I do not understand why everytime there is a talk about the "war on terror", a Bush supporter has to refer to Kerry as some weak, bleeding heart? Democrats around the country are mortified that we have to vote for Kerry, because he happens to be relatively conservative. He talks continuously about finding and killing terrorists, and he seems reluctant to back the rights of homosexuals to marry. Some liberal.
I just do not understand. If anyone out there has a cognizent argument that claims Kerry would be any softer on terrorism than the Bush, let's hear it. None of that "Bush has a proven track record against terror" $#%^ either. I happened to be alive these last four years, too. I've never felt more afraid in my life. If you want to vote for Bush for religious reasons, I understand. If you happen to have one of those neat 50th floor offices, one of those jobs that pay obscene amounts of money, and you're afraid Kerry will ask you toreturn some so poorer people can see a doctor once in a while, then I understand...though I don't really like you very much, either. But to vote for Bush because you feel safer with him as president, or you think he would be more competent against terror....Well, that's when I need to hear your argument. From where I stand, Bush has done nothing but kill healthcare, kill future social security hopes, kill the surplus, kill education (how many children did he want to leave behind, again?), kill all self-respect that Americans used to feel because we were citizens of an admirable country...and he did it all, as far as I can tell, to further his own financial goals in the name of a war on terror. Which, by the way, he has LOST. There is more terror, not less. There are the same amount of Osamas, not less. There are more American deaths in Iraq, not less. In the name of simple decency, Mr. President, why not re-evaluate your, er, "strategery"?