Here is what sucks about having to vote for Kerry

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Professor Jumbo, May 21, 2004.

  1. Professor Jumbo

    Professor Jumbo Mr. Smarty Pants

    Likes Received:
    Overall, Kerry is not too bad. I know that you Bushies think that Kerry planned that september 11 attckes personally and gave birth to Bin Laden, but then the republican party mantra might as well be "four legs good two legs bad".

    What sucks about having to vote for Kerry is that Bush is so tyrannical and blood thirsty that even Pat Buchannan would be preferrable. As nasty as Buchannan is, at least he doesn't have dreams of world empire and delusions that he is God's mouthpiece as Bush does. That and he is not a corporate fascist pawn like Bush. Many people who can't stand Kerry will be voting for him not because of how good he might be but because of how dreadful Bush is. There are candidates out there who are superior to Kerry, yet a vote for any one of them is essentially a vote for Bush. It sucks
  2. Kabbalist

    Kabbalist Member

    Likes Received:
    I don't know, I'm from the Netherlands so I miss a lot of this circus. Bush and Kerry aren't so different? I think the're quite the same, the're promisses are just for the elections, don't believe it!
  3. brothersun

    brothersun Member

    Likes Received:
    I all know is rebublicans seem to rush to war and don't mind using force. They also would like to take away the peoples freedom in exchange for security. The democrats seem to try to negotiate and work with the world community to resolve indifferences.
  4. booshnoogs

    booshnoogs loves you

    Likes Received:
    There are so many things wrong with this post. Please don't the mistake of actually believing the drivel that comes out of politician's mouths. Look at their actions instead.

    In practice the democrats rush to war as quickly as republicans. Kosovo and Samalia are examples of that. How many innocent civilians died in those conflicts? Vietnam was supported by multiple democratic presidents. Plus huge numbers of democrats voted to go to war with Iraq.

    Democrats are also quick to trade away liberty in exchange for security. Clinton intituted multiple programs that gave the federal government unrestricted access to look at things like your bank account and medical records. Democrats were behind that silly program (I forget the name) where postal workers were supposed to write up the name and description of anybody who fit certain profiles at post offices.

    Both parties expand government outrageously with pork spending that the rest of us have to pay for instead of being able to use money that we work hard for on our own families and communities.

    If you really believe that Kerry is not a coporate owned entity like Bush, I ask you to consider the fact that he has received more corporate donations than almost any other person in congress.

    Don't be such a tool. It would be wise to assume that everything that comes out of a politicians mouth is a lie. Do the research and verify it before you come to any conclusions.
  5. Digital Underpants

    Digital Underpants Member

    Likes Received:
    I don't see any difference between the two parties myself.
    My father says we are a one party system posing as a two party system.
    I have to agree even though I am registered Democrat.
  6. Maverick

    Maverick Banned

    Likes Received:
    Nice stereotyping there.
  7. trippymcnugget

    trippymcnugget Member

    Likes Received:
    "I know that you Bushies think that Kerry planned that september 11 attckes personally and gave birth to Bin Laden"

    Uhh... unlike liberals, we don't blame other people. We blame the muslim terrorists. The ONLY Americans partly responsible for September 11th is the Clinton admin.
  8. cynical_otter

    cynical_otter Bleh!

    Likes Received:
    oh we go with blaming ONE Freaking President for 9-11.

    Quite being so stupid will ya??????

    9-11 was a climax to something that started atleast 25 years ago.

    actually....ever since the 1972 Olympics....people knew that the shit was gonna hit the fan big time in the near future.the Islamic terrorists made their presence quite known then.

    and what has every president done since then???? IGNORED THE THREAT.

    Clinton wasnt the only president offered the opportunity to seize Bin Laden.

    so was Carter, Reagan,Bush Sr,and Bush Jr.

    Also dont forget....simply capturing Bin Laden wouldn not have stopped 9-11 or any other terrorist acts...because this kind of occultist movement is filled with thousands of angry individuals who would love to step up as the leader.

    I bet guys right now are wishing for Bin Laden's capture just so they can become in charge.

    Curiosity didnt kill the cat...naivetivity killed the damn cat.
  9. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Likes Received:
    Kerry is just as bad as Bush. Kerry would only be a better liar, not a better president. Behind that heavily botoxed, wax statue-like face and that droning, monotonous voice of his, Kerry would be much more like the smooth-talker Clinton was - another Slick Willy, so to speak.
  10. smartass

    smartass Member

    Likes Received:
    Dude, if that's all you know, YOU KNOW NOTHING.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice