Top 100 Reasons Not to Vote for Bush

Quote:

---

13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.

Source: csmonitor.com


Perhaps, but this is dangerous ground for Democrats to tread upon, because if we're going to play that game, then we must necessarily review Mr. Bush's predecessor and his attempts to capture Bin Laden (or lack thereof).

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While I have been long critical of Clinton's efforts - or lack thereof - regarding fighting the spread of terrorism, the post 9-11 world is different. That wake up call should have provided us with a moment of clarity, and I don't see clarity from the Bush Adminstration.

We want Osama bin Laden, but we've got Iraq. We're afraid of dirty bombs but haven't controlled nucular proliferation. We're looking at bioterrorism but can't get flu shots.

Will Kerry do any better? I don't know. But I know I don't want four more years of someone who doesn't even acknowledge the problem.

If Kerry doesn't improve the situation, I'll be sitting here in four years asking you to boot his ass.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 23, 2004 11:56 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Reason-

no question they have portrayed Kerry as soft on terrorism. But much of the media reported that Cheney came out and said if Kerry is elected we're going to be attacked.

FWIW, I think we'll be attacked again no matter who is elected.

And to follow-up, again I view this list as one of the problems (if not THE problem) with the Kerry campaign- they can give us 1,000 reasons to vote AGAINST Bush, but they seem to have trouble giving us reasons to vote FOR Kerry.

The goal is to attract the undecideds, and they tend to not vote against candidate X as they want to vote for candidate Y. There are exceptions, of course (e.g. Ted Kennedy in 1980). But if Kerry loses,and I think he will, I believe the major reason will be he simply did not appear to offer a better alternative. This, despite the fact that the Bush administration has gone out of its way to do everything it can to screw up and allow Kerry to win.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...shleedance.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jigsaw:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...shleedance.gif

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ain't live television great? That's what she gets for lip synching.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 27, 2004 04:55 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Top reason to vote for President Bush: John Kerry. I prefer socialist candidates to present themselves uncloaked and proud of their viewpoints. Not a socialist masquerading as a Democrat who will hand over US sovereignty to the UN.

"Not a socialist masquerading as a Democrat who will hand over US sovereignty to the UN."

Heh, you mean like President Bush Sr. did in the first Gulf war? What a joke.

GL,

I have a hard time believing that Kerry or ANY president for that matter, would had over sovereignity to the UN. They'd be tar and featherd....most likely assasinated.

The UN is worthless, on that we all seem to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper69:
GL,

I have a hard time believing that Kerry or ANY president for that matter, would had over sovereignity to the UN. They'd be tar and featherd....most likely assasinated.

The UN is worthless, on that we all seem to agree.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kerry stated that he would never send US troops anywhere in the world without first putting it to an "international test". If that isn't compromising our sovereignty can you tell me what is?

Actually, GL, that is one of the most "conservative" traits I possess- an absolute disdain for the U.N. Unfortunately, I can't really articulate that too often among friends, lest I be grouped-in with the Black Helicopter crowd (of which I ain't a member).

The U.N. is a racket, plain and simple. And more importantly, a colossal waste of money and resources.

Unfortunately, the bloated white elephant isn't going to go away. But you are correct, we can at least try to act like we will retain our own sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Kerry stated that he would never send US troops anywhere in the world without first putting it to an "international test". If that isn't compromising our sovereignty can you tell me what is?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody objected to us taking out A-stan. If we didn't have direct support, other countries at least looked the other way.

We depend on China, Europe, and several other nations to buy our products. We import a majority of our goods from other nations.

Quote:

---

Main Entry: sov?er?eign?ty
Variant: also sov?ran?ty /'s?-vr&n-tE, 's&-, -v&-r&n-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 a : supreme power esp. over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
2 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We aren't free from external control when it comes to the importation and exportation of goods and services. Are we no longer sovereign?

If we're gonna beat up someone (country) with specious reasoning, we better have the support of our allies. Everythings interconnected GL. I would argue we gave up our sovereign status with beginning of the importation of slaves by the Royal African Company.