Why hasn't Kerry's many years in the Senate been touted, as much as his Viet-nam service?
Well, Bush said he respected Kerry for his many years of service in the Senate :)-->
quote: He has demonstrated a huge willingness to allocate all judicial matters to the "international community", effectively leaving us (U.S.) out of the picture, and thus allowing other countries to decide our "fate".
I have to agree with you there, dmil; that is my one big concern about Kerry. It is minimized by the fact that although Bush talks about not allocating judicial matters to the international community, the practice of his party under his leadership hasn't been a whole lot different.
quote: The fact that he was in Viet-Nam is a given. The fact that he (as a United States Senator), has voted so consistantly against all that we hold to be "our rights", has me wondering how he lasted for so long.
Wonder no longer
"Introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on June 9 was S. 2514, The Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative Act, allowing for “the transfer of funds for foreign countries to participate in international peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations.”
Both parties are party to our dissolution into one world government.
I am completely amazed that more of you (any of you??) are not as disgusted as I am at the entire debate mirage. THATwas NOT a debate. That was a perfectly timed, perfectly choreographed, perfectly disgusting simultaneous press conference.
How do we prevent this travesty from ever happening again? That debate was paid for by the American tax paying public, but the two parties made up all the rules without consulting us. THEY had 32 pages of rules and agreements designed to make themselves look good, play to their individual bases, and minimize their individual shortsuits.
This morning on the Sunday morning circuit, it was brought up (on more than one channel) that the second debate is in jeopardy because the Bush camp wants "soft Bush, and soft Kerry" audience and questions, not a truly open town hall audience. It was Bush that brought it up, BUT, it could have just as easily been Kerry.
I am getting sick of all of this. I want to see BOTH candidates, in t-shirts, jeans and sneakers, with NO MAKE UP, on a stage of OUR CHOICE, in front of an audience of OUR choice, with lecturns of OUR choice, with lights of OUR choice, with pens, pencils and pads of OUR choice, bottled water of OUR choice, with camera angles of OUR choice, answering QUESTIONS OF OUR CHOICE.
THEY BOTH are acting a little too big for their britches and it is time THEY BOTH realize that they serve at the convenience of the American Public. We the American voting public are at voting blind when we are voting on a "STAGE PLAY." Have any of you ever read either the "Making" or the "Selling" of the president? Hasn't changed since the 70s....damn them all. We deserve whatever we get.
Radar
(It is okay with me if any of you ask me if I am pms-ing, or posting in the light of my being a female "
I find that your assertion that Kerry has done an excellent job in robbing the country of what it stands for is without merit and falls flat on it's face.
Fair enough. :)--> When I said that, I was referring to his record as a Senator, and NOT as a serviceman overseas. He no doubt faced daily threats to his life in the war. He saved some lives, he ended other lives, he was wounded, he helped the wounded, and perhaps had to help identify the remains of a comrade as well.
The reason I said "hero -- (tongue in cheek)" is simply because there are those who were there, who now cast doubt on his record of service, since he is making it such a big deal. While I can not endorse their statements as 100% accurate either, it boils down to what one person, versus another person says.
What I was asking, on this thread is simply, why aren't his current activities as a Senator being brought up (in this campaign), instead of what he did back in Viet-Nam? His accomplishments 30 plus years ago, have less relevance to what is going on now, than to what he has done while in the Senate.
Senator Kerry has recently missed many votes, on key issues, yet takes the time to come back to Washington to vote for abortion and against gun rights. If I am wrong about this, I stand corrected, yet I have heard that this is so. His voting record (for some strange reason) is not being brought up as "proof positive" that he is a fit candidate for President.
With 20 years of senatorial experience, why would he not capitalize on at least one of his accomplishments to show the folks in the greater US how he can work for them properly, and productively? My guess is -- he has nothing to show for all those years he warmed that chair.
That is what I was questioning, not his patriotism.
Dan..I missed it...what did they do? Drink water? Have his foot stompin' cause he hadda pee so bad? ROFLMAO
Don't know who the two actors were, but the one who depicted Kerry did a lot of flip-flopping ( "I'm not flip-flopping - I'm pandering!") while the one who played Bush just whined repeatedly throughout the debate, "It's...so...haaard...."
quote: I am getting sick of all of this. I want to see BOTH candidates, in t-shirts, jeans and sneakers, with NO MAKE UP, on a stage of OUR CHOICE, in front of an audience of OUR choice, with lecturns of OUR choice, with lights of OUR choice, with pens, pencils and pads of OUR choice, bottled water of OUR choice, with camera angles of OUR choice, answering QUESTIONS OF OUR CHOICE.
Right on Radar!!! :D--> :D--> :D-->
(do ya think they could take notes with crayons?) ;)-->
I wanna see the piece of paper Kerry kept scribbling on after every 30 seconds....had to have changed papers once, but I think, personally, that he was doing nothing BUT scribbling like my youngest... I wanna see the paper!!!!
"Introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on June 9 was S. 2514, The Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative Act, allowing for “the transfer of funds for foreign countries to participate in international peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations.”
Both parties are party to our dissolution into one world government.
Yep, I hear that. :(--> Have heard it said (and believe it), that the Democrats are taking us to a one world government at 120 mph, while the Republicans are doing the same, at 80 mph. -->
I won't take up too much of your time quoting stuff that others have reasearched and put on the web - but I'll give you the links for those who want to put the time in.
2life -- yes it is. I especially like what they have to say about their outfit, at the bottom of the page.
quote: Descriptions of the votes are written by PVS staff and based on information included in the Congressional Record, with additional background information from newspapers, magazines, etc.
Key votes selected by PVS staff go through an approval process before web site posting, with five political scientists of opposing viewpoints reviewing both the selection and the content. This is to ensure clarity, relevance, nonpartisanship and accuracy. After the approval process is completed, the votes are ready to go into the database and subsequently on-line.
No "hot heads" there! Just honest reporting. ;)-->
Thank you for keeping the discussion alive on the examination of Senator Kerry's voting record and doing so in a civilized manner.
You asserted that Senator Kerry has consistently voted for abortion and against gun rights. Let's take a look at his votes and positions.
Senator Kerry has been consistent in his support of a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. This is an area personal beliefs. I must say that on this issue I may differ from Senator Kerry because I think the time for choice is before she gets pregnant.
However, in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, abortion clearly should be available.
In regards to gun rights, when one looks at his voting record. He has been consistent opponent of the NRA whose constituency is really gun manufacturer's and retailers and not gunowners. If you are thinking of challenging this assertion, let's look at the evidence. In 2004 he voted against legislation that would have prevented anyone (like someone who had a loved one killed by a firearm sold and used by a felon, or mentally ill person) from suing the negligence of a gunseller who sells a gun to someone who he shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Who was the beneficiary of this legislation? The private gunowner? Clearly, this legislation was intended to protect the NRA's real constituency, gun retailers.
Senator Kerry also voted against banning lawsuits that resulted from the violations of state and federal law referring to the sale and marketing of firearms where the violation itself was found to be a probable cause in causing harm. Again, who was this legislation designed to help? Wasn't it the firearms industry and not an individuals right to bear arms.
Senator Kerry voted to protect gunowners when he voted to once again to protect their right to sue the gun industry for defects in workmanship in a firearm or ammunition (such as when an explosion from a firearm wipes off your face) and for breach of contracts. Are you starting to see a pattern. Every other industry is responsible for the safety of the products that they market, why shouldn't the gun industry.
Now let's consider some other significant areas that the Senator has taken a stand. He voted in favor of legislation that calls for the President to take measures to implement measures to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Hmmm, what has Bush done in regard with this authorization? Let's see connections with the oil industry, Cheney, Haliburton, the Saudi Royals, Iraq intervention, Oil prices exceeding $50 a barrel for the first time. Makes one wonder who are Bush's real constituency, doesn't it? Kerry also voted for the development of energy efficient hydrogen fuel cell cars. Apparently, Senator Kerry is smart enough to realize our addiction to foreign oil will continue to be supported by the blood of our children.
It hardly seems that Senator Kerry has just been sitting around sitting on his hands these past twenty years does it?
I really think Kerry did a great job in the debate. Most of my life, I’ve been in favor of the Dems. I really appreciate the fact that Kerry had the guts to go to Viet Nam, and not hide behind his daddy’s money or congressional title. If you know how politics work, you know that a congressman has great power over a National Guard unit. Hiding behind money is something I hate, Bush or O.J., it's the same to me.
As far as changing one's opinion on something once you've gained more data, all of us that left the WAY would be flip-floppers according to the Bush administration. Apply that to Viet Nam, Iraq, or anyother issue. If you gain valuable information on a subject and change your mind due to new data, isn't that being logical?
My first Republican vote was for Mayor G. in New York. My father would sh** if he were alive.
Winning a debate might prove you’re a great debater, however, that is not the measure I will use to decide how to cast my next vote. Right now, the Bush team in general is hard to beat. I don’t like Rumsfield. Big bag of hot air as far as I’m concern, even though he did help people out of the Pentagon when the plane hit (hero status deserved for that).
Several text books (go to McGraw-Hill, student web site to confirm) for college level economics point out that Bush’s tax break was exactly the right thing to do to save the economy, and that it was planned before he won the election. He is credited with having one of the best economic advisory teams around. Don’t know anything about Kerry’s economic advisors.
Sec. Powell is a great head of the State Department. Don’t know anything about Kerry’s plans for Sec. Of State?
In general, the Bush TEAM has PAST PERFORMANCE. Don’t know anything about Kerry’s TEAM’s past performance.
Won’t be surprised if Bin Laden is captured in the next few weeks. That would be a very big factor in how people vote…
I think Kerry won the debate, based on being sharp in speech, quick with answers, and other points, but that and a $1.25 will get you a small cup of coffee.
Despite the massive character flaws I see in Bush, right now I'm leaning heavily in his direction due to the team he brings to the table.
Oenophile -- great post. You're giving me some stuff to think about, and I will. One thing you said, immediately caught my eye, and that was:
quote: Every other industry is responsible for the safety of the products that they market, why shouldn't the gun industry.
Postulation for you here --- who is guilty? -->
Man goes into a liquor store, buys a case of Budweiser beer, has a few in the parking lot, and drives off in his F-150 Ford pick-up, consuming beer as he goes. He has to travel a ways to get to his house, so he is pretty well "lubricated" by the time he is half way there.
Because of his condition (drunk), he doesn't see a stop sign at an intersection, runs it, and strikes an innocent person trying to cross the street.
Who is guilty??????
Budweiser -- for brewing the beer?
The liquor store -- for selling it?
Ford -- for making the vehicle?
The guilty party is the one who chose to use products in an unlawful manner --- NOT the folks who produced, or sold those products.
Accountability is something that all companies should strive for, yet once their "product" (whatever it may be), leaves their factory -- they are blameless for how it is used.
How do we prevent this travesty from ever happening again? That debate was paid for by the American tax paying public, but the two parties made up all the rules without consulting us. THEY had 32 pages of rules and agreements designed to make themselves look good, play to their individual bases, and minimize their individual shortsuits.
That's why I want to get the election over with, and then look into what I can do for media reform. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the media are a bunch of greedy @$$holes, who only care about getting more advertising dollars. There are decent reporters out there, but they're all watered down once the editors and such get through with them. There's also some blame with the public, since we are the ones who prefer tabloid media like Fox News over the truth.
So, I hope Kerry wins. It's not that I expect him to fix everything that Bush has screwed up because that's not realistic. I just think he will tread water or whatever to not make things a lot worse and not divide the nation as much. On the other hand, a Bush win would make it a lot easier to cause reform because people would get fed up. However, I don't think that the deaths of more innocent people or a draft would be worth a Bush victory.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
9
15
Popular Days
Oct 3
43
Oct 1
24
Oct 2
13
Oct 4
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
waterbuffalo 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 9 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Oct 3 2004
43 posts
Oct 1 2004
24 posts
Oct 2 2004
13 posts
Oct 4 2004
13 posts
Raf
Overall, the dialogue on this board is some of the best I've seen in a long time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Please don't tell me I was the only one who caught the opening to "Saturday Night Live" last night?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"So Kerry had alot of spirits helping him talk. BIG DEAL"
Gawd, I love a well-reasoned debate.
(BTW, it's l-i-A-r. You're welcome)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Invisible one,
I caught it. I dunno, didn't do a whole lot for me.
I still don't think SNL has been funny since Belushi died. They try really hard, they just don't have any talent (kinda like a certain president?)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
Dan..I missed it...what did they do? Drink water? Have his foot stompin' cause he hadda pee so bad? ROFLMAO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
Seems like you can get the people outta the way...but, you can't get the way outta the people. shame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Well, Bush said he respected Kerry for his many years of service in the Senate
:)-->
I have to agree with you there, dmil; that is my one big concern about Kerry. It is minimized by the fact that although Bush talks about not allocating judicial matters to the international community, the practice of his party under his leadership hasn't been a whole lot different.
Wonder no longer
"Introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on June 9 was S. 2514, The Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative Act, allowing for “the transfer of funds for foreign countries to participate in international peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations.”
Both parties are party to our dissolution into one world government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
I am completely amazed that more of you (any of you??) are not as disgusted as I am at the entire debate mirage. THATwas NOT a debate. That was a perfectly timed, perfectly choreographed, perfectly disgusting simultaneous press conference.
How do we prevent this travesty from ever happening again? That debate was paid for by the American tax paying public, but the two parties made up all the rules without consulting us. THEY had 32 pages of rules and agreements designed to make themselves look good, play to their individual bases, and minimize their individual shortsuits.
This morning on the Sunday morning circuit, it was brought up (on more than one channel) that the second debate is in jeopardy because the Bush camp wants "soft Bush, and soft Kerry" audience and questions, not a truly open town hall audience. It was Bush that brought it up, BUT, it could have just as easily been Kerry.
I am getting sick of all of this. I want to see BOTH candidates, in t-shirts, jeans and sneakers, with NO MAKE UP, on a stage of OUR CHOICE, in front of an audience of OUR choice, with lecturns of OUR choice, with lights of OUR choice, with pens, pencils and pads of OUR choice, bottled water of OUR choice, with camera angles of OUR choice, answering QUESTIONS OF OUR CHOICE.
THEY BOTH are acting a little too big for their britches and it is time THEY BOTH realize that they serve at the convenience of the American Public. We the American voting public are at voting blind when we are voting on a "STAGE PLAY." Have any of you ever read either the "Making" or the "Selling" of the president? Hasn't changed since the 70s....damn them all. We deserve whatever we get.
Radar
(It is okay with me if any of you ask me if I am pms-ing, or posting in the light of my being a female
"
You woulda hadda been there
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Well said Radar!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Indeed, Radar, the two party system is a myth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Fair enough.
:)--> When I said that, I was referring to his record as a Senator, and NOT as a serviceman overseas. He no doubt faced daily threats to his life in the war. He saved some lives, he ended other lives, he was wounded, he helped the wounded, and perhaps had to help identify the remains of a comrade as well.
The reason I said "hero -- (tongue in cheek)" is simply because there are those who were there, who now cast doubt on his record of service, since he is making it such a big deal. While I can not endorse their statements as 100% accurate either, it boils down to what one person, versus another person says.
What I was asking, on this thread is simply, why aren't his current activities as a Senator being brought up (in this campaign), instead of what he did back in Viet-Nam? His accomplishments 30 plus years ago, have less relevance to what is going on now, than to what he has done while in the Senate.
Senator Kerry has recently missed many votes, on key issues, yet takes the time to come back to Washington to vote for abortion and against gun rights. If I am wrong about this, I stand corrected, yet I have heard that this is so. His voting record (for some strange reason) is not being brought up as "proof positive" that he is a fit candidate for President.
With 20 years of senatorial experience, why would he not capitalize on at least one of his accomplishments to show the folks in the greater US how he can work for them properly, and productively? My guess is -- he has nothing to show for all those years he warmed that chair.
That is what I was questioning, not his patriotism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Don't know who the two actors were, but the one who depicted Kerry did a lot of flip-flopping ( "I'm not flip-flopping - I'm pandering!") while the one who played Bush just whined repeatedly throughout the debate, "It's...so...haaard...."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Right on Radar!!!
:D--> 
:D--> 
:D-->
(do ya think they could take notes with crayons?)
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
I wanna see the piece of paper Kerry kept scribbling on after every 30 seconds....had to have changed papers once, but I think, personally, that he was doing nothing BUT scribbling like my youngest... I wanna see the paper!!!!
WashN'wear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yep, I hear that.
:(--> Have heard it said (and believe it), that the Democrats are taking us to a one world government at 120 mph, while the Republicans are doing the same, at 80 mph. 
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
I won't take up too much of your time quoting stuff that others have reasearched and put on the web - but I'll give you the links for those who want to put the time in.
If you want to see flip-flops detailed Click Here
If you want to see what the man has been up to in the senate Click Here
It's a bit long - but isn't it worth the time to read to help elect the man who will secure America's leadership and security in the next 4 years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I took a look at it. Interesting.
The VOTING RECORD, from Kerry's years is also long, but worth perusal -- for all the same reasons.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2life
3cents-------- thanks!! The second article could almost be a movie!! and about those 'flip-flops"!!...........
dmiller--------- this site just takes a little longr to figure out-- but worth the time I am sure!
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
2life -- yes it is. I especially like what they have to say about their outfit, at the bottom of the page.
No "hot heads" there! Just honest reporting.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
dmiller,
Thank you for keeping the discussion alive on the examination of Senator Kerry's voting record and doing so in a civilized manner.
You asserted that Senator Kerry has consistently voted for abortion and against gun rights. Let's take a look at his votes and positions.
Senator Kerry has been consistent in his support of a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. This is an area personal beliefs. I must say that on this issue I may differ from Senator Kerry because I think the time for choice is before she gets pregnant.
However, in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, abortion clearly should be available.
In regards to gun rights, when one looks at his voting record. He has been consistent opponent of the NRA whose constituency is really gun manufacturer's and retailers and not gunowners. If you are thinking of challenging this assertion, let's look at the evidence. In 2004 he voted against legislation that would have prevented anyone (like someone who had a loved one killed by a firearm sold and used by a felon, or mentally ill person) from suing the negligence of a gunseller who sells a gun to someone who he shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Who was the beneficiary of this legislation? The private gunowner? Clearly, this legislation was intended to protect the NRA's real constituency, gun retailers.
Senator Kerry also voted against banning lawsuits that resulted from the violations of state and federal law referring to the sale and marketing of firearms where the violation itself was found to be a probable cause in causing harm. Again, who was this legislation designed to help? Wasn't it the firearms industry and not an individuals right to bear arms.
Senator Kerry voted to protect gunowners when he voted to once again to protect their right to sue the gun industry for defects in workmanship in a firearm or ammunition (such as when an explosion from a firearm wipes off your face) and for breach of contracts. Are you starting to see a pattern. Every other industry is responsible for the safety of the products that they market, why shouldn't the gun industry.
Now let's consider some other significant areas that the Senator has taken a stand. He voted in favor of legislation that calls for the President to take measures to implement measures to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Hmmm, what has Bush done in regard with this authorization? Let's see connections with the oil industry, Cheney, Haliburton, the Saudi Royals, Iraq intervention, Oil prices exceeding $50 a barrel for the first time. Makes one wonder who are Bush's real constituency, doesn't it? Kerry also voted for the development of energy efficient hydrogen fuel cell cars. Apparently, Senator Kerry is smart enough to realize our addiction to foreign oil will continue to be supported by the blood of our children.
It hardly seems that Senator Kerry has just been sitting around sitting on his hands these past twenty years does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
they both promise to do different things, but they both do the same thing..... nothing.
Makes them the same party right?
Hey who put the knows the menu to well next to my name, paw are you trying to say I talk to much?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
I really think Kerry did a great job in the debate. Most of my life, I’ve been in favor of the Dems. I really appreciate the fact that Kerry had the guts to go to Viet Nam, and not hide behind his daddy’s money or congressional title. If you know how politics work, you know that a congressman has great power over a National Guard unit. Hiding behind money is something I hate, Bush or O.J., it's the same to me.
As far as changing one's opinion on something once you've gained more data, all of us that left the WAY would be flip-floppers according to the Bush administration. Apply that to Viet Nam, Iraq, or anyother issue. If you gain valuable information on a subject and change your mind due to new data, isn't that being logical?
My first Republican vote was for Mayor G. in New York. My father would sh** if he were alive.
Winning a debate might prove you’re a great debater, however, that is not the measure I will use to decide how to cast my next vote. Right now, the Bush team in general is hard to beat. I don’t like Rumsfield. Big bag of hot air as far as I’m concern, even though he did help people out of the Pentagon when the plane hit (hero status deserved for that).
Several text books (go to McGraw-Hill, student web site to confirm) for college level economics point out that Bush’s tax break was exactly the right thing to do to save the economy, and that it was planned before he won the election. He is credited with having one of the best economic advisory teams around. Don’t know anything about Kerry’s economic advisors.
Sec. Powell is a great head of the State Department. Don’t know anything about Kerry’s plans for Sec. Of State?
In general, the Bush TEAM has PAST PERFORMANCE. Don’t know anything about Kerry’s TEAM’s past performance.
Won’t be surprised if Bin Laden is captured in the next few weeks. That would be a very big factor in how people vote…
I think Kerry won the debate, based on being sharp in speech, quick with answers, and other points, but that and a $1.25 will get you a small cup of coffee.
Despite the massive character flaws I see in Bush, right now I'm leaning heavily in his direction due to the team he brings to the table.
I am praying for our country as well!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oenophile -- great post. You're giving me some stuff to think about, and I will. One thing you said, immediately caught my eye, and that was:
Postulation for you here --- who is guilty?
-->
Man goes into a liquor store, buys a case of Budweiser beer, has a few in the parking lot, and drives off in his F-150 Ford pick-up, consuming beer as he goes. He has to travel a ways to get to his house, so he is pretty well "lubricated" by the time he is half way there.
Because of his condition (drunk), he doesn't see a stop sign at an intersection, runs it, and strikes an innocent person trying to cross the street.
Who is guilty??????
Budweiser -- for brewing the beer?
The liquor store -- for selling it?
Ford -- for making the vehicle?
The guilty party is the one who chose to use products in an unlawful manner --- NOT the folks who produced, or sold those products.
Accountability is something that all companies should strive for, yet once their "product" (whatever it may be), leaves their factory -- they are blameless for how it is used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
That's why I want to get the election over with, and then look into what I can do for media reform. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the media are a bunch of greedy @$$holes, who only care about getting more advertising dollars. There are decent reporters out there, but they're all watered down once the editors and such get through with them. There's also some blame with the public, since we are the ones who prefer tabloid media like Fox News over the truth.
So, I hope Kerry wins. It's not that I expect him to fix everything that Bush has screwed up because that's not realistic. I just think he will tread water or whatever to not make things a lot worse and not divide the nation as much. On the other hand, a Bush win would make it a lot easier to cause reform because people would get fed up. However, I don't think that the deaths of more innocent people or a draft would be worth a Bush victory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.