Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Who Will You Vote For..?

Parking Lot


View Poll Results: Who Will You Vote For?
Bush 11 42.31%
Kerry 14 53.85%
Nader 0 0%
Other 1 3.85%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2004, 02:15 AM   #61
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
patriot act TIA etc is all crap, but i see nothing that would make me believe kerry would be any better on those fronts either... and that's been the problem i've been having... the things i personally care about that bush sucks at (science/tech laws, privacy), aren't really addressed (since for most people they're very minor issues sadly), and kerry hasn't done anything to make me think he'd be any better.

Whatever, it's all crap, let's bench them all, fire them and start again....
What science/tech laws are you talking about? I'm intrigued
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 10-29-2004, 03:49 AM   #62
Impact Rookie
 
NY_Skinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Age: 41
Posts: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunellFan
From Joseph Farah- who makes a very good point

I didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

Though faced with a dismal choice that year, I chose to sit out the presidential election even though Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was part of an administration that spent years terrorizing me and other critics of Bill Clinton, using all the awesome power of the federal government.

In fact, ever since 2000, my news organization has been the target of a $165 million lawsuit by Gore's chief fund-raiser in Tennessee. It seems the former vice president and his supporters there believe a devastating 18-part investigative series on Gore's history in his home state contributed mightily to his defeat in Tennessee and, thus, a loss of electoral votes and the White House.

Still, I couldn't support Bush in 2000 because I did not believe he would govern according to the limits of the U.S. Constitution. That is my minimum standard requirement for support of any candidate for federal office.

Until recently, I was planning to sit out the 2004 presidential election, too, for the same reason.

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, Bush doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the strict limits on federal authority. He doesn't understand how this sets us apart as a free nation from all others in the world.

However, three years ago, this nation was attacked as it has never been attacked before. We find ourselves in a global conflict with a radical ideology of evil comparable to our titanic battles of the past with Nazism and communism. It's a fight to the finish. It's a fight for our lives. It's a fight that will never end until one side or the other is vanquished.

I have come to the conclusion that, like it or not, Osama bin Laden and his jihadist allies have one short-term goal above all others defeating George W. Bush at the polls Nov. 2.

A victory by John Kerry, a lifelong appeaser of totalitarianism, would hand the terrorists their biggest morale boost since Sept. 11, 2001. If you doubt what I am saying, look no further than the "endorsement" of Kerry by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Arafat is the father of modern-day Arab terrorism.

So this election for me is not so much about Bush. It's about you. The election has now come down to something very simple. It is your chance to send the terrorists a message. It is your moment to make the terrorists hear from you.

A mandate for Bush will send the terrorists just such a message. It will tell them we have stood up as a nation. It will tell them we will continue to hunt them down no matter how long it takes and no matter what the cost.

A close election or, God forbid, a Kerry victory will actually encourage the terrorists. It will send them the message that you are tired and weary and that your will to fight them to the death is giving out.

Ask yourself today: Will America be safer with Bush or Kerry in the White House?

That's how simple the choice is today. All other considerations merely muddy the water and complicate what is seen by our enemies as a clear choice.

If we were at peace, this might be an opportune moment to consider building a third party. It might be a great chance to protest the choices we have. But we are not at peace. We are at war.

A Kerry victory or even a close election, decided days or weeks after the vote will increase exponentially the danger our country faces, the risk to our children, the threat to our way of life.

That's what this election comes down to for me. It's not about Bush. It's not about Kerry. It's about you. It's about the message you send to the enemy to the beast.

If we rise up Nov. 2 and send the beast a message, we will have taken our most dramatic step toward victory in this global conflict.

This is your moment to make your voice heard all the way to the caves in Afghanistan, the terrorist cells in Chechnya, the dismal slums of Fallujah and teeming streets of Gaza.

It's time for you to be heard. It's time to fight back. It's time to make your stand.

Vote for George W. Bush Nov. 2.
Sorry, but I am sick and tired or only reading about Bush and Kerry's different views on the freakin' war in Iraq. We should vote for our next president based on all the issues rather than just one. I think that the war and terrorism is a very important issue but it is not the only one. What about Social Security, Abortion, Gun Control, Health Care, Education (this should be a big topic), Drugs, Civil Rights, the Environment, Job Growth, just to name a few.

There is a lot more to electing a president than choosing who is for or against the war.
NY_Skinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2004, 10:36 AM   #63
Playmaker
 
cpayne5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrock-skins
Bush is the biggest coward on the planet. Oh yeah, I'm gonna feel real safe with him in charge for another 4 years. No would dare bomb us with him in charge (oh yeah, I forgot they already did on his watch). I'm sure Osama and Al Qaeda will be real scared if Bush is still around. I bet they will just shut down operations and wait for a democrat to take office before they try something.
A Kerry administration would make it easier for them. They will enjoy the kind of existance they had under 8 years of Clinton. You should read some of Dick Morris' stuff on terrorism/Clinton/Bush.
__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."
cpayne5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2004, 10:51 AM   #64
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
chounsman, you must have one scourse for your misinformation. If we have control of all this oil why wouldn't all of Bushes so called oil buddies reduce their prices to make him look good.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2004, 11:05 AM   #65
Playmaker
 
cpayne5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown
chounsman, you must have one scourse for your misinformation. If we have control of all this oil why wouldn't all of Bushes so called oil buddies reduce their prices to make him look good.
The left's argument is flawed from the beginning. Take a look at the person they've heralded in their war on George W. Bush - Michael Moore. That should tell you something right there.
__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."
cpayne5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 12:03 AM   #66
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,210
Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 07:53 AM   #67
Impact Rookie
 
NY_Skinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Age: 41
Posts: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't we attacked while Bush was president...so eight years under him without any attacks would be incorrect....also, wasn't 9/11 the worst attack on our soil ever. Go figure. Sounds like a great foriegn policy to me.
NY_Skinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 08:49 AM   #68
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,246
Quote:
No would dare bomb us with him in charge (oh yeah, I forgot they already did on his watch).
oklahoma (not arab, still a terror attack), trade center (twice), USS cole... very very minimal retaliation made them bolder... clinton was handed osama bin laden and said no thanks, so they let him go... hmm, no thanks.

bush on science - I personally believe scientific positions should be chosen by merit, not political affiliation... bush disagrees, and he's replaced many positions with people that will support his dogma (ie, he makes a decision and they figure out a way to spin data to support it.. not very objective), that's what happened to stem cells, all the drilling/de-foresting stuff... i could find more specific examples if you want, but every time i go through some of the sh*t thats gone down i get kinda pissed off... Kerry doesn't promise to be any better on science, but it'd be hard to top what's already happened.

and btw, i think banning things like stem-cells and cloning before we even know what the really are is dumb... cause the rest of the world doesn't care about our ban (ie china which has opened a lot of labs since they found out the US gov isn't going to give money for such research to US schools)... and it could definately bite us in the arse... its not just science, eventually its economy too...
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 11:55 AM   #69
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.
In fairness, we were attacked at the WTC under Clinton too. It just wasn't as catostrpohic. We will be attacked under any president regardless of party. The whole notion that we will "be safer" under either candidate is flawed.

"clinton was handed osama bin laden and said no thanks, so they let him go... hmm, no thanks"

So was Bush and he didn't finish the job of getting Osama and then focused on Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11. He was told from day 1 of his presidency, Osama was a threat, but Bush was too worried about his golf game and his ranch in Crawford. Now we get to watch Osama's latest video on TRL. But we do have Saddam and don't you all feel so much safer now? I was lying awake at night worried about a dictator who controlled only 1/3 of his own counrty, since we ONLY had the other 2/3 under the "no fly zones".
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 02:40 PM   #70
Playmaker
 
cpayne5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.
Here's a list of attacks against US interests attributed to Al-Qaeda under Clinton's watch.

February 26, 1993: An explosion in the basement of the World Trade Center towers in New York kills six people and injures about 1,000. The blast causes major damage to the buildings' foundations; some 55,000 people are working in the towers at the time.

November 13, 1995: A car bomb explodes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in front of a building of the Saudi National Guard where US military advisors work. Five US soldiers and two Indian nationals are killed and more than 60 people wounded.

June 25, 1996: A truck loaded with two tonnes of explosives destroys a building at the US military base of Khobar near the town of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia. Nineteen US nationals are killed and 386 are wounded.

August 7, 1998: US embassies in the east African cities of Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam are hit by near-simultaneous bomb attacks which kill 224 people, almost all of them Africans, and injure over 5,000. The toll in Nairobi is 213 dead and over 5,000 injured; in Dar-es-Salaam 11 dead and over 70 injured. Of the total dead, 12 are US nationals.

October 12, 2000: A suicide attack on the destroyer USS Cole kills 17 US sailors and injures 38 in the Yemeni port of Aden.

The research, communication, and planning for attacks on 9/11 were conducted for years prior to 9/11. The Clinton administration cut funding to the CIA, the FBI, and the military in general. September 11, 2001 comes and we're attacked. You can blame 8 months on Bush all you want, but you also have to blame 8 years on Clinton to be fair.

Louis Freeh, FBI director from 93-01, came to Clinton in the oval office one day during Clinton's second term seeking support in changing some restrictive laws. He found it wrong that if the CIA knew something about a terror plot it was legally barred from informing the FBI about it. Freeh wanted this wall to be broken. Clinton said there was nothing he could do and refused. Freeh then asked if there if he could make it so that the agencies could share information to stop terror plots, but just not be able to prosecute the plotters. Clinton also refused this request.

Under George W. Bush, this is no longer the case. Agencies can now share information. An example of this is the plot to blow up the Brooklyn bridge. The FBI heard some 'chatter' with Brooklyn bridge in it. It then informed the NYPD who put up 24 hour surveillance on it. The FBI in the meantime tracked down the guy who was going to execute the plot. He had aborted the mission because of the surveillance being applied by the police. The FBI found detailed engineering and explosive diagrams in the guy's apartment. If this had taken place in 2000 the person in the FBI who gave the order to inform the local police would have been charged and prosecuted with a felony. Kind of rediculous, don't you think?
__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."
cpayne5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.27954 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25