[aberdeenwriter]

I really can't understand how the President can earn the support of so many.

I figure it has to be because of the following conditions/situations/relationships:

1. Die-hard Republicans/Conservatives: If someone intends to remain Republican/Conservative, he's the only choice.

2. Annual income over $250,000: His tax policies are not friendly to those making less than $250,000 per year.

3. Reluctance to remove a war-time President. His reasons for invading Iraq are highly suspect. Here's why we should question our allegience to him on this account: Documented pre-occupation with Iraq months before 9/11 - thanks to neo-conservative urgings - shows the mis-truths of his WMD story; His, Cheney's and their friends' profit motive from staging a war; His friends and associates know NOT to cross him because of his vengeful nature - could Saddam have pissed him off by attempting to assassinate his family when they visited Kuwait?
Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, not Saddam.

4. He seems like an 'alright' kinda guy: So is my brother in law, but that doesn't make him qualified to be the POTUS. Also, any casual survey of recent magazine articles and books by respected writers and some people who were formerly in his own administration shed light on his sinister, disturbing, dangerous and illegal penchant for secrecy. See books by: Richard Clark, John Dean, Pat Buchanan, Sen. Robert Byrd and others to see exactly WHY his secrecy is all of the aforementioned, if you don't already know.

Furthermore, Karl Rove is his trusted aide because of Rove's ability and willingness to resort to dirty tricks. The "Swift Boat Vets" ad was bogus and was an example of Rove's trademark, "East Texas Special" tactics, where they use any and every lie imaginable to smear or discredit their opponent.

McCain's 'Negro" daughter (actually a beautiful adopted child from India) kept many Southerners from supporting McCain in 2000.

Rove hired young people from the DC area to show up at the Florida elections office to help influence the 2000 outcome.

During a national presidential election ANY actions like these are not only KNOWN by the candidate, but approved by him.

5. He talks tough and doesn't change his mind: In the face of changing situations & dynamics and new facts remaining steadfast is a liability, NOT a virtue. If you've ever had a manager, supervisor, boss, spouse...etc., who was 'stupidly' stubborn, you understand the saying, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

6. He's doing a good job: Check again. Back to the war a minute, his dad, Colin Powell (the architect of the Gulf War triumph) and James Baker ALL advised against an invasion of Iraq in the mid-late 90's. They predicted exactly what has happened. Yet, W has gone ahead anyway! And with all the time he and his people had to prepare a good plan - after all, the neo-cons had been pushing for it since the late 90's - here were are, closing in on 1,000 Americans dead.

And if history is absolutely clear about one thing, it's the results of what happened with Israel the past 56 years.

Terrorist attacks are met with a military reprisal. Which prompts MORE terrorist attacks. We are LESS safe than we were on 9/11 precisely because of the war.

In the old days coal miners would bring canaries down into the mine with them because if the air became 'bad,' the canary would keel over and die and thus alert the miners of danger.

Well, in this society many of us are shielded from knowing the dangers W is doing to our, environment, constitution and our constitutional rights, our government and our nation because he intentionally does things that only affect small portions of society AT FIRST. Like the canaries. In the 1920's and 1930's, the mainstream German people also turned a blind eye to Hitler's tactics and policies saying, "Heck, it's only the Jews! Why should WE care?"

To me, "doing a good job" means if I'm the CEO of a company and one of my managers ignores information that causes a severe loss to the company, that manager is gone.

Several FBI & CIA reports were ignored by John Ashcroft, ('Don't bother me with that terrorism stuff') which could have led good managers to prevent 9/11. Yet, NO ONE has lost their job as a result.

I could go on, but I won't.

7. The American people are cattle and don't think too much. They just kinda go along with the flow: This allows the current administration to lie, steal, cheat, kill and profit from it and have the audacity to ask for 4 more years to continue doing the same.

I'm curious. What's YOUR reason for supporting W?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I'm curious. What's YOUR reason for supporting W?

None of those reasons.

I support Bush because I like the design and color-scheme of his signs and bumper stickers. And Kerry's wife looks like a man.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
None of those reasons.

I support Bush because I like the design and color-scheme of his signs and bumper stickers. And Kerry's wife looks like a man.

LOLOLOLOL

You aren't seriously in support of the President are you?

[Spoogepieces]

Give me a better choice than Kerry. I see Bush as the lesser of two evils. At least we know where he stands on things. Where does Kerry stand and will it be the same stance this week as it will be next week?

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Aberdeen:

Great post.

I'm thinking its a combo of 1 and 7 that makes so many people support Bush like somnambulistic lemmings.

[Mac Guru]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Give me a better choice than Kerry. I see Bush as the lesser of two evils. At least we know where he stands on things. Where does Kerry stand and will it be the same stance this week as it will be next week?

THAT, is exactly why I don't think Kerry is going to win this election. With Bush, even if you're against what he stands for, you know where he stands on the issues. Not ONCE have I heard Kerry come out with a STABLE stance on the issues.

The only thing I know for CERTAIN from Kerry, was that he was in Vietnam. That's not a requirement for Commander in Chief.

If he takes Clinton's recent advise, I could see him having a chance. (for those of you that don't know, Clinton had a phone conversation with Kerry and told him to drop Vietnam and focus on the issues)

Mac Guru

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm voting for Dubya because Kerry isn't too smart. And Kerry's wife looks and sounds like a man.

The Bush twins, Barbara & Jenna, are an added bonus.

[RAILhead]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I really can't understand how the President can earn the support of so many.

Indeed you don't understand, as well illustrated by your list.

[Spliffdaddy]

A better question is: Why does this thread's author support Kerry? I'd like to hear 7 reasons why. That would be hilarious, I bet.

[Spoogepieces]

As typical, gotta bash Bush without offering why we should support Kerry. That tells all we need to know, doesn't it?

When was the last time a Lerkfish thread gave reasons for supporting Kerry instead of just bashing Bush?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
1. Die-hard Republicans/Conservatives: If someone intends to remain Republican/Conservative, he's the only choice.

Nope.

2. Annual income over $250,000: His tax policies are not friendly to those making less than $250,000 per year.

I made less than a third of that last year, and they seemed friendly enough.

3. Reluctance to remove a war-time President. His reasons for invading Iraq are highly suspect.

Again, not my reason.

Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, not Saddam.

I have never believed otherwise.

4. He seems like an 'alright' kinda guy: So is my brother in law, but that doesn't make him qualified to be the POTUS.

Not the only qualification, to be sure, but one of critical importance, and one we've lacked in any citing President for the last few decades.

Also, any casual survey of recent magazine articles and books by respected writers and some people who were formerly in his own administration shed light on his sinister, disturbing, dangerous and illegal penchant for secrecy. See books by: Richard Clark, John Dean, Pat Buchanan, Sen. Robert Byrd and others to see exactly WHY his secrecy is all of the aforementioned, if you don't already know.

You're not seriously asking me to trust Buchanan and Byrd, are you? I'll look into the other two, however.

Furthermore, Karl Rove is his trusted aide because of Rove's ability and willingness to resort to dirty tricks.

The same could be said of almost any other politician these days. I don't like it, but it's not far enough from the norm to be much of a concern of mine. Call me jaded, I guess.

McCain's 'Negro" daughter (actually a beautiful adopted child from India) kept many Southerners from supporting McCain in 2000.

Where were the ads about this? I lived in the South around that time and never once saw anything about this.

Rove hired young people from the DC area to show up at the Florida elections office to help influence the 2000 outcome.

Evidence, please?

5. He talks tough and doesn't change his mind: In the face of changing situations & dynamics and new facts remaining steadfast is a liability, NOT a virtue.

I strongly disagree here. The President is supposed to be a leader, not a follower. That's why there is only one of them. The fact is, while the particulars of situations and dynamics may change often, only the most severe of these actually warrant a real change in course of action; the rest may call for minor adjustments, but complete flip-flops are seldom necessary or desirable.

If you've ever had a manager, supervisor, boss, spouse...etc., who was 'stupidly' stubborn, you understand the saying, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Being stupidly stubborn is one thing. But that degree of stubbornness is quite rare, and for all his mental flaws, Bush doesn't have that.

I'm curious. What's YOUR reason for supporting W?

It would be wrong to say that I support him. I find him to be a profoundly lesser evil, however. Both Bush and Kerry will do severe damage to this country, if elected; the only difference will be the methods of damage. Call me a speculative reactionary, if you will, but almost everything that either of them does will need to be undone if our country is to survive another fifty years. I merely think that Bush's damage will be easier to undo, in large part because the damage he is doing is better-understood by more people than the types of damage Kerry's policies will inflict.

[ebuddy]

Just to set premise here; I am a registered Republican however, I have no qualms in voting for a Democrat if this individual meets most of my voting points, not all, but most. Now, on to battle the one-sided;

1. Die-hard Republicans/Conservatives: If someone intends to remain Republican/Conservative, he's the only choice.

Not true in my case however, given the choice between Kerry, Bush, and Nader; Bush is the ONLY choice. Easily I might add.

2. Annual income over $250,000: His tax policies are not friendly to those making less than $250,000 per year.

Wrong again. I earn between $55k-60K/ year. Knowing that most Americans are employed by small-business owners (that is to say, folks earning between $250k to $300K per year) his tax policies are extremely friendly to those making less and those making more. You see, it's not enough to take from the rich and give to the poor. The poor as you may or may not know are not as educated in general let alone on what to do with money. (This is something else Bush is fighting hard for, sweeping education reform and holding those in the care of our children in higher scrutiny) Those that do know, own businesses and employ people. Your pessimism would tell you that this owner would not treat his employees well. My experience (a much less cynical outlook than yours I might add) tells me that they will take better care for me when they have more, including profit-sharing. If your employer does not engage profit-sharing, encourage them or seek new employment. I don't expect you to understand this though because it seems your partisan blindness and the inherent negativity and pessimism from Bush's opposition has gotten the better of you. BTW, what is Kerry's platform? We know what he is against, what is he for?

For the sake of argument though, I received two years ago the first tax dividend I've received EVER and it was very timely in my life because an additional $600 means a lot to a family of 4 on my income. Apparently, this amount of money didn't mean much to you as you had already forgotten, it meant something to me. This additional child-credit will be seen by all those with children in this country. Not just rich, not just poor. His aggressive tax policy is the only reason investors continued investing in our economy with courage in the face of tragedy. 9/11 didn't hinder Bush from carrying out his tax policy and proved to put our economy in the excellent condition it is today in spite of Corporate scandals, 9/11, and the resulting lost employment. Read Bush's; "Blueprint for the Middle Class." This is also covered in more details in his book; "Renewing America's Purpose." Of course, you could always crack open a book by Kerry; "How I served admirably amongst baby-killers." or "Why Bush is bad!" Kerry has no policy to be shaken from as he is just, well he's just shaky in general it seems.

You see, helping the poor is more than giving them more money. It starts at home by offering tax breaks to those making less. Which they can see. You need to be poor to see it which means leaving your gated community once in a while.
It starts in the education that they recieve. Teachers no longer held accountable by whether or not the kid moves on to the next grade level, but testing to confirm they should move on to the next grade level. 2+2 does not equal 5. A child needs to know this and needs to continue a competitive mindset. It starts by giving breaks to those who employ us as painful as this may seem to you. This is how free-market works. An employer who treats his employee poorly, will have a difficult time filling the positions and will be forced to offer more competitive benefits packages. An employer endowed with more, can offer more. You have to not allow youself to be victimized. Bush's policy is not based on handouts for nothing, but based on personal accomplishment and encouraging a competitive mindset. Anything else is destructive long-term and creates a dependant class. Clinton knew this when passing comprehensive Welfare Reform.

[ebuddy]

3. Reluctance to remove a war-time President. His reasons for invading Iraq are highly suspect. Here's why we should question our allegience to him on this account: Documented pre-occupation with Iraq months before 9/11 - thanks to neo-conservative urgings - shows the mis-truths of his WMD story; His, Cheney's and their friends' profit motive from staging a war; His friends and associates know NOT to cross him because of his vengeful nature - could Saddam have pissed him off by attempting to assassinate his family when they visited Kuwait?
Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, not Saddam.

Reason to support Bush, Osama will be caught. The war is occuring on several fronts and is being accomplished. I know you eat your peas, then your mashed potatoes, then your ham. Some can multi-task. There's also something to be said for allowing someone to get a false sense of security. We're hot on Osama's tail. Don't put too much into this side of your argument or WMD's for that matter. I'm just giving you friendly advise. Who is profiting from the war in Iraq, other than the Iraqi? "neo-cons", "profit-motive", "vengeful nature", "WMD story",... C'mon man. This is right out of the MM handbook. This is proposterous stuff. OH LOOK ABOVE-Black helicopters are comin' for ya!!! CARL MARX FOR PRESIDENT!!!

4. He seems like an 'alright' kinda guy: So is my brother in law, but that doesn't make him qualified to be the POTUS. Also, any casual survey of recent magazine articles and books by respected writers and some people who were formerly in his own administration shed light on his sinister, disturbing, dangerous and illegal penchant for secrecy. See books by: Richard Clark, John Dean, Pat Buchanan, Sen. Robert Byrd and others to see exactly WHY his secrecy is all of the aforementioned, if you don't already know.

Yet the countless articles by credible media on the problems with Kerry just seem to pass you by. Robert Byrd could tell you much about the KKK as well, this doesn't make him credible to me. What of Clinton's "imperialistic" intents? Was this acceptable to you? I believe in secrecy for national defense. I'm sorry if that's painful to you, but our soveriegnty is important to me. The biggest enemies we have are living in this country. I don't want them to know more than they need to. What secrets though, out of curiosity? What was illegal?

[ebuddy]

5. He talks tough and doesn't change his mind: In the face of changing situations & dynamics and new facts remaining steadfast is a liability, NOT a virtue. If you've ever had a manager, supervisor, boss, spouse...etc., who was 'stupidly' stubborn, you understand the saying, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

I've also had bosses that had no clue what the hell they were doing. I've had bosses so out of touch with it's employees that they would initiate policies that were damaging to the bottom line just to put their name on it without even consulting the ones that made the company so great, it's people. Kerry is clearly out of touch. Look at his voting record, he didn't effectively represent Massachusetts, he won't effectively represent me, nor you, or America in general. In short, I'd much rather have a hobgoblin in office than a zombie.

6. He's doing a good job: Check again. Back to the war a minute, his dad, Colin Powell (the architect of the Gulf War triumph) and James Baker ALL advised against an invasion of Iraq in the mid-late 90's. They predicted exactly what has happened.

First of all, it's much easier to kick a dicatator out of a region than it is to remove him all together. We need someone who can make tough decisions as well. Powell didn't design the victory on his own. It had to be executed. But just what has happened in your estimate? If Powell felt strongly enough in opposition to Bush, he would not be an integral part of Bush's cabinet, nor would he have been as instrumental as he was in mustering International support for this recent war in Iraq.

Yet, W has gone ahead anyway!

Consistent with 14 UN resolutions, second chances, third chances, and 12 years of eluding weapons inspectors, and threats to use the WMD he supposedly didn't have. The International community all agreed that Saddam was dangerous, what they disagreed on was how to handle him. We decided to enforce the policies the UN itself drafted. This requires leadership.

And with all the time he and his people had to prepare a good plan - after all, the neo-cons had been pushing for it since the late 90's - here were are, closing in on 1,000 Americans dead.

Just how long do you think it takes to liberate an entire country? How many lives does it cost? I know nothing is worth fighting for in your estimate, I happen to disagree. I also generally avoid arguments that require dead soldiers in helping me make it. This tends to make one long for tragedy.

[ebuddy]

7. The American people are cattle and don't think too much. They just kinda go along with the flow: This allows the current administration to lie, steal, cheat, kill and profit from it and have the audacity to ask for 4 more years to continue doing the same.

Your supposition that the American people are cattle is how you see it, it's how many Libs see it, it's how Kerry sees it, and exactly why I won't be voting for Bush's opposition in November.

The Bush administration didn't cheat. We have an electoral college abiding by law. This is not cheating. The Bush administration has stolen nothing. What did conservatives do after 9/11? They cut back their investments altogether. What did many liberals do after 9/11? Invested overseas, so yes-there was profiteering from the dead. Dead Americans. The Bush administration didn't lie. Your accusation of Bush being mistaken is not a lie, it's mistaken. I disagree with you on Bush being mistaken, but for the sake of discussion; a lie is saying you served in Cambodia when you didn't. A lie is saying you didn't attend a convention of those seeking to assassinate US senators when you did. A lie is saying you threw your medals away when you didn't. Google 'Kerry lies', you'll likely be sitting there reading for days. A lie is saying you represent the average American when you don't.

[LoganCharles]

I suspect a more moderate W in a second term. With rumors of Powell staying on board and basically a soft approach to Iraq really since the invasion. I personally am against the soft approach in Iraq. Letting sh*theads like Al Sadr who are known criminals go free becuase of their religion is BS. But hey in the long run if it keeps the POS out of trouble then so be it.

With things like Gay Marriage. Americans as a whole don't want it. It was never an issue until some liberals decided to try to pass one of their socialist doctrines upon the American public.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Give me a better choice than Kerry. I see Bush as the lesser of two evils. At least we know where he stands on things. Where does Kerry stand and will it be the same stance this week as it will be next week?

Bush is decisive, sure. But he's a liar and a ******** who has inflamed the world.

Kerry is undecided on some issues. Good. It's human to apply careful thought and not to rush to poor conclusions.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I suspect a more moderate W in a second term. With rumors of Powell staying on board and basically a soft approach to Iraq really since the invasion. I personally am against the soft approach in Iraq. Letting sh*theads like Al Sadr who are known criminals go free becuase of their religion is BS. But hey in the long run if it keeps the POS out of trouble then so be it.

With things like Gay Marriage. Americans as a whole don't want it. It was never an issue until some liberals decided to try to pass one of their socialist doctrines upon the American public.

Gay Marriage is an individual's issue. Society in general has less right to interfere than filming you naked at home.

Moderate W in a second term? Someone who abuses trust and power takes even more advantage of further trust and pwer given to them.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
[B]

The Bush administration didn't cheat. We have an electoral college abiding by law. This is not cheating. The Bush administration has stolen nothing.

Tell that to black Floridans who have said they were held back from voting or banned because of criminal records that didn't exist.

What did conservatives do after 9/11? They cut back their investments altogether. What did many liberals do after 9/11? Invested overseas, so yes-there was profiteering from the dead. Dead Americans.

You will have to prove these outrageous statements.

The Bush administration didn't lie. Your accusation of Bush being mistaken is not a lie, it's mistaken. I disagree with you on Bush being mistaken

Confused?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Reason to support Bush, Osama will be caught. The war is occuring on several fronts and is being accomplished. I know you eat your peas, then your mashed potatoes, then your ham. Some can multi-task. There's also something to be said for allowing someone to get a false sense of security. We're hot on Osama's tail.

We're doing this, we're doing that, here's an orange alert, we're safer than ever before, we're going to get them, we'll land a probe on Jupiter's surface. This is not debate, it is rhetoric.

[Spliffdaddy]

one more time....

tell us why you support Kerry.

You keep rambling about Dubya.

[spacefreak]

Oh yeah.. I forgot. I also like Bush because he clears brush on his ranch. I'm always clearing brush off of my estate, so we have that in common.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You aren't seriously in support of the President are you?

Yes, I am. I just told you: Cool colors and design scheme + clears brush on his ranch + Kerry's wife looks like a man = my vote for Bush.

He threw a pitch at Yankee Stadium, too, and I'm a Yankee fan. Meanwhile, Kerry threw a pitch at Fenway Stadium (Boston), and since they are the Yankee's rival, I can't have him in the Oval Office where he may interfere with baseball deals.

Do you have a problem with that? Aren't I entitled to my own opinions and my own vote?

[The Mick]

McCain's 'Negro" daughter (actually a beautiful adopted child from India) kept many Southerners from supporting McCain in 2000.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Where were the ads about this? I lived in the South around that time and never once saw anything about this.

It wasn't an ad, it was push polling at its worst.
All from here: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/17006/104959

Bush’s campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll designed to degrade the character of the senator in the minds of the voters. Voters all across South Carolina were called and asked the question, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” A push poll by its nature is designed to plant a seed in the minds of those participating and its end result percentages are really just beside the point.

The seed was planted and then there was John McCain campaigning all over South Carolina with his beautiful wife and their little adopted Bangladeshi daughter. The sight of the little dark skinned girl made the seed planted earlier grow and John McCain lost South Carolina to Bush which basically ended his bid for the White House.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
But he's a liar and a ******** who has inflamed the world.

I don't think we should base our vote on what competitors want.

What do you think Microsoft would do if they could control Apple's management? What would the Red Sox do if they controlled the Yankees' front office?

Do you honestly think both Apple and the Yankees would benefit because the Microsoft and Red Sox contingents are no longer "inflamed"?

[Chinasaur]

I'm for Bush because I know that in the next trumped up war he starts, the Geneva Convention won't apply to him again when he attacks civilian infrastructure like water pumping stations, sewage plants and electrical stations.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Bush is decisive, sure.

I like decisive people. I hate wafflers and idiots whose opinion changes with the polls. That's why I was highly disappointed with Clinton.

But he's a liar and a ******** who has inflamed the world.

Liar? Inflamed the world? GMAFB.

Kerry is undecided on some issues.

Not just some issues.

Good.

No, bad. The last thing you want in a leader is someone who can't make up his mind about anything.

It's human to apply careful thought and not to rush to poor conclusions.

It's also preferable to make a stand and stick with it instead of being for something this week, against it next week, for it a fortnight later and claim you were for it all along.

[RAILhead]

[RAILhead]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yes, I am. I just told you: Cool colors and design scheme + clears brush on his ranch + Kerry's wife looks like a man = my vote for Bush.

He threw a pitch at Yankee Stadium, too, and I'm a Yankee fan. Meanwhile, Kerry threw a pitch at Fenway Stadium (Boston), and since they are the Yankee's rival, I can't have him in the Oval Office where he may interfere with baseball deals.

Do you have a problem with that? Aren't I entitled to my own opinions and my own vote?

Honest answers ... I know you don't make your decisions that way, but I've no doubt that the average voter, from both the right and the left, does.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well damn.

Is *anybody* gonna give me even *one* good reason to vote *for* Kerry?

You anti-Dubya sheep are really at a loss for words when I ask that question, huh?

[Spoogepieces]

If they gave you a reason then it might change next week.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Well damn.

Is *anybody* gonna give me even *one* good reason to vote *for* Kerry?

He's an admitted pot smoker. Is that a good reason?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nope.

I made less than a third of that last year, and they seemed friendly enough.

Again, not my reason.

I have never believed otherwise.

Not the only qualification, to be sure, but one of critical importance, and one we've lacked in any citing President for the last few decades.

You're not seriously asking me to trust Buchanan and Byrd, are you? I'll look into the other two, however.

The same could be said of almost any other politician these days. I don't like it, but it's not far enough from the norm to be much of a concern of mine. Call me jaded, I guess.

Where were the ads about this? I lived in the South around that time and never once saw anything about this.

Evidence, please?

I strongly disagree here. The President is supposed to be a leader, not a follower. That's why there is only one of them. The fact is, while the particulars of situations and dynamics may change often, only the most severe of these actually warrant a real change in course of action; the rest may call for minor adjustments, but complete flip-flops are seldom necessary or desirable.

Being stupidly stubborn is one thing. But that degree of stubbornness is quite rare, and for all his mental flaws, Bush doesn't have that.

It would be wrong to say that I support him. I find him to be a profoundly lesser evil, however. Both Bush and Kerry will do severe damage to this country, if elected; the only difference will be the methods of damage. Call me a speculative reactionary, if you will, but almost everything that either of them does will need to be undone if our country is to survive another fifty years. I merely think that Bush's damage will be easier to undo, in large part because the damage he is doing is better-understood by more people than the types of damage Kerry's policies will inflict.

Thanks for your well reasoned and detailed response!

Here's a link to the Amazon book by John Dean, "Worse Than Watergate," which includes a free excerpt.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0316...0Q#reader-link

As for your request for substantiation, please refer to pages 4 & 5 of the excerpt.

Thanks again.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Well damn.

Is *anybody* gonna give me even *one* good reason to vote *for* Kerry?

You anti-Dubya sheep are really at a loss for words when I ask that question, huh?

I can see it basically come down to two fundamental types of people, those who desire and those who dream. In other words those who want to be led and those who want to interact. Those who want to want to believe and those who want to experience.

Those who consciously vote for Bush and those who consciously vote for Kerry.

As an impartial observer that is my take on the main arch-types that are looking for a leader in the US this november.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
one more time....

tell us why you support Kerry.

You keep rambling about Dubya.

Spliff,

Honestly, I was pretty much going along with Bushy until I began hearing one thing after another, over a few months this past spring, about what he was doing or trying to do. Many of those things are documented on these MacNN pages by others more informed than I.

Anyway, as I became more and more riled it was like, "I don't care WHO runs against him, I just hope he's gone back to Texas by Jan. 21, 2005. I can't sit by and do nothing and allow him another four years!"

I used to be a car salesman and I know what W is doing. He is slick, real slick. And I feel he's duping us and getting away with it.

So, to answer your question, all I know about Kerry is that he put his ass in harm's way in Viet Nam. He led, he saved lives and he took lives. He was decorated. To protest the conduct of the war he spoke out against the things he saw and didn't like, then he threw away his medals (they were HIS to do with as he chose...he EARNED em!) as an act of conscience designed to really get people's attention.

It worked.
Then, he served in the Senate for a bunch of years.

That's all I got Spliff.

Anybody but Bush.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

So, to answer your question, all I know about Kerry is that he put his ass in harm's way in Viet Nam.

If that were true he would have been in the Army or Marines. Everyone knows that the Navy and Air Force saw little real combat compared to the infantry.

Anybody but Bush.

That about explains the mentality of the left this time around.

[Spliffdaddy]

um, he never threw his medals.

Those were somebody else's medals, he later admitted.

Kerry assured us that his medals are still in his posession.

Oddly, nearly everything you praise him for has been proven to be fictitious. ie, he shot wounded vietcong and fled the scene of an alleged attack.

[spacefreak]

I remember when...

McCain-Bush South Carolina Debate (moderated by Larry King)

MCCAIN: We're running nothing but positive campaign from now on. I committed to that. I promised that.

KING: Now, are you saying that George W. Bush --

MCCAIN: I hope that you will take yours off the air.

AUDIENCE (Applause.)

BUSH: Let me just say --

KING: Please -- are you saying that governor Bush was responsible for that call?

MCCAIN: I don't know who was responsible for it, but I know that the attacks go on.

BUSH: Let me just say one thing. Let me say one thing about all this business, John.

MCCAIN: I told you. I pulled them all down.

BUSH: You didn't pull this ad.

MCCAIN: Yes, I did.

BUSH: This that ended up in a man's windshield yesterday? That questions my -- this is a -- this is an attack piece.

MCCAIN: That is not by my campaign.

BUSH: Well, it says, "Paid for by John McCain."

AUDIENCE: (Laughter)

---------------
---------------

BUSH: Let me say something, John. Let me finish. Let me finish... John, I believe that you served our country nobly. And I've said it over and over again. That man wasn't speaking for me. He may have a dispute with you...

MCCAIN: He was at your event.

BUSH: Let me finish please, please.

MCCAIN: He's listed as your (inaudible)

BUSH: Let me finish. Let me finish.

KING: All right, let him finish.

BUSH: The man was not speaking for me. If you want to know my opinion about you, John, you served our country admirably and strongly, and I'm proud of your record, just like you are. And I don't appreciate what he said about my dad, either. But let me say something, if you're going to be -- hold me responsible for what people for me say, I'm going to do the same for you.

And let me give you one example: Warren Rudman, the man who you had as your campaign man in New Hampshire, said about the Christian Coalition that they're bigots. He talked about the Christian Coalition in a way that was incredibly strong. I know you don't believe that, do you?

MCCAIN: George, he's entitled to his opinion on that issue.

BUSH: Well, so is this man.

(APPLAUSE)

[Spliffdaddy]

Give folks a reason to vote for somebody - and they will.

Give folks a reason to vote against somebody - and they will stay home.


Spliffdaddy reminds you of his opinion on the matter ^

Kerry is already trailing Dubya by 11 points in the polls. A mere two months until the election - And there's still no compelling reason whatsoever to vote for Kerry other than his last name isn't Bush.




And no takers on my$20 bet.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I was pretty much going along with Bushy until I began hearing one thing after another, over a few months this past spring, about what he was doing or trying to do.

Ahh - the typical seminar poster child. "I used to be a Bush man until..."

I used to be a car salesman and I know what W is doing. He is slick, real slick. And I feel he's duping us and getting away with it.

What does your failed career path have to do with the Presidency?

So, to answer your question, all I know about Kerry is that he put his ass in harm's way in Viet Nam... Then, he served in the Senate for a bunch of years.

That's all I got...

Similarly, that's all Kerry has, too. I love the quick glancing over of his 20 years in the Senate by both Kerry and his supporters.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Your supposition that the American people are cattle is how you see it, it's how many Libs see it, it's how Kerry sees it, and exactly why I won't be voting for Bush's opposition in November.

The Bush administration didn't cheat. We have an electoral college abiding by law. This is not cheating. The Bush administration has stolen nothing. What did conservatives do after 9/11? They cut back their investments altogether. What did many liberals do after 9/11? Invested overseas, so yes-there was profiteering from the dead. Dead Americans. The Bush administration didn't lie. Your accusation of Bush being mistaken is not a lie, it's mistaken. I disagree with you on Bush being mistaken, but for the sake of discussion; a lie is saying you served in Cambodia when you didn't. A lie is saying you didn't attend a convention of those seeking to assassinate US senators when you did. A lie is saying you threw your medals away when you didn't. Google 'Kerry lies', you'll likely be sitting there reading for days. A lie is saying you represent the average American when you don't.

Ok, you want proof of the things I've said?

Check my profile for other sources cited elsewhere on these pages but this is a new citation:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/...ndex.php?id=16

There's a line by line account of Michael Moore's film.
EACH LINE he substantiates with citations which can be checked for accuracy.

You REALLY want the truth?

Then here it is.

I would hate getting the reputation of being someone who just spouts opinions but can't back em up.

Right?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Ok, you want proof of the things I've said?... http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/...ndex.php?id=16

You REALLY want the truth?

Then here it is.

I would hate getting the reputation of being someone who just spouts opinions but can't back em up.

Gotta love these newbie politicos who just happened to stumble upon this forum.

Along with their spouting of the usual lefty platitudes, they back up their rehashed claims with the world's most respected bastions of journalistic integrity, like MichaelMoore.com and HowardStern.com.

You're truly making a difference here. I'm sure you have already swayed more half of Bush's MacNN supporters to Kerry's side.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
Aberdeen:

Great post.

I'm thinking its a combo of 1 and 7 that makes so many people support Bush like somnambulistic lemmings.

Thanks Silky!

I appreciate your appreciation. (????LOL)

Here's a link to the Michael Moore website where he gives attributions and cites his sources for every point in the film F-9/11.

Many people here may not want to spend $ to see the movie, but this won't cost them anything except maybe their dearly held opinions.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/...ndex.php?id=16

Cheers!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here's a link to the Michael Moore website where he gives attributions and cites his sources for every point in the film F-9/11.

And here's a link to a piece documenting at least 59 deceits portrayed as truth by Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Cheers!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Gotta love these newbie politicos who just happened to stumble upon this forum.

Along with their spouting of the usual lefty platitudes, they back up their rehashed claims with the world's most respected bastions of journalistic integrity, like MichaelMoore.com and HowardStern.com.

You're truly making a difference here. I'm sure you have already swayed more half of Bush's MacNN supporters to Kerry's side.

Spacefreak,

Your tenure at this forum does not automatically confer you a monopoly on the truth.

Furthermore, that you seem deterred from your pursuit of truth by how it may be cloaked, suggests to me you may not really CARE about finding the truth at all.

Being ignorant is no crime.

Staying ignorant is lamentable.

Continuing to attack the ones who have, at least, bothered to provide you information to help you see a different perspective, is boorish.

I will give some thought before replying to your future posts.

Cheers!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Continuing to attack the ones who have, at least, bothered to provide you information to help you see a different perspective, is boorish.

You've provided no information that hasn't already been provided, promoted, rehashed, and mangled to best serve a certain agenda.

I routinely study all sides of any given issue and develop my own positions. The so-called "information" you have provided thus far has been nothing other than the same anti-Bush diatribes I have witnessed over the past few years.

I don't care if you don't like my replies. And as for your whining about others attacking and smearing your precious "information"... take a look at your initial post in this thread and tell me who is doing the attacking and smearing. Browse through MichaelMoore.com and tell me who is attacking and smearing.

Boorish is the feeling I get when reading thorugh your posts and witnessing your word-for-word DNC platitude amplification... not to mention your subsequent, condescending rebuttals to those who find fault or disagree with your newly unearthed "information".

If you truly wanted to discuss a certain issue, you would have isolated a Bush position or action on a certain issue and started a discussion thread on that issue instead of bulk posting this elitist collection of anti-Bush crap.

[Spliffdaddy]

and there ya have it, folks.

Zero reasons to vote for Kerry - brought to you by the pro-Kerry movement.