Patriot_Flamethrower

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

▼

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 #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #24 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 2:07:19 PM
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?


And just *who* is to define what's legitimate? The world or us???
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
YOU STUPID COMMIE LIBERALS WILL BE THE FIRST TO BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT ALL.


show me where they are, Marvin, I'll take care of em for ya.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
And just *who* is to define what's legitimate? The world or us???


I'm guessing Merriam-Webster would be a good first place
Seriously though, the US can determine the legitimacy but they do not have to turn a deaf ear to our allies for advice. I don't see why it has to be "no allies" or "the UN controls us." Friends should listen to each other, take in each other's advice, and then make a wise, informed decision. Why does this not apply in the Bush administration?

I went to a Bob Woodward talk recently and he pointed out that Colin Powell was not in on the decision making process for Iraq. When finally told about it, Powell asked "Are you sure you understand the consequences of this action?" Woodward said Bush admitted in their interview to not developing any sort of diplomatic policy for dealing with Iraq even after 10 months of military planning. As reference, the Woodward book is the only book recommended by both the Kerry and Bush campaigns

Some Examples:
George HW Bush convinced the world (including countries in the Middle East) in the first Gulf War.
There is the famous Acheson/DeGaulle moment from the Cuban Missile Crisis when DeGaulle raised his hand and said, quote, "That is not necessary. I know President Kennedy, and I know he would never mislead me on a question of war and peace."
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #28 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 6:18:16 PM
And just *who* is to define what's legitimate? The world or us???


I'm guessing Merriam-Webster would be a good first place
Seriously though, the US can determine the legitimacy but they do not have to turn a deaf ear to our allies for advice. I don't see why it has to be "no allies" or "the UN controls us." Friends should listen to each other, take in each other's advice, and then make a wise, informed decision. Why does this not apply in the Bush administration?

I went to a Bob Woodward talk recently and he pointed out that Colin Powell was not in on the decision making process for Iraq. When finally told about it, Powell asked "Are you sure you understand the consequences of this action?" Woodward said Bush admitted in their interview to not developing any sort of diplomatic policy for dealing with Iraq even after 10 months of military planning. As reference, the Woodward book is the only book recommended by both the Kerry and Bush campaigns

Some Examples:
George HW Bush convinced the world (including countries in the Middle East) in the first Gulf War.
There is the famous Acheson/DeGaulle moment from the Cuban Missile Crisis when DeGaulle raised his hand and said, quote, "That is not necessary. I know President Kennedy, and I know he would never mislead me on a question of war and peace."


Excuse me but we are talking about *Kerry* not Bush! Stick to the topic.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
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


Um, I don't really want to take money from you, but if you really think that the US will become an Islamoterrorist state under Sharia if Kerry gets in then sure, I'll accept your offer. AUS$1000 will be payable by either party on 04/10/2008 (10/04/2008 for the US). We'll use Australian dollars because they'll probably still be worth something if you''re right. About the UN, you've given me an idea for a blog. I might write something about that later on...
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
drmiler....I answered your question in the first paragraph with....

I'm guessing Merriam-Webster would be a good first place
Seriously though, the US can determine the legitimacy but they do not have to turn a deaf ear to our allies for advice. I don't see why it has to be "no allies" or "the UN controls us." Friends should listen to each other, take in each other's advice, and then make a wise, informed decision.


So I don't see what your problem is.....

I then expanded upon this point to show the differences between this administration and some previous ones. It's good to have historical reference when deciding whether what the current administration has done is the norm or not. The two examples I gave showed how 2 different presidents presented a legitimate case that was accepted by our allies and thus similar to Kerry's proposed approach. So Drmiler sorry for answering your question with facts, quotes and valid points....

I'll make it up to you....here's an article on Powell showing that our "legitimate" reason for invading Iraq (Iraq's WMD poses a real threat to the world because Saddam won't disarm) was not correct. It even comes from a favored source of yours NEWSMAX.

Link
Reply #32 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.


Rebellions in Nigeria, and problems in Sudan have caused prices to rise.

- GX
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
I sometimes hear people saying that terrorists hope that Kerry will win. THIS IS ABSURD. They want a religious extremist to win so that their image of Americans as barbarians will be shared by the people they are trying to recruit as terrorists. George Bush is that religious extremist. He may be able to fight terrorism in the short term, but to prevent it from returning, he must not invoke local anger at the US. That only makes things worse.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

but if you really think that the US will become an Islamoterrorist state under Sharia if Kerry gets in then sure, I'll accept your offer.

One, I said I don't have the funds to back it anyway, two, it wasn't about us becoming an islamoterrorist state; your challenge centered on us failing to remain an independent nation.

Personally I remain questionable about how a nation can be considered "sovereign" if her ELECTED leaders must appeal to an APPOINTED council of international bozos for approval of her actions, as is increasingly becoming the case with the UN

Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
I apologize for jumping into this discussion late, and perhaps addressing an old point. It seems fairly clear to me, and to some other analysts, that the increase in the intensity of hatred by radical Islamists toward the United States coincides quite cleanly with Mr. Bush taking office. Most unfortunately, there were two main actions that escalated these tensions. First, diplomats were pulled from a number of countries in the region. Secondly, the ongoing talks between Israel and Palestine, where the US was the world's only mutually acceptable moderator, were abandoned. Instead, Bush (later) dumped money into some defensive measures for Israel (to lower the risk of more suicide bombers), whilst continuing to ignore the Palestinians please for moderated discussions.

Clearly, the Israel/Palestine thing is a major source of tensions (with a very long and interesting history!). At the end of Clinton's term, many folks were complaining about how slow the peace process was progressing, but they weren't prepared for what would happen when the entire (delicate) web of diplomats was unceromoniously pulled from the region.

Think about it.

Dr. Tarthesius

PS I am concerned for the safety of my family, and should the election happen in the manner encouraged by the soul who started this thread, I have seriously considered (and will continue to do so) taking my six figure income to a country not so determined to make enemies around the world.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I remain questionable about how a nation can be considered "sovereign" if her ELECTED leaders must appeal to an APPOINTED council of international bozos for approval of her actions, as is increasingly becoming the case with the UN


They don't have to; the US is sufficiently strong that it doesn't have to do anything unless it wants to. No other country or entity has the authority or the power to deny the US their desires even if there is the will to do so. Iraq is a case in point. Americans can claim all they want that they are being chained by the UN, but the chains are made of paper and can be broken with ease at any time. It's more masochism than slavery that keeps the US bound into the world system.
Reply #37 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.


What is $100AUS worth these days in US Dollars? Not trying to be sarcastic, just curious.

And altho I support Bush, I wont take the bet. It is a sucker bet. Will we be worse off than now? You bet! But Armageddon will not take place by then.