who ya voting for?

[XJJPR]

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv


hinkley

BTW it is not 200b is't 120b. Sept hasn't cost 80b yet!

 

[Darky]

Kerry served very faithfully in the Vietnam War. He got 3 purple hearts in 2 months and didn't even take any sick days. What a trooper! And he's persistent too. When his superiors didn't want to write him up for the purple hearts, he wrote himself up. But he is very in touch with what the rest of the country is thinking, very flexible to adapt to what the country thinks. When he returned from Vietnam and saw the state the nation was in and how the war was tearing us apart, his pride in his service quickly turned to disgust. His "hard-earned" medals meant nothing to him and he threw them over the White House fence to show our leaders how angry he was at the atrocities he and his fellow sailors and soldiers had committed. He was awarded a Silver Star as well as a Bronze Star, yet he was only in Vietnam for 2 months! Now that is one valiant man. But he is committed to honesty and the truth. He had his citation rewritten twice for his Silver Star, even though it can only be rewritten in the case of incorrect info (wrong events, incorrect name, etc). He just wanted to simplify it. Make it less misleading. First it said he grounded his boat after a near miss from an RPG and leapt ashore to chase down and kill the fleeing VC soldier who had fired at them. Then he had it rewritten to say he had actually leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area. The final revision said he had leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area and they found a cluster of enemy soldiers and engaged them. That is the man I want leading our nation.

 

[Darky]

PS that entire post was meant to be sarcastic. Just wanted to let everyone know. My info comes from opinion based on info reported at http://kerry-04.com

 

[Ramsey]

Kerry served very faithfully in the Vietnam War. He got 3 purple hearts in 2 months and didn't even take any sick days. What a trooper! And he's persistent too. When his superiors didn't want to write him up for the purple hearts, he wrote himself up. But he is very in touch with what the rest of the country is thinking, very flexible to adapt to what the country thinks. When he returned from Vietnam and saw the state the nation was in and how the war was tearing us apart, his pride in his service quickly turned to disgust. His "hard-earned" medals meant nothing to him and he threw them over the White House fence to show our leaders how angry he was at the atrocities he and his fellow sailors and soldiers had committed. He was awarded a Silver Star as well as a Bronze Star, yet he was only in Vietnam for 2 months! Now that is one valiant man. But he is committed to honesty and the truth. He had his citation rewritten twice for his Silver Star, even though it can only be rewritten in the case of incorrect info (wrong events, incorrect name, etc). He just wanted to simplify it. Make it less misleading. First it said he grounded his boat after a near miss from an RPG and leapt ashore to chase down and kill the fleeing VC soldier who had fired at them. Then he had it rewritten to say he had actually leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area. The final revision said he had leapt ashore and led a sweep of the area and they found a cluster of enemy soldiers and engaged them. That is the man I want leading our nation.

wow he sounds like a true hero who should be running our country

 

[Osprey413]

So what exactly has Bush done in the way of military service?

 

[Darky]

Well, he's never met with Communist leaders from a nation we're at war with while still in the service. This is unofficial, not for any kind of peace talks or anything. It was Kerry's personal decision.

Upon entering the Navy in 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year contract (plus a six-month extension during wartime) and an Officer Candidate contract for five years of active duty and active Naval Reserve. This indicates that Kerry was clearly a commissioned officer at the time of his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris -- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

btw according to the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of our Constitution, this would make him ineligible for any public office...
Um, Bush isn't featured in the Saigon War Remnants Museum, fka War Crimes Museum. Kerry is. Bush served in the Air National Guard, which isn't the reserves as quote by some one else. Bush may not have as colorful of a history as Kerry, but he at least doesn't have transgressions like those in his background. Nor did he stab his fellow servicemen in the back by testifying to Congress that they had all committed war crimes on a daily basis. I know bad stuff happened, but saying everyone did it and knew of it is wrong.

 

[Darky]

So what exactly has Bush done in the way of military service?

Is that your best response to this? You're told Kerry changes with the changing winds on issues he now uses to bolster himself as a war hero, implicated himself as a war criminal and yet still thinks he is fit to run our nation or even be involved with the policy of our nation and you're only response is, "what's Bush's military serivce?"

 

[Urban Redneck]

Some thoughts on all of this crap.
1. "Bush dodged the draft" Since when is serving in ANG, dodging the draft? Clinton goes to England, doesn't serve anywhere...that's dodging the draft.

2. "Bush dragged us to war against Saddam with bad intel." This is the same intel Clinton used to blow up an asprin factory, while getting a BJ in the Oval Office. It was the gospel then, why should it be different now.

3. "Bush should have gone to the UN." Are you going to go to the local neighborhood watch group when someone threatens to kill you, or are you going to take the fight to them on your terms? Want a good look at what the All Knowing, All Powerful UN can do? Look at the hurricain relief effort in Haiti. They were rioting during the food delieveries, almost turning over the trucks, not enoough supplies. The UN couldn't find their collective ass with both hands. Do I want to listen to any group of idiots that elects Communist China as a head of human rights? Give me a break.

4. "The election was stolen." Show me one person who was denied the right to vote in Florida. Just one. Not someone who "thinks" they were denied, because being denied and voting for the wrong person cuz you don't know how or take the time to read the ballot are not the same.

It's pretty damn funny that everyone who bashes Bush uses all the examples of what he did/didn't do and the exact same items pertain to Clinton, but he was the "Greatest" thing since sliced bread.

 

[Ramsey]

sliced bread really isnt all the big a deal, personally i prefer a solid loaf and tearing off a piece. does anyone else think the election is going to be this big of a landslide as it is in this poll. i hope so, that would be great, not just for him to win , but to completely crush kerry. of course he will probably start crying about chad and all his buddies about they went around confusing people and whispering from them to vote the wrong way

 

[steve01XJ]

The election will not be a landslide this year. Likely it will be decided once again by a few critical states. The bad news for Bush is that the critical states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. If Kerry wins these, the Democrats will win without Florida being a factor.

What will motivate these voters? I am betting on the economy being the issue. I believe that many of these voters have not seen the sense in spending $200 billion on a war because Saddam was a bad guy. That is essentially what the Republicans have been reduced to as far as justification for the war goes. Many of these voters packed up their plants' equipment to ship their own jobs overseas under a system which incents this behavior. Tax incentives and tax cuts mean nothing to the unemployed, and there is no Republican platform which addresses job growth. All these voters see is that their needs are not being met in this economy.

For those voters who care about foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy at the point of a gun is not going to be well received by the Iraqis. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake and will cost the US taxpayer a fortune, not to mention the loss of life, and the instability it is causing in the energy markets.

At the end of the day, lots of people are unemployed or underemployed, without health care benefits, and gas costs over $2 a gallon. The rates of unemployment are irrelevant and cannot be compared year over year, as they do not take into account the thousands of people who have given up looking for a job. The discontented people in the Midwest are the true swing voters who carry the balance of the election in their hands this year. It will be a 52-48 Kerry win in the popular vote and Kerry will win the electoral vote by a slim margin - without winning Florida. The events in the Middle East are out of sight and out of mind for the people in the US who do not have a job.

 

[Darky]

The election will not be a landslide this year. Likely it will be decided once again by a few critical states. The bad news for Bush is that the critical states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. If Kerry wins these, the Democrats will win without Florida being a factor.

What will motivate these voters? I am betting on the economy being the issue. I believe that many of these voters have not seen the sense in spending $200 billion on a war because Saddam was a bad guy. That is essentially what the Republicans have been reduced to as far as justification for the war goes. Many of these voters packed up their plants' equipment to ship their own jobs overseas under a system which incents this behavior. Tax incentives and tax cuts mean nothing to the unemployed, and there is no Republican platform which addresses job growth. All these voters see is that their needs are not being met in this economy.

For those voters who care about foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy at the point of a gun is not going to be well received by the Iraqis. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake and will cost the US taxpayer a fortune, not to mention the loss of life, and the instability it is causing in the energy markets.

At the end of the day, lots of people are unemployed or underemployed, without health care benefits, and gas costs over $2 a gallon. The rates of unemployment are irrelevant and cannot be compared year over year, as they do not take into account the thousands of people who have given up looking for a job. The discontented people in the Midwest are the true swing voters who carry the balance of the election in their hands this year. It will be a 52-48 Kerry win in the popular vote and Kerry will win the electoral vote by a slim margin - without winning Florida. The events in the Middle East are out of sight and out of mind for the people in the US who do not have a job.

Wow, this guy can see the future! Tell me, when will I get promoted? I think the $200billion number has already been debated and shown wrong. Its 120billion. And so far you haven't shown how its Bush's fault for companies being cheap and wanting to ship jobs over seas where they can pay their employees a lot less. Kerry wants to spend money to raise minmum wage. While that sounds good in theory what happens then? Companies raise prices (those few that still are based here) and convenience stores and supermarkets raise prices to compensate for the larger amount of money being spent on payroll. Other cpmpanies raise prices because now people have more money. Manufacturing companies send more manufacturing jobs overseas to where the minimum wage is lower or non-existent (same thing that they do now) so they get cheaper labor and bigger profits. Corporate greed isn't the fault of the President. Bush or Clinton or, Heaven forbid, Kerry. I despise Clinton, but I'd re-elect him before electing Kerry cuz he at least has a VP with political experience. Not the 5 yrs John Edwards has spent in Senate. That's all his experience in the political arena. Beforehand he was a personal injury lawyer. One of the guys that sues home owners when burgulars hurt themselves on their property. I don't want someone with 5 yrs political experience as next in line for Pres...

 

[RedBluff]

W

How could anybody vote for a man that calls Jessie Jackson and Ted Kennedy his advisors? A man that has devoted his life to dividing the races and profiting from it and another man that ran and cost a young woman her life. All 3 of them are friggins cowards. I want a president tha cares about my country not about what foreign leaders think about my country.
Them bastards in Europe can pound sand for all I care. We have already had bail thier butts out of 2 wars and what have they learned?

 

[BornAgainXJer]

I hope thats a ###### joke, because if you would cast a vote that irresponsibly, and disregard the thousands of REAL issues, so you can focus on the candidate that will better ensure you can get your hand-me-down xj dirty on the weekends, makes me glad there's a voting age in this country

amen brother

 

[steve01XJ]

W

How could anybody vote for a man that calls Jessie Jackson and Ted Kennedy his advisors? A man that has devoted his life to dividing the races and profiting from it and another man that ran and cost a young woman her life. All 3 of them are friggins cowards. I want a president tha cares about my country not about what foreign leaders think about my country.
Them bastards in Europe can pound sand for all I care. We have already had bail thier butts out of 2 wars and what have they learned?

So, how did attacking Iraq demonstrate care for our country? They were no threat to us. People like me ask why, and people like you would rather talk about Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson than answer the question.

This is why political discussion is futile in the age of the pundit. When someone is asked to be held accountable for their decisions, the response is to veer off topic in an attempt to deflect the criticism, ala Rush, Hannity, and yes, Franken and Rather.

It's not about Europe, Kennedy, the UN, or Clinton. It is a referendum on the last four years of W. Who can defend the last four years as successful at anything? The only thing W has had success in is arrogantly pursuing a failed agenda.

 

[xjj33p3r]

So, how did attacking Iraq demonstrate care for our country? They were no threat to us. People like me ask why, and people like you would rather talk about Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson than answer the question.

This is why political discussion is futile in the age of the pundit. When someone is asked to be held accountable for their decisions, the response is to veer off topic in an attempt to deflect the criticism, ala Rush, Hannity, and yes, Franken and Rather.

It's not about Europe, Kennedy, the UN, or Clinton. It is a referendum on the last four years of W. Who can defend the last four years as successful at anything? The only thing W has had success in is arrogantly pursuing a failed agenda.

Well, Bush has clearly said on many occassions that he had bad intelligence. That's the end of that. There was no dodging. He had bad intelligence, oh well, he caugh Saddam who was funding terrorists like Osama.

And maybe it's true that Iraq was no threat to us, but I guess when someone else in another country is down, it's not right to help them. But when someone needs help over here,lets say a welfare check or two, it's ok because they can't work for some reason. I'd rather save a country and promote a democracy than just let them all die from a dictator.

 

[Boatwrench]

Wow...

A couple of comments...
You can't become a fighter pilot by only doing four days in the National Guard...no matter who your dad is.
I have seven months of page 7's documenting not reporting for a medical appointment...big deal Bush has 1.
Arnold Schwartzeneger (sic) stated when he announced his run for CA Govenor on Jay Leno that Ted Kennedy was one of his advisors.
The election results won't be anything like this unscientific poll...this forum is probably inhabited by a more conservative populace than say a pot growers forum which would have Kerry winning in a land slide.
Today was the 1st day you could cast absentee votes in California.

Tom

 

[XJJPR]

So, how did attacking Iraq demonstrate care for our country? They were no threat to us.

Now, even kerry says he was a threat to us and the world. How can you say this, saddam was a threat to his own people.

hinkley

 

[Darky]

How does talking about who Kerry's mentors and advisors are reflect on him? It tells us who he looks up to and who he takes advice from and who has shaped his persona and ideologies. As far as it being Bush's fault we're in Iraq for what everyone likes to call a lie:

"Well, I think the situation in Iraq is a very serious one. Saddam Hussein hates the United States. He's been involved in developing weapons of mass destruction. He's ignored the terms of the cease-fire agreement. He won't allow the weapons inspectors, our weapons inspectors, into the country. So we have a very serious problem there. And we cannot allow him to continue in this effort to develop and foster weapons of mass destruction. And I think the bottom line is it's very difficult to imagine a situation where the world is secure, the United States is secure, while Saddam Hussein is still in power. So, I think how we go about it, the timing of how we go about it, our judgments will have to be made when we finish what we're doing right now. But the reality is, he's a very serious threat to the security of the United States, to the security of the region and, in fact, to the security of the world."

He also acknowledged in October 2003 that he "didn't get misled" about the war by the Bush administration. Edwards claimed in February 2003 not only that he would have gone forward without total UN support, saying Saddam had "not disarmed, the evidence is overwhelming. ... This guy has to be disarmed," but that he would have done it BEFORE 9/11! "We know that he has biological [weapons], we know that he has chemical [weapons]. ... We also know that every single day that goes by he's increasing the likelihood of having nuclear capability," Edwards added. He proclaimed in September 2002 that "I don't think we should be bound by what the United Nations does."

What does Bush have to show for his 4 yrs? A liberated Iraq, a liberated Afghanistan, a scrambled Al Qaeda, keeping this country rather stable after the cowardly attacks on 9/11, he's had pretty good approval ratings, even with all the hoopla about ANG and Iraq. Besides, I think Bush's one instance of being AWOL is a much better track record than betraying your fellow sailors and soldiers who are still fighting by coming home after only 2 months with 3 Purple Hearts that didn't even require him to take a day off and recover, and then accusing them of all kinds of horrible acts and protesting against what they are over there still dying for.

 

[Goatman]

It's not about Europe, Kennedy, the UN, or Clinton. It is a referendum on the last four years of W. Who can defend the last four years as successful at anything? The only thing W has had success in is arrogantly pursuing a failed agenda.

As stated earlier, the Bush administration has made some major improvements in the governments policies regarding land use issues. The previous administration went way overboard in supporting the agendas of over zealous environmentalists both in the governemnt and in environmental groups. Bush has worked very smartly, and quietly, to reverse that trend.

Bush is a friend to recreationists, and Kerry/Edwards will not be. Regardless of your other opinions and positions, you'd think that would at least count for something on a jeep forum.

If polititions continue to pander to radical environmental and land use agendas, our grandchildren will only be able to see much of our great outdoors in coffee table picture books. I consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I have backpacked in the Sierra's, sometimes with my kids, and really enjoy it. However, I don't think it's right to only allow those very few who are able and willing to packback into remote areas the opportunity to enjoy them. My back and knee won't allow me to do that anymore, and now I have grandchildren that I want to go exploring with, and I need to do it in my Jeep.

Some of you may have no presonal experience with these issues, but I have numerous trails within a few hours drive that where closed to access within the eight years of Clinton/Gore. Now, I'm not just blaming them, it's a general trend of politicians and land managers in the Forest Service and BLM who have green agendas, but the Clinton administration enabled them, and it needs to be stopped, and Bush is working to do that. Kerry and Edwards will allow the radical enviros to have their way again.

I think the war is important, and I think welfare and social security are important, as is my neighbors job, but those things will be argued by politicians (and you guys) indefinitely. The fact that I can't go in my Jeep where I once could, and am at risk of being shut out of more areas because of bad science and radical personal agendas, is very close to home to me and is a major political issue. The facts here are hard to argue with, unlike the other subjects you all have been bantering back and forth on.

If people on a Jeep forum say that the future of how our public lands are managed is NOT an important enough issue to be considered in an election, then you guys need to get your heads out of the sand, and definitely your asses out of the garage. You do a disservice to the many, many wheelers and other recreationists who spend more time being politically active than they do recreating to protect YOUR interests.

OK, now back to your marginally meaningful discussion of other "real" issues.

 

[rockwerks]

As stated earlier, the Bush administration has made some major improvements in the governments policies regarding land use issues. The previous administration went way overboard in supporting the agendas of over zealous environmentalists both in the governemnt and in environmental groups. Bush has worked very smartly, and quietly, to reverse that trend.

Bush is a friend to recreationists, and Kerry/Edwards will not be. Regardless of your other opinions and positions, you'd think that would at least count for something on a jeep forum.

If polititions continue to pander to radical environmental and land use agendas, our grandchildren will only be able to see much of our great outdoors in coffee table picture books. I consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I have backpacked in the Sierra's, sometimes with my kids, and really enjoy it. However, I don't think it's right to only allow those very few who are able and willing to packback into remote areas the opportunity to enjoy them. My back and knee won't allow me to do that anymore, and now I have grandchildren that I want to go exploring with, and I need to do it in my Jeep.

Some of you may have no presonal experience with these issues, but I have numerous trails within a few hours drive that where closed to access within the eight years of Clinton/Gore. Now, I'm not just blaming them, it's a general trend of politicians and land managers in the Forest Service and BLM who have green agendas, but the Clinton administration enabled them, and it needs to be stopped, and Bush is working to do that. Kerry and Edwards will allow the radical enviros to have their way again.

I think the war is important, and I think welfare and social security are important, as is my neighbors job, but those things will be argued by politicians (and you guys) indefinitely. The fact that I can't go in my Jeep where I once could, and am at risk of being shut out of more areas because of bad science and radical personal agendas, is very close to home to me and is a major political issue. The facts here are hard to argue with, unlike the other subjects you all have been bantering back and forth on.

If people on a Jeep forum say that the future of how our public lands are managed is NOT an important enough issue to be considered in an election, then you guys need to get your heads out of the sand, and definitely your asses out of the garage. You do a disservice to the many, many wheelers and other recreationists who spend more time being politically active than they do recreating to protect YOUR interests.

OK, now back to your marginally meaningful discussion of other "real" issues.

I have to totally agree with Goatman on this one
probably a first for me and him.LOL but the written enviromental agenda for Kerry is worse than Clintons. Including a ban on all non major roads through all national forests and publically owned lands. No watercraft in lakes in national forests and sensitive areas. etc checkit out here.


http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/issue-environment.html