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.

 

This is exactly why republican's shouldn't vote for Bush!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.

The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.

The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.

The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of the United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.

More

I don't see whats so conservative about this do you?

I think you republican's should be making a decision based off his record in the past four years, and all the unconsitutional things he's done, instead of voting for him because he drops balloons on the crowds at the rally's and schmoozes ya'll.





These guys fought and died for freedom, and your compassionate conservative is spitting on everything they ever worked for. Freedom.
FOR US.





[edit on 30-10-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Also you forgot the neo-con tendencies of "legislating morality." Sure neo-cons might dress conservatively and think conservatively but the way they go about running the government is not conservative at all.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   


I think you republican's should be making a decision based off his record in the past four years


I'm voting for Bush based on Kerry's record over the last 20 years in the Senate. Kerry's words do not match his past Senate votes so he has no crediblity IMHO. Personally I think anyone who is planning on voting for Kerry should really look at his Senate record and his voting history and see for yourself that his past does not represent his current words. See for yourself.
www.vote-smart.org...

Jemison



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison


I'm voting for Bush based on Kerry's record over the last 20 years in the Senate. Kerry's words do not match his past Senate votes so he has no crediblity IMHO.



Oh....My.....God!!!!!

neither do Bush's!! are you on drugs?? no seriously, are you on drugs? Have you been sleeping the past four years or are you just ignorant to what bush has been doing to this country ??? Because he's in the gop doesn't make him a republican.


Personally I think anyone who is planning on voting for Kerry should really look at his Senate record and his voting history and see for yourself that his past does not represent his current words. See for yourself.



You need to turn off fox for awhile... It's not about kerry... It's not about bush..
It's about our country, it's about our freedoms...
By voting for Bush your advocating, bigger government, over spending, your advocating that it's ok for bush to wipe his stinky corrupt ass with the consitution by voting for him your letting them know you think it's ok...

The country isn't just one sided, there is second choice... And if their on the ballot in your state they count... GOD!!!

Mainstream politics indoctrinates the dummies of this country, i'm really starting to believe that...

Ok, Jemison, keep wasting your vote, vote in someone AGAIN who is infringing on our rights... That just shows me that you don't give a flying # about this country and the people who care about it's it's core... Also you don't give a # about our forefathers...
People like you are making me extremely sick...



[edit on 30-10-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   


neither do Bush's!! are you on drugs?? no seriously, are you on drugs?


LOL...I say this a lot to my conservative friends who plan on voting for Bush b/c "they think he's nice"



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Hey Jemison. have you looked at this?

www.vote-smart.org...

And I don't know why people are saying Kerry's words don't support his votes. Every politician's record could be spun one way or another, there are alot of things that people don't know about the legislative process, such as the nature of how bills are formed, lobbyists influence, etc. So you can't say that because Kerry didn't vote for HR so-and-so, then he flip-flopped.

At least his record is there for us to look at.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecky
LOL...I say this a lot to my conservative friends who plan on voting for Bush b/c "they think he's nice"


It's true, and I was being nice you know, trying to give him an escape route and all, for his lack of objectivity and record keeping of the guy he elected. It's clearly obvious bush isn't what he says he is, he doesn't do what he says he'll do, in fact, it's quite the opposite... But republicans say " this is too keep the country safe" ok... so well wtf do you say about the # that has NOTHING to do with security... People need to wake up and start realising their elected commander in chief stands for something totally opposite of what our forefathers and "compassionate" conservatives stand for.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Kerry scares me. He seems to try to spin everything - and I mean everything - to his advantage. He is the consumate politiican, and I for one am sick of politicians. One thing about Bush - he isn't much of a politician.

If Kerry wins, however, I will support him - and I don't see many others sharing this view either way...which concerns the heck out of me.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Do ANY of yall know there is a third choice?

You dont have to choose between Bush and his gestapo state and Kerry whose first act on coming home was to stab those of us still there in the back?

The Libertarians are for the free country of our Fathers and fore-fathers.

At least go to the web site and look.

badnarik.org...

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
BUMP

What is really sad is that if you are against bush and his police state people think you are for Kerry. BOTH are tratiors to the Ideals this country was founded on.

Neither is good enough to shine the shoes of a REAL patriot like Jefferson



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I finally took a look at badnarik.org and I must say that, from what I read, what he says makes a lot of sense. I had previously done a half-hearted search for info on the party, but never took a real interest since the Bush-Kerry race has been so intense.

I studied libertarian principles when it wasn't fashionable, and have unknowingly lived my life according to those principles. They are a natural match for me.

But it's too late now, at least for this election. I'll have to cast my vote for the lesser of the two evils and hope for the best.

I'd be willing to listen to, and support, candidates for local and state offices in the meantime. That seems to be one way to gain a foothold in our political system. New Hampshire is a natural state for libertarian principles - at least it was, until the gentrification of our cities and towns by Mass-h*les started.

But then again, this election has really jaded me toward politics. I have never been so passionate about politics as now, but I have had my eyes opened quite wide to the corruption in our system. Media bias is blatant. Voter fraud is carried out with impugnity. And once the mud starts to be slung, you can forget about the issues. It's all a personality contest after that.

So until major, elemental changes are made in our system, like standardization of registration and voting processes, I think this is it for me and politics for a while.

Sorry for the rambling. Good luck to Badnarik and his party - I mean that sincerely.




posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Well, I'd support the third party, but when I saw the republican party was throwing them money and support, it didn't take a genius to figure that one out. The last real threat to the established two parties was Perot and he dropped out of the election there for a while over death threats made to his daughter. There is only one real party in this country, the capitalists. The two party illusion is like professional wrestling, they fight like dogs when the camera is on, but when it is all said and done they sit in the same restraunts, eating the same corporate steak dinners and shake the same hands.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Found on usenet,



Osama vs. Hussein

Who killed 2,992 in New York, Washington DC and in Pennsylvania on 9-eleven,
2001? Osama bin Laden

Who bombed the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six, in 1993?
Osama bin Laden

Who bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 217, in 1998? Osama
bin Laden

Who bombed the USS Cole, killing 17, in 2000? Osama bin Laden

Who bombed an American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12, in 2002?
Osama bin Laden

Who bombed an U.S. housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 34, in
1998? Osama bin Laden

Who has killed more Americans? Osama bin Laden

Who is in jail? Saddam Hussein

Who is not in jail? Osama bin Laden

Who is a threat to the United States? Osama bin Laden

Who went after Saddam Hussein instead of Osama bin Laden? George W. Bush

How many U.S. troops have died in Iraq since March 19, 2003? 1,111 to date.

How many innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of invading Iraq? More than 100.000 people!

Did Hussein kill 2,992 on 9-eleven? No.

Did Hussein bomb the USS Cole? No.

Did Hussein kill 217 in U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? No.

Then who should really be in jail? Osama bin Laden

Why isn't Osama bin Laden in jail? George W. Bush could only capture Saddam
Hussein.

Why have 1,111 U.S. troops forfeited their lives in Iraq? George W. Bush
sent them there.


Geez... how can you be in doubt?



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I have had my eyes opened quite wide to the corruption in our system. Media bias is blatant. Voter fraud is carried out with impugnity. And once the mud starts to be slung, you can forget about the issues. It's all a personality contest after that.



That's why i watch Washington Journal on CSPAN in themornings... The only opinions you'll get are from the people calling in.
It's nice to hear normal people's voices, the wide variety of opinions, ect.
If your watching fox or cnn et all, you'll mostly likely get one sided answers, and anything they talk about has an agenda behind it, which they try and push.
How do you think people in society "come up" with these catch phrases, and certain words like "war mongerer" and "democrats are unpatriotic"

I don't trust news, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Washington Journal is awesome. I have alot more faith in humanity when I tune into that show because it's real people spouting their own thoughts and feelings..



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Well, I'd support the third party, but when I saw the republican party was throwing them money and support, it didn't take a genius to figure that one out.


That is hogwash


The Republican party has NEVER supported the Libertarians, they would have been stupid to because we are fighting over the same voters.

Where did you get the info that they were supporting us?

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.


Wow, terrorism is an excuse? So 3,000 people being murdered isn't an issue? This is the exact thinking that allowed us to be attacked in the first place. Anyone who tries to make it sound like Osama and Al Qaeda are not a threat is the enemy. Americans need to wake up and realize terrorism is a real threat. Sounds to me like you would rather believe the words of Osama before you would believe the words of Bush.



The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world.


How would we be able to protect ourselves if EVERYONE knew where we spend money for covert missions?


The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.


This needs to be trimmed down a bit. The US law enforcement agencies need to be able to search suspicious people who might pose a threat. But you are right, this is a little over board.


The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.


After Sept 11th, the war on terror is a proper excuse to go into foreign lands if they harbor terrorists. Iraq did harbor terrorist so it is a just war. However i do not agree that my tax dollars should go to financing foreign governments. But this can not be directed at Bush, Presidents before Bush, before Clinton, before G.H.W. Bush, and before Reagan have sent US tax dollars to finance foreign governments.



I think you republican's should be making a decision based off his record instead of voting for him because he drops balloons on the crowds at the rally's and schmoozes ya'll.


Yea, thats why i am voting for Bush. No, i am voting for Bush because now is not the time to change teams. Whether you want to believe it or not we will get attacked by terrorist again, it is not a joke. I do not know what Kerry plans to do to make me safer but i know what Bush is going to do. Bush is going to fight the war on there turf as long as he cans so we do not get attacked here at home.



These guys fought and died for freedom, and your compassionate conservative is spitting on everything they ever worked for. Freedom.
FOR US.


And i thank them for dying for freedom, they died so the fight would not come to the United States, Bush fights so that the fight doesn't come to the United States.

Who do you think is the better candidate? Kerry? What is Kerry going to do for our freedoms? Hmmmm



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
I'm voting for Bush based on Kerry's record over the last 20 years in the Senate.
www.vote-smart.org...
Jemison


Enough said, good job Jemison, shut that one down quick!!



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Enough said, good job Jemison, shut that one down quick!!



yesss, republican's are the party of peace, tolerance, and objectivity...
sure.

Have you signed your name on the PNAC member's list yet??

Hell, what's the point, your vote is the equivalent of it...

viva la libertarian's, they're our only hope.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
At least his record is there for us to look at.



Like his military record...hmmm. Kerry still hasn't released his records. What is he hiding?

True Lies, name fits you well, so in your opinion we should not look at Kerry's votes against defence spending? Oh yea, you think the war on terrorism is a joke.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Who do you think is the better candidate? Kerry? What is Kerry going to do for our freedoms? Hmmmm


Neither Kerry or Bush. Doesnt ANYBODY know that these are not the ONLY two people running? I forgot you are susposed to try to pick who is going to win and vote for him, cause otherwise your vote is wasted, right?

It you would bother to read her posts you would see that she is a Libertarian.

Why is it whenever you talk about Bush the only response you get is people whining about Kerry and if you talk about Kerry the only response you get is people whining about Bush. Neither are fit to shine the shoes of a real patroit.

There are at least 4-5 candidates on most ballots. At least check them out before you caste your vote for the "lesser of two evils"




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join