Kerry is SUNK!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bush did have something to do with Libya denouncing terrorism. You don't think Libya got the message when we attacked Iraq and Afganistan?

George H. Bush couldn't continue into Iraq. The coaliton wouldn't allow it and the American People wouldn't have supported it. Half the people don't support it now.
During the eight years, clinton should have done something but as usual, throwing a rocket at a camel once in a while was the only thing he was good for.
 
George H. Bush couldn't continue into Iraq. The coaliton wouldn't allow it and the American People wouldn't have supported it.
Click to expand...
I clearly remember...The stated mission was accomplished (free Kuwait). Only later (as always) did people second guess and forget Bush kept his promise. For this he gets bad mouthed?:what:

A country only loses when they admit defeat. Just ask Frederick the Great and Japan (WWII). Saddam never admitted defeat like EVERYONE expected.
 
cannot help but think that many people are rabidly anti-Kerry because it is too difficult to be pro-Bush.
Click to expand...
I have yet to meet or even hear about one of these. Kerry elicits little more than a yawn from most pro-Bush types and even quite a few anti-Bush types.

As for "most liberal," it's obviously subjective and is determined by the reader after examining information such as:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

and,

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm
 
as Kerry of late has gained a lot of ground in popularity and trust with the American people.
Click to expand...
Not so in one poll it gives Kerry a 5% lead over Bush BUT the margin of error is also 5%! Some polls show that Bush got a jump after the DEMOCRATIC convention! Either way it don't look good for the bad guys.
 
I don't disagree with telewinz's title for this thread. The democratic convention should have been inspiring; it was a snooz-a-thon. But, there's a whole lifetime between now and Nov. 2. Because both sides are so uninspiring, the election could well be decided by a minor debate gaffe, a major terrorist event, or anything in between. This time last year, Howard Dean looked unstoppable as the demo nominee. One slipup in Iowa...and poof!

Beware the October surprise! Factions on both sides are preparing...

All experts don't agree, though...look at the latest:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Analyst says Bush needs 'miracle' to win re-election

Associated Press

POINT CLEAR, Ala. - George W. Bush would need a "miracle" to win the presidential election as the war in Iraq becomes increasingly unpopular, a political analyst told members of the Business Council of Alabama.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said if the election was held now, Democratic nominee John Kerry "would win very handily."

The war is the biggest factor hurting Bush's re-election chances, he said, noting that if the president hadn't ordered the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, he likely would be leading in 45 states and heading toward a landslide victory.

"He really will need a miracle to win, and the last miracle was for Harry S. Truman," Sabato told the Birmingham News after his speech at the council's governmental affairs conference in Point Clear. Truman pulled his upset presidential victory in 1948.

Sabato said Bush also must deal with a mediocre economy and a sour mood among voters that sees the economic glass as half empty.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, who joined dozens of legislators listening to Sabato's speech, said his national perspective offered an interesting contrast to the view from Alabama, which tends to vote heavily Republican in presidential elections.

"Apparently, Kerry is doing a lot better in a lot of areas in the country," Baxley said.

Sabato said Bush's best chance at winning is to hit "hot-button social issues" and try to paint Kerry as too liberal on issues such as gay marriage, gun control, abortion and the death penalty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where's James Carville, when you need him?
 
John Kerry on Gun Control
Click here for 9 full quotes on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

* Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility. (Mar 21)
* Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)
* Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
 
Shooter 2.5,

uhhhhh.....like we didn't know John Kerry was anti-gun and we might have voted for him?


-the Choir
 
Just a little reminder to the members who think both candidates are the same.

Besides, when did the High Road get so many kerry supporters? It's getting to be ridiculous when a few members start with the old " They're all alike". When that doesn't work then it's "kerry's not that bad". A few more posts and it's "Well, ok, he's against guns, but he's still not as bad as Bush".
Ridiculous. kerry isn't fit to be a dogcatcher. If he was, he would collect purple hearts for dog bites.
 
Kerry Supporters?

Hey I think we should lay the paddles and zap some joules to Pat Paulsen. If ever his country needed him, that time is now. What was that stripper's name who ran against Arnold? Team her with Gary Coleman, they could'nt be any worse than what we face now.

I'm lucky, I have an abandoned mine on my property, I'll surface in 2008 and look for my shadow.
 
Besides, when did the High Road get so many kerry supporters? It's getting to be ridiculous when a few members start with the old " They're all alike".
Click to expand...


Go to a few of the other well known forums that are "evil" gun oriented and you'll find just about everyone is a Bush supporter.

This site seems to appeal to a whole variety of people/shooters.
 
Only later (as always) did people second guess and forget Bush kept his promise. For this he gets bad mouthed?
Click to expand...
I remembered when I was watching Kurdish refugees fired upon by Iraqi helicopters. I remembered when I was watching footage of rebels getting killed and put down.
What did I remember? I remembered GWB saying that we would support any rebellion against Saddam.
In not keeping his word thousands died or were tortured. The rebels acted believing they had US support.
Yes, I will bad mouth a person who does not keep their word, especially when so much is at stake.
Did Bush have the power to do what he promised? Well he shouldn't have opened his mouth if he didn't.
The analysis at the time was that if there were US casualites he might lose votes.
Politics is a dirty buisness, pragmatism and honor don't always go hand in hand.
 
Bush did have something to do with Libya denouncing terrorism. You don't think Libya got the message when we attacked Iraq and Afganistan?
Click to expand...
Given that so much of their weapons program was in boxes and the amount of time that it took to gather all that stuff, I think that the denouncement was always in the works. I think they looked at the economic benifits of ending an embargo and said what they needed to say and turned over some boxes.
I think they looked at the fact that Iraq was attacked and not North Korea or Iran and drew the conclusion they were safe either way.
Iran and Yemen support much more terrorism than Iraq did.
 
Got distracted there for a moment.
Getting back to GWB, when those Kurd civilians were being gunned down and the southern rebellion put down we had just negotiated the ceasefire. Saddam's men were negotiating the peace.
Given that Saddam was seen as a huge enemy of Muslims in general, by Muslim countries I think a good case could have been made at that time for stopping the human rights abuses. Footage of what was happening was airing here. Many generals were for going in. Shi'ite nations would have been for it.

Who says there are sides...
Click to expand...
When one group of people is applying a set of standards that they say the other candidate is not meeting while ignoring the fact that their candidate is equally bad while the another group is doing the same tells me there are sides.
The fact that both choises are insipid is buisness as usual. The fact that both sides are telling me their candidate can do anything is getting repetative.

Besides, when did the High Road get so many kerry supporters?
Click to expand...
I've said time and again that the only thing you can rely on is that we are gun rights supporters. Not that we share any other politics, beliefs, or tastes. Further, not everybody is a single issue voter.
I am not a Kerry supporter. I just realistically be an enthusiastic Bush supporter, why should I be? An awareness that my choises are limited and certainly not great is not a bad thing.
Patriotism or candidate loyalty does not mean putting on blinders. If anything one's choises and beliefs should be more closely examined for flaws to buttress them against the opposition, whoever they may be.
 
Talk is cheap. Bush freed two countries and Libya has denounced terrorism. We have the Bush tax breaks, the economy is getting stronger. He hasn't signed any anti-gun legislation. He did sign a pro-gun bill into law.
Click to expand...

Oh please.
"Freed two countries"
If iraq and afghanistan are models for american-style "liberation", I'd hate to see what kind of menace to the world the Bushiviks would be during their second term.
Bush Tax Breaks:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-18-03.html
Unfortunatly, those tax cuts were accompanied by the biggest spending increases since "guns and butter" LBJ.
Economy Getting stronger?
Are you kidding? Right now Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt. To maintain current consumption levels we require billions in external financing from asian central banks. When americans can't buy another car, cash-out refinance their homes again, and have maxed out their credit cards, they will have to stop buying. The current 'economic recovery' was a sham and a hoax propelled by artificially low interest rates and short term stimulus (tax 'rebates', etc.). Now that interest rates are rising, commodity prices and inflation are soaring, the economy has no place to go except for down.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/168421-7352-031.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39080
Maybe you heard that oil hit 44 dollars a barrel and OPEC has proclaimed they are at full production.
Maybe you are aware that the current housing boom is unsustainable and that tens of thousands of poor credit risks that overpaid for homes using variable-rate mortgages are going to have their homes foreclosed.
All and all I'd say Bush's stewardship of the economy has been near perfect.( NOTE: I'm not implying kerry would be better, he'd likely be as bad or worse.)
Then we've got the largest expansion of medicare since its inception, which will saddle the country with billions of new taxes to fund said boondoggle. A Farm subsidies bill that brings home the bacon to farmers, when crop prices are nearing multi-decade highs and would thus be a great time to phase out said subsidies.
Let's see, Bush has been one of the worst protectionists in recent memory, having bought votes from the steel, textile, lumber, and numerous other industries using tariffs and quotes. DURING A RECESSION MIND YOU. (anyone remember the smoot-hartley tariffs, that exacerbated the great depression?)
The recent corporate tax reform bill has been a total nightmare. Unlike the '86 tax reform bill which flattened tax rates and eliminated distorting exemptions. This bill would add silly quasi-subsidies to industries with good lobbyists (such as manufacturing)
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-15-04.html

"He hasn't signed any anti-gun legislation"
That's because it hasn't hit his desk. Bush will sign anything that hits his desk, ANYTHING. HE HASN'T VETOED ONE BILL.
Campaign Finance Reform aka Free Speech Infringement Bill, "Well I think its unconstitutional, but I'll sign it any way." WHAT AN IDIOT. Every leader elected pledges to uphold the constitution, sure slimy politicians break that pledge every day, but at least they don't RUB OUR NOSES IN IT...unlike Herr Bush.

Honestly, Kerry would be worse than Bush on just about every issue, but there is no way I'd do anything to help that corporatist fascist Bush get elected.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-HL Mencken

If Mencken was right, may we get another four years of the bushiviks.

atek3
 
The analysis at the time was that if there were US casualites he might lose votes.
Click to expand...
I remembered when I was watching Kurdish refugees fired upon by Iraqi helicopters. I remembered when I was watching footage of rebels getting killed and put down.
Click to expand...
Bush didn't say anything about sending US troops back (help) in to support the Kurds. After Vietnam, I'd never agree to fighting someone elses battles for them and that applies even today. There is a limit to "help", I might give a street person $5 but no way will I let him move into my home.
 
Yes, George Bush freed two countries in three years. Are they on their way to two cars in every garage. No. They are Muslim countries and their culture won't change. At least they won't have a bunch of princes gambling in Vegas. They'll have a voting choice.
Bush hasn't signed any gun legislaton because he doesn't want to. He isn't in the Rose garden every day with a group of police officers talking about smart guns, registration, safety locks, loopholes, evil black guns or doing something idiotic "for the children".

We had the socialists in charge and now we have a moderate. We can keep going in this direction toward a true conservative or throw it all away with kerry. Your choice.
 
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2)
Click to expand...

Remember to look into the specifics of each of those items before casting judgement. You probably wouldn't want him to have voted "Yea" on that bill (S.1805) since it included an amendment sponsored by Diane Feinstein to extend the Assault Weapons Ban by another ten years.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.1805:

With amendments like that tacked on, it's no surprise that only eight senators voted for it:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00030
 
I certainly hope so, atek3....

"If Mencken was right, may we get another four years of the bushiviks."
************************************************************

'Cause we surely don't deserve an anti-RKBA certainty such as JFK.:eek:


Exactly, Shooter 2.5!
************************************************************
"We had the socialists in charge and now we have a moderate. We can keep going in this direction toward a true conservative or throw it all away with kerry. Your choice."
************************************************************
;)
 
'Cause we surely don't deserve an anti-RKBA certainty such as JFK.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind, though, that the Bush administration is no great defender of human rights and civil liberties, but rather the opposite (Patriot Act, due process abuses in connection with the so-called war on terrorism, attempts to circumvent the Geneva Convention, torture--at least under its watch, even if not directly condoned). Bush went into office saying he'd support existing gun legislation, like the AWB.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/opinion/main592130.shtml
http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/index.do
http://www.jpfo.org/2nd-setup.htm

Countless other news articles and interest group statements on these issues are available online.

Justice Stevens: "At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."
 
Mp5

"Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?

A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America. "


He couldn't answer the question but he did get that comment on banning the black guns.
 
Shooter 2.5, I'm not endorsing Kerry here, but rather urging an investigation of the facts before people assume he's the devil incarnate (he's too boring for that ;) ) or that Bush is some great leader and RKBA advocate.
 
Kerry
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Click to expand...

"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."

--Bush
 
Bush is a moderate. He has shown he doesn't actively support gun control in any form.
Kerry has an F from the NRA and the GOA. He has an A from handgun control inc.

That's good enough for me. I want to keep moving in a more conservative direction so that in four more years we can get a true conservative.

I also don't want the dems to be the ones replacing Supreme Court Justices.
 
The two are not on the same planet....

when it comes to RKBA.;)

Bush as newly-elected governor of Texas signed into law the CCW that Ann Richards had fought against.

At the U.N. Forum on Small Arms, it was the Bush Administration that told IANSA and the UN that the U.S. would not be supporting IANSA proposals for a curb on private ownership of firearms.

Kerry has voted consistently against our RKBA throughout his 19 years in the Senate.

Kerry certainly is boring, but he will serve his masters at the DNC to curtail our RKBA.

At WORST, Bush is a politician who postures to capture the 'moderate' vote.

There is a world of difference between the two on RKBA.:)


************************************************************
"....(Patriot Act, due process abuses in connection with the so-called war on terrorism, attempts to circumvent the Geneva Convention, torture--at least under its watch, even if not directly condoned)."
************************************************************

All of which certainly would have come to pass under a Gore Administration faced with the same chain of events.
Perhaps even worse with a rabid 'gun control' agenda added.

If the war on Iraq had failed to occur to the Democrats, they no doubt would have been lobbing cruise missiles and frightening the camels.:eek:

Bush's administration has been fairly reliably pro-gun.
Compared with what we would have gotten from Gore,
that's a very positive step.

Kerry certainly would be worse than Gore for RKBA,
his voting record in the Senate confirms this.

Even if one does not like "Dubya" for other reasons, there is little point in claiming that Kerry "wouldn't be THAT bad" when it comes to RKBA.

That sort of thinking will result in Clinton-style massive setbacks for the cause of RKBA.
:scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top