[QUOTE=saden1]Lord have mercy...I want to comment but I'm resisting temptation.[/QUOTE]

I know the feeling

hey if someone makes a comment like that, then i am going to respond...

Yep in my football pool I picked the Packers, hoping to reverse that curse! Go Kerry!!!!

[QUOTE=That Guy]if by reason you mean opinion polls, then you're absolutely right ;)

<ducks>[/QUOTE]


Absofreekinlutly!

Of coarse Kerry also stated that Iraq had WMD's, and so long as Sadam was in power he was a threat to the US, but that was before he felt he had to take an adversarial role in an attempt to become president, hey screw the troop's, screw the safety of America, and to hell with truth and honesty, John Kerry want's to be president, everything else is secondary.

[QUOTE=Scott]I hate to be the one to break it to you and your family but in case you haven't watched the debates...Kerry voted to invade Iraq then voted to not fund the troops that were deployed...If your family is switching to vote for Kerry because you have family members that were sent to war, then why did your family join the military? Soldiers train for one thing..war...
My family is actually in the exact opposite situation, my father whom has never voted republican in his life is voting for Bush because he refers to the alternative as a used car salesman..he is gonna tell you anything you want to get your vote..[/QUOTE]

Dearest Scott,

It is a fact that the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq from the very beginning of their term. They beefed up all of the BS before the war and had everybody quaking in their boots, just scared of what a threat Sadam was, and how he was "tied to al-quada"(he wasn't). Kerry and others voted to give W the AUTH to go to war as a means to threaten Iraq into complying with the weapons inspectors. NOT for a Pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation. We turned our back on the UN and about 98 % of the rest of the world.

So, bush sent our troops to die for oil basically. Now we the taxpayers of America shoulder the burden of paying for the unjust war, and this war has been one big recruiting opportunity for terrorists around the world.

Bush and Kerry are both nothing more than fat-cat politicians. They all speak out of both sides of their mouths to get what they want. More power. It's truly sad that these are the best two guys the system could come up with to run for our friggin' PRESIDENT. Sad sad sad

It's like dave wanstedt deciding between jay fiedler or a j feely.

Suggestions impugning Kerry's record on military voting seriously misconstrue the facts. In fact, Kerry (as an actual combat veteran) has been a sedulous supporter of the military, voting repeatedly to increase combat pay. The argument that his voting against the 87 billion dollar aid package evinces his ambivalence towards the military distorts the issue; Kerry was voting against the shameful way that the Bush administration conducted the post-war reconstruction plan, doling out no-bid contracts to friends and cronies (see the ongoing investigation into Halliburton's 7 billion dollar reconstruction contract if you are unfamiliar), not the troops themselves.

Bush's record, on the other hand, is more troubling. He willingilly sent troops into combat without adequate body armor, and banned the media from showing their coffins as they returned home. When democrats in the House introduced a provision to provide the troops with adequate equipment through rescinding Bush's tax cut to the top 1 percent, our president led the charge to defang it.

He voted to cut combat pay from 225 dollars to 150, reduce the family seperation allowance from 250 to 100, and he vetoed a measure to increase the reward for those killed in combat from 6,000 to 12,000 dollars.

It is a known fact that the US is well behind Europe in military pay, and Bush has done nothing to change this. In fact, the number of soldiers on food stamps has doubled under Bush's watch from Clinton levels.

While both candidates are for defense, the difference is that Kerry is for soldiers and that Bush is for contractors. And let's not even get into his shifting, mendacious justifications for war, which is a whole 'nother topic.

Oh yeah, let's go skins

Word! djnemo65, you're right on. This admin is SO wrong on SO many levels

DGN and D15, Boy's you couldn't be more convoluted in your thinking, but that is why the left lies as they do they never underestimate the ignorance of there constituency, here's just a little tidbit of the hypocrisy of the left and rest assured there's plenty more!



> >
> > > I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head
> > > so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy
> > > saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to
> > > believe.
> > > Lemme see; have I got this straight?
> > >
> > > Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
> > > Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
> > > Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
> > > Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
> > > terrorists-
> > > good...
> > > Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
> > > Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
> > > Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
> > >
> > > No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
> > > No WMD found Iraq - bad...
> > >
> > > Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
> > > Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
> > > World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
> > > Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
> > >
> > > Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
> > > Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
> > >
> > > Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
> > > Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
> > >
> > > Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
> > > Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
> > >
> > > Ahh, it's so confusing!
> > >
> > > Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
> > > burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is
> > > the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
> > > This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has
> > > been since 1991.
> > >
> > > It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice
> > > anything special about those dates?
> > >
> > > Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
> > > actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave
> > > no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
> > >
> > > Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy
> > > men.
> > > Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all
> > > worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old
> > > barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
> > > sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has
> > > figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
> > >
> > > Pass this on. Only 44 days until the election.
> >
> >
> >


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find the music you love on MSN Music. Start downloading now!

You may want to check out this link as well, although I advise caution against it, I don't want to confuse you with the fact's.


[url]http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041028-115519-3700r.htm[/url]

So if the skins win then bush wins allright GO REDSKINS BEAT THE CHEESE HEADS!!!


HAIL TO THE REDSKINS

Normally, I don't speak about Politics...except for when it directly relates to me. I was in the Marine Corps from '91 to '99 (most with a Democrat as 'Commander in Chief' "Bill Clinton") and let me tell you about Democrats. Most of the cuts you say that happened as a Result of Bush were all put into place when Clinton was President. Clinton successfully reduced all Military Personnel. The Marine Corps, which is already the Smallest Branch, was reduced from 185k to under 125k in the 8 years that Clinton was President. When Budgets are given to the Armed Service, it is done on a basis of per member. So the fewer members the fewer dollars in the Budget. Fewer Dollars in the Budget means fewer dollars to spend on equipment such as body armour, weapons and vehicle maintenance. When Bush took over, he took over an already depleted Military (Thanks to Clinton) with inadequate weapons and gear. And Clinton had also put into effect Bills that made it more difficult to get emergency funds for the Military.

So if you ask me which has done better for our country and the defense there of, I would have to say Republicans. Anyone who thinks that the war in Iraq is strictly for Oil, then you definitely need to look a the big picture. Bush has successfully proven that Iraq (Saddam) has monetarily supported Al-Qadea (or however you spell it). Yes, Bush has made mistakes but he has also admitted to them. Bush has also made decisions and stuck by them. I would rather have a President that is willing to make decisions (instead of someone like Kerry who jumps from one side of the fence to the other to sastify public opinion) and sticks to them regardless of the public opinion. And if we let another Democrat lead our country, I am afraid that the Military will suffer more than anyone can possibly imagine and the Defense of our Country would be at a greater risk.

[QUOTE=offiss]You may want to check out this link as well, although I advise caution against it, I don't want to confuse you with the fact's.


[url]http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041028-115519-3700r.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

While you are at it check this one out: [url]http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html[/url]

and this one: [url]http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10044474.htm?1c[/url]

troops apparently didn't search hard enough.

Actually, their was tremendous opposition to the Kosovo operation from both the right and the left. Republicans who say you shouldn't criticize a president during war time should go look at the the things said about Clinton at that time. However, Iraq and Kosovo are not parallel situations. Kosovo was essentially a tactical air-strike conducted under NATO auspices, with multilateral support. The Iraq war, in contrast, was - and is - a unilateral ground operation requiring hundreds of thousands of troops, all of whom are needed in more crucial conflict zones (read Afghanistan). Also, Kosovo didn't increase anti-americanism in a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq has, as CIA reports corroborate. Over a thousand brave men and women have already died in Iraq. Less than 200 hundred died during the entire Kosovo operation. So they are not the same. But that's irrelevant anyway. We are not voting to reelect Clinton, so what does his record have to do with anything.

[QUOTE=djnemo65]Actually, their was tremendous opposition to the Kosovo operation from both the right and the left. Republicans who say you shouldn't criticize a president during war time should go look at the the things said about Clinton at that time. However, Iraq and Kosovo are not parallel situations. Kosovo was essentially a tactical air-strike conducted under NATO auspices, with multilateral support. The Iraq war, in contrast, was - and is - a unilateral ground operation requiring hundreds of thousands of troops, all of whom are needed in more crucial conflict zones (read Afghanistan). Also, Kosovo didn't increase anti-americanism in a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq has, as CIA reports corroborate. Over a thousand brave men and women have already died in Iraq. Less than 200 hundred died during the entire Kosovo operation. So they are not the same. But that's irrelevant anyway. We are not voting to reelect Clinton, so what does his record have to do with anything.[/QUOTE]


Clintons record comes into question because Kerry is running on the grounds that he will return the country to the form of the Clinton Administration...if you run on the premise of a former presidents record then that record becomes relevant...
On a side note, you guys hear Monica Lewinsky has publicly stated she is voting republican this election?.....
She said something about the democrats leaving a bad taste in her mouth...

Well Said, BrunellFan!
 

[QUOTE=BrunellFan]This statistic has been in discussion on the ExtremeSkins board for a while, and really it just leads to nastiness.

I root for the Skins regardless. I will also be voting for Bush, but I respect those that are voting for Kerry. I dont think we should start a political debate here because at the root of it, politics is a very divisive force, and nothing good will come of it.

Bush or Kerry- Exercise your right to vote, regardless.[/QUOTE]


Yes, do exercise your right to vote!

Remember, the previous election in 2000 was decided by the smallest of margins!