GoldenDelicious said:
well actually there is a reason, and that reason is that your president has failed miserably in his task. he was meant to guide america legislatively/economically etc and make life better, but really, all i have seen out of the bush camp is a series of collossal fuckups.
my choice would be based on the exclusion principle. vote for bush? fuck, i dont think he manages to piss without getting it on his shoes. NO way in hell should that guy be able to control my life. then theres that nader guy. well, lets be honest...he aint winning shit. so, that leaves kerry.
why is kerry better than bush? because he hasnt fucked up. he
might fuck up, which sucks, but bush
will fuck up, which sucks more.
clear enough?
which is why bush got molested during the 3 presidential debates.
because the average american (and youre not average, obviously) is stupid, and its easier to talk about what a fuckup bush is, than it is to talk about why kerrys views are more useful for america.
somteimes i think some of you chimps would be confused by a bunch of people chanting "bush, bad, kerry, good"
youre right. he just wanted the legislation in place,
just in case. let me simplify it for you, using a line from one of the garbage movies used to pacify you and foster your present level of stupidity: "you dont put on a condom unless youre going to fuck". clear?
uh, spend it on what? bush spent 300 billion on killing people you guys had no business killing, and you love him. what do you think kerry is going to spend the money on? party poppers? balloons? if he actually is going to spend this supposed money (and you arent full of crap) then i daresay itll be on something better than blowing up a bunch of people living in another country, for no good reason.
metzen, please dont drink and post, its almost as dangerous as the vehicular equivalent (in terms of stupidity, anyway)
this whole kerry flip flop spin is weak, weak, weak. "he changed his mind on this issue" "he changed him mind on that issue" pfffffft fuck me drunk, bush totally FUBARED everything, how much convincing do you need?
"hi, my names george w bush, i took the nation to war for nothing, killed 1000 soldiers, wounded 7000, killed 100,000 iraqi civilians (all of whose families wont want retribution, im sure) spent 300 billion dollars on nothing, brought in the patriot act which essentially makes all you citizens my slaves, alienated my allies, turned world opinion against the usa, but hey, dont vote for kerry, because you dont know what he stands for"
if i had to choose between a wild card and a guy whose name is synonymous with the word "fuck up", id choose the wildcard. please.
look at it the other way. kerry mightnt fix it, but bush will make it worse.
first thing youve said that i agree with
The lack of intelligence, illogical reasoning and the ignorance of the facts in this post astounds me. Please look into the patriot act. You obviously do not know what is in it but rather the spin. I was against it when I first heard of it and still believe in needs to be amended as it intrudes into privacy. The key idea behind it is to preemptively stop terrorist’s strikes and allow communication between the CIA, FBI, and the separate police departments. But you already knew that didn't you.... So when the terrorists struck the towers and we knew that it was going to happen we could have done nothing about it. Unless, of course, we had the exact day, time and just how it was going to happen. Justifiable reasoning to get a warrant includes all of that. Here is a little detailed segment of an easy to understand article.
"An [FBI] agent investigating the intelligence side of a terrorism case was barred from discussing the case with an agent across the hall who was working the criminal side of that same investigation. For instance, if a court-ordered criminal wiretap turned up intelligence information, the criminal investigator could not share that information with the intelligence investigator - he could not even suggest that the intelligence investigator should seek a wiretap to collect the information for himself." The Patriot Act was written to resolve these kinds of problems and provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies the new tools they need to fight a new adversary. Among other provisions, it streamlined the process for obtaining search warrants in multiple jurisdictions, making it easier to track suspects who are constantly on the move. And it raised criminal penalties for not only perpetrating, planning and otherwise abetting attacks, but also for hoaxes that can cause nearly as much economic damage".
Here’s the link for the full article.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13141799&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222076&rfi=6
Please read it and maybe you can understand that the laws were outdated and were in dire need of changing.
But don't feel to bad, allot of democrats just believe what they hear without checking the facts. It’s really quite common amongst the liberals so I guess you fit right in.
I don't believe the patriot act is perfect and I believe in some cases its abused. But I do see the reason behind it and why it must be.
So you don't even know Kerry's plans for the country? Boy I sure thought you would because you seem ready to give your left nut to get this guy elected.
Here's a link to three different independent studies all saying the same thing. Please follow the links on the website if you don't believe what the site has to say.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239540/posts
Basically Kerry will spend 3 dollars for every one he collects in higher taxes with the plan he lays out. You don't hear the media saying anything about that.... He may not be spending it on "balloons and party poppers" but he sure as hell isn't fixing the deficit.
Then here is a rebuttal against Kerry on just about everything he has attacked Bush on at home. All of them backed up with creditable sources, which you probably won't read.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1219173/posts
The flip-flop is old republican propaganda? Well it may be a republican attack but it’s also the truth. Please explain this.
John Kerry Criticized The President For Realigning Our Troops.
"Finally, I want to say something about the plan that the President announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way. Let's be clear. The President's vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror. It in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. It doesn't even begin until 2006, and it takes ten years to achieve." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The Veterans Of Foreign Wars Convention, Cincinnati, OH, 8/18/04)
Kerry Is For Troop Realignment
In August 2004, Kerry Said: "I Think We Can Significantly Change The Deployment Of Troops, Not Just There But Elsewhere In The World. In The Korean Peninsula Perhaps, In Europe Perhaps." STEPHANOPOULOS: "Can you promise that American troops will be home by the end of your first term?" SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror." (John Kerry, ABC's "This Week," 8/1/04)
In a span of 2 weeks....
And here he does it in the debates
http://www.newsfly.org/kvsk.htm It’s done comically but all the same…..
Kerry's tax plan once again under attack. If you make fewer than 200,000 you taxes could very well still be raised. So much for standing up for the poor......
The final two presidential debates have given Americans a clear picture of John Kerry’s tax vision. It’s not pretty. For starters, Kerry’s statements and campaign manifesto undermine his pledge not to raise taxes on those who earn less than $200,000. This alone should warn voters that, for Kerry, tax hikes are not a last resort, but a first response.
In the St. Louis debate, Kerry replied to James Varner who asked him “to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language,” pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 annually.
“Absolutely,” Kerry said. “Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes. I have a tax cut.”
Demonstrating yet again Kerry’s talent for self-contradiction, he added, “Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you’re going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton … ”
But, as veteran business journalist and Fox News contributor Stuart Varney reported on October 10, restoring the status-quo-Clinton will hurt taxpayers less affluent than those Kerry boasts are in his crosshairs.
Varney cited Johnkerry.com, which says that Kerry hopes to “restore the top two tax rates to their levels under President Clinton.”
“If you restore those top two tax levels,” Varney said, “lots of people who make well under $200,000 a year would, in fact, have their taxes raised under the John Kerry plan.”
For instance,
Varney calculates that for married couples filing jointly, the tax rate would rise from 33 to 35 percent above $178,651
For heads of households, the 33 percent rate would grow to 35 percent above $162,701
For married couples filing separately, the 35 percent rate increases to 39.6 percent above $159,550
Single filers would move from 33 to 35 percent above $146,751
And for married couples filing separately, the 33 percent rate would increase to 35 percent above $89,326.
Thanks to his words and website, Kerry’s week-old tax pledge already is ablaze. Americans who earn as little as $89,327 can expect federal tax hikes. This should surprise no one. Through his 20-year Senate career, Kerry has been one of the Tax Man’s best friends.
Kerry “voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they tried to reduce taxes, he voted against that 127 times,” said President Bush at Thursday’s Tempe, Arizona, debate. “He voted 277 times to waive the budget caps, which would have cost the taxpayers $4.2 trillion.”
While Kerry says he favors middle-class tax cuts, he skipped the Senate’s September 23 vote to extend family tax relief. It also is difficult to reconcile Kerry’s tax-reduction plans with his gilded expenditures.
Kerry proposes $2.2 trillion in new spending — including $700 billion for a 10-year catastrophic medical-payment program — plus kiddy health insurance, and more. Even squeezing those who earn $200,000 or more, President Bush argued, Kerry would generate $800 billion, at most. That leaves him $1.4 trillion short. Would you bet against paying part of that bill?
Even while denouncing Bush’s tax cuts, Kerry hypocritically enjoys them. As Club for Growth president Steve Moore explained in the Wall Street Journal on October 11, the Kerrys paid $704,227 in federal taxes on $5.51 million in income last year, a 12.8 percent effective tax rate. While typical middle-class families effectively paid 20 percent, the Bushes paid 30.4 percent. Had Kerry rejected Bush’s tax cuts and stuck with Clinton’s top rate, Moore estimates that Kerry would have paid $1.2 million in taxes, effectively 21.8 percent.
President Bush seeks re-election with sterling supply-side credentials. He has signed $1.9 trillion in tax relief, lowered the top rate from 39.6 to 35 percent and the bottom rate from 15 to 10 percent, and reduced levies in between. While his per-child tax credit and other targeted relief represent pro-family social engineering, these measures at least keep money in citizens’ pockets — and out of the Potomac.
Bush, alas, deserves brickbats on spending. If reelected, he should wield his untouched veto pen and draw a fiscally conservative path. Beyond national security, he should freeze spending, or at least tie it to inflation, rather than its 8.2 percent average annual ascent since 2001, as the Cato Institute calculates.
Nonetheless, Bush’s fiscal shortcomings pale beside those of John Kerry, a congenital spendaholic who yearns for higher taxes.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200410150834.asp
Oops Kerry lied. Who's the liar again?
Have you even gone to Kerry's website and looked at his plan? He is not going to fix the deficit or win the war.
Ok, I’ll give you the first debate, the second I believe was even. However on the third Bush smashed Kerry.
Kerry won't release his grades from college but Bush has, I guess there is something to hide there. Bush also scored allot higher than Kerry on the military aptitude test. Kerry is just a better public speaker, that’s all.
Your lines of thinking
You support Kerry and you don’t know jack shit about him. I’m still waiting for a response to my earlier post…. Please don’t make political decisions and then spout shit without knowing the facts.
And please come up with something intelligent instead of just recycling insults you've heard from others.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
