"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

This coming from a webtver?

You must be one of the most gullible fools on the planet to have bought that
crap.

Bet you actually believe that crap Rash Limburger says too.


"Den" wrote in message
...
(We won't get fooled again )

You would be a fool to vote for Mr. Waffle

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.


Kids pure and simple! they're kids!


Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

In article ,
says...

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

I'm not thrilled with Kerry either - I'm an independent. But I think
that getting rid of Bush may well be the equivalent of Jefferson getting
rid of Adams (remember reading about the Alien and Sedition acts?).
Given that, I'll vote for Kerry as the best way to get rid of Bush.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I don't plan on voting for either of those bozos. Their proven records tell me I
wouldn't want EITHER of them as president.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:45:37 -0700, Tom Jaszewski wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.


Kids pure and simple! they're kids!

And that includes the senior NCO's in their late 30's?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:

(snip)
If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher)
opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good
choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry
may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and
none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I don't plan on voting for either of those bozos. Their proven records
tell me I
wouldn't want EITHER of them as president.

The fact remains that you will get either Bush or Kerry. Not voting won't
get you "none of the above."

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

(snip)
If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry
may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and
none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.

I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.

"Den" wrote in message
...
(We won't get fooled again )

You would be a fool to vote for Mr. Waffle

And you are a fool for voting for Mr. (pinhead) Bush.

"D" wrote in message
...
I"m smart enough to know that G.W.Bush,
has kept the country safe from any terrorist attack for 2 1/2 yrs. But I
guess you have to be really smart to see that, and to see that Al Gore
or John Kerry are not even in the same league as George W. Bush.

That's true, they are major league, Bush is little league!

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:14:02 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:51:15 -0400, (D) opined:

I"m smart enough to know that G.W.Bush,
has kept the country safe from any terrorist attack for 2 1/2 yrs. But I
guess you have to be really smart to see that, and to see that Al Gore
or John Kerry are not even in the same league as George W. Bush.

How do you explain that a teenager was able to get two box cutters onto
planes,
through security gates, at two airports? Bush has nothing to do with
terrorist
attack cessation. Matter of fact, he said, "Bring it on."

Did his saying "Bring it on" cause any terrorist attacks?

So, if you think
about a thousand dead kids (soldiers)

Nice use of emotional slant there, equating soldiers with "kids". Some of
those
soldiers are in their 30's. I spent 15 years in the Army, and don't even
consider the younger soldiers "kids". They're old enough to kill(and die)
for
their country, so calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.

Why did they kick you out before retirement?

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

You apparently haven't been successful if you voted for Bush.

"Joe Sandlin" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.18.15.45.17.124660@REMOVETHIScfw. com...
John A. Keslick, Jr. wrote:

Why are we logging National Forest?

Perhaps you are confusing a National Forest with a National Park. Although
the USFS adopted a "Mixed use" policy years ago, the primary purpose of
the National Forest system is and always has been to provide timber.

Why are we building roads in National Forest?

To get to the timber. Its not practical to drag it out on foot.

The National Forest is not a place for Bush and his cronies to go and
destroy.

He would completely destroy the enviorement if not countered, his stupid
religion tells him that!

Bush and the fictional bible "God", quite a pair!

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:




Did his saying "Bring it on" cause any terrorist attacks?


Actually, yes. The terrorist attacks launched in the middle east have more than
doubled since he said that. About a thousand dead kids in the armed services, to
date.

Nice use of emotional slant there, equating soldiers with "kids". Some of those
soldiers are in their 30's. I spent 15 years in the Army, and don't even
consider the younger soldiers "kids". They're old enough to kill(and die) for
their country, so calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.

Oh, sorry. Eighteen is not kids. My bad.


and about seven thousand others who lost
limbs or are paralyzed or worse is protecting us, you have a rare view of the
term.

Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Page not available right now.



It works for me.



Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html