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 2)

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 03, 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.

Cacto,

I'd be pretty willing to take that bet, if I had the funds to back my end of it. Democrats have repeatedly conceded to the UN, to the point where US TROOPS WERE WEARING UN UNIFORMS in certain assignments during the Clinton years (there were personnel who faced courts martial for refusing to wear the UN uniform, as they didn't swear an oath to the UN army, but to the US). While many consider the UN a benign entity, there is a strong push among many in the UN community to strip the US of her sovereignty (resolutions that have been passed in the UN have encouraged legislation forbidding parents to "proselytize" their children, effectively banning religious teaching in the homes, which potentially affects many of us). As well, the death penalty laws that many states enact have the potential of being stricken down by the international community under the UN. While I am anti-death penalty, I acknowledge many of the rationalizations given by its advocates, and do not feel our democracy should be overridden by the UN oligarchy.

While I do not support Bush and will not vote for Bush, I will concede that his attitude towards the international community is far preferable to one who would accede to every whim of these wannabe dictators.

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

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.

BTW- here is the proof you requested. Have fun and be happy reviewing Mr. Bemont's sources....

Mr. Kerry’s campaign did not respond to calls and e-mail seeking comment, but two visits to the museum last week disclosed some weaknesses in the arguments put forward by the senator’s critics.
While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr.Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.

It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials.
originally published in the “Front Page” section of the New York Sun on August 16, 2004

By the way zobelisk, could you add the link saying that 80% of all vietnam vets oppose kerry. I'd very much like to read up on it.....

Lee1776

on Oct 03, 2004

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.

WF

Sometimes you need to take your blinders off. Lets remain PC and not talk or look at the truth "It hurts my ears!!!". The reason attacks are going up in Iraq is not because Bush is messing it up. It is because of our elections. The terrorists have studied the past and are using a tactic that they think will work. They are using the same tactics that was used by the North Vietnamese and the terrorist in Spain to effect elections. The worse thing is Kerry himself has given them the ideas and hope they need to continue the fight. They want someone in our Presidency that will turn this war back into a police action again. Kerry has proven with his past acts that he will do just that and worse. I think that's why Vietnam holds him in honor at their museum.

That’s My Two Cents

drmiler

on Oct 03, 2004

Reply #11 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 9:09:42 AM

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

Actually if you listened to the *debate*(hardly, but that's another issue.). Then you already know that Kerry seeks a world test that must be applied *before* we can attack someone who has attacked US! In other words he want to hand our security over to the ( UN? ).

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

Way to take a comment out of context drmiler....

From the CNN transcript on the Kerry/Bush Q&A:

LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

Sorry to put the Bush spin on *global test* back into context

Marvin Cooley

on Oct 03, 2004

DAMIT PEOPLE, CANT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD? WE NEED OIL!!! A COUPLE OF YEARS FROM NOW WHEN OIL IS OVER 100 DOLLARS A BARROW, AND THE WORLDS JOBLESS RATE IS OVER 15 PERCENT, YOU STUPID COMMIE LIBERALS WILL BE THE FIRST TO BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT ALL.

AND IN THOSE DAYS THERE SHALL BE TROUBLE AMONG THE NATIONS SUCH AS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN. ITS ALL PREBVENTABLE NOW IF YOU FOOLS WOULD JUST STOP CAUSING SUCH DISASTERS.

drmiler

on Oct 03, 2004

Reply #20 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 1:05:28 PM

Way to take a comment out of context drmiler....

From the CNN transcript on the Kerry/Bush Q&A:

LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?

Then *what* does this tell you? ( Also from CNN transcript.)

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

He wants us to *prove* to the *world* that whatever we did is legitimate.

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

Umm....you took the same quote drmiler.....did you read the post at all? I'll requote the end part for you...

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?

So I guess I should restate in case the point is missed. Shouldn't we only pre-emptively attack for legitimate purposes?

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

Umm...this makes as much sense as you usually do. Oil is a limited resource. If we use more now then we will run out sooner. If we run out sooner than the price will go up sooner.

Mr. Cooley, all that anger can't be good for you. I doubt I'll be the first to whine and bitch as I believe in taking public transportation and not cranking the A/C and all of that fun stuff to conserve our resources. Then again, I'm also not a commie so I guess the comment doesn't regard me.

Basically, I believe in conserving resources (it's cheaper that way) since they are in limited supply and that is the best way to keep costs down until alternatives are found.

drmiler

on Oct 03, 2004

Reply #24 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 2:07:19 PM
Umm....you took the same quote drmiler.....did you read the post at all? I'll requote the end part for you...

Reading comprehension question....Based on the actual transcript, what does John Kerry mean by global test?

Reading comprehension answer....The global test referred to by Kerry states that if you pre-emptively strike a country your fellow citizens should know and understand why you are attacking. Since you are pre-emptively striking a nation, you should be able to prove to anyone that the reason for your attack is legitimate.

Sorry drmiler, nowhere in there do I see Kerry stating that he would hand our security over to the UN. Unless you think we should attack for non-legitimate purposes, but wouldn't that be bad?

So I guess I should restate in case the point is missed. Shouldn't we only pre-emptively attack for legitimate purposes?

And just *who* is to define what's legitimate? The world or us???

WiseFawn

on Oct 03, 2004

YOU STUPID COMMIE LIBERALS WILL BE THE FIRST TO BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT ALL.

show me where they are, Marvin, I'll take care of em for ya.

rugbyshawn

on Oct 03, 2004

And just *who* is to define what's legitimate? The world or us???

I'm guessing Merriam-Webster would be a good first place

Seriously though, the US can determine the legitimacy but they do not have to turn a deaf ear to our allies for advice. I don't see why it has to be "no allies" or "the UN controls us." Friends should listen to each other, take in each other's advice, and then make a wise, informed decision. Why does this not apply in the Bush administration?

I went to a Bob Woodward talk recently and he pointed out that Colin Powell was not in on the decision making process for Iraq. When finally told about it, Powell asked "Are you sure you understand the consequences of this action?" Woodward said Bush admitted in their interview to not developing any sort of diplomatic policy for dealing with Iraq even after 10 months of military planning. As reference, the Woodward book is the only book recommended by both the Kerry and Bush campaigns

Some Examples:
George HW Bush convinced the world (including countries in the Middle East) in the first Gulf War.
There is the famous Acheson/DeGaulle moment from the Cuban Missile Crisis when DeGaulle raised his hand and said, quote, "That is not necessary. I know President Kennedy, and I know he would never mislead me on a question of war and peace."

drmiler

on Oct 03, 2004

Reply #28 By: rugbyshawn - 10/3/2004 6:18:16 PM
And just *who* is to define what's legitimate? The world or us???

I'm guessing Merriam-Webster would be a good first place
Seriously though, the US can determine the legitimacy but they do not have to turn a deaf ear to our allies for advice. I don't see why it has to be "no allies" or "the UN controls us." Friends should listen to each other, take in each other's advice, and then make a wise, informed decision. Why does this not apply in the Bush administration?

I went to a Bob Woodward talk recently and he pointed out that Colin Powell was not in on the decision making process for Iraq. When finally told about it, Powell asked "Are you sure you understand the consequences of this action?" Woodward said Bush admitted in their interview to not developing any sort of diplomatic policy for dealing with Iraq even after 10 months of military planning. As reference, the Woodward book is the only book recommended by both the Kerry and Bush campaigns

Some Examples:
George HW Bush convinced the world (including countries in the Middle East) in the first Gulf War.
There is the famous Acheson/DeGaulle moment from the Cuban Missile Crisis when DeGaulle raised his hand and said, quote, "That is not necessary. I know President Kennedy, and I know he would never mislead me on a question of war and peace."

Excuse me but we are talking about *Kerry* not Bush! Stick to the topic.

cactoblasta

on Oct 03, 2004

Cacto,

I'd be pretty willing to take that bet, if I had the funds to back my end of it. Democrats have repeatedly conceded to the UN, to the point where US TROOPS WERE WEARING UN UNIFORMS in certain assignments during the Clinton years (there were personnel who faced courts martial for refusing to wear the UN uniform, as they didn't swear an oath to the UN army, but to the US). While many consider the UN a benign entity, there is a strong push among many in the UN community to strip the US of her sovereignty (resolutions that have been passed in the UN have encouraged legislation forbidding parents to "proselytize" their children, effectively banning religious teaching in the homes, which potentially affects many of us). As well, the death penalty laws that many states enact have the potential of being stricken down by the international community under the UN. While I am anti-death penalty, I acknowledge many of the rationalizations given by its advocates, and do not feel our democracy should be overridden by the UN oligarchy.

While I do not support Bush and will not vote for Bush, I will concede that his attitude towards the international community is far preferable to one who would accede to every whim of these wannabe dictators

Um, I don't really want to take money from you, but if you really think that the US will become an Islamoterrorist state under Sharia if Kerry gets in then sure, I'll accept your offer. AUS$1000 will be payable by either party on 04/10/2008 (10/04/2008 for the US). We'll use Australian dollars because they'll probably still be worth something if you''re right. About the UN, you've given me an idea for a blog. I might write something about that later on...

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!