great post MIC. It is really something how people change their attitudes when it is a republican in control making decisions

 

The bottom line is 85% of people voting for Kerry are voting for Kerry because "He is not George W. Bush"

I hate to say it ManInCamo, but with the majority of people whom are voting for Senator John Kerry feeling that way, your facts - or mine - or anyone's, will not change their vote. It's just bottom line, they don't like President Bush and they will not vote for him no matter what facts show up about their wonderful Senator.

It's partisan voting at its best. =[

 

Exactly, for many of these people, you could put the Quiznos rat against Bush and they would vote for it instead of Bush, just becaiuse they don't like Bush and not because they like the candidate.


hmmm maybe there is a connection :rick:

 

I took that list that you posted and put it on a local board. People just say Clinton isnt running in 04 and dismiss it. They dont see the point that Everything is so based on political affiliation. The presidents did the exact same thing in several instances but yet one instance is good and the other is bad

 

Amen to this thread. One of the best I've seen in a while.

Funny you mentioned this, hippies always say, "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". Well fu'ck that. My parents pay on average $30,000 in taxes every year and they work their asses off for what they do.

 

As Cheney said, there's a fundamental difference between how the Republicans and Democrats feel taxes should be created.

Democrats feel that those whom are rich, should pay more in taxes - basically because "they can afford it." Republicans feel that they should make a tax base that is fair, and cut taxes whenever possible - including a cut to the rich - because it's the rich who start businesses and employ people, not the poor.

To me, just because you are filthy rich from either luck or hard work, does not give me or anyone else the right to take more away from you. The rich earned what they have, and most of them worked very hard for it - and they should not be punished for that kind of achievement. That's what this country is all about anyway, isn't it? You can work as hard as you like and make as much as you like, or work as little as you like and make as little as you wish, but regardless what you choose you wont be penalized just because you got rich and "can afford to pay more."

I'm by no means rich, nor is my family, but I firmly believe that what you make and earn (or are given) is yours and just because it is higher than 99.9% of the rest of the worlds income doesn't mean you should be forced to give more of it away than another person who doesn't make as much as you do.

 

Nice slant, good cut and paste job. Some of it is true. If Clinton were running for president it might actually be useful. Yes, partisan politics can draw some parallels, but each is there own man.

Bush is the first president EVER to attempt writing discrimination back into the constitution. (Gay marriage amendment)

Bush successfully killed some of our civil liberties under the “Patriot Act”. Our judicial system has labored for the past 3 years to rectify the damage he caused in a single stroke. It will take a couple more years for the Supreme Court to call it one of the worst assaults on our civil liberties ever.

Clinton didn’t get rich off Haliburton. Cheney did. You think a little of that didn’t make it’s way into Bush’s re-election coffers?

“Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000.” What did Theresa pay? Did they file jointly of separately?

Lastly, why are oil prices so high? I mean the REAL reason. Could it be so Bush can convince America that drilling in Alaska is GOOD. Good for his pocket book.

Is that enough reasons other than “Bush Sucks”?

Couple more?

I would think that a “Man In Camo” could spot a shammer vs. a worker. Bush’s service record is “8 up like a soup sandwich”. What a freakin’ joke.

Kerry served admirably and had the balls to come back and chuck his medals (deserved?) at the White House because he thought we were there for the wrong reasons. Just like MOST logical people thought then and now.

Try forming an opinion of your own. The one you borrowed sucks.

 

I guess if you call doing that having "balls." I guess the things you posted were YOUR opinion too, and not borrowed right?

 

Well, most people in their right mind consider it a good thing.

 

.... AND he has the balls to come back on the political stage 30 years later and tout how much of a hero he is for having served.

So let's get this straight.

He was a hero for serving.
He decided he'd throw out his medals and not be associated with serving in Vietnam because it was a war that should not have been fought.
He decided to tell Congress and the American people what atrocities soldiers, including himself, had done in Vietnam and how they should be pulled back from Vietnam.
He goes on to speak of disgust of the war in Vietnam and how he is not proud he served in it, hence - throwing away his medals.

Fastforward to 2004.
He's proud of his medals in Vietnam.
He touts his service in the Armed Forces to achieve that "hero status" again.

Seems to me that he wants the glory when it suits him, and doens't when it doesn't suit him.

If you'd like me to start posting all of the votes that Senator John Kerry has voted for - and in hindsight - been on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY, I gladly will. If you want me to post all of the votes that Senator John Kerry has flat out MISSED that you would deem as a VERY IMPORTANT issue, I will gladly do that as well.

The bottom line is, John Kerry has been wrong in the past more times than I can count, and he has changed his position on everything from how proud he is in Vietnam to the war in Iraq time and time again - depending on the political climate.

I have no doubt that he was digusted with what happened in Vietnam; and I have no doubt that he served honorably. What I do doubt is how he can be disgusted and ashamed of the service in Vietnam that he, and every other soldier performed, 30 years ago - and then in 2004 decide it was honorable and be proud of it again. It's a lack of integrity, and I don't trust him for it... at all.