Kerry or Bush?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Guest, Feb 21, 2004.

Loading...
?

Kerry or Bush?

Poll closed Feb 25, 2004.
  1. Kerry

    18 vote(s)
    34.0%
  2. Bush

    26 vote(s)
    49.1%
  3. Other

    7 vote(s)
    13.2%
  4. I won't vote

    2 vote(s)
    3.8%
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Whom do you think will win the presidential election between Bush and Kerry (the presumptive nominee)? Don't vote based on your own preference but on whom you think will win.
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I voted for Bush and do plan to. I honesty do think he will win. I think Kerry's voting record will hurt him as well as his affiliation with Senator Kennedy and former Governor and 1988 nominee Dukakis.

    Kerry will fare better than most expect, I would think, due to his standing up for veterans and his heroic Vietnam service.

    Yet, the overriding issue will be safety and security. The psychiatrist Karen Horney stated the "need to feel safe" is everyone's main concern and I agree with her.

    Most will believe Bush has kept them safe.
     
  3. tlamora

    tlamora New Member

    I will vote for Kerry.

    I think most Americans will vote their pocketbooks and few of us are better off under Bush. I do agree that safety and security will be major, but I for one would feel a lot safer with Kerry than Bush.

    This whole administration scares the heebie-jeebies out of me.

    Tom
     
  4. GENO

    GENO New Member

    Kerry for me, my wife and son - clean sweep.
     
  5. Dr. Gina

    Dr. Gina New Member

    I am not going to say who I am going to vote for, but my husband, son , and I were have this same discussion over dinner tonight, and we decided that Pee-Wee Herman would be the perfect thrd-party candidate for this election! Just think!:D
     
  6. JoAnnP38

    JoAnnP38 Member

    John Edwards -- the better choice

    John Edwards would make a better candidate than Kerry. Kerry is a flip-flopper who doesn't have core values. He is a bland man who would run the White House via polls and political positioning. Count my vote (at least in the primaries) for John Edwards.
     
  7. GENO

    GENO New Member

    Re: John Edwards -- the better choice

    You just described every current and future office holder or seeker.
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    And he could choose Michael Jackson for Veep! And the old anit-war song, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone," can be changed to "Where Have All the Children Gone."

    Roll over in your graves, Pete Seeger and Joe Hickerson! :D
     
  9. Tireman4

    Tireman4 member

    I will vote for John Kerry. I hope that he can beat Bush. I am a Roosevelt Democrat, so I still vote for the party. When one votes, one has to ask the question, which party speaks to me, which candidate can I put my trust in and whom can I, when I leave the voting booth, feel good about voting for. That is still how I feel about the Democratic Party. I will not throw names around, nor will I put anyone down for their beliefs. We need ALL parties to make our system work. That is why I loved the 1992 race... the debates, the flow charts.....I just loved it. Democracy...it was all I could want. The long lines at the voting booth, the fights at the polling place( Wake Forest , North Carolina..yes the Jesse Helms supporters against someone else's) ...I respect all those who vote. Vote for someone...validate your points...agree to disagree...just vote. This is what the USA is about. We have the freedom to choose. Remember, when it is said and done, we are all Americans....
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: John Edwards -- the better choice

    Actually, for a Democrat, I kind of like Edwards. He has flip-flopped some and probably would not have been reelected to the Senate had he chose to seek reelection.

    Wouldn't it be a real coup if Bush pulled an Abe Lincoln and went outside the Party to select a Democrat, say Joe Lieberman, if Cheney has some major health problems by August?










     
  11. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Kerry deeply disturbs me. He took three minor wounds in Vietnam and was then given the option to leave the combat theater (this was the policy, three purple hearts and you're out). However, Kerry then mounted an anti-Vietnam campaign with the likes of Jane Fonda. Many people don't realize that the NVA used to torture captured U.S. soldiers by playing recordings of anti-war testimony to the Congress. And just who's testimony was played? Why, Kerry's, of course. Kerry has no business even visiting the Oval Office; Kerry holding the office of the presidency is frightening.

    Kerry also wants to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. If you'll remember, this was Bill Clinton's policy as well. You can see where that got us.

    I found this brief commentary about Kerry as president that I think is very relevant to this discussion:



    Here's an idea for Bush campaign ad:

    Scene: Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their cronies are in their cave, eating popcorn. The cave is dimly illuminated by the light of a television set.

    They're watching a clip from the Wisconsin Democratic debate.

    Questioner: Senator Kerry, President Bush . described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?

    Kerry: "I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. . So I would see myself as a very different kind of global leader than George Bush."

    Cut to Osama and Mullah Omar high-fiving each other, throwing the popcorn up in the air. One henchman in the background is grinning while waving a "Kerry for President" banner.

    Fade to black.

    Raise text: Re-Elect George W. Bush. The right man at the right time.

    Now, I have no idea if it's a good political commercial or not. But it's the sort of commercial I'd like to see. And if John Kerry and George W. Bush have their way, I probably will. The president insists he's "looking forward" to a debate on his handling of foreign policy. And Senator Kerry says constantly, "If the White House wants to make this election about national security, I have three words they understand: 'Bring, it, on!"

    Despite Kerry's instinctual condescension - "I have three words they understand" - I'm delighted he's so adamant.

    Because for the first time since 1988, foreign policy is an issue. In 2000, the distinction between Gore and Bush was blurry. George Bush opposed nation-building and advocated a "humble" foreign policy. And Gore was a "hawk" in an administration that conducted a war against a dictator (Slobodan Milosevic) without U.N. support and without any "imminent threat" to provoke him.

    Now things are reversed. Bush "arrogantly" supports nation-building while the presumptive Democratic nominee voted no on the $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction, which means Kerry is opposed to the most important American effort at nation-building since Douglas MacArthur ruled Japan. And he also thinks making nice to the U.N. - not making war on our enemies - should be the top priority.

    Alas, liberal conventional wisdom holds that Kerry's service in Vietnam is supposed to be some sort of force field protecting him from criticism on foreign policy. This is obviously nonsense. There are veterans - and there have been veteran presidential candidates - with every conceivable foreign policy position. Presumably they can't all be immune from criticism? If being a war hero makes you a statesman, Benedict Arnold would look better in the history books.

    From my perspective, Kerry's Vietnam record is admirable but the conclusions he's drawn from it are execrable. As a recently returned veteran, and congressional candidate, Kerry told the Harvard Crimson in 1970, "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

    Kerry's obviously more sophisticated than that now, but the story gives us a sense of what political lessons Kerry took from the war. Today, he says America's foreign policy must be dedicated to "mending" our relationships with the United Nations and "Europe," i.e. France.

    Moreover, despite all of Kerry's bravado about having carried an M-16, Vietnam seems to have made him gun-shy when it comes to using force. Indeed, as George Will recently noted, in 1991 Kerry opposed militarily forcing Saddam out of Kuwait because to do so would constitute the abandonment of "the theory of deterrence." That's like not wanting to waste your shark repellent - even after the shark bites off your leg.

    In short, John Kerry is very, very reluctant to use force and he thinks there are more important priorities than the war on terror. Indeed, now he even says his vote for the second Iraq war was really just a vote to let the president threaten a war - hence upholding the policy of deterrence!

    Meanwhile, George Bush, whose relevant military experience has been the last three years as commander-in-chief, has a very different foreign policy record. I'd summarize it this way: We're at war and it's better to be unpopular and win it than popular and lose it.

    Bush says he's first and foremost a war president. Kerry says he's a jobs president first, then an education president, an environmental president, a taking-thorns-out-of-kittens'-paws president, and - oh yeah - a guy in charge of some military stuff.

    Let them bring it on.


    If Kerry is elected President, we will NOT win the war on terrorism. I'm not willing to bet my life and liberty or that of my family to a Kerry presidency. Think HARD and make sure you have ALL of the facts before you cast that vote.
     
  12. GENO

    GENO New Member


    Paid for by the Re-elect Bush committee.
     
  13. Deb

    Deb New Member

    Safer?

    Anyone but Bush!

    Bush has launched a largely uncovered assualt against most of the existing envirnomental laws. The timber companies are making billions over roads paid for by our tax dollars. He was tried again and again to get the lowered on things like water, air and food safety, all to make money for big companies.

    And let's not even start on Cheney and Halliburton.

    Safer under Bush? No. While I supported the attack against Afghanistan, we had absolutely no evidence that Irqui was involved with 9/11. The only thing Bush has done is complicate an already complicated situation.
     
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Can you counter any of his remarks?

    I do have to say I don't blame John Kerry for his anti-Vietnam stance. History has proven him right.

    Also, the photos of him and Hanoi Jane are doctored photos.

    But, he will not be good for America during these times. "The times they are a changing," said Bob Dylan.

    It's not 1968 anymore. 9/11 changed the world and most anti-Vietnam protesters support the war on terrorism.
     
  15. ncavac

    ncavac New Member

    I vote Bush the rest of my Family are Kerry:mad:
     
  16. Deb

    Deb New Member

    Facts - check them closely

    >>Now things are reversed. Bush "arrogantly" supports nation-building while the presumptive Democratic nominee voted no on the $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction, <<

    He voted no, as did some Republicans, because of a host of unexplained expenses as well as unneeded admendents. It was also the Democrats that forced Buch to remember that he was also suppose to be rebuilding Afganistan. Something he forgot to budget for in the first version.

    >>From my perspective, Kerry's Vietnam record is admirable but the conclusions he's drawn from it are execrable. As a recently returned veteran, and congressional candidate, Kerry told the Harvard Crimson in 1970, "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."<<

    This as opposed to Bush, who would like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at his directive.

    >>Kerry's obviously more sophisticated than that now, but the story gives us a sense of what political lessons Kerry took from the war. Today, he says America's foreign policy must be dedicated to "mending" our relationships with the United Nations and "Europe," i.e. France.<<

    Bush and the current administration have gone out of their way to try to mend the rip. And get money from our ex-allies. They've realized that they can't rebuild a country alone.

    >>Bush says he's first and foremost a war president. Kerry says he's a jobs president first, then an education president, an environmental president, a taking-thorns-out-of-kittens'-paws president, and - oh yeah - a guy in charge of some military stuff.<<

    There are more important issues than the war. The war on terrorism is not the same as the current situation in the gulf. If we were serious about the war on terrorism, we would be talking to Saudi Arabi more. There are many areas that contribute to the the terrorist situation more than Saddam did. The invasion was about money.

    >>If Kerry is elected President, we will NOT win the war on terrorism. I'm not willing to bet my life and liberty or that of my family to a Kerry presidency. Think HARD and make sure you have ALL of the facts before you cast that vote. <<

    I have. And what I see is a war based on greed and a smokescreen set up by crying "war on terrorism" "WMD" when in fact there are many other areas we would do better to examine as contributing factors in the attacks of 9/11.

    We will not win the war on terrorism by invading other countries.
    I support the war on terrorism. But it is a shadow and intelligence war, a war that will be fought more by closing bank accounts and cutting off arms than by invading other countries.

    Bush is using 9/11 to advance his friend's pocketbooks while ignoring the problems here at home.
     
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Sadly, this assertion is perhaps correct regarding a large percentage of the populace.

    Pocketbooks versus Moral Principles / Personal Ethics :confused:
     
  18. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    I can't remember the name of the movie that Richard Pryor was in, but I kind of like the choice of "non of the above"!
     
  19. Tireman4

    Tireman4 member

    I think that you are referring to the movie with John Candy and Richard Prior...where Richard played a minor league pitcher..."Brewsters Millions"....
     
  20. Kerry/Edwards Ticket Wins

    Bush by himself isn't so bad, but Cheney is the anti-Christ. We cannot afford to keep selling out America, ie. sending jobs overseas.
     

Share This Page