Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hey cat, At least for Republican in the Congressional elections.  If you don't your premise for voting for Kerry doesn't fly. Naturally-the Republican candidates are more qualified here in Colorado, IMO, and better reflect all of my values. so kerry better reflects your 'values' than President Bush? Yes. On MOST of the issues, and surely on more of them than Bush. He's spineless, but his platform better reflects my valuse than Bush's. SO, you believe that traitors are fit to lead our country, believe in gun control, believe in aboritions, believe that the UN should have the power to tell us how to react when we are attacked, and MOST OF ALL, you cannot come up with a set of values and STICK TO THEM. Good platform. YOu need to vote for Kerry. Birds of a feather and all that...

Traitors, eh? I'm sure you have some Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars hanging in your living room, right? And how is it treasonous to VOLUNTEER for combat (you know, in Vietnam-as opposed to Texas and Alabama), serve, and then come back and attempt to stop what you see as morally reprehensible? I can't think of a MORE American thing to do! Desertion, on the other hand....not so good. Believe in abortions? Nope-but just as those who disagree with firearms ownership shouldn't impose their beliefs on others, I don't feel justified in imposing my belief system on others. It seems to me that this is the problem with modern America-no one is content to quietly enjoy their liberty-they feel the need to dictate how others should live. NEWS FLASH-there is no "right" not to be offended! Just because it's offensive to you doesn't justify criminalization.

And another thing....


WHEN WERE WE ATTACKED BY IRAQ???

Did I miss it? Was I out of the country? Invading Saudi Arabia would have been justified-but IRAQ????

Quoted: Very true-we're the ones fighting the war, so if there is any money to be distributed, it should go to U.S. corporations. The water contamination I'm referring to is happening doemstically, and is a separate issue. As to your second point, I am a gun owner-I'm just not a single-issue voter. To cast one's vote based on a single issue is, in my opinion, a sign that one lacks the dedication to thoroughly research relevant issues and vote accordingly. As I've said before, NEITHER man is an awe-inspiring leader. It is truly a choice between two evils-and I feel I've chosen the less harmful man.

AWE INPIRING LEADER - laugh my ass off!  One of the candidates has a grand vision to create peace in the middle east.  He believes that project is bigger than himself, or any man, and could care less about the personal consequences.  He knows it is going to be a long project.  Probably 10 or more years before great results can be seen.  Really, it will take a generation to replace some of the hatred for the US that is taught in Muslim run schools.  It took 7 years to repair Germany and Japan after WWII.  Iraq is about to hold elections.  1000's of Iraqi's are risking their lives for their new country to become policemen, and fight for peace and some form of representative government.  Afghanistan made it through it's recent election with unimagined numbers of high voter turnout.  Iran is said to be on the verge of citizen revolution.  Mohammar Khaddafi (sp?) gave up his weapons programs and wishes to play nice.  

Then there was Kerry - he has a daughter campaigning in Australia to defeat the incumbant President, who supports us in Iraq. (He won anyway)  He has made disparaging comments, which were acknowledged by Poland's leader.  He has turned off the Japanese.  Who will stand with us if Kerry is elected?  France?  Not likely... Chirac has the reality of a growing Muslim population which is about to take over his country.  Germany will never stand by us.  They have no standing army, and n national desire to fight with us.

While, I acknowledge that Iraq is not the bullseye of terrorism in the Middle East, it is still important in the war on terror.  It, and Afghanistan were the EASIEST countries to start with.  A side benefit is that terrorists are swarming to Iraq to fight us and Iraqi soldiers over there, rather than here.  There are more countries on the short list.  I suspect Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are at the top of that list.  Pakistan has a leader who supports us, but is having difficulty with his people, who tend to support terrorists.  So they are a delicate matter that will require subtlety, rather than force.  Bush seems to be moving us that way.


The next 2 issues are very important, but secondary to me, after the war on terror, as nothing else matters if terrorists get in a couple major hits in the US.

Judges, as acknowledged above, are another key issue to consider.  Consider all the wacky election rulings we have been seeing in this election, and in the 2000 election, and in the 9th Circus Court in California.  They have been Clinton and Carter appointments that are treating the Constitution as a living breathing document, subject to change.  Bush promises to nominate jusges who believe their job is to interpret the Constitution, not create law from the bench (that is Congress' job)

Tax Cuts, The last 4 years have been very tough on this country.  The end of 2000 saw the stock market starting to cail, as the tech stock bubble was crashing.  Then the acts of 9-11 served as a dagger into the heart, to finish the deal.  However, Bush believed, as Kennedy and Reagan before him, that tax cuts leave valuable cash in the hand of businesses, who invest it and hire employees, and invest in infrastructure, which creates a chain reaction of spending throughout the economy.  The tax on $200,000 plus income makers would directly affect my employer, who is a subchapter S corp.  The owner files his taxes as the company taxes.  Rolling back that tax, as Kerry promises to do, would cause my company to pay more taxes, and hire less employees, or find other ways to cut spending.  We are currently preparing to expand into another city with an initial investment of $1.6 million to get started.  A favorable economy is required to make such investments possible.  The little guys (like me) don't need tax cuts... they are just a bone tossed our way to help get the big tax cuts passed.  It is business who will use that money as an investment.  How many companies do you know who are happy with status quo?  vs companies that are trying to grow their business and create more jobs and more profit?  So, how is a tax cut for a corporation a bad thing?  Thank you Bush for having the foresight to know large tax cuts would keep the recession short and shallow.

I am so mad with what is going on around here that I can't really express it. If amendment 36 passes, and the state becomes insignificant in the presidential election process, I will never forgive the Dems for it. They are trying to sell our state out for 4 fucking electoral votes in this election.

Two other points I would like to point out in this debate: One, when Bush took office we as a nation went from the largest budget surplus to the largest debt ever in the history of America. Granted, the economy was slowing down when Clinton left office (all those special prosocuters were out of work). Second, no matter how you view it September 11 happend under Bush. That is one fact that we can all agree to. The President of the USA has a lot of responsibility and chief among them is to make the USA the greatest economy and protect us. Bush has faild in both of these catagories. I am concerned with my personal rights, but I also want a nation that I can feel safe in and have a job that affords me my lifestyle. I disagree with Cat on one point, by electing Kerry there will be gridlock in governement. That is one of the worst thing that can happen to our rights.

Here in Colorado, one of the so called battleground states, the media and politians are trying to polarize the candidates both for president and senate. I think they are both more moderate that what is being portrayed. The differences are being promoted between all the candidates.

One last point. My brother was in Vietnam when Kerry was and was a River Rat on a small boat and he holds nothing against Kerry in what the swift boat veterans are smearing him with.

As you can guess, I will be voting for Kerry as well.

Edited to add - Leisure_Shoot I have one question for you. You talk about repairs only taking 7 years after WWII and then you jump to the Afganistan elections, what happend to Korea and Vietnam? I think you are just using selective memory. I dont think anyone would say theya repaired,

Quoted: As you can guess, I am really a DU Troll

Quoted: Two other points I would like to point out in this debate: One, when Bush took office we as a nation went from the largest budget surplus to the largest debt ever in the history of America. Granted, the economy was slowing down when Clinton left office (all those special prosocuters were out of work).

So you don't feel that tech stocks were overrated?
The fact that ANY tech stock could IPO and generate millions of dollars without ever posting a profit, doesn't sound like a recipe for eventual disaster to you?
Sure, good feelings and money taking can keep a stock market going for so long, but eventually, it always corrects itself.

Back to the topic, there are some very unscrupulous people out there on both sides that can and will make horrible calls like this to people. I hope that no one was hurt by such a call.

Quoted: Quoted: SO, you believe that traitors are fit to lead our country, believe in gun control, believe in aboritions, believe that the UN should have the power to tell us how to react when we are attacked, and MOST OF ALL, you cannot come up with a set of values and STICK TO THEM. Good platform. YOu need to vote for Kerry. Birds of a feather and all that... Traitors, eh? Yup. THat is what giving aid and comfort to the enemy is. I'm sure you have some Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars hanging in your living room, right? Nope. All I got for my 11 years of service was an Honorable Discharge signed on June 23rd, 2004, and 40% Disability from the VA. BUt I got my Honorable when I got out, unlike Kerry, who didn't get his until Clinton gave it to him. And as far as his Purple hearts and Bronze Stars, if his CO didn't give the reccomendation, how did he get them? And the doc who treated him for the scratch the he used as the basis for his first one said that it looked like a fragment from his OWN grenade  And how is it treasonous to VOLUNTEER for combat (you know, in Vietnam-as opposed to Texas and Alabama), serve, and then come back and attempt to stop what you see as morally reprehensible? A lot of vets came back and protested the right way. By voting. Kerry attended Communist meetings, where political assassinations of American leaders was a topic. THAT again is both morally reprehensible, and traitorous. I can't think of a MORE American thing to do! So, attending Communist meetings, where assassinations are discussed is an all American past time? Or going to Paris to meet members of the North Vietnamese Communist Party? WTF?? Desertion, on the other hand....not so good.Prove it. The last set of documents that the left said were proof were proved to be fakes. Got anything concrete? Didn't think so... Believe in abortions? Nope-but just as those who disagree with firearms ownership shouldn't impose their beliefs on others, I don't feel justified in imposing my belief system on others.Kill babies all you want, but don't touch MY freedoms? What about the babies right to life? It seems to me that this is the problem with modern America-no one is content to quietly enjoy their liberty-they feel the need to dictate how others should live. NEWS FLASH-there is no "right" not to be offended! Just because it's offensive to you doesn't justify criminalization. Murder is a crime, or did you think otherwise?

I would have dialed star 69 and called my lawyer

FREE

Quoted: www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E64%257E2488266,00.html ...A Colorado Springs woman recently received a call from someone claiming to be from Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign who expressed condolences about the death of her husband in Iraq. When the woman said she knew her husband was still alive, the caller said a vote for Kerry would help keep him that way. The Kerry campaign said the stunt was so outrageous that it could only have been staged by someone trying to discredit the Democrat... Yeah, right... that doesn't sound likI wouile something a liberal would do.  Assholes.

Quoted: Two other points I would like to point out in this debate: One, when Bush took office we as a nation went from the largest projected budget surplus to the largest debt ever in the history of America. ...

Fixed it for you.

Seriously though, this tremendous budget surplus that the Dems constantly harp on, was largely numbers on paper, based on assumptions about the economy which proved to be untrue.  President Bush's tax cuts were responsible for making this one of the shallowest and shortest recessions in history.  Now, do I believe that he needs to restrain spending (especially in socialist giveaway programs) more than he has?  Absolutely.  But the prospect of a die-hard tax-and-spend liberal in White House will be more than our economy can bear.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yep-I'm sure that  Kerry would have a problem with my EBR's. Lucilky, bith my AR and FAL fell in the river while I was fly-fishing. Oh well. But if I did own any EBR's, and someone were to choose to try and take them, I wish him or her luck. I'm a pretty good shot, and .308 makes a hell of a hole. Or so I hear. So, you plan to vote for a man who would pass a law which you plan to ignore, thus making you a felon.  You then state that you look forward to an armed confrontation with agents sent to enforce that law.  You're either a troll or a psychotic. Yes, I plan to vote for Kerry, despite the fact that he's almost guaranteed to try and get another AWB passed. Do you think it won't happen under Bush? Bush will have to play ball, since the House and Senate are sure to be closely divided. If he wants to pass legislation key to his adgenda, he's going to have to offer the Dems something. As to my "becoming" a felon by owning an item that was perfectly legal before the passage of a hypothetical, unconstitutional "law", I have to tell you, I could care less. If our nation's elected officials care so little about the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, I would be proud to disobey that "law". Finally, I don't relish the thought of shooting anyone. I have, in one capacity or another, worn a firearm to work for the last ten years, and I've yet to shoot anyone. I consider myself VERY fortunate in that regard. But I must be "psychotic"-I feel that the Second Amendment exists to protect all the others. In an age where protest is confined to "free speech zones", where government agents appear before secret courts to obtain "sneak and peek" warrants, where reading habits and financial information are considered the legitimate targets of government intrusion, and where a citizen's property can be lawfully stolen from him with no recourse and no criminal conviction, I'd say that obedience to the law is less a virtue than the TRUE mark of "psychosis". Perhaps if my fellow citizens and I were a bit less zealous in our regard for the law, those who would curtail our liberty might take notice. YMMV.

And most of what you complain about is either or was true before Bush was president...

You don't own any of 'your' financial info... It is the property of the companies with which you do business...

'Your' library records are the property of your municipal government, and are (or should be) subject to FOIA requests...

See a pattern? It's not 'your' property for them to take!

And all that the Constitution requires with regard to search warrants (weather you call it a 'sneak & peek' or not, it's just a simple search warrant) is that it be issued by a judge, and contain sworn testimonay detaiing the specific places or persons to be searched, and specific items (if any) to be siezed...

There is NO constitutioal requirement to inform a suspect of a swarch/siezure, and it is patently STUPID to do so, as it will  give them the ability to destroy evidence and/or escape.

It  says 'unreasonable searches & siezures' (which means without a warrant, in general), not 'impolite searches & siezures'...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hey cat, At least for Republican in the Congressional elections.  If you don't your premise for voting for Kerry doesn't fly. Naturally-the Republican candidates are more qualified here in Colorado, IMO, and better reflect all of my values. so kerry better reflects your 'values' than President Bush? Yes. On MOST of the issues, and surely on more of them than Bush. He's spineless, but his platform better reflects my valuse than Bush's.

So, then you're a socialist...

You want to have the government take money from people who have worked to earn & save it, and give it to those who have not, in the form of 'free' health care, 'free' college, and a 'free' job via illegal protectionist subsidies for eveyone who doesn't have what it takes to work in the modern economy...

You're for being 'considerate' of 'allies in name only' even when they take positions that are 100% opposed to the best interests of the USA...

You're for putting  a man who is basically Jimmy Carter II in the White House...

If those things don't apply, then you're NOT really a Kerry supporter... If they do, you'd be better off moing to North Korea or Vietnam, as we don't need any more socialists here...

Because that's exactly what Kerry stands for...

Quoted: And another thing.... WHEN WERE WE ATTACKED BY IRAQ??? Did I miss it? Was I out of the country? Invading Saudi Arabia would have been justified-but IRAQ????

Since when does someone have to attack us before we attack them?

IIRC, as a sovreign nation, we have the right to attack any other nation when it's in our best interests...

In this case, to properly deal with terrorisim, it takes more than just playing Cops & Robbers with Osama.

We have to stop the recruitment chain by  working to undermine the regimes of the Arab world & replace them with democracies. Iraq was the first step, as Saddam was allready guilty of multiple offenses (including attacking US military aircraft, and financing terrorisim in Isarel & elsewhere) that could be use dto 'justify' the war to the rest of the world...

In the end, it's about forced reformation of the ME, about overthrowing the regimes that create a fertile ground for terrorist recruits... It's about eliminating our need to deal with the Saudis, by making Quatar &  a 'New' Iraq our partners in the ME & giving the Saudis the shaft...

In case you didn't notice, we are allready moving forces OUT of Saudi....

Quoted: Two other points I would like to point out in this debate: One, when Bush took office we as a nation went from the largest budget surplus to the largest debt ever in the history of America. Granted, the economy was slowing down when Clinton left office (all those special prosocuters were out of work).  The surplus actually never existed, it was a PROJECTION based on an assumption of continued unrealistic growth in the economy. As the economy, lead by those stupid tech companies, began to slow down due to Clinton's policies (the market tanked in MARCH of 2000, when Bill was very much still the President, and Bush wasn't even nominated yetSecond, no matter how you view it September 11 happend under Bush. That is one fact that we can all agree to. And all of the planning, preparation, and such took place under Clinton.  Democat-inserted limits on our intel egencies in the false name of 'protecting civil liberties' (last I checked, foreign terrorists have no constitutional rights) made it impossible to detect. You can monday-morning QB all you want, but there's nothing Bush could do to stop the train, it had allready left the station The President of the USA has a lot of responsibility and chief among them is to make the USA the greatest economy and protect us. Bush has faild in both of these catagories. No, he has not. He's done a splendid job on both -> we've almost recovered all the jobs that were lost, the 'deficit' (which libbies never care about when the subject is more freebies for the undeserving) is the result of the war (We've never fought a war without having one), and we haven't had a terror attack since Bush did what Clinton should have (invading Afganhistan) I am concerned with my personal rights, but I also want a nation that I can feel safe in and have a job that affords me my lifestyle. Which is your job to secure, not the government's job to provide. Oh, how will your 'lifestyle' fit the horrendous inflation that Kerry's trade protectionisim, illegal subsidies, and tax hikes will cause (remember: CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES, YOU PAY THEIR TAXES FOR THEM WHEN YOU BUY THEIR PRODUCTS I disagree with Cat on one point, by electing Kerry there will be gridlock in governement. That is one of the worst thing that can happen to our rights. Suprisingly, I actually agree with you on that. Like the war on terror, we must be on the offensive with regard to our rights, rather than taking defensive 'gridlock' positions and waiting for the libbies to bite us in the ass before retreating to the next indefensible position and waiting for the next attack Here in Colorado, one of the so called battleground states, the media and politians are trying to polarize the candidates both for president and senate. I think they are both more moderate that what is being portrayed. The differences are being promoted between all the candidates. One last point. My brother was in Vietnam when Kerry was and was a River Rat on a small boat and he holds nothing against Kerry in what the swift boat veterans are smearing him with. As you can guess, I will be voting for Kerry as well. Edited to add - Leisure_Shoot I have one question for you. You talk about repairs only taking 7 years after WWII and then you jump to the Afganistan elections, what happend to Korea and Vietnam? We 'fixed' Korea too - dictatorship to democracy. Vietnam was a flop because political weenies like Kerry didn't have the guts to fight to win. The fact that he was even SLIGHTLY involved with the pull out from Vietnam should make him obviously the worng man at the wrong place at the wrong timeI think you are just using selective memory. I dont think anyone would say theya repaired,

Skerry sucks

Quoted: Moron thia and moron that....but since you brought up corporate fraud, what corporation was the #1 contributor to Bush 2000? Enron. Which at the time, was considered a 'rising star' in the US economy... They were 'geniuses' back then, and many politicians were glad to have such an upstanding company contribute to their campaigns. We have a term for expecting folks to know about problems that happened AFTER THE FACT -> Monday Morning Quarterbacking Cheney still has those stock options from Haillburton, doesn't he? Yes. He was an executive there, and anyway, Haliburton is a great company that does some specific jobs better than anyone else out there, which is why CLINTON gave them a no-bid contract to do the stuff they do for the Army And how about the complete disregard for sealing the borders? Impossible to do. It would take 250,000 troops that we need to invade hostile nations & chase terrorists. Bush never promised to do it either Immigration reform (amnesty) is another one of those swell ideas, isn't it? Yeah, JOHN KERRY'S IDEA! Apparently you missed the part in the debate where Bush said there would be no amnesty, and KERRY SAID THERE WOULD BE A COMPLETE AMNESTYAs long as you're postulating that there might have been a depression, what, pray tell, is going to happen if we continue to turn a blind eye to the wide-open borders? Doens't illegal immigration have the effect of driving wages down nationwide? Illegal immigration cannot be solved by 'securitng the borders - it is impossible. But it also won't be solved by John Kerry's ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL AMNESTY Finally, we now have a wartime president who, like his predecessor, doged the draft. But it looks like this one took it a step further, and DESERTED in time of war. No, 1LT Bush served with honor, was considered a good officer & pilot by his CO (I believe the Colonel's son over a forged memo, thank you), actually VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam but was denied due to being to inexperienced (not enough flight time), and was discharged honorably This same fella now has the stones to claim that Kerry isn't being truthful about his service, but he wouldn't take a flight physical-its just a coincidence that the physical also would have, for the first time, included a drug test. That was FAKE information - FORGED, where have you been? Not to mention the debacle in Iraq, where it looks as if rather than Jeffersonian democracy, our invasion will result in an Islamic theocracy,All indications point to exactly the opposite, where are you getting your info from? Al Sadr LOST the battle, the PTBs all want a secular government after having cost us many American lives in the process. BTW-where is that Bin Laden fella these days? The same place he's been since Clinton - hiding in the Afghan-Paki border region, not using any technology that we could detect & track him with, and thus he is impossible to find unless someone rats him out We have Saddam, but I don't think he was the one who attacked our nation, was he? Nope, he was the fella that Rumsfeld and Bush I (during his tenure at CIA-while chem weapons were being used against the Kurds) used to like so much. And why did they support him? BECAUSE THE IDEA OF A UNIFIED THEOCRATIC STATE OF IRAN AND IRAQ WAS SO FUCKING TERRIFYING! I guess we'll get a chance to see what the result of that unification is after all. Yippee!The Iraqis & Iranians hate eachother, and the Iranian people have had it with theocracy... Your scenario is pure internet fantasyland, like the rest of your complaints against Bush

Quoted: Nope, I'm not just talking to talk. I really think that our current President is failing us in some pretty crucual areas. Kerry can't possibly do LESS to discourage illegal immigration than Bush-he has encouraged it through his amnesty program. I live in Colorado, and believe me, it's an issue out here in the West. Perhaps you folks in the East don't have as big a problem, but it's a key reason why I won't vote for him.

WHAT PART OF 'KERRY HAS PROMISED ABSOLUTE AMNESTY' DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Germany didn't attack us in 1941, Italy didn't attack us in 1941, Austria didn't attack us in 1941, Kosovo didn't attack us in the 1990s, Iraq didn't attack us in 1992.

Get the picture, Einstein?

This was a standard tactic run by anti-war types during the Vietnam War.  Happened to a friend of mine's wife twice.

GunLvr

Ah,
students with shitty jobs for kerry.
Look, there is no winning this demographic.
Its going to suck when Kerry's communist judges ban every firearm in the nation from private ownership.
There is a reason he is going to college, he is ignorant.
Some day he will grow up.

Quoted: Germany didn't attack us in 1941, Italy didn't attack us in 1941, Austria didn't attack us in 1941, Kosovo didn't attack us in the 1990s, Iraq didn't attack us in 1992. Get the picture, Einstein?

+10000

I smell a .  

Hey,  it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour and it 'aint over now, dangit.