2004 Presidential Election.

[Randallw]

[b] An old spanish proverb says: Breed crows and they will rip your eyes.

that is a strange proverb. I could understand "Breed wolves" but Cows?.

[Gozra]

I am reading A history of the American Navy in WWII. Mahan's I believe. I was stunned by the preface. My Wife and I visited the Battleship North Carolin in Wilimington North Carolina I remember telling her That For a Battleship with 16 inch guns it was really a small ship. The in the preface Of the Navy history book I am reading it pointed out that prior to WWII the Peace activists put pressure on The US to sign treaties with the other big powers to limit the size and makeup of the navies then being built. Well many of the other Countries proceeded to 'Cheat'(the US did not) So when WWII broke out the US had the wimpiest fleet because The 'Be nice at all cost' crowd had succeeded in tying the hands of the US navy.
What I think this boils down to is subscribing to the view that everyone will do what is best for everyone else will just get you kicked in the teeth and stomped on. IT has been made abundantly clear that there are people/organizations that intend to destroy The US and Freedom.
And yes we could have a better system that the 2 party system And I hate voting against someone as I would rather be voting for someone. At any rate I am going to hold my nose and vote for Bush.

[Unknown_Enemy]

I just hope Bush will get thrown out as his father so I'll be able to keep saying "I love USA" without getting a bashing.

**running the hell out of the thread before the flamewar***

[Shane Watson]

Everything you need to know to make up your mind about the election is here:
http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

Cheers,
~S

[Atrocities]

Bush's tax cuts are what stalled the lay offs in my area. My old company has even stated that if not for the tax cuts they would have closed their doors. And here comes Kerry with his TAX increases and people think he is the greatest thing to walk on water since GOD.

He is a liar, a backstabbing MF, and to top it all off, he VOTED to cut the funding of the CIA, FBI, and NSA following the first attack on the trade center. And now he says what happened on 9-11 was all Bushes fault? Please.

He blames the economy in the US on Bush, when it was Bush who inheritied Clintons economy which started to go down hill in 97 after he opened the flood gates for free trade with China. A note to all you kiddies, China makes things a lot cheaper than we can here in the US, and they flooded our markets with their inferior products and swamped many business right out of business. And then we still have the NAFT problem that Clinton signed in.

No, I think it is best that we keep BUSH for another four yeats in order to KEEP what little jobs we do have and grow more.

[Gandalf Parker]

Somehow I dont seem to be seeing any of that. The jobs in my household, my taxes, my benefits, my general opinion of the future. Sorry, I wont be voting for Bush to go around again. Nor Arnold (California).

[Atrocities]

"trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” - J F Kerry

(What was once considered as cowardice by Kerry has become his crown jewel for election.)


What we saw around here starting in 96 was a slow down of our economy. My employer at the time was the world’s largest supplier of its product, and the third largest employer in the county.

In 97 we saw the price of our produce drop by 70% worldwide as the Chinese dumped their production onto the market. The following years we saw even greater loss to the point where we had to lay off people. The situation continued to deteriorate until Bush's tax cut went into effect. The tax cut allowed my employer to right off the depreciation of their new equipment and the building they had just built. This saved the company and 600 some odd jobs.

The economy here was the worst hit in the recession, and despite this, sales of homes, cars, goods, and such are all doing well.

I cannot speak for other parts of the nation, but I do know that if Kerry is elected, the situation will go from bad to worse.

Remember we are in the economic quick sand because of Clinton’s economic policies and Kerry going around saying its all Bush's fault is a bold face lie.

Bush had no control over the events of 9-11 that tanked our economy horribly. Kerry on the other hand did have some control and he used it to vote for a funding cut of the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He supported Clinton’s foreign policies, policies that sent the message that we were weak because we cared about not offending the Arab populations of the world. Now look at where those policies have led us. http://www.notokerry.com/military_voting.htm

No president wants to be a war president. Bush is not a warmonger nor is he a stupid man. Bush has delivered on his promises to cut taxes, increase security, and strengthen our economy. Kerry has a very low success rate when it comes to doing as he says he is going to do.

In fact Kerry enjoys saying one thing when he has plans on doing exactly the opposite. It is very aggravating to try and follow Kerry's promises, as there are so many of them.

Our economy is improving, the evidence supports this. It is just taking a very long time to affect us on the lowest rungs of this economic ladder we live upon.

Please consider that Kerry will say and promise anything to get elected. Bush has done what he said he is going to do and if we give him the time to finish the job, another four years, I think we will all be a hell of a lot better off.

And remember, Arnold inherited a bankrupt state. A state put into bankruptcy by Democrats.

Besides, Bush and his party are not interested in banning or controling many of the things that I enjoy owning or doing. Kerry belongs to a party that wants to control or regulate everything with laws including personal freedom of choice.

For me it is a clear choice, if I want to keep what little I have now, I must vote republican acrossed the board. Under Clinton I lost money, rights, control, and freedoms. Under Bush I have lost nothing and have even gained some.

Kerry is a proven liar now. Of this there is no dout in my mind. Kerry will be bad for the US, and bad for all of us.

The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, said -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.

"We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.

“John Kerry just bet the farm on a fairy-tale Version of his Vietnam service, figuring, no doubt, that it always worked for him before. What he doesn't realize is that huge numbers of veterans who didn't care if he was a Senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts will crawl across broken glass to keep him from becoming Commander-in-Chief. That battle is now joined.” – Scott Swett, webmaster of WinterSoldier.com (7/31/04)

In 1992, John Kerry came to the defence of Bill Clinton, whose avoidance of service had become a campaign issue for George H. W. Bush. “I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran,” Mr Kerry told National Public Radio, “that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.”

His words. Don't buy into the liberal media's hype. Look deeper and explore the truth. Most of the anti Bush sites are busy making up things and slinging mud without any facts to support them. I should say true facts.

No To Kerry The turth supported by fact.
(BUSH) Bushes site does not target Kerry like Kerry's site does Bush. So again, a nice role reversal courticy of the Democrats.

Links to the Truth About John F Kerry (JFK2)

[Gandalf Parker]

Atrocities said:
"trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” - J F Kerry

(What was once considered as cowardice by Kerry has become his crown jewel for election.)

Im not seeing that. Ive only seen Kerry mention his service in response to comments. (btw I am a vietnam vet)

What we saw around here starting in 96 was a slow down of our economy. My employer at the time was the world’s largest supplier of its product, and the third largest employer in the county.

Sorry about that. I can understand your position on that. Its nice to see someone actually speak of personal reasons rather than just repeat the "things are this way" media facts.

What I saw was that when Clinton started running for pres the subjects were all about the embarassing federal deficit and whether Russia would bomb us in our sleep. During Clinton my fears went away.

I know it common to say that everything good was done by my guys and everything bad by the other guy. But Clinton pulled 2 terms so I think he must have had something to do with some of the good changes.

I cannot speak for other parts of the nation, but I do know that if Kerry is elected, the situation will go from bad to worse.

Maybe. But what I see around here is impacts of Bushes actions. Even with a low work force (one of the hardest hit by reserves on duty) we have a low job market. I didnt really want a tax break which I guess is a good thing since I havent seen one either.

Remember we are in the economic quick sand because of Clinton’s economic policies and Kerry going around saying its all Bush's fault is a bold face lie.

Remember? Quicksand? I know the repubs are big on shaking things up so that some go up while others go down, but I would have been happy with things staying as they were.

Bush had no control over the events of 9-11 that tanked our economy horribly.

Do you really feel that the 9-11 incident did major damage to our economy? I thought that after 9-11 we were sending a laughing message because it DIDNT do what the terrorists had hoped. It was only after we started the Iraq police-action that I saw economic impact.

Please consider that Kerry will say and promise anything to get elected. Bush has done what he said he is going to do and if we give him the time to finish the job, another four years, I think we will all be a hell of a lot better off.

Well that says it pretty clear. Kerry can do little in 4 compared to what Bush can accomplish by carrying thru for 8. Im not thrilled with Kerry (Im not a democray or a republican) but I really dont want another 4 with Bush.

And remember, Arnold inherited a bankrupt state. A state put into bankruptcy by Democrats.

A state which went bankrupt while Dems were in office. Not necessairly by Dem policies. Arnold inherited a balance budget then made changes Im not thrilled with.

For me it is a clear choice, if I want to keep what little I have now, I must vote republican acrossed the board. Under Clinton I lost money, rights, control, and freedoms. Under Bush I have lost nothing and have even gained some.

Sounds like you have made rational decisions for rational reasons. And you do seem to have clear ideas about the difference between the two parties. Of course I wouldnt use those words to describe it all but symantics is just a propoganda tool. You logic and reasons seem sounder than most Ive talked to.

--
Democrats say give us your money and your problems.
Republicans say keep your money and your problems.

--     Its easy to understand.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.

[Renegade 13]

Gozra said:
IT has been made abundantly clear that there are people/organizations that intend to destroy The US and Freedom.

Two points:

1. It isn't really the US that those people/organizations are attacking, its the entire western philosophy and civilization. The US is only attacked more than other western countries due to its increased influence, and the fact that it is the epitome of what those anti-Western people hate. There are in fact other countries threatened by terrorists, such as Britain, Canada, and any other western country.

2. You mentioned "The US and Freedom" as though they were inseparable concepts, as though the US is the only "free" country. It is not, and Freedom could exist without the US, and the US could exist without freedom. They are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, with some of the laws that have been enacted in the US, such as the Patriot Act (that's what its called isn't it?), I'd say that Canada is much more a "free" country than the US is now.

I'm not intending to step on any toes here, or offend anyone, I just felt I had to state my opinion. Note that it is NOT anti-US. Thanks.

[Instar]

Gozra said:
I am reading A history of the American Navy in WWII. Mahan's I believe. I was stunned by the preface. My Wife and I visited the Battleship North Carolin in Wilimington North Carolina I remember telling her That For a Battleship with 16 inch guns it was really a small ship. The in the preface Of the Navy history book I am reading it pointed out that prior to WWII the Peace activists put pressure on The US to sign treaties with the other big powers to limit the size and makeup of the navies then being built. Well many of the other Countries proceeded to 'Cheat'(the US did not) So when WWII broke out the US had the wimpiest fleet because The 'Be nice at all cost' crowd had succeeded in tying the hands of the US navy.
What I think this boils down to is subscribing to the view that everyone will do what is best for everyone else will just get you kicked in the teeth and stomped on.

The truth of the matter is that the US got the good end of the treaty. The ratio was like for every 2 tons Japan got, the US got 5 tons. Britain and France got 4 or 5 as well. More info:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Was...n_Naval_Treaty

The treaty was signed in 1922, and was probably ignored by everyone by the late 1930s. In fact, the treaty was ended in 1936, leaving enough time for all navies involved to grow.

Oh, and I voted Kerry (absentee ballot) because all of Bush's positions are immoral and I disagree with all of his positions.