ya know....

Author	All Replies
David Now accepting new patients Premium,VIP join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL kudos:70 Reviews: ·AT&T Southwest ·DIRECTV ·AT&T Midwest ·Google Voice	ya know.... The bad part is..... I am not sure who I am going to vote for this year.... I really don't like either one of them... I don't want another 4 years of bush, and I really don't like kerry either... so far now...... the impass -- If you have a topic I have not responded to in the direct forum please be sure to reply to me... I get an e-mail when you do that so I know you updated your thread... Thanks David..
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-25 20:57:07 ·
JimF Premium join:2003-06-15 Allentown, PA	said by David: I am not sure who I am going to vote for this year.... I really don't like either one of them... Yes, the only president to invade the wrong country verses the only candidate who has an honored spot in the North Vietnam war museum. I think I will sit it out too.
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-25 21:21:34 ·
DaDogs Semper Vigilantis Premium join:2004-02-28 Deltaville, VA 3 edits	said by JimF: said by David: I am not sure who I am going to vote for this year.... I really don't like either one of them... Yes, the only president to invade the wrong country verses the only candidate who has an honored spot in the North Vietnam war museum. I think I will sit it out too. BAHWHAHSHAHSHAHSHA BAWAHAHAHA BAWHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA BAWHAAAHHAAAAH,,, cough... cough.... wretch... puke.. Uh, huh, honor, actually INSTANT HONOR. Honor in three months so that he can get out and go run for office. You kiddies don't really understand what a tool of politicians the military can be do you? If a Kennedy calls department of the navy and tells them about a "fine young officer named Kerry". The Navy will kiss that fine young officer's ass because of the budget influence that Kennedy might have. If the Kennedy calls department of the navy and suggests that the "fine young officer named Kerry, should have a command on a swift boat", the Navy will jump thru it's ass ensuring that the fine young officer is removed from wherever he happens to be and sent to school so he can command a swift boat. If a Kennedy calls the Navy and tells the Navy that "we understand the dangers of an assignment as a swift boat commander and hope the fine young man named Kerry isn't hurt as we feel he should run for office". The Navy will jump thru it's ass and ensure that the fine young officer gets three Purple Hearts in three months so he can be home in time to run for office... But you don't GET it so you vote KERRY... uh, huh. That would be the same WAR HERO that calls all other Viet-Nam veterans baby killers, right? The Kerry who was a friend of the Kennedy's. You know the one who was GROOMED from the start to be a WAR HERO, that Kerry, right. -- »members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-25 22:04:09 ·
Derek_Wildstar Why the fck is Shane walking in there? join:2001-02-24 Iscandar	said by DaDogs: BAHWHAHSHAHSHAHSHA BAWAHAHAHA BAWHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA BAWHAAAHHAAAAH,,, cough... cough.... wretch... puke.. You kiddies don't really understand what a tool of politicians the military can be do you? If a Kennedy calls department of the navy and tells them about a "fine young officer named Kerry". The Navy will kiss that fine young officer's ass because of the budget influence that Kennedy might have. If the Kennedy calls department of the navy and suggests that the "fine young officer named Kerry, should have a command on a swift boat", the Navy will jump thru it's ass ensuring that the fine young officer is removed from wherever he happens to be and sent to school so he can command a swift boat. If a Kennedy calls the Navy and tells the Navy that "we understand the dangers of an assignment as a swift boat commander and hope the fine young man named Kerry isn't hurt as we feel he should run for office". The Navy will jump thru it's ass and ensure that the fine young officer gets three Purple Hearts in three months so he can be home in time to run for office... But you don't GET it so you vote KERRY... uh, huh. That would be the same WAR HERO that calls all other Viet-Nam veterans baby killers, right? The Kerry who was a friend of the Kennedy's. You know the one who was GROOMED from the start to be a WAR HERO, that Kerry, right. Wow. Thanks for educating us kiddies on the vagaries of John Kerry's military service. I never knew that Kerry had that kind of pull back in the 60's. That's a horrible abuse of the system! You know what would be really helpful? If you had some credible, independent non-partisan sources that you could cite to back this up. That would be a tremendous blow to the Kerry candidacy. Think you could dig those up for us, please? It would really go a long way towards lending even a shred of credibilty to such an outrageous travesty of justice. Thanks in advance for providing that information. -- I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz All hail the Hypnotoad!
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-26 08:44:45 ·
DaDogs Semper Vigilantis Premium join:2004-02-28 Deltaville, VA 4 edits	said by Derek_Wildstar: Wow. Thanks for educating us kiddies on the vagaries of John Kerry's military service. You are quite welcome. Wouldn't want anyone to fail to understand that the third Purple Heart gets you shipped home. Three in four months, you don't see many soldiers that lucky let alone boat captains that incompetent. Crap, lets just get down to real brass tacks. The Democratic party picked Kerry to run because they don't want to win this election. That should be obvious to anyone paying attention. The ticket would have been vastly superior had they picked Edwards/Kerry vice Kerry/Edwards. Why? Simply because John Kerry is the Jane Fonda of the Senate. The Dems knew his war and his post war record. Anyone with a brain knew that he would loose the veterans almost immediately, and that he would loose any conservative leaning voters shortly there after. His voting record alone would loose him the election. So why would his own party set him and Edwards up as the "fall guys". Simple really, they are going to run Hillary next round. They think they can pull eight years with the "first woman president" and they are grooming her. They don't want another Dem in office when her turn comes up and her turn is 2008. Kerry is a fall guy. He is a self-avowed war criminal who claims that virtually everyone who served in Viet-Nam is the same. He is a liberal's liberal and has undercut defense every chance he had for thirty years. The leaders of his party knew this and chose him to run lead because they want to loose this election... BUT YOU ARE A LIBERAL SO YOU DON'T GET IT . -- »members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-28 09:58:33 ·
Derek_Wildstar Why the fck is Shane walking in there? join:2001-02-24 Iscandar	said by DaDogs: said by Derek_Wildstar: Wow. Thanks for educating us kiddies on the vagaries of John Kerry's military service. You are quite welcome. Wouldn't want anyone to fail to understand that the third Purple Heart gets you shipped home. Three in four months, you don't see many soldiers that lucky let alone boat captains that incompetent. Crap, lets just get down to real brass tacks. The Democratic party picked Kerry to run because they don't want to win this election. That should be obvious to anyone paying attention. The ticket would have been vastly superior had they picked Edwards/Kerry vice Kerry/Edwards. Why? Simply because John Kerry is the Jane Fonda of the Senate. The Dems knew his war and his post war record. Anyone with a brain knew that he would loose the veterans almost immediately, and that he would loose any conservative leaning voters shortly there after. His voting record alone would loose him the election. So why would his own party set him and Edwards up as the "fall guys". Simple really, they are going to run Hillary next round. They think they can pull eight years with the "first woman president" and they are grooming her. They don't want another Dem in office when her turn comes up and her turn is 2008. Kerry is a fall guy. He is a self-avowed war criminal who claims that virtually everyone who served in Viet-Nam is the same. He is a liberal's liberal and has undercut defense every chance he had for thirty years. The leaders of his party knew this and chose him to run lead *because they want to loose* this election... BUT YOU ARE A LIBERAL SO YOU DON'T GET IT . Hmm, I'm not really sure what your definition of a "liberal" is, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't really follow what you're saying. I did notice, however, that you never really addressed the issue of providing credible, independent, non-partisan sources for your previous assertion, because it defies logic. I am assuming that you either didn't understand my previous request or simply ignored it because you had nothing to support your claims. Which bring us to your latest shocking revelation. I didn't realize that the Democratic Party had so much control over who gets nominated these days, especially since the advent of the primary system. How did they manage to persuade a majority of those millions of registered Democrats to vote for Kerry in the primaries? Furthermore, if they wanted to nominate someone who is ultra-left-wing and is guaranteed to lose (please note the correct spelling), why not Dennis Kucinich? Again, logically, it doesn't make sense. Here's one other thing that doesn't make sense. What would the Dems gain by trying to get Hillary elected in 2008 by throwing the election in 2004? Seems awfully risky to me. After all, a lot can happen in 4 years. Furthermore, what good would it do for the Dems to elect the first woman President if Congress is predominately Republican? Last time I checked the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, not the President. Therefore, in order to have any influence in the way this country is run, wouldn't you need to have to ability to influence how the laws are made? I mean, seriously, what good is having the first woman President if she can't get anything done? Once again, logically, it makes no sense. Furthermore, you provide us no credible, independent, non-partisan sources** to support your claims, making them sound like the mad rantings of a conspiracy nut. I mean, I would like to believe that what you are saying is true, but it just doesn't hold up to the light of scrutiny very well. Wait a minute. Does your definition of "liberal" mean "someone who uses logic to make important, rational decisions"? Or is it the definition found in the American Heritage Dictionary: 1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. In either case, I emphatically claim to be a liberal. Any other definition is merely partisan name-calling and serves no useful purpose. -- I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz All hail the Hypnotoad!
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-30 10:19:11 ·
DaDogs Semper Vigilantis Premium join:2004-02-28 Deltaville, VA 1 edit	I yeild, Derek, you're just too smart for me. Guess it's all that logic and documented fact. Here's a documented FACT for you. Of 23 officers who served with Kerry during that crucial four months, 17 (seventeen) are members of the SBVFT (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). There's a fact for you. I dunno about you, dude but when I see 75% of the people who served with him saying he didn't do what he claimed, I logically have to put creedence in that. Here's an obvious fact for you. If Kerry wins this election, he will be the natural choice for the next election unless he screws up as bad as Johnson did, and resigns... which is entirely plausable but not my point. If he wins in '04 he will run in '08. That means the earliest Hillary could be nominated to run would be 2012. She will be sixty-five years old at that point... TOO OLD TO RUN. Therefore I opine that the Democratic party bosses agreed to pick a candidate whom they knew could not win this election. John Kerry is clearly that candidate, LoL, SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS AND ALL. Clearly any thinking person realizes that Kerry has no chance of taking this election with his voting record, his waffeling, his, "I thought it would be doubly advantages to have fought in the war and to have protested against it." amorality. ... but you don't get it so you are going to vote Kerry ... Help yourself. -- »members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-30 10:51:03 ·
Derek_Wildstar Why the fck is Shane walking in there? join:2001-02-24 Iscandar 1 edit	said by DaDogs: I yeild, Derek, you're just too smart for me. Guess it's all that logic and documented fact. Here's a documented FACT for you. Of 23 officers who served with Kerry during that crucial four months, 17 (seventeen) are members of the SBVFT (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). There's a fact for you. I dunno about you, dude but when I see 75% of the people who served with him saying he didn't do what he claimed, I logically have to put creedence in that. Here's an obvious fact for you. If Kerry wins this election, he will be the natural choice for the next election unless he screws up as bad as Johnson did, and resigns... which is entirely plausable but not my point. If he wins in '04 he will run in '08. That means the earliest Hillary could be nominated to run would be 2012. She will be sixty-five years old at that point... TOO OLD TO RUN. Therefore I opine that the Democratic party bosses agreed to pick a candidate whom they knew could not win this election. John Kerry is clearly that candidate, LoL, SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS AND ALL. Clearly any thinking person realizes that Kerry has no chance of taking this election with his voting record, his waffeling, his, "I thought it would be doubly advantages to have fought in the war and to have protested against it." amorality. ... but you don't get it so you are going to vote Kerry ... Help yourself. Now, here's the REST of the story... At least 4 of those officers SUPPORTED Kerry's bid for the Senate just a few years ago. Now that he's running for President, they're changing their tune. Also, their purpose doesn't seem to be rooted in "exposing the truth". Their agenda is as politically motivated as such organizations as MoveOn.org. Their organization has more credibility holes in it than Swiss cheese. Hell, even George W. Bush and John McCain have disavowed any association with the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. But don't take my word for it, here's a partial list of some independent sources. I don't know about you, but when I see that kind of disparity, I logically get very skeptical about that. I don't see what's so obvious about Hillary being too old to run in 2012. When Ronald Reagan was elected as the 39th President of the United States, he was sixty-nine years old. Just to be sure, though, I checked the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says: quote: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Nope, nothing about a maximum age requirement there. So, I don't understand why she would be too old. Finally, why are *you* so certain of who I am voting for when I don't even know? Does it even matter that I am a registered Republican? I guess not. Besides, if military service was all that mattered, Bush's National Guard service looks a hell of a lot more suspicious to me than Kerry's Navy service. ...but you don't seem to like having to think for yourself, so you are going to accept the Standard Party Line hook, line and sinker, regardless of the inequities.... -- I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz All hail the Hypnotoad!
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-30 16:17:36 ·
DaDogs Semper Vigilantis Premium join:2004-02-28 Deltaville, VA	said by Derek_Wildstar: ...but you don't seem to like having to think for yourself, so you are going to accept the Standard Party Line hook, line and sinker, regardless of the inequities.... I guess I need to repeat myself... Clearly any thinking person realizes that Kerry has no chance of taking this election with his voting record, his waffeling, his, "I thought it would be doubly advantages to have fought in the war and to have protested against it." amorality. I could care less whom you vote for... Vote however you like it is your vote, isn't it? Inequities, LoL, please... 87 percent of the money spent in negative advertizing has been spent by the Democratic party. Let's see (17-4)= 13. 13/24 = 54.16 percent. Dude, I spent my share of time in unpleasent places as well. If 55 percent of the people I worked with said I was a lying POS, one would have to take it seriously if I were running for President... So I guess the BEST you can do is slightly less than a majority. As far as accepting the "party line hook line and sinker", you have no idea what I am or what I think. Don't make the same mistake you accuse me of... I have opinions, based upon what I see in the media. My opinion is that Kerry is an opportunist. He was groomed for political office in much the same way that G.W. Bush was groomed to join the "foreign service." Both men are higly intelligent, contrary to the rather silly comments from the left, which has for MUCH TOO LONG concerned itself with the spelling of the word potatoe, while failing to be able to define the word 'is'. The most obvious difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush doesn't waffle and Kerry sails wherever the wind blows. You don't have to like that, by the way. I could care less what you think of my opinion. ... but you don't get it so you are going to vote Kerry ... You don't have to like that any more than I like, "but you don't seem to like having to think for yourself". Have a great day... -- »members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/
	to forum · permalink · 2004-08-31 11:32:38 ·
haloman222 join:2004-01-16 Ramsey, NJ	Hey man i like your opinions and facts finally some one out there that at least understands how messed up kerrys whole situation in this election i personally hate him (any1 who protested with jane fonda will be hated by me)I mean bush and kerry both went to yale except the kennedys probably paid for kerry to go and bushs daddy paid for him but who cares many parents pay for their kids to goto school.the one thing i disagree with is why cant bush pull some leway with opec and get america some better prices with gas.thats it i approve of all he has done for (me) and the country the liberals do nothing for me.But i came to logical expalnation for why they would throw the towel this election.they wanna see if bush economy will work then when hillary gets elected(which i will then leave the country)she will take all that bush has done reverse it to her socialist ways and then commence brainwashing of the masses of about how the right wing is horrible and wrong and then this country will plunge into a downward sprial of liberalism and socailism.I dread the day she gets elected. Thanx for posting this insight all though educated ppl all ready know that keery is the worst canidate for president america ever had or ever would have had well i guess that goes for all liberals lol
	to forum · permalink · 2004-09-06 16:11:20 ·

'Electronic Jihad' > ya know....