It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Undecided Voters????

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
How are people undecided i dont understand. This is directed to the undecided voter:

Do you want to think about this election more seriously? Vote Bush, vote Kerry, but think about this: do you really want the country to go in the direction they're taking you or say they're going to take you for the next ten or 20 years?

If you can't decide based on what you've heard, think about this: do you want to continue on the road of basically being go-it-alone in the world? I mean, Tony Blair will be gone soon. Musharraf will be gone soon. Then we'll be completely alone in the world. Do you want to go to an economy that's basically geared toward tax cuts for people who have a lot of income, and the working class and the middle class gradually disappear? Well, you know which party that is.

If you want to go to a party that is a little more hesitant, vote Kerry. If hes elected, he will be hesitant about going to war. He will be careful. In fact, he'll probably wait around to hear what the French think. And if that bothers you, vote for Bush. It's easy. But these stakes are big.

Do you want health research for the next 20 years or do you want the same diseases we have now in 20 years? I mean, think about it. I think there's an argument for the Republicans, but it's a long-term argument for both sides, and people ought to make these decisions clearly. How can you be undecided about Bush and Kerry? I don't get it. These guys offer radically different approaches.

The Issues

[edit on 8/31/2004 by s13guy]




posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
i was undecided cause i dont really know much about politics..after what you said.. im going to vote for KERRY, thanks
come visit me at www.ihatebush.com.....



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This is to the deicided voters, most of you have chosen your vote for the wrong reasons.

Do you really want to the country to continue on the same path it has been for the past 16 years? Well too bad for you, it will just keep on going down the drain.

Bush and Kerry have shown themselves to be brothers, just at opposite sides of the idiot stick.

They will hurt this country, but not for them, for YOU!

But please, lie to yourself some more, thinking Kerry will change anything, or that Bush is really a real man with conviction and brains.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
what are you tryin to say bra?...taht we shouldnt vote at all?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stuntin
what are you tryin to say bra?...taht we shouldnt vote at all?


No, please vote, but the big Two have America by the short and curlies, to be blunt.

Everyone knows it, but they don't know it. It's like a puzzle staring them in the face, but they look past it like we have a real democracy.

Be smart, and fight for real candidates rather than the rich intellectuals we have been getting.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
yea...kinda sucks because the media makes you think their is only 2 canidates... but im pretty sure(99.9%) taht bush or kerry will win..
..bush already messed up...ill take the chance on kerry.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Voters need to vote for the candidate that best represents them. Not for one candidate because you hate the other.

If everyone were to vote for the candidate that they liked rather then treating an election like a popularity contest, and trying to guess the winner, so you can say that you voted for a winner, we'd be much better off.

The Lesser of Two Evils, is still evil. Don't be that person... vote your conscience not for who has the best hair.

P.S. I don't support either of the two skull & bones candidates.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by stuntin
what are you tryin to say bra?...taht we shouldnt vote at all?


No, he wants you to vote for a 3rd party candidate, one that has NO chance of winning THIS YEAR. I am all for change in the structure of our government, but you have to start from the ground up. This year I WILL vote for Kerry, regardless of the fear mongering coupled with "courage" talk of the Republican party, I will use my vote to make an ACTUAL difference NOW, then, in the future I will vote for 3rd party candidates at the city and state levels first, provided their policies are sound, then send them up the ladder. But the fact remains that our very existence is at stake this year, don't throw your vote away out of protest, vote for Kerry and vote Bush OUT.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
i dont understand the third party voters whats the point of voting for them, yea that libertarian guy will probally be a better candidate than bush or kerry but your giving your votes to bush by voting green or libertarian, and wouldnt you rather have kerry around than bush



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
No, he wants you to vote for a 3rd party candidate, one that has NO chance of winning THIS YEAR. I am all for change in the structure of our government, but you have to start from the ground up. This year I WILL vote for Kerry, regardless of the fear mongering coupled with "courage" talk of the Republican party, I will use my vote to make an ACTUAL difference NOW, then, in the future I will vote for 3rd party candidates at the city and state levels first, provided their policies are sound, then send them up the ladder. But the fact remains that our very existence is at stake this year, don't throw your vote away out of protest, vote for Kerry and vote Bush OUT.


It's not a thrown away protest vote if you believe in the candidate. It's not a horse race or a football game! This is a representative democracy, and we are to vote for a candidate you represents our positions. Neither of the 2 mealy mouthed spoiled rich kids have any idea of how I live, so why pick them?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
No, i dont think anyone should have to vote if they don't like any of the candidates.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DanTodd
i dont understand the third party voters whats the point of voting for them, yea that libertarian guy will probally be a better candidate than bush or kerry but your giving your votes to bush by voting green or libertarian, and wouldnt you rather have kerry around than bush


Actually the Greens & Libertarians are polar opposites. It is sometimes said by some pundits that a Libertarian vote is one that would have went to Bush. The Green votes are more on the left of center.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I can not as an AMERICAN vote for either of the 2 the powers that be have put forth as the choice. Remember what Rush said... "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

VOTE NONE OF THEE ABOVE



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Be smart, and fight for real candidates rather than the rich intellectuals we have been getting.


Hardly intellectuals, more like wallet sniffing monkey's who just want to get on the gravy train...

I wish there was a perfect word to describe them but there isn't one where you can roll up so many negative terms into one little ball... Maybe when you become a businessman that automatically entitles you to shysterism? These guys dont care about the constitution, the bill of rights, or the REAL America, rather they play that card to play on our emotions and gain our trust,
they want to gut it, restructure it, and make as much money as they can while in the process.. All to fit the wants and desires of big businesses and to make sure their job in the high chair remains... # everybody else.


Just because----A good sight: wethepeoplesstateoftheunion.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
i dont give a crap about them dudes anyways.. they'll both burn in hell for it...especially bush!

karma.. THAT SUXS 4 THEM!!!



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Kerry has portrayed himself to be a tuff guy on defence. No doubt he made his Vietnam service a corrnerstone of his campaign to show that he was not soft on the defence issue However, one simply has to look at Kerrys history in public office to become very concerned that a Kerry administration will leave our country at its weakest point since the Carter administration. This post is part of my overall post in the Campaign 2004 Issue forum. On to the cuts:

In an 1984 in written Budget Plan, Kerry proposed canceling the following programs to save money: The MX Missile, the B-1, Star Wars, Anti-Satellite weapons, the Apache Gunship, DIVAD, the Patriot Missile, the Ageis system, the Harrier, further F-15 procurement, the F-14D, the Phoenix and Sparrow missile improvements.

When he has voted, he has also, either tried to kill programs or reduce Americas strength in key areas.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5/11/1988, 1. S 2355: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would keep the US strategic arsenal roughly in line with the US-Soviet strategic arms limitation treaty of 1979 [SALT II], which had not been ratified at the time. Kerry voted NO to not kill the amendment, which would have required us to live by a treaty that we never ratified. The motion was tabled 51-45.
1991, the 1. Gulf War. Kerry voted NO but the resolution passed 52-47

7/31/1991, 1. S 1507: Vote on an amendment that would show it is the United States' goal to maintain strategic stability with the Soviet Union. Still not understanding the success of the Reagan defense build-up, Kerry voted YES. The amendment failed 43-56.

8/1/1991, 1. S 1507: Discontinue production of B-2 bomber. Kerry voted YES but the bill failed 42-57.

9/10/1991, 1. HR 2707: Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense, Shift Money to Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

9/9/1992, 1. S Con Res 106: Reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. Kerry voted YES, but the measure was rejected 45-50.

5/5/1992, 1. S 2403: Cancel funding for a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine. Kerry voted NO, and the measure failed 46-52. Hallelujah! Finally a defense system that Kerry liked! Where's that Seawolf built again? Oh yeah. Connecticut.

9/18/1992, 1. S 3114: Cut $2,686,572,000 from the bill for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes requested by the administration. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 45-53.

1993: Kerry introduced 1. S 1163, where the liberal northeastern Senator supported a whole plethora of defense cuts, including:
Reduction in the operating tempo of ballistic missile submarines.
Reduction in the attack submarine force.
Reduction in the antisubmarine warfare weapon systems of the Navy.
Reduction in number of light divisions.
Reduction in number of tactical fighter wings.
Limitation on expenditures for nuclear weapons research, development, and testing activities of the Department of Energy.
Strategic Defense Initiative (limiting the scope)
Termination of the MHC(V) coastal mine-hunting ship program.
Termination of the Kinetic Energy Anti-satellite Attack program.
Force the Retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year

7/1/1994, 1. S 2182: Cut $150 million for additional B-2 stealth bombers. Kerry voted YES for the cut but the measure failed 45-55.

8/10/1994, HR 4650: Eliminate funding for Trident II submarine-launched missiles. Kerry voted YES but the measure failed 40-60. A strange history of voting for the submarines but against the missiles on the submarines. Or, in other words, he voted for the submarines before he voted against the submarine-launched missiles.

1/26/1996, 1. S 1124 (also here): Vote to adopt a revised version of a bill [HR 1530] to authorize $265.3 billion in appropriations for 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Energy defense activities. The bill includes a 2.4% cost-of-living increase for members of the armed forces, among other provisions. This revised bill deletes a provision in the original bill requiring that the U.S. develop an affordable and effective national missile defense system to be operational by 2003. There is also a provision requiring the president to certify Congress in advance that any future deployment of U.S. troops under the operational control of the UN is in the U.S. national security interest, among other changes. Kerry voted NO but the bill passed 56-34.

9/13/2000, 1. HR 4444: Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction. Not favoring sanctions, Kerry voted YES and the amendment was killed 65-32.
Taken From: www.tacitus.org...


Anyone who reads this and is from the USA knows who the right candidate for the job is. Unless you want New World Order ...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I can not as an AMERICAN vote for either of the 2 the powers that be have put forth as the choice. Remember what Rush said... "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

VOTE NONE OF THEE ABOVE


If you vote none of the above and you have made your choice the choice that you have made is that you are not american and you are the biggest fence rider of all.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bet555
Kerry has portrayed himself to be a tuff guy on defence. No doubt he made his Vietnam service a corrnerstone of his campaign to show that he was not soft on the defence issue However, one simply has to look at Kerrys history in public office to become very concerned that a Kerry administration will leave our country at its weakest point since the Carter administration. This post is part of my overall post in the Campaign 2004 Issue forum. On to the cuts:

In an 1984 in written Budget Plan, Kerry proposed canceling the following programs to save money: The MX Missile, the B-1, Star Wars, Anti-Satellite weapons, the Apache Gunship, DIVAD, the Patriot Missile, the Ageis system, the Harrier, further F-15 procurement, the F-14D, the Phoenix and Sparrow missile improvements.

When he has voted, he has also, either tried to kill programs or reduce Americas strength in key areas.

Got a link to where YOU posted this? What Team are you on for the Campaign Issues?

All I could find was exactly word for word what you posted in a Thread by FredT and your quote was from his opener.

???

[edit on 8/31/2004 by phreak_of_nature]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by stuntin
what are you tryin to say bra?...taht we shouldnt vote at all?


No, he wants you to vote for a 3rd party candidate, one that has NO chance of winning THIS YEAR.


Only if everyone else like you by into the con that there are only two choices.

I dont see where the kerry voters would even care 99% of the Badnarik votes would have went to bush anyway



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Only if everyone else like you by into the con that there are only two choices.

I dont see where the kerry voters would even care 99% of the Badnarik votes would have went to bush anyway


But I DON'T buy into that con, I am just well aware that MOST Americans, not including myself, are happy with the status quo, and are happy as long as their favorite TV show is on. That being said, I would rather have Kerry as President than Bush, being as, even if every ATS member voted Badnarik, they are the ONLY two that have a chance THIS year. And you left out of my quote the part where I said I am all for 3rd party candidates, but they must start out at the bottom and work their way up, just like pretty much anything in life, like I said before, after Bush is out, I will join you in supporting and promoting other parties. But, if you were gonna vote for Bush if not Badnarik, please, vote Badnarik.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join