News & Politics - Repubs/Conservatives: Warning! May Contain Traces of Conservatives And/Or Other Nuts - Page 16

Wes&FredFan · 10-17-2004, 09:49 PM

Anti-American Kerry is the last person to defend America.

Perhaps most people haven't seen the picture of him standing up next to the American flag ... upside down, mocking the brave soldiers who fought AND DIED at Iwo Jima. He was smiling. Patriotic, isn't it? Nope.

You might want to check out the Kerry TV Documentary, entitled Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. It will be on TV soon. Then you can see how very Pessimistic he is about our country. And how he ridiculed and mocked our flag.

He's the last person to lead a country, especially our country.

Wes&FredFan · 10-17-2004, 10:12 PM

My best friend got these photos and scanned them from Kerry's book ... of him smiling at a huge rally w/the upside down flag. We've put them on fliers and even two billboards. Definitely changing minds down here!
People want patriotism, not Kerry's anti-patriotism! We need George Bush!

We had a Patriotism rally on campus and the fliers were passed around (along with band-aids with Purple hearts, LOL!). More and more Bush supporters are ready to fight the good fight

. Students on the fence didn't like seeing Kerry in his true nature.

Is THIS who should lead our country? NO!

86amanda86 · 10-18-2004, 12:13 AM

I went on an over night trip to colorado and saw the most wonderful billboard in existance. It read -

Michael Moore-
High in cholestoral
Low in truth

WalkingOnSunshine · 10-18-2004, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wes&FredFan
My best friend got these photos and scanned them from Kerry's book ... of him smiling at a huge rally w/the upside down flag. We've put them on fliers and even two billboards. Definitely changing minds down here!
People want patriotism, not Kerry's anti-patriotism! We need George Bush!

Good job on changing minds!

Where are you?

Currently - I must share that honestly I think Bush is going to win. I am not as nervous as I was. I have a good feeling about things. I think when it comes down to it a lot of people are voting for who they think will keep them safer. Bush has a good stance on this war on terrorism and national security. Even though, some on the other side have argued about "scare tactics" being used to ensure votes I don't agree. Because, I think it is just natural for people to want to stay with a leader who has shown the resolve & strength of Bush in the face of terrorism. So again lol I feel good about Nov 2nd.

By the way, in political science - I got an A on my paper about Bush & his polices.

I was kind of worried about it because that teacher is a strict liberal who has been very rough on Bush since day one of classes.

dawnie · 10-18-2004, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Currently - I must share that honestly I think Bush is going to win.

I agree-- Here's an article I just read at cnn.com

Kerry's debate showing not translating to popularity

(CNN) -- Although Americans think Sen. John Kerry did the best job in the debates, the Democratic nominee appears to have lost some ground to President Bush in the popularity contest, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday.

The poll interviewed 1,013 adult Americans by telephone Thursday through Saturday, including 942 who identified themselves as registered voters and 788 who indicated they were likely to vote.

In the previous Gallup poll, taken October 9-10 after the second debate on October 8, Kerry and Bush were tied at 48 percent among registered voters. (Full story)

The latest poll, taken after the third and final debate last Wednesday in Tempe, Arizona, indicated an edge of 49 percent to 46 percent for Bush among the same group.

That is still practically even -- given the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The October 9-10 poll had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

But among likely voters Bush had a larger spread -- 52 percent to 44 percent. That compared with a 49 percent to 46 percent edge for Bush in the previous poll.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader had 1 percent among both groups in each poll.

In the most recent poll, 46 percent of all those interviewed thought Kerry did a better job in last week's debate than Bush, who had 32 percent. Yet as Democrat Al Gore learned in 2000, winning a debate on points does not necessarily translate into electoral votes.

As in 2000, Bush's favorability ratings -- how Americans view him as a person -- went up after a debate that voters say he lost -- from 51 percent in the October 9-10 poll to 55 percent in the most recent poll.

Kerry's favorability rating remained flat, at 52 percent in both polls. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

One reason Kerry has not been able to translate his debate showing into a lead in the popularity contest could be that voters think he is too liberal.

Bush emphasized that label at Wednesday's debate, and it seems to be sticking. Nearly half of all respondents -- 47 percent -- in the most recent poll said Kerry's political views are too liberal. Four in 10 said Bush is too conservative. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Kerry got one major advantage out of the debates. Fifty-seven percent of all respondents saw him as able to handle the job of commander in chief -- compared with 53 percent in an October 1-3 Gallup poll and 49 percent in a September 24-26 poll.

Yet Bush is still seen as a better commander in chief and a stronger leader, by a 53 percent to 44 percent margin.

The margin of error on those questions was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Bush also apparently picked up ground on education and health care in the third debate, which concentrated on domestic issues.

In the most recent poll, 49 percent of all respondents said he would do a better job on education than Kerry, who had 46 percent. The October 9-10 poll had Bush at 43 percent and Kerry at 50 percent.

On health care, 52 percent now say Kerry would do a better job, compared with 56 percent in the previous poll. Bush's percentages went up from 37 percent to 43 percent.

Those questions had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Republicans seem more enthusiastic about the election (77 percent) than do Democrats (65 percent) and thus more likely to vote, as reflected in Gallup's likely voter model.

Respondents who identified themselves a Bush voters were also nearly unanimous in thinking their candidate would win -- 88 percent. A quarter of Kerry voters said they think their candidate would lose.

Regardless of how they are planning to vote, Americans appear to think this is the most important election in recent memory.

When asked whether the outcome matters more than in previous elections, 72 percent of all respondents said yes, compared with 47 percent in 2000 and 41 percent in 1996.

All those questions had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

86amanda86 · 10-18-2004, 06:00 AM

Wow! Those are all really great! Thanks dawnie

dawnie · 10-18-2004, 06:14 AM

Thanks!

Has anyone heard of this? I found it at snopes.com

_______________________________________

Claim: The outcome of Washington Redskins football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936.

Status: True.

FOOTBALL + ELECTION

Did you know....??

The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power.

This election year, that deciding game takes place on Sunday, October 31 ... vs. Green Bay.
______________________________________________

Could go either way.... both teams have the same record (2-4-0). I usually cheer for Green Bay, since Brett Favre is from here

but this game I guess I'll be rooting for Washington! LOL

86amanda86 · 10-18-2004, 06:19 AM

I'm not really superstitious but we'll see...

I was just looking over the liberal thread and I think it is so sad and unfortunate that so many are operating under flase concepts. They say things like, "it's scary how so many "stupid" people fallow "blindly." It's like they really, honestly don't get it...you know? And they accuse us of being ignorant...

Lexis · 10-18-2004, 07:57 AM

I don't think you guys are ignorant.

Everyone wants the same thing - a strong, safe America that lives up to the high standards it sets for itself. Liberals and Conservatives just differ on how we should achieve that.

Posted by Wes&FredFan

Quote:

along with band-aids with Purple hearts, LOL!)

I totally support you guys expressing your views on Kerry by distributing fliers etc with those pictures but isn't it perhaps a little insulting to people who did receive Purple Hearts for their service by using that symbol to oppose Kerry?

It'd be like me using a stetson or something to mock Bush.

86amanda86 · 10-18-2004, 08:02 AM

It wasn't you I was talking about lexis.

You have always been very respectful towards us as far as I know. But I am sure that if you look through your party thread, you will find several comments suggesting that some people feel differently, like conservatives are below them...it's not right....

Lexis · 10-18-2004, 09:12 AM

Yep, it does happen, a lot. But both sides are equally bad. I hate it that some Conservatives think 'liberal' is a dirty word.

I know by nature politics is a dirty game but sometimes, it just makes me want to scream. If we put as much effort into trying to do good works for our society as we do snarling insults at political opponants, things would be much better.

86amanda86 · 10-18-2004, 09:30 AM

yep

I think what all have to realize that havn't a different opinion doesn't make you bad. I think that we all atatch evil motives to each other that aren't there just because we don't agree. we all need to work on changing the way we see each other.

JW77 · 10-18-2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dawnie
I agree-- Here's an article I just read at cnn.com

To go along with that...from MSNBC.com

Quote:

Bush pulls ahead in trio of polls; 4th finds deadlock

President, Kerry trade barbs on Iraq, terrorism

President Bush is pulling ahead of John Kerry in three polls as the race for the White House approaches its final two weeks while a fourth poll finds the candidates are deadlocked.

While Bush was touting his plan to fight terrorism in New Jersey on Monday and Kerry was criticizing the president’s “arrogant boasting” about the war in Iraq, political pundits were parsing this poll data, most of it gleaned after the three debates between the two candidates:

Bush leads 52-44 percent among likely voters in a Gallup Poll taken for CNN and USA Today from Thursday through Saturday, up from 49-46 after the second debate.

Bush leads 50-44 among likely voters in a Newsweek Poll conducted Thursday and Friday.

Bush leads 50-46 in a tracking poll of likely voters taken Wednesday through Saturday for ABC News, up from 48-48 in the Tuesday-Friday period.

Another poll, released Monday, found the candidates deadlocked at 45 percent each among likely voters. The Reuters/Zogby three-day tracking poll gave the president a 46-44 percent lead over the Massachusetts senator the previous day, and a four-point lead the day before that.

“This is, as I have said before, the same kind of roller-coaster ride we saw in 2000 with the lead changing back and forth and neither candidate able to open up any kind of lead,” pollster John Zogby said.

The poll of 1,211 likely voters was taken Friday through Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The rolling poll will continue through Nov. 1 -- the day before the election.

The Gallup Poll interviewed 1,013 adults and had a 4-point margin of error. The Newsweek Poll interviewed 1,004 registered voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. ABC’s poll surveyed 1,582 voters with a margin of error of 2.5 points.

While national polls such as these attempt to reflect popular sentiment among voters, the real presidential battle is the state-by-state contest for electoral votes. In that match, NBC News analysis currently has Bush winning or leading in states with 217 electoral votes while Kerry is winning or leading in states with 200 votes. The remaining states and their 121 votes are considered too close to call. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.

Focus on terror
Bush, for his part, was telling voters in New Jersey — a state that hasn’t backed a Republican presidential candidate since 1988 — that his battle plan for fighting terrorists is better John Kerry’s.

As Bush headed to Marlton, a city in southern New Jersey, his campaign unveiled a new TV ad that portrays Kerry as weak on terrorism — “either we fight terrorists abroad or face them here” — and accuses the Democrat of opposing President Reagan “as he won the Cold War.”

Nearly 700 New Jersey residents died when hijacked airplanes flew into the World Trade Center’s twin towers, and polls show national security and terrorism are the top campaign issues among voters in the state.

Democrat Al Gore easily won New Jersey in 2000, but voters’ worry about another terrorist attack is a key reason why Bush and Kerry are locked in a tight race for the state’s 15 electoral votes.

“From a lot of places in New Jersey you could see the towers,” Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, told reporters at a weekend campaign rally in West Palm Beach, Fla.

“A lot of people in New Jersey, a lot of communities in New Jersey felt personally the sting of 9/11. I think that has made them more sensitive — as we get close to the end — about the question of who will make America safer.”

Before heading to New Jersey, Bush signed a bill giving the Department of Homeland Security about $33 billion for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

The bill signing dovetailed with Bush’s New Jersey terrorism speech in which campaign officials said he would again mock Kerry’s comments on terrorism in a New York Times Magazine article Oct. 10.

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” the Massachusetts senator said.

Bush has been telling supporters at rallies that he couldn’t disagree more. “Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance,” he says. “Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive.”

Florida speech
In Florida, Kerry said that Bush sent troops into war without necessary equipment and accused the commander in chief of “arrogant boasting that he’s done everything right in Iraq.”

“Mr. President, your management or mismanagement of this war, your diversion from al-Qaida and from Osama bin Laden, your shift of the troops to Iraq when there was nothing to do with al-Qaida, nothing to do with 9/11, has made America less safe, not more secure,” Kerry said.

The Democrat’s campaign also rolled out a TV ad showing Bush saying “I truly am not that concerned about him” — a reference to Osama bin Laden. The ad seeks to make the case that “It’s time for a new direction” on Iraq and the war on terror. Bush denied in the final debate that he had ever said he wasn’t worried about Osama.

As for U.S. forces, Kerry referred to a report in The Washington Post that the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, said last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened the troops’ ability to fight.

“Despite the president’s arrogant boasting that he’s done everything right in Iraq and that he’s made no mistakes, the truth is beginning to come out and it’s beginning to catch up with him,” Kerry said.

“I will never be a commander in chief who just cavalierly, ideologically and arrogantly dismisses the advice of our best military commanders in the United States.”

As he often does when talking about Iraq, Kerry highlighted statements critical of the Bush administration made by prominent Republicans, including Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana. Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday that Kerry takes his words out of context on the campaign trail.

Kerry was in Florida urging voters to take advantage of laws that let residents cast their ballots for the Nov. 2 election beginning Monday.

He said an early vote would help prevent a repeat of the nail-biting finish of 2000 that saw the election decided in a Florida recount.

“This is important. If you vote early now, we don’t have to stay up late on Tuesday night, Nov. 2,” Kerry said. “I want you to get out and get the job done.”

Kerry also laid out a prescription for avoiding another flu vaccine shortage like the one this season.
He wants manufacturers to report vaccine supplies to public health officials, encourage the donation and public buyback of surplus vaccines, establish a reserve of the inoculations and encourage more drug makers to produce the vaccine.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

If you take the average of the four polls, the results should be more accurate.

WalkingOnSunshine · 10-19-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dawnie
Thanks!

Has anyone heard of this? I found it at snopes.com

_______________________________________

Claim: The outcome of Washington Redskins football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936.

Status: True.

FOOTBALL + ELECTION

Did you know....??

The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power.

This election year, that deciding game takes place on Sunday, October 31 ... vs. Green Bay.
______________________________________________

Could go either way.... both teams have the same record (2-4-0). I usually cheer for Green Bay, since Brett Favre is from here but this game I guess I'll be rooting for Washington! LOL

*putting away my love for Brett Favre for that game* Go Skins!!

I got this in an e-mail today and I thought it was interesting:

Quote:

Here is information that helps me decide to vote to re-elect George Bush. Most of us haven't thought about this no matter how much we like or dislike John Kerry. WOW! Those figures have to be staggering.

You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions. It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property.

The Kerrys have five US properties not counting the several foreign
properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric, including ground keepers, maintenance, pool and house keepers.

To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if
elected including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a
day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for
security improvements even if they never go to them all, that is, that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us.

Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about: Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President, once you are elected. It requires us, the tax payers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary, as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot, plus salaries and protection for all their real estate property, plus Secret Service Agents, and pay the bills for the rest of his life. Additionally feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life.

Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five
Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours per property! That
is 20 secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including
holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Let's say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerrys do not buy anymore properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents' vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent.

Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties, both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it.

The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry
pay for everyone to have healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend - Kerry is his party motto.

Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve him and his wife!

Please pass the Mustard and do America a favor and pass this on, let's keep Bush a resident in the White House, and not have to protect all those Kerry houses and save money!

**LaraCroft01** · 10-19-2004, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 86amanda86
I went on an over night trip to colorado and saw the most wonderful billboard in existance. It read -

Michael Moore-
High in cholestoral
Low in truth

What do you know - another person that can't debate Moore's points so they attack what he looks like. Score!

And Moore isn't low in truth, but I guess the truth hurts, so hey let's attack Moore's looks!

And Wes&FredFan At least Kerry went to war unlike your deserter of a president.

And the bandaids with purple hearts - that's LOW! Like I said, at least Kerry went to war - shall we hand out medals for not showing up for National Guard Duty.

How hypocritcal of the Republican party.