Are we voting in the 1972 Presidential Election?

[what_the_doofus]

Do any of you really find it relevant that Kerry served four months in Vietnam and that GWB (as many people would have/did) tried to find a way to get out of fighting a war he didn't care about?

Why isn't this campaign focusing on what each one has done? Kerry is taking the Gore strategy of doing absoultely jack shit. Bush's campaign doesnt want to bring up anything they've done because of all the negative counterpoints.

They both "flip-flop" over issues. But still, the fucking election campaign should be featuring political background to the man you're voting for to be the most powerful politician.

this is bullshit, and it just shows how both choices are horrible. What they did in the early 70s is completely unrelated to how they are as president.

[Ace42]

The media has a short attention span. In an anniversary special of "Question Time" the BBC reminded people that less than a decade ago, Blair was warning people about the dangers of the government going to war in the face of UN approvals. If that is not a flip-flop piece of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

[yeahwho]

It's VH1's "Remember the 70s" "Campaign for the 04s" Kerry/Bush Weekend!

[Sidb]

I agree that we need to get off the Vietnam crap and let's see Kerry's record in the Senate. Unfortunately it doesn't exists. He rarely was there and voted against items that he is for now. Which is it?

But Kerry is the one who use his convention to do nothing but praise himself for his Vietnam service. That was it. Vietnam and my 3 purple hearts. My band of brothers.

Brothers? He needs to wake up and realize there are a lot of woman in the military and were in the military in Vietnam, maybe not in combat, but they were there. Get off the "Band of Brothers" movie of true brothers in WW2 and wake up to the fact you are disenfranchising women with that statement. In my opinion, that is.

they both stink in my opinion - at least I know where Bush stands on the issues. I know our security will not be put in the hands of the UN or EU.

Kerry - God only knows what his position will be in Nov. That is what scares me.

[STANKY808]

they both stink in my opinion - at least I know where Bush stands on the issues. I know our security will not be put in the hands of the UN or EU.

.


And where do you come up with a profoundly vacuous statement such as this? Did you just take a break from Rush or Savage? In his acceptance speech he said this...

"I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military."

And as far as his speech and his military service goes did you actually hear the whole thing? Cause there was about three or four paragraphs about his service and that was it!

So get off the "But Kerry is the one who use his convention to do nothing but praise himself for his Vietnam service. That was it. Vietnam and my 3 purple hearts. My band of brothers." stuff cause it just ain't true.

[sneakyimp]

what you should also realize, sid, is that alienating the world is a really good way to screw us up REALLY BAD. The fact that bush stands for go-it-alone unilateralism doesn't mean he's a better candidate. You know what Charlie Manson stands for--he'll tell you straight up. That doesn't make him anything other than a really good argument for capital punishment.

try checking out the issues:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993610/

or better yet, read the party platforms:

democrat
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/DNC-2004platform.pdf
republican
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/RNC-2004platform.pdf

[Echewta]

Kerry - God only knows what his position will be in Nov. That is what scares me.

I see where Bush has us now and I'm scared. I'll take my chances throwing the lever for Kerry.