This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
I voted for Kerry/Edwards because:
1.) He said troops in Iraq that were rushed to war were sent without the proper armor and he'd do something about it.
2.) He said Bush's cabinet were cronies and not qualified for their positions and someday we'd pay for it.
3.) He said Bush would eventually turn the world against us instead of joining us in the fight against terrorism. (Except Poland.)
Well, all three of those things turned out to be true, even though you all were saying they were just "liberal conspiracy theories."
And the No. 4 reason for me to vote for Kerry was that he wasn't Bush.
Give me the three reasons you voted for Bush and tell me how happy you are with them now.
1.) He said troops in Iraq that were rushed to war were sent without the proper armor and he'd do something about it.
A) Bush sent troops to Iraq because we needed to show a strong stance in the war on terror, and Saddam was an obvious choice. The armor issue is being and has been addressed.
2.) He said Bush's cabinet were cronies and not qualified for their positions and someday we'd pay for it.
B) Kerry also said a lot of things and then changed his mind. Hmmmmm, cronies. Like Ted Kennedy?
3.) He said Bush would eventually turn the world against us instead of joining us in the fight against terrorism. (Except Poland.)
C) Yes, thank you liberal schmucks for talking so much sh*t that no one really knows what's going on. Thank you liberals for showing the world, that even in a time of war, we can't stand united. You sure put a lot of credence into one man. One man, he's turned the whole world against us hmmm.... For an idiot, that Bush sure is powerful.
"For an idiot, that Bush sure is powerful."
-- Jenn, 3.20.06
Possibly the smartest thing you've ever written.
1.) As for the armor, it was addressed in March of last year. 1,687 troops had already died and 10,987 were already injured at that point. But Rummy was saying "it's all good." Jenn, if you don't think the most advanced and sophisticated military in the world should be properly equipped in a time of war, then I feel sorry for you and ask that you go serve.
2.) What about Ted Kennedy? That's your answer for everything and, frankly, it's pretty tired and obvious and doesn't even make sense. At least Ted would be qualified for some positions, unlike Rummy, Brownie, Gonzales, etc... You made a very poor argument there, possibly because you know there's no way of defending that.
3.) There's a huge difference between standing united and sucking the teet of a limping bull. The administration needs to be held accountable for the deadly mishaps in handling how we went to war and what we've done since we've been there. Nobody wants to stand united with criminals, killers and abusers who use God and Christianity as their No. 1 excuse. It'd be a little easier to stand united if there was a cause worth rallying for.
Some of my reasons for voting for Bush in 2004.
1) Bush stood in the rubble of the World Trade centers and promised that the enemy would be hearing from us soon and he has kept his word with consistency and integrity.
2) The way the economy began to bloom again.
3) That he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocal. The Kyoto Protocol is bad for consumers, bad for farmers, and bad for the economy.
4)He believes what he believes and no amount of polling will change that. I don't always agree with his beliefs, but I am happy that he at least has them.
5)Kerry was in no way a valid choice, so I voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry.
6)I liked his Soc. Sec plan...It’s about time to let Americans invest ten percent of their social security in an investment of their choice, isn’t it?
7)I like the accountability that No Child left Behind brought to schools, though they are still whining, because they are being forced to actually work.
Shit, I could go on for hours. Pete old man.
I am so sick of the armor issue. Is what you fail to note is that many deaths are caused by IEDs. Some of these are artillery shells that create such a massive shock, it damages your internal organs regardless of what you are wearing.
This causes internal bleeding or brain damage. Of course there are many injured. How many of those injured are due to IEDs as opposed to small arms.
"Among 105 casualties assessed between June and October, doctors discovered about two-thirds, or 67 percent, to have brain injuries, according to Dr. Laurie Ryan, another neuropsychologist and the assistant director for research...
The cause for the dramatic increase seems to be the changed nature of warfare in Iraq. The terrorists' weapons of choice are high explosives. Land mines, rocket propelled grenades and improvised bombs allow terrorists to skirt direct engagement with better trained and equipped soldiers, and can still inflict damage to soldiers whose torso, or in military jargon their "center mass", is protected against small arms ballistics.
"There's not as many gunshot wounds," French bluntly noted.
Ironically, a well-protected body has forced the enemy to attack the brain, the only organ still vulnerable to deadly attack."
-Army News Service
Nice detective work. The U.S. Army News Service? C'mon, man.
Read this:
http://msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1
Thanks to the cooperation of the Army Materiel Command and the Headquarters, Department of the Army G8 (Resource Management), the Army took action to equip every member of CJTF-7 by the end of January 2004. Industry led the effort to increase production in the US industrial base to speed delivery of more than 100,000 sets of IBA to forces in combat in less than five months. In the 18 months from January 2003 to July 2004, the Army purchased about 300,000 full sets of IBA.
O.k.
And we had the majority of our forces on the ground there in December 2002?
Well, a few extra hundred dead soldiers and a few thousand more injured because we weren't ready on time is no big deal, right?
Who's counting anyways?
I'll tell you why you are wrong in your logic; you expect everyone to be as smart as you are or to think the way you do. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way but that's the beauty of democracy.
Death in war happens. I could go back and say, we should have had all the vests available, but someone, who was president for 8 years cut the crap out of military spending and this is what we were left with.
2300 dead, after 3 years at war in two countries. All in all, that is not a high number. That any have died breaks my heart, but so few, in comparison to past wars. Shows that they are at least doing some things right when it comes to protection.
Now..... how this became a bitch fest over body armor is a mystery, as the post was about voting, and in particular, the 50th congressional district.
I think my original point was that I voted for Kerry because he was pointing out how mismanaged this war was during the election. And at that time, the Bush Administration still had everyone believing things were going swimmingly and anyone who said different was considered a liberal conspiracy theorist, much like on this blog.
Now, just two years later, so much information has come out about all of the atrocities, abuse, civilian killings, white phospherous, Downing Street Memo, etc... and only 33 percent agree we need to be there.
Maybe had this administration been held accountable from Day One instead of everyone believing all the grand standing and chest-thumping under false pretenses, maybe then we'd have the respect of the rest of the world and things would be under control there.
Face it; it's a mess and we handled it all wrong. The sooner the administration accepts that and takes responsibility for it and fixes things, the quicker we can move on.
Nice going, Pete. Jenn has nothing but weak answers left.
But right-wingers like her will NEVER accept facts or reality. Never have, never will.
That's what being a Bush cult member means.
Blue, since you obviously have not ever read my blog, I clearly outlined my grievences with the Bush administration here:
http://takeastandagainstliberals...-
president.html
You are too stupid to waste my time with.
As for Pete,"atrocities, abuse, civilian killings, white phospherous, Downing Street Memo".
I've done extensive research into each of the matters here and give them no credence.
Abuse, yeah, by a few bad apples. I see, and personally hear from viable sources, many more positives than your liberal media will ever feed you. And they far outweigh the crap of which you speak.
Civilian killings... sure that's bound to happen in any war, though we've done a lot as a nation to keep this to a minimum, the ones killing civilians are their own, home grown crazies.
I've also done a lot of research into the claims that Falluja was rained on by white phosphorous...again, the clear scientific evidence points to this being a fallacy.
But you will find numerous left wing moonbat websites to back it up, all full of hate and lying rehtoric.
I get the distinct feeling that you, Pete are one of those that thinks that 9/11 was planned by the illuminati?
I also notice that both Pete and his friend Blue both do not post their blog information, or their e-mail. Interesting.
There you go accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist again. Nice one. You're really on top of things, Jenn. Oh, and quite unpredictable, as well. Really.
In reading back at some of your "thoughts," it doesn't surprise me one bit to see that you condone the civilian beatings as well as the killings. Hey, why not? But, hey, they're kept to a minimum, so it's okay. Even though we killed nine women and children last week to arrest one suspected terrorist, that's cool.
Yeah, the abuse is a few bad apples, beginning with the Vice President, who condones it, and Rummy, who enforces it, and the President, who stands by and lets it happen. C'mon, Jenn. I know you're challenged, but you'd have to be a total retard to believe it's a "few bad apples" torturing prisoners. There's been open debates on this particular subject. Jeesh. That just makes me sad that people like you will go so far to support these criminals. Talk about a "nutter." Or maybe you just have no soul at this point.
What you choose to believe is your right, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
I'm happy that "my liberal media" allowed all of this to happen in the first place. Get real, O'Reilly. If the media had been doing its job of holding the White House accountable from the beginning, all of Bush's (Rove's)lies and big, fluffy, happy, smiling bunny rabbit reports would never have had all of us fooled in the first place.
But, hey, "Mission Accomplished." For real, it's accomplished. We did it. We won. No more major combat. Didn't you see the big banner on that sunny, Aircraft Carrier day? Mmmm, I love the smell of horseshit on a day like that.
It hurts me, deeply, that people aren't rioting in our streets over this bullshit. When in fact it's people like you, Jenn, who choose to accept it and take a hardline stance against what's actually right and morally legit just because you were sold on fear and feel like you're part of a winning team.
Keep it up, Jenn! Please, the "Thirty-Percenters" need you in times like these. Keep spreading that shit on thick, so your readers can soak it up and feel good in 2006.
And, while I'm at it, you Democrat leaders keep being pussies and keep standing by while we fall apart. After all, there's an election coming up, and you don't want to actually do anything relevant.
Hey, Jenn, I don't have a Goddamn blog, okay?
Am I missing something? I can't peruse or post on a public blog unless I have one of my own? If that's the case and I'm not welcome in your fucked-up right wing world of lies and fluff, then just let me know.
Oh, and if you want to e-mail me, it's bajo23@yahoo.com. Sorry I missed the nerd queue.
No, really, it's kept to a minimum, so it's okay.
The Gist:
Military Investigating Deadly Raid in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shortly after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine in a western Iraqi town, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old-girl, residents say. The military is investigating possible misconduct by the Marines and confirms there is a video, which Time Magazine says shows the aftermath of the Marines' assault.
Complete Story:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq
"And I'm proud to be an American! Where at least I know I'm free."
Oh, one more: (Besides, we gotta show'em who's boss around there, right?)
Iraqi police report details civilians' deaths at hands of U.S. troops
By Matthew Schofield / Knight Ridder
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi police have accused American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.
The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to a police document obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers. The soldiers also burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew up the house, the document said.
A U.S. military spokesman, Major Tim Keefe, said that the U.S. military has no information to support the allegations and that he had not heard of them before a reporter brought them to his attention Sunday.
"We're concerned to hear accusations like that, but it's also highly unlikely that they're true," he said. He added that U.S. forces "take every precaution to keep civilians out of harms' way. The loss of innocent life, especially children, is regrettable."
Accusations that U.S. troops have killed civilians are commonplace in Iraq, though most are judged later to be unfounded or exaggerated. Navy investigators announced last week that they were looking into whether Marines intentionally killed 15 Iraqi civilians - four of them women and five of them children - during fighting last November.
But the report of the killings in the Abu Sifa area of Ishaqi, eight miles north of the city of Balad, is unusual because it originated with Iraqi police and because Iraqi police were willing to attach their names to it.
The report, which also contained brief descriptions of other events in the area, was compiled by the Joint Coordination Center in Tikrit, a regional security center set up with United States military assistance. An Iraqi police colonel signed the report, which was based on communications from local police.
Brig. Gen. Issa al-Juboori, who heads the center, said that his office assembled the report on Thursday and that it accurately reflects the direction of the current police investigation into the incident.
He also said he knows the officer heading the investigation. "He's a dedicated policeman, and a good cop," he said when reached by phone in Tikrit from Baghdad. "I trust him."
The case involves a U.S. raid conducted, according to the official U.S. account, in response to a tip that a member of al-Qaida in Iraq was at the house.
Neighbors, interviewed by a special correspondent for Knight Ridder, agreed that the al-Qaida member was at the house. They said he was visiting the home's owner, a relative. The neighbors said the homeowner was a schoolteacher.
According to police, military and eyewitness accounts, U.S. forces approached the house at around 2:30 a.m. and a firefight ensued. By all accounts, in addition
Horrible if true, but did you actually read all of it?
"Accusations that U.S. troops have killed civilians are commonplace in Iraq, though most are judged later to be unfounded or exaggerated."
Oh, and....
"Neighbors, interviewed by a special correspondent for Knight Ridder, agreed that the al-Qaida member was at the house."
Jesus. Did you see the fucking police report.
Of course they're later found to be unfounded or exaggerated.
I'm glad you're not an editor in the newspaper business. It'd be even more moderated.
There comes a time, Jenn, when you just have to call it like it is.
Oh, the best part was executing the 6-month-old baby, right? I know. Totally cool.
I'm sure they were armed and trying to kill the troops just like those teenage boys the British troops beat down last month.
I know what you're thinking, Jenn.
Boy, you sure like using my name huh?
Read what I wrote you hypersensitive liberal tool. "Horrible if true". And it is.And those men should pay. Period.
I apologize Jenn, I think it might have been me that took this thread off on a tangent.
What I love is how much all the liberals love to dig up every single shot fired and how the "US killed people." Then what happens when we have a massive joint operation with the Iraqi troops, but the first night there was not a single shot fired?
Solely on that basis the operation was declared a failure. We didn't shoot anyone so it was a failure.
What in the world? It just makes your head spin.
The whole body armor thing is so over blown. If they put any more armor on them, they won't be able to move. Most don't wear all that's issued because of that.
Second, You liberals that never served are clueless. No one is going to order troops to kill innocents. If it happened, it was most likely an isolated icident and the soldiers responsible for it better have some damn good answers. IF it happened.
Third. White Phosphurous is not considered by anyone but the moonbat left to be a chemical weapon. It is used by just about every army and airforce on eath. Breathing the smoke is not overly hazardous. It's often used for smokescreens. It has no magical qualities. what ever ut touches on a human, it will burn clothing as well as skin. The smoke does not burn you, only the burning phosphorus. It is an incindiary device, not a chemical weapon. It will kill, but High Explosives or HE is much more effective. There is a chemical reaction, but it's the same one as burning a piece of paper. It's called "rapid oxidation".
WP is used in planes all the time as flares to deflect heat seeking misiles.
If you still aren't convinced, go ask a damn science teacher.
VW
I'm not going to try and keep track of what pete and whoever said this but about the abuse and child executions and such:
War is inevitable: in every civilization, era, empire, whatever. Death is also inevitable. Sad, but nonetheless inevitable. As far as t he child execution or whatever, the military is a machine. But a machine that is built with hundeds of thousands of different parts. Not every part of that machine is going to be a gentle giant. Some more than others, have no mercy on any enemy, whether it be a civilian of a enemy nation or a soldier or a terrorist. Think about it. There are millions of people who are murders, rapists, theives, etc in this nation alone. Do you think every soldier is going to be a fucking angel?
I think not. Grow up. More people have died on I95 alone in 2005 than in Iraq in 2005.
By the way, don't try and tell Jenn that she has a weak point. She supports any of her opinions with hard information to back it.
And who ever said they didn't post their email because they didn't want to fall in the nerd queue or whatever... fuck you, hypocrite. You reply to these posts and genuinely get pissed off at some of what people say.
Oh I forgot..
Ted Kennedy.
Please don't apologize MD, you are very on the point, always.
People like Pete will take the one or two obscure stories, which are themselves unproven, and cling to them like a child clings to their momma's hand. All in the name of the anti-war movement.
The thing people like Pete fail to realize is that people like me aren't Pro-War, we're Pro-Victory. No one in their right mind thinks to themselves..."Hmmmm, today is a good day to go kill or be killed." Not unless they have to.
The one story he quotes with the 6 month old baby, is as of this point completely conjecture, and because I choose to wait until it is proven fact, I am deemed a retard.
I would use the word cautious and concerned about the well being of the soldiers in combat that were not involved in the alleged incident.
I choose to be informed, not jump to conclusions, and often, for this very trait am accused of being a Kool-Aid drinking, Bushbot Neo-Con. Fine, if being well informed and knowledgeable is being a neo-con, then count me in. If not jumping to conclusions, and ranting like a petulant child makes me a Kool-Aid drinking sheep, then so be it.
Moonbats. Gotta love 'em, who else provides such easy entertainment.
Oh, yeah....
Ted Kennedy.
This blog is all the entertainment I need.
You say you're well-informed and knowledgeable, I say you should get some better sources.
I realize now that we're in this "war" and have totally fucked everything up even worse over there, we do need to finish it. I'm not a moonbat, crazy liberal conspiracy theorist like you all are jumping to paint me just because I'm informed and mature enough to admit we went about fighting terrorism in a completely fucked up and redneck way.
I could say this type is black, and you'd tell me it was red and that only liberal conspiracy theorists would think it's black. It doesn't change the fact.
It's my fault for trying to talk to you Bush-Bots to begin with. I apologize.
Pete, Please read the mission staement found at the top of my blog. I believe it sums up my opinion on you, and liberals alike.
In fact Pete....
I could say this type is black, and you'd tell me it was red and that only neo-con Bush Bots would think it's black. It doesn't change the fact.
Me trying to talk some sense into people who are still backing Bush and agree wholeheartedly on how we're handling this war is useless at this point anyways. I mean, even the majority of your republican leaders are in disagreement and acknowledge we were indeed mislead into war and went about it totally wrong and need to get our shit together. (Yes, we know, they all voted for it. But lies were the evidence they were faced with).
So, if you're still not on that train, there's nothing I can write to make you see the facts and, quite frankly, the light of day.
Mission Accomplished. Wooo! Yeah! Yee-haw!
Once again, for Pete the oblivious.
http://takeastandagainstliberals...-
president.html
YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT DO YOU?
"Yes, we know, they all voted for it. But lies were the evidence they were faced with."
There is a huge difference between lies and bad intelligence. Huge. Had Bush, Powell etc, stood there and said a bunch of lies, then that would be an issue. They didn't and it's not.
But, the recent videos, and material show that the fundemental reasons for going in were valid.
Besides, your type always harps on about how horrible it is in the Sudan and elsewhere. Was it not just as bad in Iraq where he gassed Kurds, killed entire villages, and paid Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each to kill innocent civilians?
At least you're half-right.
That post just opened up a whole new can of worms, but I'm tired of this argument with you. However, I do feel sorry for your husband, who has probably given up trying to fight with you altogether. (And yes, I know he's from England.)
Actually we don't argue. And we don't talk politics. Thank you very much.
Thanks for making my point exactly.
I guess misrepresenting the facts can be misconstrued for lying, but shouldn't be.
“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” said Houston Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.
"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.
Wood reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.
“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,” says Wood.
The New York Times reported that senior administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom-bomb program.
“Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination, their evaluation, and now we didn’t know what was happening,” says Wood.
In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.
“There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium,” said Powell.
“Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there,” says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.” Why would the secretary take the information that Thielmann’s intelligence bureau had developed and turn it on its head?
“I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force,” says Thielmann.
That was a case the president himself was making only eight days before Secretary Powell's speech. In his State of the Union address, the president said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear-weapons production.”
After the war, the White House said the African uranium claim was false and shouldn’t have been in the president's address. But at the time, it was part of a campaign that painted the intelligence as irrefutable.
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,” said Vice Pre
(Continued) said Vice President Dick Cheney.
THE KICKER:
Powell said: “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Jenn, at least, for the love of God, admit that Bush had his mind made up and was willing to tell whatever lie was possible to the UN and the American people to get us into Iraq. Please, at least admit that. It is now fact. Despite what you said in the last post about recent videos or whatever showing the fundamental reasons for going to be true.
Don't be this naive, it just shows your stupidity.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
*A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
*A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
*Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
*Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...s/1553477/
posts
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.Why? What were they hiding?
"Jenn, at least, for the love of God, admit that Bush had his mind made up and was willing to tell whatever lie was possible to the UN and the American people to get us into Iraq."
Yes, he had his mind made up. And no, he didn't lie. Please familiarize yourself with the actual definition of the word lie, before using it to slander the President of the United States. Like him or not.
If Saddam wasn't a threat, and Bush "lied", then why?"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it." Pre War.SOTU 2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide." SOTU 2003.
Why not explain? What was he hiding???????
Well, first on my list would have been:
1) Kerry doesn't propose idiotic restrictions on who can exercise a constitutional right to vote.
'nuff said
Cute Kevin, Guess you've never heard of Tounge in Cheek.
Jenn you finally got to Pete and the typical happened:
"At least you're half-right."
- A small compliment.
"That post just opened up a whole new can of worms, but I'm tired of this argument with you."
- The realization he will not win, because he is arguing from the losing viewpoint.
"I do feel sorry for your husband, who has probably given up trying to fight with you altogether."
- And the cherry on top. A personal attack!
When the talking points fail, pull the ejection, and resort to the 3 step liberal retreat.
Here in sKerry-ville, Massachusetts the ultra leftist city of Cambridge, (AKA the people’s republic of Cambridge) is currently debating whether or not “undocumented” immigrants should be allowed to vote. So not only do illegal immigrants, who’s first act on American soil is a crime, not have to speak English, they may be given the right to vote. Is it too much to ask that a given person become a citizen of The United States before they get to determine who its leaders should be?
No Jaz, no, it is not too much to ask.
America seems so hell bent on it's path to P.C. oblivion, that they'll let anyone vote.
What fascinates me is that you never see any other country do what we do. I read this morning about how WE are paying to put smog cleaners on trucks from Mexico that come into this country. WTF!!!!!!!!!! We should be requiring the Mexican government to do it, or they can't come in. PERIOD.
Please tell me that "I only voted once" sign is a joke... People can't really be that stupid. (Actually they probably can.)
Well, they don't give you a "none of the above" options, so what does one do, if one can not find 3 things they like about any of the candidates, not vote at all?
It truly does not matter who one votes for when elections are rigged anyway, so blather away. No offense to you, tired of lack of freedom in the land of democracy.
does the word voting does not work means anything?
to pete
Kerry is a part of the satanic skull and bones and no matter who you vote for you lose. Try to read about the "Rockefellers" they are one of the most powerful people in the world. They own us Pete?
Do I need to say more?
Commenting by HaloScan
