amen to that.

LOL@BUSH!!!111 k3rr1 pwns j00!! He teh uber h4x0r!!!111


Sorry, been on irc alot lately... I need sleep....

I am going to vote against who foreign countries and terrorist leaders would vote for.

well no one ever accused Kerry of being "sugary." if anything, that would apply more to bush and his slogan-mentality.

Hg++:
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Comme...SJ-mercury.htm

smart move!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that way all the foreign countries and terrorists will continue to hate us. there is a limit on how much we can step over people, and that limit was reached on 9-11. if your post is any sign, it did'nt help much. ignorance rages on.

the same can be though about your post.

again, that would be bush, at least for the terrorists. no one including osama bin laden himself has been such a boon to terrorist recruiting than bush. bush also cut and run from afghanistan, letting the terrorists off the hook -- letting them get away with murder, in fact. as a result of bush cutting and running to secure oil contracts in iraq for halliburton, the taliban has resurged and poppy production in afghanistan is at all-time highs -- revenue that will go to fund more planned terror attacks against the US and elsewhere.

bush has been the worst failure in the war on terror that anyone could possibly imagine. but maybe that's not surprising, seeing how he terrorized the tax code and the environment -- apparently terrorism is in his blood. he does it with a smirk, though, you have to give him that. :rolleyes: somehow that really fools people, although i haven't figured out yet how that works.

no, it's time for an adult in the WH instead of an arrested adolescent. it's time for a real leader, not a cheerleader.

Some are led to beleive the way you do. Others are not... everyone has an opinion every can also believe as they want.

I feel this country is in threat of danger on a very large scale with bush in office.. I feel this threat is enevitable with Kerry in office. Kerry's idea of securing America, giving the UN control over the US military. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=37068 (yes the paper was written in 1970, he has probably changed his mind on it a few times.. but he is a loose cannon)

The UN can't control what is put on their hamburgers at lunch... why would I feel safe with them making the call if america can use their military for something? doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

Kerry cannot make up his mind on anything.. some call it a "political message" I call it stupidity. It's funny that kerry says Bush should not of went to war with Iraq, being that he voted for it. Doesnt seem like something he should be arguing?

Either way, you are free to vote for Kerry and I encourage you to vote for him if that is who you want. But the decision of who is president belongs to everyone as a whole.

i guess you missed it last week when bush was at the UN asking them to get on board. :rolleyes:

Get on the bus is a lot different than here's the keys I'm going to fall asleep in the back...

I understand your logic, but I disagree. I won't vote for someone just because he's the lesser evil of two close runners. I'll vote for someone I believe is worthy, or I won't vote at all. It matters not to me whether Nader has a chance of winning...I just think he's the best man for the job.

If we all voted for Kerry just because Nader can't win, we're just helping to solidify the idea of a 2-party system. The more independants and others enter the race, the less focus there will be on parties, and hopefully more focus will be put on the individual candidates' qualifications...as it should be.

I like Linux because it's good, not because it's popular. I don't care if Windows continues to have control for several years to come....I like Linux.
I don't care so much anymore if Bush gets re-elected...I quit being a patriot years ago, and if Bush screws things up any worse I'll just quit being an American...no big deal. =o)

if you think that will be easier to do if bush gets in than Kerry, by all means vote for Nader. but in fact bush's adherence to corporate control will make what you say you want all the more difficult to accomplish. Nader already is excluded from the debates, as he also was last time, because of the corporation set up by the republicans to take control of the debates away from the non-partisan League of Women Voters. so in effect by voting for Nader you are getting Bush and shooting yourself in the foot.

it's like saying: i think linux is the better OS, but i'm going to vote for the third party choice that ensures i will have to use windows. it might seem to make sense to vote for the third party because of your "principles," but in reality you are hurting your chances in the long term of actually getting the result you want.

but please, vote the way you see fit. i am just throwing out another perspective and i take no offense if you don't buy it. :)

asking to get on board... is one thing..

waiting for them to make up their minds is another.

My bus driver just would leave if we weren't there. :D

Still waiting for this quote to come out:
Better the devil you know than the one you don't

Sorry I just don't think Kerry is an improvement. I think there will be just as much mercury with Kerry as Bush. The air won't be any cleaner or the trees any greener. Well I'll just let you think they are greener with Kerry's support of the roadless initiative you're just going to have to pretend because you can't go out there and see them. At least until the forest fire burns them all down... ;)

i guess thats why jeb bush is working so hard to get him on the florida ballot, because he wants nader to win. yeah, right.