Kerry has all the answers

The administration can\'t win with you guys so it\'s pointless. I\'m gonna wait for November.

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Ace
The administration can\'t win with you guys so it\'s pointless. I\'m gonna wait for November.

We\'re all waiting for November.

Yes we are. Will you be able to take it if GWB wins. Something I believe is going to happen.

[videoholic]

You guys do realize that when they do those terror alerts, they may really know something, but just trying to weed out some info. don\'t you?

I mean by announcing that somethign is up, even though it\'s vague to us, may not be vauge at all to the people they are watching.

Whatever.  Shit, you guys are actually going to vote for Kerry.  There is absolutely no use.

[Living-In-Clip]

I would vote for a non-English speaking person before I would vote for the f**kwad known as George W. Bush , but that\'s not the point.

Will he win in November? Maybe. Maybe not. Will I be able to take it? Yes, because I can\'t change it. I will simply do what I am doin\' now...Stating that I cannot stand Bush and think that we a chimp would do a better job .... I will also look on the bright side, if he wins again, it\'ll only be four years and then he\'ll be gone for good  .. Thank God.

Ummm...he can run again in 2012...

[Titan]

What if they capture Bin Laden come end of October? I think that he would win the election if he did. I personally think its too strange that they didn\'t catch him yet. IMO, he\'s pinned down and the troops just need to get him and just waiting for the opportune moment (election time). I remember like a year and a half ago, they were hearing him talking on handheld walkie talkies. They can\'t have THAT good of range. Kind of funny how he just slipped through their fingers.

Originally posted by videoholic
You guys do realize that when they do those terror alerts, they may really know something, but just trying to weed out some info. don\'t you?

I mean by announcing that somethign is up, even though it\'s vague to us, may not be vauge at all to the people they are watching.

Whatever.  Shit, you guys are actually going to vote for Kerry.  There is absolutely no use.

This post reminded me of somthing that I think is a key difference between people we define as broadly "conservative" or "liberal."

Conservatives seem more willing to accept authority, and liberals are more inclined to question authority.  The thing you said above, indicating that the terror alerts may be authentic... suggests that you\'re willing to accept Bush\'s or Tom Ridge\'s authority, possibly believe him, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt on these alerts.  

On the other hand, when I hear a president or most any other high ranking politician tell me what they\'re doing for my own good, I almost immediately assume it\'s bullshit.  I feel this way about BOTH republican and democratic politicians.  Clinton was one of the greatest bullshitters of our time.  The big difference was that when he spun a line about something, it was usually something harmless, and you could sort of figure out where he was going with it, and see which side of the fence he was on.

When Bush spouts off about something like terror alerts, or weapons of mass destruction, or "enemies of freedom" you really cannot tell what planet he is from.  I can\'t tell if he really believes the bullshit, or he doesn\'t believe it and thinks he\'s a master deceiver, or if he\'s just a complete idiot and has no idea what he\'s saying.  Sometimes it honestly sounds like he\'s just stringing together phrases and soundbytes into a random sequence, and he doesn\'t know where the sentence is going to end.

That sort of quality in a president deeply frightens me.  I\'m trying to help you understand why we\'re going to vote for Kerry.    So anyway, I think it\'s a fundamental instinct of mine to question authority, and my Bullshit-o-meter has a very sensitive trigger.

spam someone emailed me

http://kerry-04.com/

[videoholic]

I personally don\'t care about these terror updates.  There is nothing we as citizens can do other than call the authorities if we see a dude with dynamite strapped to his car.

I just don\'t really think these terror allert are for us.  They are obviously changed to adjust budgets and to activate more or less people at certain times, but I think it\'s also used for psychologiacl purposes against the terrorists.  To thwart an attack based on the public knowledge that we may know it\'s coming.

Originally posted by THX
spam someone emailed me

http://kerry-04.com/

It\'s amazing that there are people out there criticizing Kerry for being against the Vietnam War.  Do these people think the war was a good idea?  They\'re like flat-earthers.  :rolleyes:

Kerry is a war criminal by his own admission.

After viewing that site and seeing all the reasons not to vote for Kerry, the one that stays in the back of my mind is who would the terrorists and the French want to see in power over here?  In my mind I will not vote for the candidate that enemies of this country wish to see in power.  

If our perception in the world is the main reason people would vote against Bush, we might as well turn our sovereignty over to this man:

Originally posted by Ace
Kerry is a war criminal by his own admission.

Huh?  That\'s a crazy accusation coming from your side of the fence.  Even this stupid conservative website says he was not a war criminal:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/28/145534.shtml

Last May the Globe recounted Sen. John Kerry\'s televised confession in 1971, delivered on the old "Dick Cavett Show," where the ambitious anti-war Democrat admitted to taking part in military action that was "contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions."

The top Democrat said his wartime conduct would have rendered him "guilty" of violating the Nuremberg Principles.

Kerry\'s full statement went as follows:

"I personally didn\'t see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.

"And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."

In reality, there\'s no reason to believe that any Vietnam veteran who engaged in the actions described by Sen. Kerry is a war criminal.

He is a man with a conscience who followed orders in combat, and later discovered that he had been lied to about the war, and about the morality and legality of those orders.

He redeemed himself by speaking out against the Vietnam war.

Hey, he claimed he took part in the atrocities that he sited in front of the committee when he came back from Nam.

I\'ll look at the link, though.