Vote Kerry Just Because He Is Not Bush!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Honestly, who out there is voting for Kerry just because he is not Bush. Who would rather have anyone but Bush in office. If you like Kerry for Kerry's policies, what policy do you think makes Kerry the man for the job.

I for one did not vote in the 2000 election but i wish i would have. Gore was an over powering and Bush is just good at lookin dumb, even though it takes more than a dumb-ass to get a degree from Harvard. Either way, I wish i had voted in the last election because if i would have voted it would have been for Bush. I am registered in Texas so i figured Bush would easily take Texas because he was the Governor. I imagine there are people like me on both sides of the fence who didn't vote because they figured their candidate would take their state. There for, the election of 2000 was too close to tell who would have won ANOTHER recount. That is why i think there is going to be a good turn this election even though we have two unknowns. Kerry won't give us any clue of how he plans to accomplish the goals he has talked about at the DNC. G.W. on the other hand, he will be in his final 4 years and will not have to worry about re-elections. If G.W. wins he could pretty much do what ever he wants.




posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Who would rather have anyone but Bush in office.


I would.




Kerry won't give us any clue of how he plans to accomplish the goals he has talked about at the DNC.


GWB won't give us any clues how he's going to "leave no child behind" in education, curb the crazy, crazy, crazy deficit for which our children will have to pay, won't give us any clues of the exit strategy in Iraq, won't give us clues how he's going to make medicines affordable for the elderly, why the job creations isn't really happening, he's one clueless guy. Really.



G.W. on the other hand, he will be in his final 4 years and will not have to worry about re-elections. If G.W. wins he could pretty much do what ever he wants.


Oh my sweet Lord. That's a really scary thought.


Down with Bush, a different person is needed now.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Actually, I'm doing the opposite -- I'm voting for Bush because he's not Kerry!
Really, I was hoping the Democrats would have someone better to offer in 2004... oh well.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Personally I believe it is very ignorant for someone to vote for a candidate just becuase he is not the other guy. You need to look at the other guy as well. I want Lieberman first and I'm a supporter of the Republicans, but now that Kerry is in and seeing how far left he is Bush is the only option. Tthere is Nader and Badnarik though, why not put a vote to them?



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Actually by now most people has seen the country under the rule of bush and what his rule has brought to this nation and to the world in the name of this nation.

Most people have seen Kerry and what he is promising. For these people that are tired of what is going on with our economy our civil rights and our lives these people already have made their choice.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
That's the problem... having to choose "the lesser of two evils" or "the devil you know" instead of being able to really have a choice. If it weren't always two rich white guys head to head with a smattering of other irrelevant guys as filler, it might be better.

As far as things go now, I'll probably vote for Bush because I have no faith in Kerry as far as the terrorism issue goes. But I think people will vote based on what's important to them. Abortion, civil rights, economy, whatever. Most people I know decide what's on top of their priority list and vote for the guy who can take care of it, regardless of his stance on other issues.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
People are absolutely going to vote for Kerry cause he's not Bush. Why? I can't really tell. To me they are the same person, just different personalities. I chalk it up to laziness. People being too lazy to take a look at the issues and decide for themselves what candidate out there best defines the issues that they agree with. Instead, the sheople will follow status quo and just get in line. Sad really.
This is my third election I've been old enough to vote in, and I have been victim to following status quo before. Not this year. I will vote for who I see best fit. For me, it's neither Kerry or Bush.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
Actually, I'm doing the opposite -- I'm voting for Bush because he's not Kerry!
Really, I was hoping the Democrats would have someone better to offer in 2004... oh well.


I agree once again ThunderCloud. The 2004 election is going to be a repeat of the 2000 election. We need different candidates. If Kerry had more to offer i might be willing to vote for him but he reminds me of Gore and Gore makes me sick. Gore's speech at the DNC reminded me why i follow the Republican Party. The Democratic Party once again chooses a candidate that can speak and speak alone. They have no backbone, they only say what they think the people wnt to hear. Take a side and stay there.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Though not exaclty hard core supporting Kerry I think it is important to take into consideration that with the removal of Bush, so also goes his cabinent as well as several other appointments of power. Bush needs to go because he really is about as observant as a turnup.

Though I also do like that Kerry wants to work with the UN to rebuild alliances. I also think that there is such annomosity against Bush from forign leaders that the only way to rebuild alliances is to get Bush out ofhte picture. Much like the terrorists in Iran who held hostages and refused to release them durring Carter, reguardless of how hard he tried. It was only just moments after he was defeated by Regan that they were released.

We as a Nation will not be able to rebuild our repore with the rest of the world untill Bush is gone.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Take a side and stay there.



Question, Do you think that if you believe in somehting and support it at one point in time.. and then after supporting something that you find that not only were you mislead but everythign you supported is being horribly mismanaged that you should contiue to support it?

In the light of new and better information is there anything wrong with changing your point of view?

Becasue yoru statement of "pick a side and stay there" goes against the idea of growth.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
You are so right wraith, with Bush gone...

1. Osama will come over to assist in rebuilding the towers.
2. Chirac will fly the American flag in central Paris.
3. No more people will die in Iraq...ever.
4. There will be an end to hunger and disease.

Getting rid of Bush will truly bring peace to the world.

Who cares what Old Europe thinks when OUR butts our on the line.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Bush and Kerry. Kerry and Bush. What's the difference? They both belong to a Satanic organization known as Skull and Bones. Didn't anyone bother to read the newspaper articles? Or does no one care that for the first time in American history the candidates of both parties are admitted to be members of the same occult society.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
Actually, I'm doing the opposite -- I'm voting for Bush because he's not Kerry!
Really, I was hoping the Democrats would have someone better to offer in 2004... oh well.


There ya' go!! If Gephardt was on the ticket this would be a very different race! He's qualified for president AND when he says something, he doesn't flip flop. However, it's between Bush and Kerry. So I go with Bush. Kerry is unfit for command.

I kinda' feel bad for the strong Kerry supporters who say 'Kerry said this' or 'Kerry said that'. I feel bad for them because they are good people who believe in their candidate, but unfortunately, their candidate doesn't stand behind what he says.

Note what happened on the 'Christmas in Cambodia' thread. A lot of good people who support Kerry came on and said he was telling the truth, and that the people who discredited him were liars, but by the time the thread came to a finish, Kerry himself flipflopped and now says that he wasn't there, even though it was 'seared' in his mind ... so much for 'seared'.

Vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush ... well, Nadar isn't Bush either. We REALLY need to get the third, fourth, and fifth parties more involved in America. It's vital to our best interests. Independants, Greens, Libertarians, all deserve to be heard and to have us be able to choose from them. They 'aren't Bush' either.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Actually by now most people has seen the country under the rule of bush and what his rule has brought to this nation and to the world in the name of this nation.


I assume your speaking of Iraq? If so, please remember that the members of Congress voted for authorization of force. Those members included Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards (both of whom voted yes for authorization of force in Iraq). In my opinion Kerry and Edward are both as guilty as Bush in getting us into this quagmire. Bush didn't act alone. Kerry and Edwards gave Bush their support on Iraq.





posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ischyros
for the first time in American history the candidates of both parties are admitted to be members of the same occult society.


Some people consider the Masons to be an occult group.
I don't know if they are or not, but many consider them to be.
Aren't Dole and Kemp both Masons? I think Kemp is 33rd degree.

Republicans in 1996 had a choice between the democrat ticket of
Bill/Hillary as prez. and Gore as VP or Dole/Kemp who were Masons.
Masons - which go against the religion of many Christians.
I heard heads exploding in frustration all over the country.


[edit on 8/13/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
You are so right wraith, with Bush gone...

1. Osama will come over to assist in rebuilding the towers.
2. Chirac will fly the American flag in central Paris.
3. No more people will die in Iraq...ever.
4. There will be an end to hunger and disease.

Getting rid of Bush will truly bring peace to the world.

Who cares what Old Europe thinks when OUR butts our on the line.


I agree with part of what your trying to say....Getting rid of Bush will not help in any of those points you made. But, I'm afraid keeping him there will make no difference either. Just IMO.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
You are so right wraith, with Bush gone...

1. Osama will come over to assist in rebuilding the towers.
2. Chirac will fly the American flag in central Paris.
3. No more people will die in Iraq...ever.
4. There will be an end to hunger and disease.

Getting rid of Bush will truly bring peace to the world.

Who cares what Old Europe thinks when OUR butts our on the line.




No Getting rid of Bush will not bring word peace.. but it will stop him for doing any further damage.

Who Cares what old Europe thinks it's our butt on the line?!?! I am really worried here... are you really that incredibly stupid or do you just do it to get intersting responces? Are you so profoundedly delusional to think that the only two parties being affected by all of this is Iraq and the USA?


It's honeslty comments like that, that I find truely dumbfounding.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

We REALLY need to get the third, fourth, and fifth parties more involved in America. It's vital to our best interests. Independants, Greens, Libertarians, all deserve to be heard and to have us be able to choose from them. They 'aren't Bush' either.



I agree with you 100%. That's what's needed.

There is one concern howefer, that there are urgent problems that we'll be too late in solving if another few years pass under the current administration. I'll spare the Iraq issue because it won't be solved by anyone by now, including Kerry (because he won't pull out).

The tax cut should be repealed. How can anyone consciously look at the nation that's racking up debt at such astronomical rate? That mean that instead of investing in education, healthcare and in fact the military, the US will be busy paying off interest for foreseeable future. Most people know little about finance unfortunately, even in the form of the credit card (look at how many people abuse credit), that's why there is a sense of complacency. Every time people cheer about "democracy in Iraq", I feel like asking "who's paying for it?". If your kid can't go to college in 5 years from now, if you won't be able to afford medicince when you retire, if there are more intellignece failures because some program was underfunded, that'll be because we are going BROKE for God's sake!

Of course there is silence in the media about this. The numbers are published but the masses have problem with math, so it all goes unnoticed.

If there was one reason at all to vote for Kerry, (there are some others), that would be it.

I don't like Kerry. But if he cuts the deficit, I don't mind if he vacations in Cambodia between 1968 and now, under President Roosevelt.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Anyway, you see it is always going to come to one thing and that is how Iraq should had been handle war or not war.

Everything went right at the beginning of the invasion we went into Iraq within not time we conquered it and them we took Sadam with minimum casualties.

Bush could had been a hero but when greediness and Cheney bad deals and links with Halliburton started thats when things got wrong and now this administration have nothing but a whole bunch of unhappy people in Iraq and in the US.


The whole entire bush years have been in focus in the Middle East and our nation has gone down the hill.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Some people consider the Masons to be an occult group.
I don't know if they are or not, but many consider them to be.
Aren't Dole and Kemp both Masons? I think Kemp is 33rd degree.

Republicans in 1996 had a choice between the democrat ticket of
Bill/Hillary as prez. and Gore as VP or Dole/Kemp who were Masons.
Masons - which go against the religion of many Christians.
I heard heads exploding in frustration all over the country.


True, the majority of American presidents have been either Masons or honorary Masons. And I do consider them to be an occult organization. At the highest degrees they worship Lucifer, who they falsely believe to be a liberator and bringer of enlighenment, when all he actually offers them are the invisible chains of seflishness and pride. The reason our world is so insane is because our human leaders worship the god of madness, lies, and confusion.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by Ischyros]





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join