Help! I'm a Republican and I'm leaning to Kerry! Ahh!

Look, we have a family that has MOVED AGAINST AMERICA with every generation:

- Prescott Bush & George Walker ( current Bush's grandfathers) were Nazi sympathizers who financed the Nazi war effort AFTER Americans were already in the field dying from Nazi bullets they helped bu, or Europeans were in DEATH CAMPS that their company built. THAT IS WHY they were both prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemies Act

- Poppy Bush, former Ambassador to Communist China, let the Nuke Weaponery, which the plans for were stolen during his VP/Presidency under Reagan from Los Alamos where his son Neil had the Security Contract, be tested on his watch as president....without a peep.

- Neil is a paid consultant/partner with Grace, a company held by the former Chinese Communist Leader's Son.

- Prescott Jr. was actively brokering deals for himself and fellow traitors in China during both the Tienemann Sq massacre & their illegal detention of our spy plane & crew.

- Poppy Bush was sitting in a shareholders meeting for the Carlyle Group with Osama Bin Laden's big brother on 9/11/04.

- GW is a former Unocal Consultant, as is the American Ambassador to Afganistan & the President of Afganistan

- All of GW's business 'venture' have a wad of Saudi money at their base
Kerry was a anti-Vietnam War advocate & one of the ONLY VOICES in the Senate who kept the POW isue at the forefront.

WHo's the Traitor!?!?!?

This is the Dems favorite tactic, we may be bad, but not as bad as you are. what a croc, I suppose everyone in your family's history been prim and proper, no skeleton's in your closet? I don't want to know about what someone's family has done, I want to know about what the canindate has done. Kerry is a traitor, he did this, not his mom, or his dad.

You prove all arguments against you!

Reason: another issue to add to your summation of reasoned facts: the party's movers & shakers & power brokers are no longer the Republican variety that I respected like Arlen Specter, or Jim Jeffords or Ron Paul or Peter King or Saxby Chamblis: the party is now run by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, John Ashkroft. There is no honor left - just blind power lust & a forcing of the country & the world to their vision of it.
A vision, BTW, that has a "pro-business" standpoint that only considers businesses worth a couple billion as viable, not small companies like ours.

Why do you think they don't have a chance?

Because 9 out of 10 voters will see their names on the ballot and go "Who???"

This isn't the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. It's the fault of the other parties being unable to get their candidate in the limelight. Perot, nutty as he was, was a good example, showing that a third party candidate can get name recognition. Without that, yes, the other candidates don't even have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Ordinarily, I'd share the idealism, but this election is way too important to, yes, throw away a vote.

Muaddib, the difference is those people didn't rush to war before finding out what the truth was. I thought Saddam had WMDs too, because I trusted in our leader like many other Americans. I was misled, or outright lied too -- one of the two. Now I know better than take him at his word.

You are in MI, which is a state that is more than likely going to give their electoral votes to Kerry, so your situation is much different from mine, but this is what I decided.

I am a Republican, in the predominantly Republican state of Utah. I struggled with how I would choose to vote for a long time, as well. I don't trust Kerry to be able to carry out the functions of the presidency, and I am vehemently opposed to Bush because of what I understand is the reality beneath the war in Iraq. I also feel that even though the original premise for the war was disingenuous, it was executed with poor judgement and an extreme lack of planning, leading to the pointless deaths of many Americans and Iraqis.

That said, since I already know that the electoral votes in Utah are going to Bush, I decided that the only way I could clearly vote my conscience and respect myself come November 3rd, was to write in the viable candidate in whom I most believe.

In 2008, there is a likelihood that Senator McCain will be running for the presidency, and the more write-in votes he gets this election, the more support he is likely to have for his nomination.

I have written him regarding my support for his campaign in 2008, but as yet have received no response. If he chooses not to run, I still feel that I've voted my conscience, which is more important than voting for a loser.

Which the candidate and the incumbent both are.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Look, we have a family that has MOVED AGAINST AMERICA with every generation:

- Prescott Bush & George Walker ( current Bush's grandfathers) were Nazi sympathizers who financed the Nazi war effort AFTER Americans were already in the field dying from Nazi bullets they helped bu, or Europeans were in DEATH CAMPS that their company built. THAT IS WHY they were both prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemies Act[/

Can you actually post the source of your information? or do you rely on just making wild accusations and not presenting links to back them up?

What is the evidence that Bush grandfather knew they were making dealings with a Nazy?..... Was there a law back then, like we have now, that banks had to inform or investigate any deals with large sums of money? if you go to a bank and open an account, do you have to say now where that money came from or what affiliation you have?....

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Muaddib, the difference is those people didn't rush to war before finding out what the truth was. I thought Saddam had WMDs too, because I trusted in our leader like many other Americans. I was misled, or outright lied too -- one of the two. Now I know better than take him at his word.

Hamilton...once more.... EVERYONE including Democrats before the Bush administration and before the war, thought that Saddam had WMD

I don't think all the intelligence reports from the whole world could be wrong... So either we were all mislead by some other organization, or there were WMD in Iraq and they are somewhere... And Clinton wanted to do something about IRaq, not just sanctions, he mentioned the use of force.

Clinton already bombed places in Iraq, which supposedly killed innocent people in a mosque near a baby milk factory, yet he call for a coalition and to make Saddam disarm one way or another.... Kerry apparently did the same thing as you can see by what he said back then..

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
I never said Bush outright stated he is going to enact a draft, I said look at his actions. Look at the state of military recruitment. Put two and two together.

If you can read that article and think military recruitment is just going dandy, I'm not sure what to tell you.

It presents a fair represenatation of what is going on. It admits that the military met the 2004 requirements. It admits that the army is starting off the 2005 year with only 18% of its quota met, MUCH different than the 46% in 2004, when it barely met quotas to begin with. It admits the National Guard missed its recruitment quota for the first time in a decade. It admits that the military instituted more lax recruitment standards in an effort to get more people in. It admits that over 1/3 of the army soldiers mobilized for use in a yearlong wartime program have resisted their call-ups.

Those are the facts.

Who made those facts true? Clinton downsizing the military... that first.... The US Armed Forces sure are working overtime to undue what Clinton did...but they are not aiming at what Kerry wants to do.

Second, does our military only have those soldiers that are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? No.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Hamilton...once more.... EVERYONE including Democrats before the Bush administration and before the war, thought that Saddam had WMD

What part of what I said earlier don't you understand?

I said even I was duped into believing the president. So it's understandable others were too, we trusted our president back then. We know better now.

And the difference is, none of these other people rushed us into war. Bush, and BUSH ALONE, is the one to blame for that.

Many congressmen voted to give Bush the authority to go to war because they believed him too, when he said that he would not rush into war, and instead would only use it as a last resort. Now THAT wasn't misleading, that was a damn lie right there, but that's neither here nor there. It didn't take long to prove some of that 'credible' evidence was completely false, ie Iraq trying to gather materials to make nuclear weapons from Africa. If Bush hadn't jumped to war so quickly, more of that type of intelligence would have come to light, and it wouldn't have been such a foregone conclusion that Iraq was a 'threat of unique urgency.'

Originally posted by Muaddib
Who made those facts true? Clinton downsizing the military...

For Christ's sakes, are we blaming Clinton for EVERYTHING now? We are talking about MILITARY RECRUITMENT TODAY. Not the state of the military 4+ years ago. Clinton doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact we are struggling to meet military recruitment standards TODAY, and more than likely will miss quite a few of them in 2005. Your hero Bush is the one to blame.

But hell, even buying into your completely flawed criticism; if Bush can't fix whatever Clinton did in four years, why the hell does he deserve another four years? So we can hear people like yourself whine about what happened during the Clinton administration? Good leaders LEAD, they don't make excuses, especially four-plus years after the fact.

If you really think that Clinton deserves more blame for the current state of military recruitment than does Bush, you're looney. Certifiable

[edit on 26-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

I'm pro-conservative myself. I believe in the Second Amendment above all other Amendements, though they're all important in our society. I will not go into detail of my other beliefs, but I can assure you that they are right-wing conservative.

I've participated in Kerry-bashing on ATS, but I believe it's not who you vote for, just a long as you vote. I believe it's just part of the game of politics to convey your beliefs and voice your opinions.

I watched a John Kerry commercial last night and I was quite impressed by what I saw. Here was a man, not putting down President Bush, telling the nation of how grave of a situation we're in or how terrible the next four years will be if President Bush is re-elected.

The commercial was about his support for Israel and what he will do to insure Israel's security. Knowing that many Americans dislike Israel, it did not deter him from saying what he had to say. He went on to say that he would not let Israel to threatened by the rest of the Middle East if he can help it.

This, changed my opinion of him, despite all the other things I disagree with him on.

As he talked, I knew that he was sincere in what he said. I must say that I have more respect for Senator Kerry now after seeing this one commercial than I've ever had.

I have a strong support for President Bush, but after seeing Senator Kerry speak on the issue of Israel, I can say that I have more belief in him that he'll do a good job in the war on terrorism. He sounded like a man that will not back down or turn his back on Israel no matter what this nation or the rest of the world has to say.

If my vote is to go to John Kerry, it would be on this one issue alone. Call me narrow-minded if you will, but my support for Israel is firm and does not waiver. I also know that Senator Kerry's support is the same as mine.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The commercial was about his support for Israel and what he will do to insure Israel's security.

I personally grow tired of both of the candidates talking more about how we need to liberate Iraq, or ensure the safety of Israel -- I don't give a flying &@)*$. How about focusing more on the damn country you want to be president of? If you want to be president of Iraq or Israel, go take your sorry asses over there and run, America would probably be better off for it anyway.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
I personally grow tired of both of the candidates talking more about how we need to liberate Iraq, or ensure the safety of Israel -- I don't give a flying &@)*$. How about focusing more on the damn country you want to be president of? If you want to be president of Iraq or Israel, go take your sorry asses over there and run, America would probably be better off for it anyway.

Well, well, well. What do we have here? If you don't give a flying &@)*$, then why did you reply the post? It's seems to me that you just talk to hear yourself talk when no one else will listen.

For your information, America and our allies are my top priority and forever will be. I'm really sorry that your situation is so dire that you must resort to responses like the one you posted.

It seems to me that you're just one angry individual that will never be satisified no matter how things may be. Good or bad.



[edit on 26/10/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Gazrok

Why do you think they don't have a chance?

Ordinarily, I'd share the idealism, but this election is way too important to, yes, throw away a vote.

So even though BOTH candidates make you want to puke and you would rather see a chimp in office you HAVE to vote for Bush or Kerry?

Bull#

Both are bought and paid for idiots and I refuse to vote for either, the sooner people stop accepting this lesser of two evils EVERY ELECTION the sooner we can make a real change. They will always be some VITAL reason to not "waste" your vote even if they have to make it up.

Dance little puppet dance

Intelearthling, in case you didn't realize, I was commenting on what you said. I wasn't commenting that I didn't care about what you were posting, I was commenting that I'm getting tired of candidates constantly talking more about other countries than us -- when it's US they should be catering to. And that's simply the truth.

Apparently you missed that point, I guess you still hold some resentment from when I dominated you in that one debate we had before, eh? Will you ever find it in your heart to forgive me? I know you will though, I have faith in you being such a good lil Christian boy and all

PS - no personal attacks please, I'd like to see this thread stay in this forum rather than get moved because of comments like that Intel, thanks!

Sorry for going on topic, but I'm just so happy with the trend I'm seeing in my little red neck, red state town of real, everyday Republicans (I know) breaking Kerry.

My neighbor, a traditional Republican and super active Baptist asked where I got my Kerry signs a couple days ago. I gave him one of mine, it's in his yard now as of yesterday...and we started a trend. Today he said he's getting more from the county HQ for people at his church that want them all of a sudden. Supposed to give out a bunch Wednesday. There's just no place to get them around here.

Not so sure they're going for Bowles in the Senate (they just don't like Clinton), though they are putting Easley back as Govenor without doubt...but man they like Kerry all of a sudden.

I seriously think that Robertson flap hurt Bush in small little baptist type towns more than the media has bothered to catch on. That may not be it, but something's happened. I don't know what it is (or if people even watch 700 club around here), but all of a sudden Bush just doesn't cut it with alot of the church people I know.

Not that religion should matter in politics, but it is supposed to be Bush's strong suit. Something's overcoming that. War? Lies? I don't know. This started recently I noticed.

We'll see.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by RANT]

REASON

not that I necessarily believe that your indecision is genuine; but why I wonder just why you would consider voting for a candidate simply because you don�t like the other. You don�t like the candidate you are considering yet won�t consider voting for a third party, all while decrying the lack of third party candidates.


bt,

what hunting advocacy associations? handgun control inc.? funny you'd list the guy who came up with the magic bullet theory as one you respected.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
PS - no personal attacks please, I'd like to see this thread stay in this forum rather than get moved because of comments like that Intel, thanks!

No problem. I voice my opinions and people know where I stand. I not into arguments and the sort. Arguments, to me, is really all meaningless and it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

The reason for my initial post is that it's my belief that the U.S. must remain strong in the world, especially in Israel. To me, Israel is our outpost in the Middle East.

Although everyone says the war in Iraq is about oil, it's my personal belief is that oil is not the reason for our presence in Iraq.

But you can't deny the fact that America needs oil to keep our industries producing. It would be nice if a substitute for the oil by-products could be produced that is cost-efficient, but as of now, our economy does rely on crude oil. Without it, we would be in far worse shape than we're currently in.

I was once a Republican, until 1991 and the Contra scandels opened their pandoras box of coverups.

John Kerry is not going to touch the 2nd, he will do more to protect them all. Besides the current congress will not let anyone touch the guns anyway. Look at the Sinclair BC case, they messed with the people and the people bit them in the a**. We still hold the power if we stand together.
"Willpower beats fire power because they eventually have to stop and reload."

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON


What part of what I said earlier don't you understand?

I said even I was duped into believing the president. So it's understandable others were too, we trusted our president back then. We know better now.

You are the one not understanding this.... Bush was not the only president, or administration, believing that Saddam had WMD.... Kerry believed Saddam did have them since Clinton was in office up to 2002-2003.... so how in the world was Bush the only one to "dupe" you when the intelligence, even that which was available when Clinton was in office, was saying Saddam had WMD?.............

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
It didn't take long to prove some of that 'credible' evidence was completely false, ie Iraq trying to gather materials to make nuclear weapons from Africa. If Bush hadn't jumped to war so quickly, more of that type of intelligence would have come to light, and it wouldn't have been such a foregone conclusion that Iraq was a 'threat of unique urgency.'

And it didn't take long to prove that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials for wmd from Africa. You obviously missed the reports that came out saying that it was true...Saddam was looking for buclear material... I gave a link to this info in my long post before this one....

Here is the link again...and let me quote...again since you obviously did not read the link....

In the intelligence community, analysts struggled to make sense of fragmentary and inconclusive reports, sometimes drawing varied and shifting conclusions. In the case of Niger, some chose to emphasize the evidence that Iraq explored the possibility of purchasing uranium. Others focused on the seemingly low probability that such a deal had been concluded or could have been carried out without detection.

Mr. Wilson chose to emphasize the latter point, that no deal was likely -- but that does not negate the one Mr. Bush made in his speech, which was that Iraq was looking for bomb material. This suggests another caution: Some of those who now fairly condemn the administration's "slam-dunk" approach to judging the intelligence about Iraq risk making the same error themselves. The failure to find significant stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear program in Iraq has caused some war opponents to claim that Iraq was never much to worry about. The Niger story indicates otherwise. Like the reporting of postwar weapons investigator David Kay, it suggests that Saddam Hussein never gave up his intention to develop weapons of mass destruction and continued clandestine programs he would have accelerated when U.N. sanctions were lifted. No, the evidence is not conclusive. But neither did President Bush invent it.

Excerpted from.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

For Christ's sakes, are we blaming Clinton for EVERYTHING now? We are talking about MILITARY RECRUITMENT TODAY. Not the state of the military 4+ years ago. Clinton doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact we are struggling to meet military recruitment standards TODAY, and more than likely will miss quite a few of them in 2005. Your hero Bush is the one to blame.

But hell, even buying into your completely flawed criticism; if Bush can't fix whatever Clinton did in four years, why the hell does he deserve another four years? So we can hear people like yourself whine about what happened during the Clinton administration? Good leaders LEAD, they don't make excuses, especially four-plus years after the fact.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Dude...........first, i did not say Clinton was responsible for the current recruitment problem.....so don't go around claiming i said something which I obviously did not say, or write in this case.

But do tell me, Clinton freaking downsizing the military has nothing to do with the US armed Forces not having enough soldiers,? or enough equipment, bases, etc, etc?

He freaking closed down, and sold to the Chinese, military bases, ships, he also cut our military funds. I was in the US Navy when Clinton was in office, and we were having a hard time since most of our ships/ bases were undermanned.

So, yeah, if you think labout it... you will see that Clinton did have something to do, not only with the failure of our intelligence before 9/11, but with the state our military was in, when he left office and Bush got in....

BTW, I don't even know why are you bringing out the recruitment problem, it is not the first time we have these problems and it is not the first time that the US Armed Forces have taken in as recruits some "less than desirable people".....

it is also not the first time that the Armed Forces give incentives to bring in more recruits...





[edit on 27-10-2004 by Muaddib]