that Kerry is just not a very trustworthy person to send people into war without armor. Say what you want about bush, but that doesn't change anything about Kerry.

why i dont care who u want to be president.

Wrong!!!

Kerry voted to AUTHORIZE bush to go to war.
He trusted that bush would not ABUSE that authority and that he would not go to war without justification.

If you look at the evidence, bush and his cabal had already planned to invade Iraq BEFORE 911.

Sounds rude, but misinformed people like you perhaps deserve to be DRAFTED.
Go ahead, vote for the criminal idiot bush.
It is YOUR ##### on the line, buster.

There was no condition or pre condition based on the vote (the senate could have put one in there). So I would say the opinion that Bush was not authorized to go to war or authorized to go to war on the caveat that he wouldn't is itself illinformed.

Could you perhaps provide the evidence where such preconditions were elaborated upon?

Either Bush was authorized or he was not. When such authorization is given without preconditions of any sort, then it is left to the discretion of the person who has received such authorization.

If I give you a drivers license I do not say, you can only drive during the day, that precondition must be spelled out prior to your driving at all (as it is for those who suffer from night vision blindness). It is illogical to assume authorization without a pre condition is the same as authorization with a precondition. They are not the same.


Anyway, if you could show us how the senate or Kerry said that the authorization was only upon certain conditions being met, prior to the war, I would say that you could be correct.

If we had gone to Iraq, found WMD and no insurgencies happened and everyone came home in a month, Kerry would not have had a problem with his 'authorization'. What Kerry does have a problem with is his ego and thinking he's in charge of the world when he's not. He refuses to submit to any sort of authority or relegate responsibility to proper channels. I have major issues with that.

Wonderfully bizarre jaybee but worthy of a reply…

No I wouldn’t have a problem with the Iraqi war if:

The president didn’t lie

The president has a plan for reconstruction

If we had a proper coalition

If we dealt with the people and countries that support terrorism

How about Pat Tilman? He quit the NFL to become an Army Ranger.
Best and Brightest!

The president did not lie. Every other ruler in the world except Saddam KNEW he had weapons of mass destruction. And according to kerry and the new york times, he does!

There is a plan for getting out. Its called training Iraqi forces.

Germany and France and Russia are supporting Iraq with weapons, just ask the troops. What can you do if a country doesn't want to support you? Grow a longer and more orange face?

If we dealt with the countries that support terrorism???
Sure about that?
doesnt matter, I cant convince someone who thinks the person who took down the Hussein regime, and took down the taliban a coward, all in 3 years. And what did clinton do for 8 years?

Random Kerry Flip Flop:
Voted to AUTHORIZE to go to war with Iraq
"The war is a grand diversion from the real war in Afghanistan"
so he authorizes something thats a grand diversion???
doesnt matter how the president goes to war, he voted for the authorization so at the time he thought it was a good idea

I see someone has been brainwashed by the bush lies and spin.
Just go ahead and vote for the demagogue, you will lose.
Dancing in the streets for Kerry supporters very soon!

I'm afraid that Thaiquilla might be right. Kerry has found a new issue to lie about only days before the election.
It is very difficult to prove that the explosives are just one more desperate lie before votes are cast.
What a pathetic, twisted, conniving, lying, evil Son of a Gun this Kerry is.

What a load of hooey!!!
bush runs on ONE issue, that the world is safer, that he is the only one that can keep us safe; this while:

under his administration there is a net job loss of over one million jobs
the world now hates the US more than ever, and this includes our former friends
an additional five million Americans have lost health insurance, while health costs have been raised for everyone else
the country is incredibly divided, while bush previously ran as a uniter, not a divider.


bush is trying to EVADE RESPONSIBILITY for his DISMAL FAILED RECORD.
It will not work.
The accounting is at hand.
The worse president in American history is about the be FIRED.
YIPPEE!!!!!!!

And now a message from our sleazeball "president" who was never elected in the first place:
http://www.videovotevigil.org/images/victory_salute_lg.jpg

Actually there are a number of issues in the platform, economic as well as military and social. Those who dislike Bush generally focus on only one area and state that the area of their singular focus is the only one that has been spoken of. This is not true.

Those who dislike Kerry often do the same.

In both cases it does a disservice to candidate to state they only have one issue. It reflects the person criticizing more than it reflections the reality of the candidates.

If you really believe that bush is running on anything other than national security and trying to scare Americans that if they elect Kerry they will be dead,
YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Platforms are IRRELEVANT.

Also, bush is the incumbent and his record on domestic issues is DISMAL.

I will feel zero pity for you in a few days when your right wing zealot is humiliated and sent packing.

Just plain silly.

I would not call the record of Bush dismal or failed. It is however something the opposing party finds distasteful. Bush wanted a tax cut, he was able to get one, through a senate that, at the time, was in the other party's corner. Bush wanted authorization for war, other than five or six votes, he recieved it (even Kerry supported the decision), Bush wanted greater security or laws allowing the free flow of information between intelligence groups and law enforcement groups. Despite attempts to stop it, he recieved it. Bush wanted additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, he recieved it........

It goes on.

A failure (from an objective standpoint) is someone who cannot get anything passed or done. Bush, with part of his administration dealing with a split senate that favored the democratic party, was still able to accomplish his goals.

Now those goals are not necessarily the goals held by the opposition party, but to call them failures?????

If one were to judge, strictly along the lines of success or failure of passing legislation, one would have to question Kerry's ability in that regard since his many years in the senate tended to be less than productive in that regard (this is not to say that he didn't add his wisdom to a number of bills, rather than he seems to be woefully absent of a real legislative record).

Given Bush's ability to split the democrats when legislation is involved, we have to assume a certain level of leadership success and/or a certain schism in the democratic party, which still hasn't been healed.

Technically a president can't be fired by elections. A presidents term ends and he is no longer in charge. A new leader or the same leader is chosen for one more stint.

Was Clinton fired after eight years?

No, he served out his maximum allowable time.

A poor understanding of politics.

It is about RESULTS.

Under bush,

America more hated
America huge historic net loss of jobs
America in a quagmire war in Iraq which had NO CONNECTION to 911, a criminal waste of money and lives
American health care in crisis and bush offers NO PLAN whatsoever to cover the 45 million uninsured Americans
HISTORICALLY huge deficits

FAILURE!
FAILURE!
FAILURE!

Anyone who doesn't see that is hopelessly partisan.
The American people see that.
bush is gone gone GONE!

Your comment is just plain IGNORANT.

Clinton was subject to term limits.
His two terms ended.
He was not running for reelection because he could not legally do so.
If he could have, there is little doubt he would have been elected to a third term by a landslide.

bush is now and always will be a ONE TERM PRESIDENT.
He hopes to keep his job.
The American people are about to give him the boot.

So in a very real sense, bush is about to be FIRED.

Happy happy joy joy.

I think most people will will judge your comments significantly less intelligible than mine.

The point is that a president automatically only has his job for four years. That same president must then be sworn in again and inaugurated again. Hence he must "begin" again.

In essence Bush must reapply for the job. He does not have it.

Perhaps you are not as well aquainted in American politics as your shouting would have us believe.

As to your comments regarding "results".

Generally Reagans results weren't known until two administrations later. It is one reason why the term "results" is so problematic.

I would be interested to see your "rants" (I believe its called since it doesn't appear logical) should Bush win. Does that mean your understanding of the American political scene is also an abject failure?

Results???

My comments should bush win are predictable.
I have promised to post one pro bush post in this event.
Yes, if bush wins that would show my prediction to be wrong.

As far as firing, you are simply playing games. Throughout history when an incumbent runs for reelection, the election is correctly seen as a REFERENDUM on the performance of the incumbent. You have a technical point, but the political reality reflects what I am saying. When bush loses, it is a political FIRING.

It is not a technical point, it is the political process.

Just semantics, buster.
If bush is reelected, he keeps the same job.
If he is not reelected, he is in effect REJECTED as a FAILURE in his current job, thus FIRED.
No need to discuss it any further.
People who understand incumbancies know what I am talking about.

Semantics, being the use of words versus actual differences would mean that when re-elected Bush did not have to take the oath again, did not have to go through another inauguration and did not have to run for re-election.

For example, when I have my yearly review, I do not have to fill out a job application, I do not have to ask the person to hire me and I do not have retake background checks.

Semantics it is not.

Uh huh.
Unspeakably tedious literalist, YOU ARE!

No, I earnestly attempt to make sure everyone understands each other when we speak. I am not a literalist so much as making sure that there is understanding and the words used are not simply words with a wide range of meanings, but words tied to contextual specificity.

As I tell my children; "Grown up talk"

In Britain, I think they call your style, PRIGGISH.
The political effect of rejecting an incumbant is the same as FIRING.
I stand by that assertion, and everyone who understands politics can see the truth of it.
Except PRIGS of course.


Main Entry: 2prig
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from 1prig
1 archaic : FOP
2 archaic : FELLOW, PERSON
3 : one who offends or irritates by observance of proprieties (as of speech or manners) in a pointed manner or to an obnoxious degree
- prig·gery /-g&-rE/ noun
- prig·gish /'pri-gish/ adjective
- prig·gish·ly adverb
- prig·gish·ness noun

I had always assumed the British to be more erudite than most. Perhaps you wish that label removed. I know others that would disagree with the assessment.

Again its grown up talk.

Child prigs are quite rare but not unheard of.

Are you retarded? Wait, I already determined that. Are you actaully trying to tell me that he didnt vote to authorize war? Or that he didn't say it was a grand diversion? I mean come on, these are facts!
This forum is a perfect example of how civilians' information is twisted and spun. Have you ever noticed that everything in the media about the war in iraq is about someone dying or a bomb going off? But what about the success in Iraq? YES, thats right, I'm saying the successes in Iraq. Like how the torture of little kids and anyone who opposed the saddam regime stopped. And please don't tell me republicans are telling desperate lies before the election.
"If John Kerry is elected president, people like Christopher Reeves are going to walk outta that wheelchair!"
"With the way its going, theres going to have to be a draft!"
omg when so many things come up to mind, they collide and vanish. As for the weapons cache, either way liberals lose. But theyre so good at turning it around and saying its bush's fault. Ok, I say this.
If there was a weapons cache-Then how come you whole campaign is about how there WASNT weaons of mass destruction? Yet you jump right on to blaming bush when WMDs are finally found?
If there wasn't a weapons chache-Then why are you lying to the American people? Its already happened once in CBS. Apparently you've proved that you are ignorant to lessons, wether its 911 or forging fake documents. Why would you base the last days of your campaign based on what a democrat based newspaper says?
because they're mentally ill. I encourage everyone to watch farenhype 911. Not because it represents the right wing side, because it doesn't. The producer is democrat. But because it shows the straight forward facts. btw, did you know, that before the patriot act was passed, some arabian guy with a towel on their head can walk up to the presidents desk and say "I will make 9/11 look like carbomb. I will make your streets flow with blood. When I am done you will forget about 9/11." and the government couldn't do anything to him until he is tried in a court of law and must answer questions like "who, what, where, when, how is he going to attack?"
sorry guys, Im not a liberal. I only speak facts and can back them up.

Take a pill, Whythelongface.
On Tuesday night, you are going to need a bottle full.
All you have done in your last post is to PARROT Fox News spin.

Perfect example of how different conservatives are from liberals. Liberals like to ramble on "FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE MESS MESS MESS DEATH DEATH DEATH" while conservatives just point out "umm no, did you know no one listens to you when ALL you do is ramble?"
You want more people to vote for you? Stop complaining and repeating those 3 words, and stop saying that you will make things better. Instead, answer this one magical word- how . I dont mean "by being better" say something like "We will be better by getting this country behind our troops, providing them with armor, giving veterans more money etc." because seriously, I've had enough of the bush bashing. You need someone to bash, bash saddam or osama or something.

I am afraid Thalia you find yourself with a limited vocabularity and a limited number of options bereft of facts. A difficult place to be for anyone.

You have my sympathy.

The reason to focus on bush is because he is the incumbent and he has failed.
It is no small thing to fire an incumbent.
The most effective way to do so is to point out the ways he has failed.
With bush, this is quite an easy thing to do.
I like Kerry and his plans for America very much.
However, that will tactic will not be the undoing of bush.
bush is the undoing of bush.
His actions, his records, his legacy, his incompetence, his idiocy.

Oh, please spare me your sympathy.
I don't believe you.
I have NO sympathy for the pain your kind is going to feel Tuesday night.
You deserve this loss and you deserve to feel the pain Democrats felt in 2000 when the election was stolen from them.
Uniter not divider.
Biggest lie ever told.

Actually, if Kerry won, I wouldn't be all that mad. By the time I go into the military if i do, Kerry's first turn WILL be done. Guliani or Schwarzenegger will pick up where he left off (which is impossible to tell since I've heard absolutely nothing about whats going to happen, except how we should have gone to war . But really, I wouldn't have to put up with random comments about how the republicans are screwing us and how many people are dying and stuff for 4 years. I will be mad however about what he does. If he decides to jump on the michael moore bandwagon and stop this war on terror, then i'll be pissed. But I just think that for the safety of the american people in places like new york and chicago, we need to stay on the offensive, something kerry doesn't understand.

Calm down.
Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.
Kerry will have to figure out a way to deal with the mess bush got into in Iraq and also continue to wage the war on terror.
The way you talk about Kerry it is like you think he is not a patriotic American.
Give him a chance. He will make you proud.

Calm down? Surely you are addressing yourself in that declaration?

As to facts, Iraq did have much to do with terrorism, they did not, so far as we know, have anything to do with 9-11. I think you are as confused as those who think that Saddam did have some connection with 9-11. Like so many things, the facts are in the middle.

I am sure Kerry is patriotic, just as Bush is. The issue isn't patriotism, the issue is whether or not the path taken is the most correct one.

Al Queda attacked the US.
Iraq had nothing do with Al Queda.
Are YOU willing to die for the invasion of Iraq?
Are YOU willing to sacrifice your son or daughter?
When they had nothing to do with who attacked America?
If you are, you are a fool.
If you are not, you are a hypocrite.

Do brothers qualify?

My brother is presently in Iraq, he is of the same mind I am. Does that qualify?

I am neither fool or hypocrite, I suggest that perhaps I am overly patient with the slow of wit, the rash, and the slightly unbalanced. I bow to charges of the sin of patience.

Perhaps if you were not so safe your accusations of morality might not be so quickly made.

You are unaware of my personal life and hence are forgiven your prediliction for inserting your foot in your mouth.

I am sure you do not dishonor the soldiers in Iraq nor do you wish the death of those there.

If the votes had been counted in Florida in 2000 and the supreme court had not made its biggest blunder in history giving the presidency to bush, your brother would not be there.
Perhaps he would be somewhere that had something to do with the fight against the batards that attacked us. But he certainly would not have been in Iraq.
bush and his cabal were planning to attack Iraq from day one of his regime.
911 was an excuse.
I am sorry your brother is being wasted there, of course I wish he comes home in one piece.
The soldiers are pawns of this evil bush regime.

My brother, who I will dare say is as well informed as most and is a democrat, chooses Bush because of what he sees in Iraq.

You who do not see what is going on in Iraq are choosing Kerry. You will forgive me if I bow to the wisdom of my brother as opposed to your ignorance.

You are excused.
If that is how you choose how to vote, that is your right.
Enjoy election night.

Encore, encore!

Limited vocabulary?
Sounds like your leader.

Yeah, but at least he has a pleasant personality!