Why You Lemmings Will Vote for Kerry

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
He's not Nicolae, that's all that matters. It makes not one bit of difference who carry's the Dem ticket, they get my vote because they're better than what we've had. It's just that simple.

You, sir, are the reason that this country is digging itself into a hole of crap.

Like we are not already in a hole of crap???

If by "crap" you mean "multi thousand dollar tax return" and by "in a hole of" you mean "getting a", then I agree with you.

If cash coming in is the only thing you understand, then you're still second-rate citizens...because any good prostitue, porn star, drug dealer or hitman is probably making more than you, and not paying taxes on it I might add. Just remember that next time you think your bank account gives you any credibility whatsoever.

I know, your credibility as a political scholar is quite evident.

It makes not one bit of difference who carry's the Dem ticket, they get my vote because they're better than what we've had. It's just that simple.

I prefer the argument "Just because", but whatever works for you.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
He's not Nicolae, that's all that matters. It makes not one bit of difference who carry's the Dem ticket, they get my vote because they're better than what we've had. It's just that simple.

You, sir, are the reason that this country is digging itself into a hole of crap.

Like we are not already in a hole of crap???

If by "crap" you mean "multi thousand dollar tax return" and by "in a hole of" you mean "getting a", then I agree with you.

In other words, it's all about the greed. He will vote for whoever puts the most money in his pocket today, no matter how badly that candidate is screwing the country or raping his children. He demands immediate gratification, never mind the consequences. He is the reason this country is digging itself deeper into a hole of crap.

Cad, is this one of those examples of Americans who won't accept responsibility for themselves and their actions?

Is Bush really raping your children or are you just an idiot?

 

[ReiAyanami]

Shrub = does not equal Michael Jackson


stop confusing your white rich men!!

 

[Gaard]

Bush had the nerve to stand up to the queers. In fact, it's such an important issue that he's going to change the frickin constitution. If that's not a sign of a deserving president I don't know what is.

Vote for Bush

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If by "crap" you mean "multi thousand dollar tax return" and by "in a hole of" you mean "getting a", then I agree with you.

In other words, it's all about the greed. He will vote for whoever puts the most money in his pocket today, no matter how badly that candidate is screwing the country or raping his children. He demands immediate gratification, never mind the consequences. He is the reason this country is digging itself deeper into a hole of crap.

Cad, is this one of those examples of Americans who won't accept responsibility for themselves and their actions?

Is Bush really raping your children or are you just an idiot?

Yes he is, figuratively speaking of course. I guess that leaves "idiot" for you, though I prefer more descriptive terms like deluded sheep, partisan hack, greedy fool, and the ever-popular YABA.

I've never seen any other person work as diligently to trash our children's future. While the ultimate fall of the U.S. is inevitable, Bush-lite appears determined to get us there during his administration.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Vote for Bush

You've got me laughing out loud and crying in despair at the same time. That's hilarious in a really tragic way.

 

[DealMonkey]

See? This whole Kerry vs Bush thing and the concept of voting for one because he's not the other is just insane. It's why we need more than 2 viable political parties. Nader is right about that at least. Nader's not electable for the same exact reason Kerry is advancing in the Democratic primary: the lemming effect. No one will vote for a 3rd party because no one else is doing it. What a vicious political circle that is . . . Frankly, I'm sick of being presented choices between a@@hole #1 and buttwad #2.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Bush had the nerve to stand up to the queers. In fact, it's such an important issue that he's going to change the frickin constitution. If that's not a sign of a deserving president I don't know what is.

Vote for Bush

Actually, it's the family unit on which all civilization is based which he's protecting.

Frankly, nobody cares what the hell two consenting adults do in their own homes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. But embracing abberant lifestyles and conduct, especially as it concerns the family unit, is a slippery slope on the way to moral decay. Homosexuality, while itself harmless, is a giant first step down a dangerous path whose destination the short-sighted (or blind) can't see.

Oops, I used the word "moral" again. Go ahead and prove me wrong that liberals oppose any inference of morality.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? This whole Kerry vs Bush thing and the concept of voting for one because he's not the other is just insane. It's why we need more than 2 viable political parties. Nader is right about that at least. Nader's not electable for the same exact reason Kerry is advancing in the Democratic primary: the lemming effect. No one will vote for a 3rd party because no one else is doing it. What a vicious political circle that is . . . Frankly, I'm sick of being presented choices between a@@hole #1 and buttwad #2.

A) Any Democrat vs any Republican
B) Sitting president vs anyone but the sitting president
C) First-rate candidate vs first-rate candidate


Of those 3 choices, how should the president of the USA be elected? It's a little ironic that the one you see the least is the one that you should see the most.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Bush had the nerve to stand up to the queers. In fact, it's such an important issue that he's going to change the frickin constitution. If that's not a sign of a deserving president I don't know what is.

Vote for Bush

heheeh that actually had me laughing

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? This whole Kerry vs Bush thing and the concept of voting for one because he's not the other is just insane. It's why we need more than 2 viable political parties. Nader is right about that at least. Nader's not electable for the same exact reason Kerry is advancing in the Democratic primary: the lemming effect. No one will vote for a 3rd party because no one else is doing it. What a vicious political circle that is . . . Frankly, I'm sick of being presented choices between a@@hole #1 and buttwad #2.

I agree. Nader is really on the mark with his criticisms of today's two leading parties and their mercenaries in D.C. If it were any election but this one, I would probably support him just to help send that message. Not this year, it's too important.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If by "crap" you mean "multi thousand dollar tax return" and by "in a hole of" you mean "getting a", then I agree with you.

In other words, it's all about the greed. He will vote for whoever puts the most money in his pocket today, no matter how badly that candidate is screwing the country or raping his children. He demands immediate gratification, never mind the consequences. He is the reason this country is digging itself deeper into a hole of crap.

Cad, is this one of those examples of Americans who won't accept responsibility for themselves and their actions?

Is Bush really raping your children or are you just an idiot?

I've never seen any other person work as diligently to trash our children's future. While the ultimate fall of the U.S. is inevitable, Bush-lite appears determined to get us there during his administration.

How, exactly is he trashing our children's future?

You're going to love where I'm going with this, you numbskull.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Bush had the nerve to stand up to the queers. In fact, it's such an important issue that he's going to change the frickin constitution. If that's not a sign of a deserving president I don't know what is.

Well here's a flash.... If you think the Constitution will be changed before November, you're a bigger optimist than Ralph Nader. This attempt to hijack State's rights will be dumped back into the state's hands , where it belongs.
It took years to get the ERA passed and we're talking about rights women have "had" for decades.
"Stand up to the queers"..... as if they're trying to do anything to anyone other than themselves.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Gaard
Bush had the nerve to stand up to the queers. In fact, it's such an important issue that he's going to change the frickin constitution. If that's not a sign of a deserving president I don't know what is.

Well here's a flash.... If you think the Constitution will be changed before November, you're a bigger optimist than Ralph Nader. This attempt to hijack State's rights will be dumped back into the state's hands , where it belongs.
It took years to get the ERA passed and we're talking about rights women have "had" for decades.
"Stand up to the queers"..... as if they're trying to do anything to anyone other than themselves.

the ERA didn't pass

 

[Nietzscheusw]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? This whole Kerry vs Bush thing and the concept of voting for one because he's not the other is just insane. It's why we need more than 2 viable political parties. Nader is right about that at least. Nader's not electable for the same exact reason Kerry is advancing in the Democratic primary: the lemming effect. No one will vote for a 3rd party because no one else is doing it. What a vicious political circle that is . . . Frankly, I'm sick of being presented choices between a@@hole #1 and buttwad #2.

I agree. Nader is really on the mark with his criticisms of today's two leading parties and their mercenaries in D.C. If it were any election but this one, I would probably support him just to help send that message. Not this year, it's too important.

Yeah, this year is THE year to replace a corporate puppet with another.

 

[Nitemare]

Lesser of two evils

Bush = homophobic
Kerry = unknown, except for the fact that he hates all the military

I Choose Bush if Kerry wins the nomination, else Edwards

And I have never voted for a democrat for president

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Lesser of two evils

Bush = homophobic
Kerry = unknown, except for the fact that he hates all the military

I Choose Bush if Kerry wins the nomination, else Edwards

And I have never voted for a democrat for president

hey Nitemare, with regards to your first Kerry "unknown" please see the following link:


Kerry Backs Ban on Homosexual marriage in MA

 

[glugglug]

OP = sad but true

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? This whole Kerry vs Bush thing and the concept of voting for one because he's not the other is just insane. It's why we need more than 2 viable political parties. Nader is right about that at least. Nader's not electable for the same exact reason Kerry is advancing in the Democratic primary: the lemming effect. No one will vote for a 3rd party because no one else is doing it. What a vicious political circle that is . . . Frankly, I'm sick of being presented choices between a@@hole #1 and buttwad #2.

I agree. Nader is really on the mark with his criticisms of today's two leading parties and their mercenaries in D.C. If it were any election but this one, I would probably support him just to help send that message. Not this year, it's too important.

I hear you, but every single election year, someone always says, "This is NOT the year to vote for a 3rd party, it's too important!" Can someone please tell me what year it will be OK to vote for someone other than a Republican or Democrat? Please? They both bug the crap out of me, I need a 3rd party solution!

PS: I don't care if my vote doesn't "count" . . .

PPS: Can I write-in "Keith Richards" as my candidate?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See? This whole Kerry vs Bush thing and the concept of voting for one because he's not the other is just insane. It's why we need more than 2 viable political parties. Nader is right about that at least. Nader's not electable for the same exact reason Kerry is advancing in the Democratic primary: the lemming effect. No one will vote for a 3rd party because no one else is doing it. What a vicious political circle that is . . . Frankly, I'm sick of being presented choices between a@@hole #1 and buttwad #2.

I agree. Nader is really on the mark with his criticisms of today's two leading parties and their mercenaries in D.C. If it were any election but this one, I would probably support him just to help send that message. Not this year, it's too important.

I hear you, but every single election year, someone always says, "This is NOT the year to vote for a 3rd party, it's too important!" Can someone please tell me what year it will be OK to vote for someone other than a Republican or Democrat? Please? They both bug the crap out of me, I need a 3rd party solution!

PS: I don't care if my vote doesn't "count" . . .

PPS: Can I write-in "Keith Richards" as my candidate?

1992 seemed like a year that people REALLY wanted a third solution. Too bad Perot went wacky

CkG

 

[Cerb]

Long article for something very simple.
Not the least of which being the complete buffoons voting against bush just to vote against him, regardless of who and what they vote for. So then what they vote for will be as bad, and they'll repeat the process all over again.

 

[Vic]

I will re-iterate and make my earlier post in this thread more clear (which seems to have been ignored).

How is the current Democratic party primary process this year any different than the Republic party primary process that selected GW in 2000?

Seems to me that the lemmings are calling other lemmings lemmings

but then again, I never did meet a neocon who could stop throwing rocks long enough to recognize the he too lived in a glass house...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic
I will re-iterate and make my earlier post in this thread more clear (which seems to have been ignored).

How is the current Democratic party primary process this year any different than the Republic party primary process that selected GW in 2000?

Seems to me that the lemmings are calling other lemmings lemmings

but then again, I never did meet a neocon who could stop throwing rocks long enough to recognize the he too lived in a glass house...

Quite true, Vic. Both Repubs and Dems are lemmings. I guess you could argue that this year, at least dems had some semblance of a choice, whereas Repubs simply have their one guy. "Nobody but Bush!" . . . you can hear the lemmings squeak! (do lemmings squeak?)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
I will re-iterate and make my earlier post in this thread more clear (which seems to have been ignored).

How is the current Democratic party primary process this year any different than the Republic party primary process that selected GW in 2000?

Seems to me that the lemmings are calling other lemmings lemmings

but then again, I never did meet a neocon who could stop throwing rocks long enough to recognize the he too lived in a glass house...

Quite true, Vic. Both Repubs and Dems are lemmings. I guess you could argue that this year, at least dems had some semblance of a choice, whereas Repubs simply have their one guy. "Nobody but Bush!" . . . you can hear the lemmings squeak! (do lemmings squeak?)

Well, there was McCain in 2000. I probably would have voted for him.

 

[DealMonkey]

I meant this year. But, yes McCain was a good alternative to Bush in 2000.