Vote with your heart this election

[johnnyshredder]

Vote with your heart this election
The Democratic Convention was just as I expected: an assimilation of liberals who feed political spin to their hungry masses with no apologies for “half-truths.” Kerry, while doing a masterful job of speaking long (and saying little), has done more about-faces than any soldier in boot camp. He signs on to go to war but blast Bush for taking that same course of action.
He’s going to “protect America” but votes against every single military budget. The Dems all talked about “truth,” but who did Kerry surround himself with? Ted Kennedy (liar). Michael Moore (political spin meister). Al Sharpton (still angry about not getting his mule). The Clintons (liars, perjurer, business scandals, sex scandals, impeached, and never sorry). Jimmy Carter (Bush Basher: great at giving advice when 52 Americans were held hostage under his watch). This is their version of truth.
Scary stuff to think that Americans are actually giving serious consideration to allowing this man to lead a country founded on conservative values when his voting record is the most liberal in the Senate. But then, these are the same Americans who stood in line to get Bill Clinton to sign his book for them. It seems that Democrats have selective memory. They talk about “vision” when speaking of Kerry. However, much of that vision has no legs. I wish the media would just lay all of the cards on the table in a fair, unbiased account.
This vote may mean more to the future of America than any in our history. Voting for the most liberal extremists to ever run for the office could shake America to its very foundations. Shoring those foundations back up might be impossible. Don’t vote blindly. Don’t vote according to MTV, Hollywood prattle or the New York Times. Vote your heart. God help us, vote for the right men.
— Adrian Devine

[Vladimir]

thanks, gmsisko, for that gripping article written by someone else.

[D_Raay]

So we should vote for The Neo-Con, bloodthirsty, malphonic, malignant, obtuse, devious, zionist,vicarious, tactless, supercilious,reckless, proselytizing, miscreant candidate instead of the "liberal"? I think the heart should be clear.

[ASsman]

No you should all vote 3rd party, buts that a different story.

THIS THREAD IS BULLSHIT

SHUTUP YOU FUCK TARD

Like the colors!? TOO BAD!

[LIMERICKFILE]

Yeah, what a dumbass that Kerry is, surrounding himself with Jimmy Carter (52 hostages under his watch, and no mention of the 900+ under Dubya's, well that's a fair and balanced opinion if i ever read one.)

"I wish the media would just lay all of the cards on the table in a fair, unbiased account."

Good fucking luck. I think we ALL wish that, so saying it both useless and "broken-record" of everyone else who bitches about the media favoring the "other side."


"Don’t vote according to MTV, Hollywood prattle or the New York Times. Vote your heart. God help us, vote for the right men."<--- Funny, coming from someone who obviously has a favorite already in mind. Granted I've never read anything else by this person, but the article you ripped said quite a bit. Why didn't they add "don't vote according to me?"

[Space]

i picked kerry and edwards back when all of you were on deans' jock.
however, i will not vote for them.



:rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

Vote with my heart. Well, my heart says I shouldn't vote for the dark side, so I'm going with Kerry/Edwards as opposed to Emperor Bush. Sorry, but I just want America to once again be respected in the world and watch my friends live as opposed be shipped overseas. I know it's pretty selfish, but hey, it's what I think is right.

[QueenAdrock]

He signs on to go to war but blast Bush for taking that same course of action.

He's for the war. He's against the BULLSHIT way Bush went about it. He believed that the inspections should have continued (which means we would have eventually had indisputable evidence that points to NO WMDS IN IRAQ), and he believed if ALL ELSE FAILED, we should go overseas with support of the UN. That's not flip-flopping, that's using your "brain". I know you're unfamiliar with that concept, sisko.

He’s going to “protect America” but votes against every single military budget.

What a jerk! Kerry actually believes in something called "Homeland Security"! He thinks that problems should be fixed at home first, because going overseas just makes us hated in the world and more prone to terrorist attack! How dare he! We all know the answer to being more protected is pissing off people by killing their families and thus forcing them to drastic measures.

The Dems all talked about “truth,” but who did Kerry surround himself with? Ted Kennedy (liar). Michael Moore (political spin meister). Al Sharpton (still angry about not getting his mule). The Clintons (liars, perjurer, business scandals, sex scandals, impeached, and never sorry). Jimmy Carter (Bush Basher: great at giving advice when 52 Americans were held hostage under his watch).

Ted Kennedy rules. Michael Moore is not affiliated with John Kerry, he is not supporting him. Al Sharpton, you're damn straight. You are trying to argue that Dem's aren't being truthful, and yet Al Sharpton has absolutely nothing to do with being untruthful. All you said is he's angry about not getting his mule, completely away from your initial argument. I'd be pissed too if that shit happened to me. Clinton may have lied to the public, though it was never our business in the first place and and any other person would have done the same. GHWB had a mistress, did anyone care? No, because he's a republican. Clinton did GREAT things for this country, and if you hold a blowjob over him, you have to step back and look at your own party. How about Bush sending 900 troops to die? Dick Cheney being the CEO of Halliburton, the most corrupt company this side of the world? These things fuck over everyone. Clinton didn't fuck over anyone. That was personal business.

I wish the media would just lay all of the cards on the table in a fair, unbiased account.
Voting for the most liberal extremists to ever run for the office could shake America to its very foundations.

That sure as hell is unbiased! Do you even know the meaning of the word "unbiased", sisko? Oh wait. You stole this article from another idiot. Maybe you should read what you post to make sure he doesn't sound like an asshole. Then maybe you'd get some credit around here.

[ChrisLove]

Just in case anyone is thinking of voting with their heart - don't. It is very dangerous and it WILL spoil your ballot paper. I would recommend using a pen or whatever they provide for you in the booth.

THIS WAS A PUBLIC SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT TO YOU IN PART BY

- Mcdonalds - 'I'm Lovin It'

and

- Toyota - 'The car in front IS a Toyota'

[paulk]

I will vote using my head, I will vote for Badnarik, and I will retain a clear conscience when the draft is started or when our guns are melted down to build free cars for those who can't afford them.

[TheWedge]

when our guns are melted down to build free cars for those who can't afford them.

That doesn't sound so bad. :cool:

[paulk]

That doesn't sound so bad. :cool:

Haha yeah, maybe I should have taken into consideration that to a lot of people in this forum, that's a good thing.

[TheWedge]

Haha yeah, maybe I should have taken into consideration that to a lot of people in this forum, that's a good thing.

Although, I'm not sure how melting down all of the guns is going to provide cars for people who can't afford them, but if you find a way, I'll write my Congressman and ask him to support the idea.
:D

(maybe you should have picked a different Democrat stereotype to use in your example. :) )

[EN[i]GMA]

Gmisiko. You make me want to vomit. End this tragic comedy and be a man. Use ONE 1 "one" uno un account.

The bill he backed for funding the troops didn't make it voting.

[Ace42]

He is a flip flop. He voted for the war then voted against funding the troops.

That my friend is a flip flop.

That is not a flipflop. If you have more than enough troops to start with, cutting the funding to a bunch of them bumming around in barracks on US soil is not going to make any difference at all to the war is it?

Retard.

[ASsman]

Michael Moore is not affiliated with John Kerry
Thank god for that..

[EN[i]GMA]

GMsisko. Stop it. John Kerry supported an IDENTICAL bill where instead of having it paid for by US Taxes, it would be payed for by the Iraqi's oil revenue. Just stop it Gmisisko. Your not even remotely entertaining anymore and you never were anything more than a copy/paste machine with no ideas of your own.

[Ace42]

Shows how much you know, that vote was for Armor for the personel
and the tanks.

Hello McFly, anyone home?!? People bumming around on US soil don't need armour or tanks, especially as the US has more than enough as it is. Only small amount of the US's standing military is dispatched to the Gulf, with vast reserves left to go all over the place, not to mention an ample amount in bases all across the US doing fuck all except costing money to store, money to maintain and money to man. Even a vote to get rid of ordinance would make no difference to the current war, let alone a vote just curbing further unnecessary spending. 'tard.

And citing evidence might make you not look like a fuckface.

[ASsman]

Fuck, I forgot what I was going to say. O yah, doesn't cookies make it hard to use multiple accounts at once? Or one after the other, not to mention all those Internet Explorer windows open, on your AOL 56k dial-up.

[QueenAdrock]

He is a flip flop. He voted for the war then voted against funding the troops.
When Dean was in the ranks Kerry said he is the anti war guy.
That my friend is a flip flop.

NO. He's an anti-Iraq AS IT IS NOW war guy. He was for the war, against the way it's going about, and refused to fund the $87 billion dollars as a protest vote against the way the war was being run.

How many times do I have to say it to get it through your incredibly thick skull? He's for war in Iraq and against the way that it's being run! He believed that they should have UN support, and in retrospect, should have been more careful with intelligence reports. That's disagreeing with POLICY, not the war itself.

JESUS FUCKIN' CHRIST LEARN TO READ

[QueenAdrock]

Shows how much you know, that vote was for Armor for the personel
and the tanks.


You do know that your boy Bush is cutting funding to the troops, right? Oh yeah, veterans' health care too.

"The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposed gutting Veterans Administration (VA) services, including health care funding. Proposed cuts included: denying at least 360,000 veterans access to health care; $250 annual premiums; increased pharmacy co-payments; a 30 percent increased primary care co-payments; and increased waiting time for a first medical appointment."

http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/28/401970abb42d7

[EN[i]GMA]

Sorry QA, but your wrong: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=144

[TheWedge]

The two articles linked by Enigma and the Queen seem to contradict each other.
Just curious Enigma, wht makes yours absolutely correct and hers absolutely incorrect?

[Ace42]

I don't trust "factcheck" - unless I can personally verify the sources I tend to treat them with extreme skepticism. I already caught them bending the analysis of the Butler report.

[TheWedge]

I don't necessarily trust them either.
After the oddly incomplete economic analysis Enigma posted before, I am leaning toward thinking that maybe since their sole purpose is "exposing political ad lies", that maybe they distort/leave out certain bits of information in order to give themselves a larger library of debunked ads.

Just a theory.

[ChrisLove]

Have have a suggestion for what might be going on here and I suspect both sources may be correct but it is a issue of interpretation.

I presume that a large number of veterans are Vietnam war vets - because at this time the US had a draft. If that is true then the medical costs of those vets is going to be sky rocketing at the moment because - I have a source that suggests that the average age of a soldier in the Vietnam war was nineteen (n-n-n-n-nineteen) . In which case many of the vets are now in their 60s and 70s in which case they are starting to need a lot of medical benefits.

So it might well be the case that while under Bush, aboslute levels of health benefits are rising, they are not rising as fast as they need to to meet the demands of the US's ageing vet population. So access to health care for vets is being restricted, ie vets health care may not being met as well as it used to be but it is rising in real terms.

Does that make sense?

[EN[i]GMA]

Perhaps. I'm not saying their infallible or even unbiased, it just seems correct to me. I'll look into this a little more.

What I think it came down to was Bush increasing spending but not as much as veterans wanted. So it's misleading to say he cut it but he didn't raise it as much as many would have liked.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/read.asp?fn=df10212003.html

The original claim.

Here is the key (emphasis added by me): Now the President's 2004 budget request for the Veterans Administration will EFFECTIVELY cut spending for its already-stretched health care system. Because of increased medical costs at an above-inflation rate of 4.7% and increased enrollment of 8%, the American Legion calculates that Bush's 2004 request "comes $1.9 billion short of maintaining an inadequate status quo."3

He raised funding but not enough. Still dishonest to say he "cut" Vetaran's funding however becuase he did no such thing. Also dishonest to really say he "increased" them. Spin on both sides apparently.
www.spinsanity.com rebuttal to the charges

Similarly, on October 21, the Mislead attacked Bush for not requesting as much for veterans' health as the American Legion, a veterans group, would like and for not engaging in emergency spending approved by Congress that included extra funds for veterans' health. The Mislead's evidence that this position was dishonest? An extremely vague statement by the President in which he said, "Veterans are a priority for this administration... and that priority is reflected in my budget."

The examples of "dishonesty" that consist of little more than vague statements and partisan disagreement go on. On October 17, the Mislead said the Bush administration's campaign to promote the success of the Iraq war was dishonest because troop morale is low. On October 7, it attacked the President's statement that education would be his "top priority" after he proposed only a small increase in funding for federal educational programs. And on October 30, it accused the president of being deceptive when he promised to make the national park system the "crown jewel of America's recreation system" because of a dispute over funding for park maintenance and the fact that some parks have long waits for student groups to visit.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031208.html

There can be no doubt he raised funding for Veterans. The problem is, did he raise it enough? It's a matter of interpretation.