The Very Survival Of The USA Depends On Your Vote !!

Published on October 2, 2004 By Patriot_Flamethrower In Politics

I am not being facetious. I am not being sarcastic. I am not being partisan. I am not being melodramatic. I am not being humorous. I am not being morbid. I am not being hysterical.

I am being HONEST with all of you. As HONEST as I can be.

If John F. Kerry is elected President Of The United States in November, our country will immediately be in grave danger. From the moment he is sworn in in January of 2005, we are all in danger of imminent attack and ultimate destruction by the Islamo-terrorists.

Please heed my words. John Kerry will NOT protect the citizens of the United States Of America. John Kerry will NOT look out for OUR interests. John Kerry will ONLY look out for HIS interests. John Kerry's history shows that John Kerry only CARES ABOUT JOHN KERRY. Al Qaeda and the other terrorist organizations KNOW this FACT, and they will act accordingly.

What happened on September 11, 2001 will be a drop in the bucket compared to what will happen to us once John Kerry takes office. The fight against Islamo-terrorism will be fought on U.S. soil again. Millions of American citizens will be murdered on U.S. soil.

John Kerry is an APPEASER. He believes that you win wars by TALKING, not by military action. If you honestly believe that trying to NEGOTIATE with Al Qaeda and the other Islamo-terrorist organizations will bring us lasting peace and safety, then John Kerry is your man.

If you believe in KILLING the Islamo-terrorists before they KILL US and OUR FAMILIES, then John Kerry is NOT your man.

Remember this date. Remember my words. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Keep American safe. Vote for George W. Bush.

Comments (Page 1)

Marvin Cooley

on Oct 02, 2004

Patriot..........i agree fully. right now terrorists are being drawn to iraq where we can kill them. but if kerry becomes president, he will leave iraq and the terrorists will be free to come to the usa. then 9/11 will look mild compared to what they do next.

dabe

on Oct 02, 2004

Unfuckingbelievable........................

cactoblasta

on Oct 02, 2004

I'll bet you AUS$1000 that if John Kerry is elected the US will not cease to exist as a independent nation. And to be extra generous I'll give you four years - that's one term, right? If the US is still a sovereign state in four years time under John Kerry, then I win. If the Islamoterrorists have overthrown the government and instituted sharia, then you win.

apdelong31

on Oct 02, 2004

Dabe said it about right.

Kerry '04

Bunnahabhain

on Oct 02, 2004

Keep American safe. Vote for George W. Bush.

He is the President that America needs right now.

Unfuckingbelievable........................

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

drmiler

on Oct 02, 2004

Reply #4 By: apdelong31 - 10/2/2004 10:23:47 PM
Dabe said it about right.

Kerry '04

Don't bet on it pal!!!

Castle

on Oct 03, 2004

Any Amerian citizen that would be praised for his/her contributions in aiding an enemy against our country would disgust me.
When it is a potential President of the United States, there are no words to describe my contempt for this disgraceful conduct. Yes! John F. Kerry has been and is currently praised in the halls of the Hanoi War Crimes Museum for his contributions to communist north vietnam and their "victory" against the U.S. His discription of his fellow US soldiers as war criminals gave the vietcong all the justification and incentive they needed to continue their relentless torture of our POW's.
See for yourself - http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/Misc/KerryHonoredByCommunists2.htm

Take a good look at that wall in Washington DC Mr. Kerry. You helped to make that list even longer and nothing you can say or do now will erase that.

Castle

on Oct 03, 2004

my apologies for the duplicate post

Marvin Cooley

on Oct 03, 2004

I think Bush is right on being in iraq. but what i disagree with is all this freedom crap for the iraqis. those people could no more handle freedom than black africans. we should be there for 2 reasons. halting sadam from building and getting extreme weapons and keeping the oil flowing. now i know the naive will say, "oh, how evil. he wants to have soldiers killed for oil". well, oil is the life blood of the whole modern world. never in world history has there been a resourse so valuable and vital to the civilized world. the romans conquered for gold. gold is nothing compared to oil. i have no qualms whatsoever about America taking control of as much oil as possible. leaving oil in the hands of the uncivilized arabs is a recipe for total disaster. the arabs control of oil now gives them the power to destroy all the advanced worlds economy. just think. all the terrorist government in iran has to do is halt a mere 2 million barrows a day and oil could hit 60 to 70 dollars a barrow. we cannot allow this to happen. the next mission should be to invade iran and secure the oil from that savage nation.

Don Bemont

on Oct 03, 2004

Take a good look at that wall in Washington DC Mr. Kerry. You helped to make that list even longer and nothing you can say or do now will erase that.

The man was a man of action. Although he may have been wrong, and he may have cost his many of his countrymen their lives, he took a clear stand and did what he thought right -- quite a contrast to his opponent for president.

Hard to tell who I am talking about, eh, Kerry of the Vietnam era or Bush of the Iraqi War.

By the way, when you use sourses like vetsagainstkerry, you can be pretty sure you are just passing along well-bankrolled propaganda. The same people who know better than to accept Moore at face value sure lose all their sense pretty quickly when it comes to the distortions of the right.

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

I am not being facetious. I am not being sarcastic. I am not being partisan. I am not being melodramatic. I am not being humorous. I am not being morbid. I am not being hysterical.

Actually I think you are being all of the above.

At any rate, I think it's worth noting in all of the hype a few things.
1) Kerry is more concerned about strengthening and protecting our borders than attacking a country that apparently wasn't as imminent a threat as the Bush machine made it out to be.
2) Kerry is more concerned with killing the terrorists that attacked the US rather than attack a country who's ties with Al Quada were tenuous at best before we attacked Iraq.
3) The Presidency has survived bad presidents before. It is one of the strengths of our governmental system. See Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover (I'd put some others in the list more recent but history cannot judge them yet).

Interestingly enough, while reading the biographies of the presidents this past year, the current administration reminded me very much of the Harding administration (but this is just my opinion of course!

). Some examples:

campaign promise--"Less government in business and more business in government."
Teapot Dome Scandal-administration selling off the government oil reserves to friends in return for cash bribes
The attorney general (also his campaign manager) traded favors for kickbacks
One of his campaign speeches contained the word "normality," which he mispronounced as "normalty" or "normalcy." He liked the attention this mispronunciation got so much that he continued to (mis)use it that way.
He refused to co-operate with European nations in collective security plans.
Historians routinely categorize Harding as the worst President in US History (not my opinion, from wikipedia and other sources)
- From wikipedia, and The Presidents of the United States - From Washington to Bush

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 03, 2004

Kerry is more concerned about strengthening and protecting our borders than attacking a country that apparently wasn't as imminent a threat as the Bush machine made it out to be.

He has the same view as Bush on the border; I would not call it strengthening.

- GX

Lee1776

on Oct 03, 2004

he took a clear stand and did what he thought right

Clear stand? He could not remember if he through away his medals/ oops ribbons/ opps someone else's..... wait what's his latest story on that?

Nothing is clear about Kerry. He holds more positions then superman at a one-man baseball game.

The Dems say he was clear and precise at the debate. But he always sounds clear and precise during one debate because he was president of Yale's debate team. But if you listen to him over a month of debates he will hold five different positions on everything.

Then people say "Well that's a sign of being flexible" not when it is on every subject. Example: Let’s talk to an Anti-Gun group and says "I will regulate and take all dangerous guns off the streets. (Aren't all guns dangerous)? Then the next week he tells a gun club (while he and other around him are carrying a gun he said he wanted to ban one week earlier), I have no plans to take gun away from you.

You can say "What a great plan he gave at the debate", but next week he will be talking about a different one. That's why I don't believe anything he says.

The man was a man of action. Although he may have been wrong, and he may have cost his many of his countrymen their lives

The big difference is Bush used faulty information given from many different sources to include Russia, France, UK, Syria. But Kerry knew all his info about the dangers of those people still held captive, but willingly used it for his own political career.

That's My Two Cents

WiseFawn

on Oct 03, 2004

When I read this article and many of the pat on the back answers, I can see so much of what is wrong in our country. Bush should've been impeached, not running for re-election. He may speak for some of you, but he does not speak for me or for the many others that will vote against him. The fact that you are an example of the scare tactics used by Bush and his is sad. When anyone asks me from now on what I mean by scare tactics, terrorism scare tactics, I'll point them to this article. Because that is what you are doing. You are terrorizing others.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion - ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

And Marvin, I just worry about you.

Castle

on Oct 03, 2004

Nice try Don Bemont.
Recent polls indicate that about 80% of all vietnam vets oppose Kerry. Do they all lose credibility and if so, on what do you base that? If you see video taped examples of Kerry's numerous positions on Iraq on Fox News, do you automatically assume that the video if fake? If I remember correctly, it was CBS's Dan Rather that was all too happy to promote the lefts "well-bankrolled propaganda" to smear Bush's Air National Guard service (memo-gate). So who has the credibility problem?

I challenge you to prove that the north vietnamese praise of Kerry's efforts to their cause (in the Hanoi War Crimes Museum) does not exist. If you can discredit this information, I would be happy you review your sourses.

I find it interesting how any news source that does not live and breathe the liberal slant is instantly labeled distortion on the truth - when most of the evidence in this campaign shows the exact opposite.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!