Just lost all support for kerry

Well....Ive come to realize that Nader is a lost cause, and since Im in a swing state that favors Bush, I figured I might as well join the Kerry campaign. so i read around a little, and then signed up to be a volunteer, when i found this. well not just me, staples was doing the same the entire time as me.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0924.html
some excerpts.....

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry Friday pledged to fight a more effective war on terror, using America’s full force to destroy the terrorists before they get us.
I thought....he wanted to end the war quickly.

Kerry vowed to wage the war on terror with a single-minded determination on capturing or killing the terrorists, crushing their movement and freeing the world from fear.
I would think that the world is more fearful of the US....

My priority will be to find and capture or kill the terrorists before they get us – and I will never take my eye off the ball.
This sounds exactly like Bush. If it wasn't so late, I'd go find a quote from Dubya that is almost identical to this that I seen on his site.

First, Kerry will strengthen our military. His plan will transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation. Second, he will deny terrorists the weapons they seek by securing nuclear materials worldwide and implementing port and bio-terrorism security strategies.
First off, you can't predict terrorism. Secondly, the nuclear materials around the world, such as North Korea who I'm guessing he's referring to, are used for powering the damn country. Those are the only materials Bush is going after, how can Kerry know more if he's not even in the White House yet?

Fifth, Kerry will launch a strategy to win the war of ideas to prevent terrorists from poisoning more minds.
If he would provide real aid to the Middle Eastern countries that the U.S. has raped, and would denounce Israel as an ally, then this might work. But he has not mentioned a single word about either of these.

Sixth, he will promote democracy and freedom throughout the Muslim world.
This was the line that made me hate him. Why the fuck can't that U.S. mind its own goddamn business and let the countries develop on their own? Its not like they are a bunch of savages that hate freedom.

Because if we are true to ourselves, terrorists cannot defeat the values and vision that have made America great.
Its not like the terrorists hate America because we are "free"....its from all the sanctions over the years that killed 6 million Iraqi children from 1989 to 2000...I had a source for this. Oh, lets not forget our alliance with Israel.


The rest of the article is at that link, obviously. Too bad I signed up to be a volunteer after I had found this out.

 

John Kerry is nothing more than a fraud. He should be locked up, along with Bush.

 

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=147

And then I found this article.. just a little more from the other perspective.
But Chuck's right.. there's no way I could support Kerry with how he's changed his mind and some of his views now.

 

theres no poleetecal solution, we are spirits living in a material world- the police

 

Oh hey, in some weird Christian-related turn of events this morning, Staples is now my mommy. Have fun daddy.

 

"I didn't put my nightstick there, Your Honor." - The Police

 

See this is the problem. Too many people support a choice without knowing what their choice is about. He's SAID hes for the war, he just thinks that Bush did it wrong. I just know that Nader cant win so I want someone with more than a double digit IQ in charge of the bombs.

 

I think your right with the way John Kerry's views have changed I don't like him anymore. So now Bush and Kerry both are just jokes and they both need to be locked up and beat. I still think Kucinich is the best and is the one who really needs to be President, but that won't happen. So I am no longer going to support Kerry.

 

There's a saying... easier said than done. He's not like George Bush on many levels but it's either him or Bush. We've seen what Bush can give us and all he can say is "Well, Kerry flip flops"... yah.. and you're just a stubborn jackass with a boot in your ass. Kerry seems to be changing his mind more and it's at the point where it's like taking bitter medicine wether you support either. John Kerry still supports pro-choicism and gay rights... I'm with it. Nobody else wants to vote for anyone else, so... last chance. It's Kerry or Bush... your pick. I'm democrat either way... conservative liberalism against "conservative compassionatism"...

 

Actually, I'd rather have Bush in charge. If Kerry gets elected, the democrats will likely stop worrying about the war so much and take their focus away from the corruption in the government. However, if Bush is re-elected, then people just might open their eyes to what is really going on. Just a thought...

My Physics teacher (Yeah, go figure) said that he read an article that said that half of Americans think that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks. Hmm.

 

Look, I'm with Orsino on this. He's got better insight than most of the adults I've see on this board. It's a failed 3-party system. The third party is a joke party that generally isn't even allowed to debate, and the other two parties don't know what they stand for. This year you're picking between the lesser of two evils. Kerry wants to rebuild a coalition of the willing and stronger U.N. involvement, you know, that thing Bush said he had at the beginning. Ofcourse people simply went along with him when he only truly had Spain, England and the Phillipines, with zero U.N. support, but that's because this is America. People think with their hearts and not with their brains. It was just after 9/11 and everyone was flipping shit about those damned "towel heads".

John Kerry is more realistic than Ralph Nader, which really angers the hippies on this board to hear me say. Nader wants us to pull out of Iraq and leave it the way it is. That's fine in theory, but it's simply not realistic. What we need is more U.N. involvement, and a larger coalition, which can be maintained. We've been told by many countries including most middle-European countries that they will give us support if we stop acting like the bully on the block who doesn't need them. Yes, we're America, no, that doesn't mean we're always able to go it alone. It's obvious how much better we've gotten at uni-lateral guerilla warfare since Vietnam,...NOT MUCH! I don't believe we should be in Viet--er Iraq at all, but now we're there, and now we're losing troops, and now we've removed their leader for an interim leader. We can't just walk away now.

My solution, honestly, would be similar to Kerry's. Take out the Bush-puppet Alawi, put in a French or English magistrate, and allow the French or the English, along with U.N. security forces to baby-sit our own wrong doing until the country becomes level and safe. The people there have already said they'd much rather have a parliamentary system than a democratic system. The solution = Magistrate for interim of a minimum of 5 years, parlimantary system of government, like their middle-Eastern counterparts (Israel, Jordan) and U.N. security controls. That's the only way we're going to level out a country as instable as Iraq, while maintaining as little casualties as possible. Ofcourse Bush doesn't want anyone else involved, he doesn't want something like the Versailles treaty to come back and bite him in the ass. He wants all of what he's got for himself. You take your own pick on who you want in office. Kerry may be a crooked liar, but that's what you're to expect these days, when it comes to all that you have to do and go through to become president, you're not going to get another Franklin Delano. Which is the reason I say our system is entirely falling apart at the seams.

 

The Democratic v. Republican debate isn't even a debate anymore. It's a soap opera. Both sides have questions and answers written down... I'm surprised they wouldn't have telepromptors... Occasionally they run into something and may have to wing it, but I wouldn't even worry about the debates. Just vote. Vote with all your might. If you vote Nader, you'll just have more enemies as the US destroyed Iraq and didn't help to rebuild. Unfortunately, Halliburton, VP Dick Cheney's company, is in charge of it all so it's all back scratching and under-the-table-ism... the same thing happened in Japan with Hiroshima and Nagasaki... now look at our foreign trade and policies with Japan. It's no better than what Hitler did except Bush is doing it all behind your backs. Take over one country, re-establish a "working" government, and reap the benefits that you put into it. That's where the military falls in. Most military in the US come from poorer backgrounds and many come from the south. You get the less intelligent folks being sent to die and you have people who are non-military or are better off/more intelligent working back home at base camp supporting the war effort. It's always been like that. Think of the World Wars... hell... think of the French and Indian or the American Revolution. That's the way war works. That's the entire concept of war right there. That's the way it is now, that's the way it was back then, and that's the way it will always be. This isn't a war against terror. The Civil War wasn't a war for the freeing of slaves. What the south was doing was using them for cheap or free labor because plantation owners never wanted to get up off of their sorry asses and take care of their land... now look at the "obesity epidemic" in result of that lifestyle of use. We have too much food... send some to Tibet or Ethiopia. They say it's not hate... it's heritage... and clearly, it's both hate and heritage. The civil war was for economy strength and growth. No sides would win. It was the bloodiest clash in history. If the south lost (and indeed they did) africans and african-americans would move up north and just be more impoverished workers reaping low-wages and making a barely-enough-to-get-by income. Both sides win and both sides lose... either way, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It still works the same way... either deny it or face it - I have confidence that I'm right in my opinion either way and this has always been the way I've seen the "rules of war"...

Good god, people are so ignorant of this. They think it's a sport... this isn't football you middle-aged-balding-Lexus/BMW/Mercedes-driving-pricks... The last time we had any real reason to worry was the cuban missile crisis in 1962. And the only war that really was any use for freedom was the American Revolution. All the others can be thrown away. We didn't need it. Quit cheating at the game of running your country. You get into a recession, you get your shit together - make some defense cuts and budget changes, you increase healthcare funding, you make sure you have enough for social security, and you ride it out like other countries do. Life exists in a whirlwind of revolving Canadian bacon.

~ George

 

I think I'll send this to the white house.

 

thanks for posting that great piece of info, i myslef somewhat liked kerry, but not anymore (are world is coming to an end)

 

its really a sad state the world is in...

 

I hate to say it, but this election doesn't have much to do with John Kerry.

It's not about him, and it's not about Nader or anyone else.

It's about getting that evil fucking meglomaniac out of the white house, period.

 

Actually, I read through all his views on the issues posted at his site, and he didn't once mention the war. I didnt see this til after i had already volunteered...luckily I haven't gotten a call or an email yet.

 

I agree with this now...but I can't support Kerry without a guilty conscience.

 

dubya is scared spitless of being assinated.. and he will be.. so it doesnt matter who you vote for dubya will not be around..

 

haha, you always make me laugh when i need it.