OK, for a second forget that you are republican or democrat, forget who you are voting for and please respond to this one human to another.

Right now Bush and Cheney are stating that the United States will be in danger if Kerry is president. They are actively stating that Kerry will not do everything in his power to stop terrorism. To support this they say that he has a history of voting "against the military" whatever that means.

So whoever you are voting for I hope you can be honest enough to say that this is a pretty low thing to do, especially for a president and his VP to say.

Is there anyone here that truly believes that John Kerry won't do everything in his power to prevent terrorist attacks and stop further acts of terrorism? Does it even need to be said that whoever the president is that this will be a primary focus of their term? It's sad that Bush has to resort to this in order to get some votes.

yea, and as it has been stated before, kerry is saying if you elect bush, you will be drafted


they are both douchebags in this regard

any other points?

The fact of the matter is, if terrorists want to attack, they will, no matter who is president. It might not happen on such a large scale as 9-11, but can you just imagine how easy it would be to mount an attack in a rural American setting? Just imagine how easy it would be for a couple of suicide bombers to walk into a high school football game, with a couple thousand people in it, and blow the place up.

Yes, you're taking a pass on this one. I feel there's a big difference between Kerry saying there might be a draft and what Bush is saying. We both know that the candidates have used a bit of fear to get some votes but this is different. Whether or not there'll be a draft is an opinion, however saying that a person running for president won't do everything in his power to stop terrorism is something completely different.

I agree it's bad campaigning on both sides. However, Bush seems to harp on the idea that Kerry will not be hard on terrorism much more than Kerry ever mentions the draft.

I'm not a Kerry supporter, by the way.

Have they ever answered where that anthrax came from. Or did it just disappear into history. Unsolved mysteries from the US government. Should be a new show.

drunk, high, or just being funny?

[quote="Peeps"drunk, high, or just being funny?[/quote]

none of the above. If you fail to see how different what Bush is saying is from other political rhetoric than I don't know how to explain it to you in a simpler fashion. Bush used to say that Kerry would deal with terrorism as a criminal matter, that was at least a gross distortion. Cheney then said electing Kerry would lead to an attack. Now both men are stating that as President, Kerry would not protect America from terrorists.

you're still not saying that you disagree. Bush's campaign is known for being low and dirty but this really crosses a line. Funny that a supposed Christian has no problem spreading lies like this.

Not to mention the fact that his campaign has told all of the major news networks that he would be revealing a big policy point this last week just in order to get live coverage of these pathetic accusations.

Ooh, ooh, can I answer that one?

The anthrax was distributed by a RIGHT-WING AMERICAN, and that is why it just disappeared off the radar screen. Regardless of who it was behind the attacks, or whether he was captured, killed, died from his own work, if the authorities discovered his identity, it was suppressed because of who he actually was, NOT an Arab terrorist, and in fact, a supporter of President Bush.

Take a look at the list of places that received anthrax letters. There were NO Republican members of Congress, only Democrats, The New York Times, and a couple of other "liberal" publications. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the person behind the anthrax letters bore more of a resemblence to Timothy McVeigh than to Osama bin Laden.

--PunkDavid

I have thought that since the first day that it was released where the Anthrax was sent to.

I happen to, at least in theory, agree with Bush/Cheney on this one. (wait, don't yell at me. Hear me out.)

Do I think Kerry won't try to fight terrorism the best way he knows how? Of course not. I think he will. But I don't think "the best way he knows how" is the right way.

I think I'm concerned because I don't know what Kerry's "plan" would be for dealing with terrorism. All of his record and some of his rhetoric seems to point toward going back to the old way of doing this. I don't believe this is the right way. I want a president who will attack terrorism where it lives.

Before I would feel comfortable that Kerry won't get us killed, I'd want him to honestly and directly answer this question: "Would you be willing to send the U.S. military against a regime guilty of harboring and supporting terrorists -- NOT just the terrorists themselves -- BEFORE they blow something up in the United States, BEFORE they get their hands on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and WITHOUT world approval, if neccessary?"

If Kerry can't honestly answer "Yes" to that question, I don't want him as President.

just my opinion.

Some of you seem to think the old 90s way of doing thing -- allow al qaeda to kill Americans, so long as they don't do it on U.S. soil -- is effective. It's a fine opinion to have. I just don't share it. And if Kerry does, naturally, I'm frightened of him.

Lower than say.........dragging a gay daughter out in the conversation to try and steal some moron religious votes away from the other side?


Lower than your wife saying the First Lady has "never held a real job" amongst a slew of other lovely coloquialisms......


It's funny everyone keeps talking about low blows when nothing in this election has been above the belt.

Niether of these candidates is worth a shit. I'm sticking with McCain. I don't care who wins. John is the best man for the job. We're likely getting attacked again either way.

The way both of these guys view government and how it should spend money is just ludicrous. I can't think of a really good reason to support either major candidate.

I hope to get to vote for McCain in 2008

I can't wait for November 3. I'm at the point where I don't really care who wins anymore. I want all this shit to be over with...on both sides.

I was waiting for all the conspiracy non sayers to show up and put me in my place with some of the government facts that they can't seem to find for major answers to 911.

Maybe instead of arguing who is a bigger asshole you should just grab the asshole in power and beat the real answers out of him. Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to do, demand from their government. Proper answers with no loose ends. Oooops I forgot they have a diversion called Iraq to draw the non attentive people away from that. Real answers are not going to be found in Iraq. Neither is health care, social security, and all other domestic issues that seem to have vanished from the debates. Is Iraq the 51st state yet?

*ding*

Hell ... I'll be happy if we even know who won on Nov. 3 ... seeing as the lawyers have already begun filing their lawsuits.

wake me up in mid-December, I say

Good point.

In the land of democracy and free elections, we sure have our share of problems!

What you just said is a far more valid a question for Kerry than anything Cheney and Bush has said. I do think your question is fundamentally flawed because there is far too much guesswork involved and really the answer for both candidates is more likely than not, "IT depends"

Bush clearly believes that invading other countries whether or not they have the capablitlity of harming the US is not a problem. I think Kerry would demand some sort of proof that they are at least capable of harming the US.

I'd ask you slightofjeff to really examine what you are asking here. You are advocating a policy where intention is the same as the action, whether or not the capability exists. That my friend, is a very very dangerous game to play. Given your standard of "guilt" we could easily make a case for war in any number of countries. How does one measure intention? It's not as black and white as the president makes it seem.

In regards to the "old way" of doing things, I think the mistake that many conservatives make is they give themselves and our politicians hindsight; while forgiving Bush on the matter. The reason that previous presidents did not invade other countries for the acts of terrorists is exactly the reason we are having so much trouble in Iraq right now. To be realistic about the matter, we are involved in two countries with no real end in sight. That's alot to commit to, especially when neither country has shown the capacity for harming the United States. According to that doctrine then there are several more countries that should be next on your list. I guess then the only thing to ask is, "When will it end?"

all good questions. I don't have answers to all of them.

Are there risks associated with a policy of prevention and pre-emption? You betcha.

But, in my opinion, there are even more dangerous risks associated with inaction.

It may be a terrible thing to say, but I'd rather err on the side of deposing a brutal government or dictator even if it turns out not to be an immediate threat, than to not depose a dictor or government that DOES turn out to be an immediate threat in a horrible, horrible way.

You ask where does it end? And I don't know. Obviously, you can't invade everyone.

And that, I think that's a decent argument for spreading democracy across the Middle East. The hope is, the call of democracy can defeat some of these governments without us having to fire a shot.

Defeat Arab dictatorships the way the free world defeated communism.