The Very Survival Of The USA Depends On Your Vote !!

from JoeUser Forums
I am not being facetious. I am not being sarcastic. I am not being partisan. I am not being melodramatic. I am not being humorous. I am not being morbid. I am not being hysterical.

I am being HONEST with all of you. As HONEST as I can be.

If John F. Kerry is elected President Of The United States in November, our country will immediately be in grave danger. From the moment he is sworn in in January of 2005, we are all in danger of imminent attack and ultimate destruction by the Islamo-terrorists.

Please heed my words. John Kerry will NOT protect the citizens of the United States Of America. John Kerry will NOT look out for OUR interests. John Kerry will ONLY look out for HIS interests. John Kerry's history shows that John Kerry only CARES ABOUT JOHN KERRY. Al Qaeda and the other terrorist organizations KNOW this FACT, and they will act accordingly.

What happened on September 11, 2001 will be a drop in the bucket compared to what will happen to us once John Kerry takes office. The fight against Islamo-terrorism will be fought on U.S. soil again. Millions of American citizens will be murdered on U.S. soil.

John Kerry is an APPEASER. He believes that you win wars by TALKING, not by military action. If you honestly believe that trying to NEGOTIATE with Al Qaeda and the other Islamo-terrorist organizations will bring us lasting peace and safety, then John Kerry is your man.

If you believe in KILLING the Islamo-terrorists before they KILL US and OUR FAMILIES, then John Kerry is NOT your man.

Remember this date. Remember my words. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Keep American safe. Vote for George W. Bush.
politics
20,779 views 38 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Patriot..........i agree fully. right now terrorists are being drawn to iraq where we can kill them. but if kerry becomes president, he will leave iraq and the terrorists will be free to come to the usa. then 9/11 will look mild compared to what they do next.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfuckingbelievable........................
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll bet you AUS$1000 that if John Kerry is elected the US will not cease to exist as a independent nation. And to be extra generous I'll give you four years - that's one term, right? If the US is still a sovereign state in four years time under John Kerry, then I win. If the Islamoterrorists have overthrown the government and instituted sharia, then you win.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dabe said it about right.

Kerry '04
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Keep American safe. Vote for George W. Bush.

He is the President that America needs right now.

Unfuckingbelievable........................

There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: apdelong31 - 10/2/2004 10:23:47 PM
Dabe said it about right.

Kerry '04


Don't bet on it pal!!!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any Amerian citizen that would be praised for his/her contributions in aiding an enemy against our country would disgust me.
When it is a potential President of the United States, there are no words to describe my contempt for this disgraceful conduct. Yes! John F. Kerry has been and is currently praised in the halls of the Hanoi War Crimes Museum for his contributions to communist north vietnam and their "victory" against the U.S. His discription of his fellow US soldiers as war criminals gave the vietcong all the justification and incentive they needed to continue their relentless torture of our POW's.
See for yourself - http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/Misc/KerryHonoredByCommunists2.htm

Take a good look at that wall in Washington DC Mr. Kerry. You helped to make that list even longer and nothing you can say or do now will erase that.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
my apologies for the duplicate post
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Bush is right on being in iraq. but what i disagree with is all this freedom crap for the iraqis. those people could no more handle freedom than black africans. we should be there for 2 reasons. halting sadam from building and getting extreme weapons and keeping the oil flowing. now i know the naive will say, "oh, how evil. he wants to have soldiers killed for oil". well, oil is the life blood of the whole modern world. never in world history has there been a resourse so valuable and vital to the civilized world. the romans conquered for gold. gold is nothing compared to oil. i have no qualms whatsoever about America taking control of as much oil as possible. leaving oil in the hands of the uncivilized arabs is a recipe for total disaster. the arabs control of oil now gives them the power to destroy all the advanced worlds economy. just think. all the terrorist government in iran has to do is halt a mere 2 million barrows a day and oil could hit 60 to 70 dollars a barrow. we cannot allow this to happen. the next mission should be to invade iran and secure the oil from that savage nation.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Take a good look at that wall in Washington DC Mr. Kerry. You helped to make that list even longer and nothing you can say or do now will erase that.

The man was a man of action. Although he may have been wrong, and he may have cost his many of his countrymen their lives, he took a clear stand and did what he thought right -- quite a contrast to his opponent for president.

Hard to tell who I am talking about, eh, Kerry of the Vietnam era or Bush of the Iraqi War.

By the way, when you use sourses like vetsagainstkerry, you can be pretty sure you are just passing along well-bankrolled propaganda. The same people who know better than to accept Moore at face value sure lose all their sense pretty quickly when it comes to the distortions of the right.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
I am not being facetious. I am not being sarcastic. I am not being partisan. I am not being melodramatic. I am not being humorous. I am not being morbid. I am not being hysterical.


Actually I think you are being all of the above.

At any rate, I think it's worth noting in all of the hype a few things.
1) Kerry is more concerned about strengthening and protecting our borders than attacking a country that apparently wasn't as imminent a threat as the Bush machine made it out to be.
2) Kerry is more concerned with killing the terrorists that attacked the US rather than attack a country who's ties with Al Quada were tenuous at best before we attacked Iraq.
3) The Presidency has survived bad presidents before. It is one of the strengths of our governmental system. See Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover (I'd put some others in the list more recent but history cannot judge them yet).

Interestingly enough, while reading the biographies of the presidents this past year, the current administration reminded me very much of the Harding administration (but this is just my opinion of course! ). Some examples:

campaign promise--"Less government in business and more business in government."
Teapot Dome Scandal-administration selling off the government oil reserves to friends in return for cash bribes
The attorney general (also his campaign manager) traded favors for kickbacks
One of his campaign speeches contained the word "normality," which he mispronounced as "normalty" or "normalcy." He liked the attention this mispronunciation got so much that he continued to (mis)use it that way.
He refused to co-operate with European nations in collective security plans.
Historians routinely categorize Harding as the worst President in US History (not my opinion, from wikipedia and other sources)
- From wikipedia, and The Presidents of the United States - From Washington to Bush
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Kerry is more concerned about strengthening and protecting our borders than attacking a country that apparently wasn't as imminent a threat as the Bush machine made it out to be.


He has the same view as Bush on the border; I would not call it strengthening.

- GX
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
he took a clear stand and did what he thought right


Clear stand? He could not remember if he through away his medals/ oops ribbons/ opps someone else's..... wait what's his latest story on that?

Nothing is clear about Kerry. He holds more positions then superman at a one-man baseball game.

The Dems say he was clear and precise at the debate. But he always sounds clear and precise during one debate because he was president of Yale's debate team. But if you listen to him over a month of debates he will hold five different positions on everything.

Then people say "Well that's a sign of being flexible" not when it is on every subject. Example: Let’s talk to an Anti-Gun group and says "I will regulate and take all dangerous guns off the streets. (Aren't all guns dangerous)? Then the next week he tells a gun club (while he and other around him are carrying a gun he said he wanted to ban one week earlier), I have no plans to take gun away from you.

You can say "What a great plan he gave at the debate", but next week he will be talking about a different one. That's why I don't believe anything he says.

The man was a man of action. Although he may have been wrong, and he may have cost his many of his countrymen their lives


The big difference is Bush used faulty information given from many different sources to include Russia, France, UK, Syria. But Kerry knew all his info about the dangers of those people still held captive, but willingly used it for his own political career.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I read this article and many of the pat on the back answers, I can see so much of what is wrong in our country. Bush should've been impeached, not running for re-election. He may speak for some of you, but he does not speak for me or for the many others that will vote against him. The fact that you are an example of the scare tactics used by Bush and his is sad. When anyone asks me from now on what I mean by scare tactics, terrorism scare tactics, I'll point them to this article. Because that is what you are doing. You are terrorizing others.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion - ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

And Marvin, I just worry about you.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, when you use sourses like vetsagainstkerry, you can be pretty sure you are just passing along well-bankrolled propaganda. The same people who know better than to accept Moore at face value sure lose all their sense pretty quickly when it comes to the distortions of the right.


Nice try Don Bemont.
Recent polls indicate that about 80% of all vietnam vets oppose Kerry. Do they all lose credibility and if so, on what do you base that? If you see video taped examples of Kerry's numerous positions on Iraq on Fox News, do you automatically assume that the video if fake? If I remember correctly, it was CBS's Dan Rather that was all too happy to promote the lefts "well-bankrolled propaganda" to smear Bush's Air National Guard service (memo-gate). So who has the credibility problem?

I challenge you to prove that the north vietnamese praise of Kerry's efforts to their cause (in the Hanoi War Crimes Museum) does not exist. If you can discredit this information, I would be happy you review your sourses.

I find it interesting how any news source that does not live and breathe the liberal slant is instantly labeled distortion on the truth - when most of the evidence in this campaign shows the exact opposite.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll bet you AUS$1000 that if John Kerry is elected the US will not cease to exist as a independent nation. And to be extra generous I'll give you four years - that's one term, right? If the US is still a sovereign state in four years time under John Kerry, then I win. If the Islamoterrorists have overthrown the government and instituted sharia, then you win.


Cacto,


I'd be pretty willing to take that bet, if I had the funds to back my end of it. Democrats have repeatedly conceded to the UN, to the point where US TROOPS WERE WEARING UN UNIFORMS in certain assignments during the Clinton years (there were personnel who faced courts martial for refusing to wear the UN uniform, as they didn't swear an oath to the UN army, but to the US). While many consider the UN a benign entity, there is a strong push among many in the UN community to strip the US of her sovereignty (resolutions that have been passed in the UN have encouraged legislation forbidding parents to "proselytize" their children, effectively banning religious teaching in the homes, which potentially affects many of us). As well, the death penalty laws that many states enact have the potential of being stricken down by the international community under the UN. While I am anti-death penalty, I acknowledge many of the rationalizations given by its advocates, and do not feel our democracy should be overridden by the UN oligarchy.


While I do not support Bush and will not vote for Bush, I will concede that his attitude towards the international community is far preferable to one who would accede to every whim of these wannabe dictators.

Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
I challenge you to prove that the north vietnamese praise of Kerry's efforts to their cause (in the Hanoi War Crimes Museum) does not exist.


BTW- here is the proof you requested. Have fun and be happy reviewing Mr. Bemont's sources....

Mr. Kerry’s campaign did not respond to calls and e-mail seeking comment, but two visits to the museum last week disclosed some weaknesses in the arguments put forward by the senator’s critics.
While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr.Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.

It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials.
originally published in the “Front Page” section of the New York Sun on August 16, 2004

By the way zobelisk, could you add the link saying that 80% of all vietnam vets oppose kerry. I'd very much like to read up on it.....
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
The fact that you are an example of the scare tactics used by Bush and his is sad. When anyone asks me from now on what I mean by scare tactics, terrorism scare tactics, I'll point them to this article. Because that is what you are doing. You are terrorizing others.


WF

Sometimes you need to take your blinders off. Lets remain PC and not talk or look at the truth "It hurts my ears!!!". The reason attacks are going up in Iraq is not because Bush is messing it up. It is because of our elections. The terrorists have studied the past and are using a tactic that they think will work. They are using the same tactics that was used by the North Vietnamese and the terrorist in Spain to effect elections. The worse thing is Kerry himself has given them the ideas and hope they need to continue the fight. They want someone in our Presidency that will turn this war back into a police action again. Kerry has proven with his past acts that he will do just that and worse. I think that's why Vietnam holds him in honor at their museum.

That’s My Two Cents
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 9:09:42 AM

2) Kerry is more concerned with killing the terrorists that attacked the US rather than attack a country who's ties with Al Quada were tenuous at best before we attacked Iraq


Actually if you listened to the *debate*(hardly, but that's another issue.). Then you already know that Kerry seeks a world test that must be applied *before* we can attack someone who has attacked US! In other words he want to hand our security over to the ( UN? ).
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top


Way to take a comment out of context drmiler....

From the CNN transcript on the Kerry/Bush Q&A:

LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry to put the Bush spin on *global test* back into context
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
DAMIT PEOPLE, CANT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD? WE NEED OIL!!! A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM NOW WHEN OIL IS OVER 100 DOLLARS A BARROW, AND THE WORLDS JOBLESS RATE IS OVER 15 PERCENT, YOU STUPID COMMIE LIBERALS WILL BE THE FIRST TO BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT ALL.

AND IN THOSE DAYS THERE SHALL BE TROUBLE AMONG THE NATIONS SUCH AS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN. ITS ALL PREBVENTABLE NOW IF YOU FOOLS WOULD JUST STOP CAUSING SUCH DISASTERS.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 1:05:28 PM


Way to take a comment out of context drmiler....

From the CNN transcript on the Kerry/Bush Q&A:

LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?


Then *what* does this tell you? ( Also from CNN transcript.)


But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
 He wants us to *prove* to the *world* that whatever we did is legitimate.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Umm....you took the same quote drmiler.....did you read the post at all? I'll requote the end part for you...

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?


So I guess I should restate in case the point is missed. Shouldn't we only pre-emptively attack for legitimate purposes?
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
DAMIT PEOPLE, CANT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD? WE NEED OIL!!! A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM NOW WHEN OIL IS OVER 100 DOLLARS A BARROW, AND THE WORLDS JOBLESS RATE IS OVER 15 PERCENT, YOU STUPID COMMIE LIBERALS WILL BE THE FIRST TO BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT ALL.

AND IN THOSE DAYS THERE SHALL BE TROUBLE AMONG THE NATIONS SUCH AS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN. ITS ALL PREBVENTABLE NOW IF YOU FOOLS WOULD JUST STOP CAUSING SUCH DISASTERS.


Umm...this makes as much sense as you usually do. Oil is a limited resource. If we use more now then we will run out sooner. If we run out sooner than the price will go up sooner.

Mr. Cooley, all that anger can't be good for you. I doubt I'll be the first to whine and bitch as I believe in taking public transportation and not cranking the A/C and all of that fun stuff to conserve our resources. Then again, I'm also not a commie so I guess the comment doesn't regard me. Basically, I believe in conserving resources (it's cheaper that way) since they are in limited supply and that is the best way to keep costs down until alternatives are found.