Kerry/Bush...could you guys clear something up for me?

[Serenity]

ok, ok , ok , ok , ok (in the voice of joe pesci)

what i'd like to know is this..... what the "F" does is matter who gets in between bush and kerry?....well, as far as world agenda goes and the war on terrorism ,etc.
i'm not talking about public health care--although, that's a dire issue in my eyes. (although people will eat fast-foods etc...but that's besides the point)

anyways... here's the Deal...if any of you are read up on your secret societies (which are more the conspiracies..they're fact) you already are aware that both Bush and Kerry are members of the elitist and no doubt most notorious secret society- "the skull and bones".

SO, in my mind, the bigger picture here is what's the diff? if the ultimate "secret" agenda is for unilateral world domination and both of the running mates are of the same societial values....well, where's the benefit?

I mean...i know bush is hailed to be a crazy bastid by most anyone....anywhere, but he's a driving force behind what makes america/western living what it is...and that's capitalism.
Kerry yaps on about socialism...which to many people might seem ideal.

Personally , i think it's an ignorance of many people as to what the financial ideoligies are of their country that keeps them where they are. What i mean by this is, many people understand that they live in north america and they can drive nice cars and have a nice home......they see that as common practice, but they also seem to be stuck in this way of thinking that "the govt. should look after my health care,etc"...and "well ****, i don't want to pay high taxes".
well, if you're goin to ask the govt to take care of everything you don't want to deal with because you like to avoid handling responsibilities...you're goin to need the socialist side of govt.....which is always costly in the end.

I am no doubt missing several important key argumentative factors here, but this is how i've come to see things so far....and please don't hesitate to inform me of relevant rebuttals.

so to cap this off... Bush/Kerry if you're not into makin money before the **** hits the fan (2nd coming of christ so to speak) , what's the diff?

[Tombstone]

I have my personal answer to this. I could right a book on why Kerry should not be the Commander in Chief OR the President of the Executive Branch for our Country.

At the great risk of understating my argument due to the lack of being able to write 100 pages, please let me submit:

1. Current activities and policies while running for the President. His actions of openly criticizing the war is putting our allies and our soldiers in harms way. Google this - and find many references by Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and (historically) the communist Vietnamese that Kerry's open and harsh criticisms have emboldened them and given them incentive to continue their activities against the U.S. and its allies. This is not a General I want on my side. It is the antithesis of being Commander in Chief.

2. ACTION speaks louder than words. Kerry has had well more than a decade of voting opportunities. As a U.S. Senator, his votes are one of the most important functions of his job - and it is the GUAGE and POSITION template that he lives and dies by. I am a firm believer in Peace Through Strength. (Thank you Jimmy Carter for almost destroying this Country through your Peace Through Hugs policies.) If you are too young to remember the Carter years, go to your library and grab some Time magazines, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Reports and take a gander. You will be surprised about how bad it was.

Let's look at Kerry's military voting record: (I won't even get into his socialist leaning voting record)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against B-1 Bomber

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against B-2 Stealth Bomber

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-14

(H.R. 5803, CQ, Vote #319, 10/26/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-15

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against F-16

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Patriot Missiles

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Trident Missile System

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against M-1 Abrams Tank

(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle

(S. 3189, QC, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)

1990 - Kerry Votes Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile
(S. 3189, CQ, Vote #273, 10/15/1990)
Over Kerry's Senate Career, Kerry Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2
Stealth Bomber

(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)
(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)
(S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)


Over Kerry's Senate Career, Kerry Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate
Missile Defense
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #168, 7/31/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #171, 8/1/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #172, 8/1/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #173, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #182, 8/7/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #214, 9/17/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #215, 9/17/92)
(S. 1298, CQ Vote #251, 10/9/93)
(S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64, 3/22/94)
(S. 1026, CQ Vote #354, 8/3/95)
(S. 1087, CQ Vote #384, 8/10/95)
(S. 1745, CQ Vote #160, 6/19/96)
(S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:, 5/13/98)
(S. 1873, CQ Vote #262, 9/9/98)
(S 1635, CQ Vote #157, 6/4/96)
(S. 2549, CQ Vote #178, 7/13/00)

In 1984, when Kerry was running for U.S. Senate, Kerry clearly stated his
position on defense programs. He called for the elimination or reduction in
the following programs: (Here are the actual documents)

* Cancel MX Missile
* Cancel B-1 Bomber
* Cancel Anti-satellite system
* Cancel Strategic Defense Initiative
* Reduce by 50% Tomahawk Cruise Missile
* Cancel AH-64 "Apache" Helicopters
* Cancel Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD)
* Cancel Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser
* Cancel AV-8B "Harrier"
* Cancel F-15 Fighter Aircraft
* Cancel F-14A Fighter Aircraft
* Cancel F-14D Fighter Aircraft
* Cancel Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile
* Cancel Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile

Kerry has long held views against the U.S. Military. When Kerry unsuccessful
ran for Congress in 1972, the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune wrote:

"On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a
different kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against
military appropriations."

Two years earlier when when Kerry had just returned from Vietnam and was
running for congress, Kerry was interviewed by the Harvard Crimson on
February 13, 1970. Kerry had the following to say:

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see
our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United
Nations."

Personally, I need not go on.

[jjtss]

Dear Tombstone:
I spent many years in the defense and NASA contractor's business and I will say that Mr. Kerry did his homework. For instance, the Patriot missile was accurate to only 39 degrees of its target and made the US the laughing stock of NATO when it was demonstrated in Europe. Also the Star Wars Initiative is a cover for the infamous HAARP Project (Google this to learn the awful threat to the world that HAARP engenders). Mr Kerry is because of his caution in defense weapons proliferation more suitable to be the commander in chief and/or trigger man of a nuclear arsenal than Mad King G. Brish The NYTimes had an article today that stated that people like you NeoCons prefer the grand style of G. Brish to the substance of Mr. Kerry. Well all NeoCons, vote for style and go out in style.When will you ever learn

[Tombstone]

I consider your argument to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am very familiar with HAARP. I know much more about it than the casual googler. To equate SDI being a waste of money because of one program that you disagree with does not make sense.

Regarding the Patriot missile, since since when did a new missile system operate efficiently and perfectly while it was still under development? You also must know that the modifications and improvements made on the Patriot were incorporated into later missile systems.

Okay, that's two products out of the list. Let's look at this list again:

B-1 Bomber
B-2 Stealth Bomber
F-14
F-15
F-16
Aegis Air Defense Cruiser
Trident Missile System
M-1 Abrams Tank
Tomahawk Cruise Missile

You can justify this by saying all the items above are evil? Better yet, you are classifying me as a Neocon? Since when have you met me? May I classify you as a limp-wristed liberal?

I believe in peace through strength. To believe otherwise is foolish. To believe that R&D results in perfect products with zero waste is naive.

[jjtss]

I do not propose to throw out any babies or bath water. I was merely pointing out that Mr. Kerry may have had valid and sane reasons for voting against certain military weapons programs. We don't know what G. Brish's voting record would have been because he never served in the US legislature.
The issue here is not the worthiness of the military weapons you have listed but rather the difference between the two candidates for POTUS.
Your response to a debate of candidate differences has been hostile and combative. I am sorry that my efforts to answer someone else's question has caused you such an unusual reaction. This reaction is typical of a neocon, btw. While I have not posted on this forum before, I have read many member posts and observed certain personality traits emerging. So sorry, you do share many posting traits with neocons. While I realized that you do possess a lofty position in this forum, I did not realize that it is so possessive that you would take such great and unreasonable umbrage and request my resignation from this forum .
However, enough of personalities. Let us address the issue: The differences between Mr. Kerry and G. Brish.
While Mr. Kerry may appear anti war vis-a-vis his voting on certain programs, He probably has a reasonable and honest reason for his voting results. G. Brish on the other hand, has lied to the American people about WMD in Iraq, illegally declared war on a defenseless nation, murdered 40,000 innocent people, directly caused the deaths of 1,000 Americans in a wasted effort and in a foreign land, and bankrupted the US Treasury.
Another major difference is that most leaders of foreign nations prefer that Mr. Kerry should become president and that the American people get rid of G. Brish.
While the standard neocon response to this news is that we should not allow foreign leaders to influence our politics (which is precisely what we are doing in Iraq) the counter point is that we should look on this fact as we do the character references of a job applicant. On the other hand G. Brish has destroyed all of his credibility with world leadership and a major portion of the world community. As the Mayor of London said"The single greatest threat to life on this planet is George W. Bush."
As far as your request that I unsuscribe to your forum, You may block me or suspend me, but I will not let someone arbitrarily dismiss me from expressing my rights, because they do not agree with me or other members.

[Paula]

All too intense, i wouldn't want to be President for any country, tough job.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by jjtss

We don't know what G. Brish's voting record would have been because he never served in the US legislature.

what is meant by "G. Brish"? what does that mean? what is it implying? i don't get it.

[Ginger]

Cannot imagine where or what causes anyone to think John Kerry has substance. He DOES have substantial assets; otherwise he has shown himself to be a liar, a conniver, a man who came close to driving is first wife to suicide, he contrived being awarded purple hearts for band-aid injury because with 3 he could go home. He had a camera crew following him in Vietnam so as to have a record of his "exploits," the North Vietnamese loved him because he helped them against the USA. I wonder how those who think he is wonderful think about that? Do they really believe it is a phony story? How naive. Everything I learn about this "man of substance" tells me he is a lily-livered, social snob who will hesitate at nothing to get what he wants.

[gmc]

Two things.

1)things like sdi etc will not help you in fighting terrorism, good use of imntelligence and co-operation with other countries will.
2) arguably getting involved in vietnam was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. You never declared war on vietnam amd they never attacked you so maybe a close look at what led to being in vietnam in the first place might be in order. Have a read of colin powells autobiography it makes interesting reading. Opposition to war does not equal unpatriotic not does it mean you don't support the troops, that's a cheap quip designed to stop people thinking about what is being said.

Warfare is not a video game hesitating about going to war is tha act of a rational man. A war against terrorists is not like going to war against a natioin state with a clear enemy and objective it's an intelligence war.

George bush getting re-elected is probably the best thing that could happen to al queda. Iraq is a quagmire that is going to bankrupt you if you are not careful and was completely irrelevant to what happened on 911.

You now seem paranoid about terrorists sneaking across your borders, they don't have to sneak they can just walk in the front door.

"G. Brish"?

I can relate to that the i and the u are next to each other on the keyboard, I can spell and I can type it's doing both together that are diccifult.

[greydeadhead]

unfortunatelyl this is an election cycle that has fielded two completely unqualified candidates... Little George can't go to the bathroom without asking Daddy George.. and Gomer is so hypocritcally wishywashy that he can't make up his mind about what socks to wear for the day. Doubtlessly the Iraq mess is a major screw up.. and even attempting to link that to the war against terrorism was a blatant attempt to justify it is an idiotic move by the current administration. But.. on the other side of the coin.. to delcare that you are gonna halt the exportation of jobs out of country when your wife's company has moved all of its production plants off shore... plueeezzzee.... Just now both candidates are beginning to address the real issues that need to be dealt with.. halting the escalating health care costs, the disappearance of the middle class... etc etc etc.. okay enuff of a rant.. just remember what Roger Daltry and the boys said.. "meet the new boss.. Same as the old Boss"