After watching Zell speak, I find myself somewhat appauled at his general demeanor because his comments were very misleading In many respects. Some key striking points of Miller were to attack Kerry's senate voting record and to attack terminology used by John Kerry concerning the Iraq war. Miller went on and on about Kerry using the term occupation force instead of liberation force in reference to the troops in Iraq. He really pounded this point into the ground. It sounded wonderful to me and he had me going. Wait just a minute though: http://www.georgebush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2678 In criticizing Kerry's senate voting record, Miller did indeed give factual info. Kerry has indeed been "for a bill" and "against a bill". In essence this means Kerry has been "for an idea" and "against the same idea". Guess what, so has Dick Cheney. "Dick Cheney???", you may ask? Yes, Dick Cheney has also been for an idea and against the same idea in his voting record. How can people like Cheney and Kerry be both for an idea and also against it?? Do you know why? Surely you do. It is because bills passed through the senate are usually weighted and loaded with clauses and extras that generally supplement the ideals, beliefs, and desires of the political party of the lawmaker(s) that wrote them and sponsor them. Republicans try to push their version of a bill while democrats try to push a version of their own. Could it be that Cheney has supported the republican versions of certain bills and voted for them yet did not support the democrat versions and voted against them? Of course, this is called voting along party lines and according to the ideals of your party. Well the same applies for Kerry. Obviously he is more likely to support the democrat version of bills and less likely to support the republican version. In my opinion, attacking a voting record is very cheap and easy to do. One can only wonder what things would be like if "W" had a senate voting record of his own. Also in the speech, Miller made a point of making Kerry look like someone who supports cuts to military funding and votes against new military technology. One need look no farther than in Bush's own back yard at his vice-president Dick Cheney for a nice comparison. As secretary of defense, Cheney constantly pushed for downsizing the military and cutting back on weapons programs. He proposed reductions in F-16's, B-2 stealth bombers, Apache helicopters, Abrams tanks, and B-52 bombers to name a few. In the early nineties, Cheney proposed reducing thr number of active-duty military personel by some 500,000 over a five year period. There were also a lot of proposed base closings by Cheney. I know/knew some military people and families right here in our own back yard affected by these actions. Sometimes I wish I were no so objective and could truly side with one political party. This campagne is one of the most heated I have ever seen. For a small time after that terrible day in 2001 this country truly was united. That is all in the past now though. The country is very divided and very bitter right now when it comes to political allegiances. I see it here on this forum, I see it in the ads of MoveOn.org and Swiftvets, I see it in the embarassing actions of Michael Moore, and I FEEL it in the rhetoric of Zell Miller.
Just vote for Bush and get over it. You can deal with your small business problems but you can't do a damn thing about keeping terrorists out of our country. Bush is determined to take the fight to them while Kerry wants to concentrate on domestic problems and then deal with the attacks when they come. Put as simply as I can, Bush: We live. Kerry: We die. Bush has armed federal air marshalls in the front seats. Kerry makes sure your tray table is stowed and your seat is in the upright position.
To this point there is still nothing that would sway me to vote Bush instead of Kerry. I have never said anything about small business problems. We will agree to disagree here.
You guys chat way too much........ Miller is a confused independant. Just 2 conventions ago he was speaking on behalf of Democrats. In a couple years he'll be smoking a joe with Ralph Nader.
Yes we will. I am not going to risk having Kerry, with his history of being anti-defense, being in charge of the war on terrorism.
I wish he would not have recanted that statement crawdaddy. The truth is we cannot win, winning would entail saying that there will never be another attack. It is not like WWII where one side concedes defeat. This will be a forever ongoing process. To say that we can win is stupid. We can control it to a very high degree, but there will never be a day when victory is declared.
Exactly how many times have we been attacked on our shores since 9/11/01? I'll tell you. Zero. I wonder why?
This may be what Sabanfan was talking about. http://www.tigerforums.com/showpost.php?p=168991&postcount=4
Maybe you should listen to the entire interview instead of pulling a Michael Moore. "You cannot show weakness in this world"
