NationStates Jolt Archive

Troops In Survey Back Bush 4 To 1
USA TODAY
October 4, 2004

An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)

Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.

Even so, experts who examined the survey results said they do not bode well for the Kerry campaign's efforts to woo the military, a traditionally Republican and conservative voting bloc. The Kerry campaign has highlighted his war record in an effort to burnish his credentials as a prospective commander in chief.

"You can't dismiss" the results, said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who for years has studied the political leanings of the U.S. military. Feaver said it's unlikely that Bush will receive 70% of votes cast by military personnel. But the results suggest it will be difficult for Kerry to make substantial gains among a group that has strongly supported Republican presidential candidates in the post-Vietnam era.

Feaver said he suspects Kerry is losing support among those in uniform because he seems less committed than Bush to prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Richard Kohn, a University of North Carolina history professor who has studied the political culture of the military, said the Bush campaign has been effective in creating the impression that, if elected, Kerry might "cut and run" in Iraq. "None of us who has studied Kerry's character believes that, but the Bush campaign has established in the public's mind a connection to Vietnam," Kohn said.

Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade called the Army Times Publishing effort "an inaccurate e-mail survey" and said that Kerry has "the vision and values to keep faith with military families and America's veterans."

Of survey respondents, 65% of active-duty and 67% of Guard and reserve troops said that Kerry's activities after Vietnam made them less likely to vote for him. Kerry served in Vietnam as a naval officer and was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. He protested the war after returning home.

Only 12% of active-duty troops and 16% of Guard and reserve troops said Bush's actions in the National Guard made them less likely to vote for him. Bush received a coveted pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War and missed a number of mandatory drills after he stopped flying fighter jets in April 1972.

Active-duty, Guard and reserve troops number about 2.4 million, a small slice of the electorate. But in closely contested states such as Florida, their votes could be crucial. The survey found little difference in presidential support among the four military branches.

While there is a lot of information available on how military veterans have voted, data on the voting patterns of active-duty personnel are scarce. Feaver said experts believe military personnel favored Bush over Al Gore 2-1 in the 2000 presidential race.

A number of military analysts, including Feaver, had been predicting as recently as this summer that Bush would suffer a slight erosion this year based on a number of factors, including misgivings about the conduct of the war in Iraq and dislike of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in some military circles. Of those responding to the survey, about three-fifths said they approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq; one-quarter said they disapprove.

Military personnel who responded to the survey said they were generally happy with their jobs: 73% said they would re-enlist.

Is this really a surprise? Clinton was hated 4 to 1 too.

Is this really a surprise? Clinton was hated 4 to 1 too.

LOL! It probably doesn't come as a surprise to you, but it may to some others on here. :)

How many days till election?

LOL! It probably doesn't come as a surprise to you, but it may to some others on here. :)

No, they will just say it is not true......cause they just don't know the US military.

Now ask the relatives of those people... :rolleyes:

Now ask the relatives of those people... :rolleyes:

You might be surprised at that one too. ;)

Now ask the relatives of those people... :rolleyes:

Hmm. So you're saying that the relatives of grown men and women would be against whatever those men and women had decided as adults? Interesting viewpoint.

No surprise to me. I dispised Clinton for his open disdain toward the military. And Kerry's testimony before congress, and his record while in congress does not give a service member a good feeling, so to speak.

Hmm. So you're saying that the relatives of grown men and women would be against whatever those men and women had decided as adults? Interesting viewpoint.
I'd really like my brother or kid to die in a war

No, they will just say it is not true......cause they just don't know the US military.

Apparently not. But then most of the posters on here seem to have inherited their opinions from their parents, or adopted them whole from their friends, without giving any of those opinions much thought.

I'd really like my brother or kid to die in a war

So you would oppose his decision to enter the military? I wouldn't like it at all if one of my sons or daughters died in a war either, but I have enough respect for them as adults capable of making their own informed decisions to accept whatever they decide to do and support them in that.

I'd really like my brother or kid to die in a war

Don't worry, as a non-american he won't have to. ;)

No surprise to me. I dispised Clinton for his open disdain toward the military. And Kerry's testimony before congress, and his record while in congress does not give a service member a good feeling, so to speak.

I see you are gifted with the skill of massive understatement! :D

So you would oppose his decision to enter the military? I wouldn't like it at all if one of my sons or daughters died in a war either, but I have enough respect for them as adults capable of making their own informed decisions to accept whatever they decide to do and support them in that.
I would oppose. Some decisions are not the best. Going to war is one of them

Don't worry, as a non-american he won't have to. ;)

Things change. In international relations, your friend of today could easily become your enemy of tomorrow, and vice versa.

I would oppose. Some decisions are not the best. Going to war is one of them

You're against all war?

Things change. In international relations, your friend of today could easily become your enemy of tomorrow, and vice versa.
Not to mention, didn't I see a news story on a rather large citizenship ceremony where they enlisted at the same time, all while in Iraq?

Things change. In international relations, your friend of today could easily become your enemy of tomorrow, and vice versa.

Yeah, but those who are so verciferous about the US military on here are often non-US citizens who have such misguided knowledge of the US that it is obvious that they have been influenced by someone without researching things themselves.

You're against all war?
yes

An unscientific survey<SNIP>

These 3 words invalidate the rest of the article. The rest is just mental masturbation.

You're against all war?

Only an idiot or a psychopath doesn't oppose all war. Being opposed to it doesn't mean that it isn't a regrettable necessity sometimes.

These 3 words invalidate the rest of the article. The rest is just mental masturbation.
interesting way to put it, but...yes. I agree.
if the survey is unscientific, then it could easily 'prove' that aliens once roamed the earth and then died due to giant mushrooms that ate them all.
sorry... got a little carried away, but honestly, if a survey says 'not scientific' to start with, then you might as well ignore it.

Do I read that 'survey' wrong or what...? It makes no sense to me. Well, sense in the way that it would in any way be significant. It states that when a group of predominantly republicans vote, they tend to vote for a republican.

Then it says the percentages won't propably add up come the election day, cos they only got answers from higher rank and career-oriented soldiers.

Thank God it says in the end that the military personnel are happy with their jobs and willing to re-enlist (I'm assuming under Kerry's presidency too). Without the last lines I would have thought this a masked threat from the US military that they'll take over if the current regime isn't allowed to continue.

EDIT: What comes to 'unscientific'; polls often are. Still people are eager to read them and they do have certain impact.

What's interesting about the survey, even if you accept the legitimacy of it, is that while only 13% of the respondants were Democrat, 18% said they would vote for Kerry. 5% is a significant increase, particularly among predominantly career military officers. Oh, and did someone mention the lack of scientific validity?

Also, I'd be interested in what a poll of troops in Iraq think of Bush.

These 3 words invalidate the rest of the article. The rest is just mental masturbation.
Think what you want, feel as you do. However, understand that when dealing with US military, and civilian media 'polls' it *MUST* be considered unscientific. Now if it was a military poll, or one done by the PAO then it could be considered legit.

Personal reference of the group that I know of, 4 to 1 is a little too low. Mr. Kerry is not well liked for his voting against the immediate requisition of funds for additional body armor and plates. And that initself where lies the though of parents as well.

Think what you want, feel as you do. However, understand that when dealing with US military, and civilian media 'polls' it *MUST* be considered unscientific. Now if it was a military poll, or one done by the PAO then it could be considered legit.

Personal reference of the group that I know of, 4 to 1 is a little too low. Mr. Kerry is not well liked for his voting against the immediate requisition of funds for additional body armor and plates. And that initself where lies the though of parents as well.

I'm so sick and tired of this argument. Yes, Kerry voted against the measure which was composed of a LOT MORE than just body armor. He essentially voted against signing a blank check over to the president, since all of those funds were fungible.

Additionally, answer this: Who sent our troops into combat without the necessary body armor? It sure as hell wasn't Kerry...you can rant and rave all you want about him not voting for a bill, but when you get right down to it, Bush invaded Iraq without having exhausted all diplomatic possibilities, and that resulted in troops being sent in without proper equipment. They should be laying that blame squarely at the feet of the current administration.

These 3 words invalidate the rest of the article. The rest is just mental masturbation.
For a moment, I was wondering if anyone else had picked up on the very first sentence in the article. Jeez. Once you read what kind of poll it was, you see it ranks right up there with Nationstates polling for accuracy--opt-in email repsonses? Come on, USA Today--you're supposed to be a news-gathering organization, not a right-wing rag.

I'm so sick and tired of this argument. Yes, Kerry voted against the measure which was composed of a LOT MORE than just body armor. He essentially voted against signing a blank check over to the president, since all of those funds were fungible.

Additionally, answer this: Who sent our troops into combat without the necessary body armor? It sure as hell wasn't Kerry...you can rant and rave all you want about him not voting for a bill, but when you get right down to it, Bush invaded Iraq without having exhausted all diplomatic possibilities, and that resulted in troops being sent in without proper equipment. They should be laying that blame squarely at the feet of the current administration.
Don't forget--Bush threatened to veto the legislation that Kerry voted for. So Bush was against the troops before he was for them? Is that how it worked?

Don't forget--Bush threatened to veto the legislation that Kerry voted for. So Bush was against the troops before he was for them? Is that how it worked?

Precisely. The flip flopper in actuality is Dubya here, since Kerry voted for an amendment that would fund the body armor from a repeal of the tax cuts on people making over $200k. Apparently Kerry thinks that the corporate CEOs should help pay for the body armor to protect the troops dying for their government contracts. Wow, Kerry's such an asshole. :rolleyes:

I'm so sick and tired of this argument. Yes, Kerry voted against the measure which was composed of a LOT MORE than just body armor. He essentially voted against signing a blank check over to the president, since all of those funds were fungible.

Additionally, answer this: Who sent our troops into combat without the necessary body armor? It sure as hell wasn't Kerry...you can rant and rave all you want about him not voting for a bill, but when you get right down to it, Bush invaded Iraq without having exhausted all diplomatic possibilities, and that resulted in troops being sent in without proper equipment. They should be laying that blame squarely at the feet of the current administration.
Spin, Spin Spin, to the left, ahh, a little more , ah.

Hello, Kerry voted for the war.
The initial forces were 100% with body armor.
When Congress voted to call the National Guard, who *ARE NOT* active duty, and do not have 100% of their gear, the President said we need this funding for X, = Soldiers, Y = Euipment, and Z= rebuilding of Iraq, kerry said I don't think so. Luckiliy the bill passed. There was no blank check, there was no hidden agenda.
And here is Mr Kerry's record.
http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=b8960f41aa4d283dd66a8d1c94eb8a5e

Apparently not. But then most of the posters on here seem to have inherited their opinions from their parents, or adopted them whole from their friends, without giving any of those opinions much thought.

Wow, you're arrogant. So all liberals have adopted their opinions from others without giving them weight? But conservatives do not? Am I assuming too much from your comment?

Most people in the military vote republican, because they vote with the wallet, and republicans have a history of paying them better and paying more attention to them.


Oh, but the poll is shit :p

This is also "unscientific"...but just FYI:

I'm a military instructor. I teach up to 60 students a year, max. The real average number is about 35 per year, with 5-7 students in each section. So far, for the past two years, virtually each section is composed of Bush supporters, with one, or rarely, two dissenters or Kerry supporters. That would put the average at about 5:1.

My students study in my hallway for 8 hours a day for an entire year. I get a very, very good feeling for their political views...in fact, we discuss them.

Last year, I had 37 students. 5 of them supported Kerry. These are students from all services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) and all parts of the country.

That doesn't make us right, though. (I'm in the military, too, and support Bush). It's just part of our culture, maybe, I don't know.

Doesn't this fall under the "DUH" category?

Is anybody surprised by this?

*shrugs*

Doesn't this fall under the "DUH" category?

Is anybody surprised by this?

*shrugs*

There is an entire thread devoted to this. I would say that, if it is a "DUH" category...why do so many post?

There is an entire thread devoted to this. I would say that, if it is a "DUH" category...why do so many post?

Oh I don't know.

Probably trying to up that post count. ;)

Probably because Etrusca likes the attention and people like insulting him.

Who sent our troops into combat without the necessary body armor? ... and that resulted in troops being sent in without proper equipment.
I hate to tell you, but this whole body-armor issue is brand spanking new. When I was in just a couple years ago, there was no bullet-proof armor to be had. Sure we had flak jackets, but ballistic inserts were completely unheard of for anyone but special forces. You can't hold it against the commander-in-chief that it took so long to issue a new type of gear to all the soldiers and marines. New gear deployment ALWAYS takes longer than planned, due to the excessive beaurocracy in the military. It's not the President's fault.

Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, a greater portion of those soldiers and marines were entirely happy to go into Iraq after Saddam. When I was in, we were all chomping at the bit to go get that guy. I'm sad that I wasn't there to see it.

Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, a greater portion of those soldiers and marines were entirely happy to go into Iraq after Saddam. When I was in, we were all chomping at the bit to go get that guy. I'm sad that I wasn't there to see it.

You got that right. I used to love going to the command post when I was deployed to the middle east to watch the video feed from our aircraft and the missles. I can't count the number of mobile radar sets we destroyed. The funny part was watching the Iraqi troops running away from the things before the missle hit. You know most of them did not make it. ;)

Troops In Survey Back Bush 4 To 1
USA TODAY
October 4, 2004

An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio..

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)

Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.



So big deal, an unscientific poll. It means absolutely nothing. It is a non-starter, a red herring, a dead end, etc. I could ask the subscribers to 'High Times' the same question and get results that would put Nader in the lead.

So career militarists favour Bush? Big effing surprise - who cuts their paycheques? Sheesh.

Spin, Spin Spin, to the left, ahh, a little more , ah.

Hello, Kerry voted for the war.

Kerry voted (as your website link so conveniently points out...did you read it?) to give the president the authority to prosecute the war WITH a report that all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted. This has been repeatedly shown to not be the case. Regardless of whether or not Saddam was playing with us, there were still diplomatic options to be pursued and Iraq was complying.

The initial forces were 100% with body armor.
When Congress voted to call the National Guard, who *ARE NOT* active duty, and do not have 100% of their gear, the President said we need this funding for X, = Soldiers, Y = Euipment, and Z= rebuilding of Iraq, kerry said I don't think so. Luckiliy the bill passed. There was no blank check, there was no hidden agenda.

How convenient that you know all this and give no evidentiary support. Spin, spin, spin...to the right, ahh, a little more, ah? http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=155

And the fungibility argument, "he White House has procured two more supplemental appropriations since but they were expressly earmarked for Iraq as well as Afghanistan and homeland defense: $78.5 billion in April 2003 and $87 billion approved in November 2003.

Even if the White House did not notify Congress, a Democratic official admitted the Bush administration has political cover.

They can argue the money was approved for the "global war on terror," of which it clearly considers the Iraq war to be a part. A senior Pentagon official said Monday: "that stuff is fungible." (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11350541&BRD=1077&PAG=740&dept_id=226956&rfi=6)

And your unwarranted claim of no "hidden agenda"...are you usually this intentionally obtuse? Of course there was a hidden agenda. Every politician (including Kerry) has a hidden agenda. Or are you just so blinkeredly ignorant that you think only the conservative administrations are honest? Come back to reality, please.

And here is Mr Kerry's record.
http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=b8960f41aa4d283dd66a8d1c94eb8a5e

Thanks. I already used that argument against you. Try again.

...are you usually this intentionally obtuse? Touchy are you, you must be one of those smug bitches, as soon as it doesn't go your way, name calling is the technique for the day!



Of course there was a hidden agenda. Every politician (including Kerry) has a hidden agenda. Glad to see you can see!

Touchy are you, you must be one of those smug bitches, as soon as it doesn't go your way, name calling is the technique for the day!

Ah, you criticize "name calling", then refer to me as "one of those smug bitches". Why don't you answer my arguments instead of making some baseless ad hom attack? I warranted my rhetorical question regarding your obtuseness. You post a bunch of non-responsive drivel.

Glad to see you can see!

Glad you concede that Bush has a hidden agenda, as well. Try again.

Ah, you criticize "name calling", then refer to me as "one of those smug bitches". Why don't you answer my arguments instead of making some baseless ad hom attack? I warranted my rhetorical question regarding your obtuseness. You post a bunch of non-responsive drivel.



Glad you concede that Bush has a hidden agenda, as well. Try again.
Nah he was admitting that name calling is the technique of the day and did the same.

Ah, you criticize "name calling", then refer to me as "one of those smug bitches". Why don't you answer my arguments instead of making some baseless ad hom attack? I warranted my rhetorical question regarding your obtuseness. You post a bunch of non-responsive drivel.
Glad you concede that Bush has a hidden agenda, as well. Try again.You mean you posted something of interest in all of that nonsense you wrote? I'm sorry, it went to file 13, could you re-ask again, only this time, make it not so trivial?

You mean you posted something of interest in all of that nonsense you wrote? I'm sorry, it went to file 13, could you re-ask again, only this time, make it not so trivial?

apparently, the extra "s" is for extra spin.

Nah he was admitting that name calling is the technique of the day and did the same.
Genau!

You mean you posted something of interest in all of that nonsense you wrote? I'm sorry, it went to file 13, could you re-ask again, only this time, make it not so trivial?

Maybe your reading skills are a little lacking, but that's certainly not my fault. They say that ignorance is bliss. My guess is you're personally testing that theory. Go back and re-read it this time, and instead of posting more senseless rhetoric that serves the purpose of raising your hand and volunteering, "Hey, look at me! I'm not so smart!", answer the arguments. You only highlight your ignorance with each of successive post you make.

Ha! I told you guys almost all the soilders supported Bush. Ignorant peasents. May your blood be stained on the sands of Iraq. WARPIGS.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

Maybe your reading skills are a little lacking, but that's certainly not my fault. They say that ignorance is bliss. My guess is you're personally testing that theory. Go back and re-read it this time, and instead of posting more senseless rhetoric that serves the purpose of raising your hand and volunteering, "Hey, look at me! I'm not so smart!", answer the arguments. You only highlight your ignorance with each of successive post you make.Ah, but Dr. Simpleton, you are the one peddaling this boat, I'm just the count master.

Now ask the relatives of those people... :rolleyes:
my family is voting bush becouse they dont trust kerry to keep me(active duty) and my family safe

my family is voting bush becouse they dont trust kerry to keep me(active duty) and my family safe

Yes, because sending you into an ill-advised war has kept you soooooooooooooo safe.

According to an "unscientific" letter from an American Serviceman currently in the Iraqi desert near Syria to his best friend back here in the states (someone I know), morale is getting quite low over there, at least among this kid's peers.
His unit's job is to stop people from planting land mines, which according to him, translates to "Just shoot anyone with a shovel." Unfortunately everyday Iraqi citizens have to use shovels for many other things besides digging holes for land mines, such as digging irrigation ditches, laying pipes and wires so that people can have, I don't know, water, electicity and the like. Unfortunately a man and his son were engaged in just this type of activity when they were fired upon by someone in the guy's unit.
People here can toss around phrases like "collateral damage" and brush this kind of thing under the it's-a-sad-but-true-consequence-of-war rug. But try telling that to the serviceman who has to live with the fact that he almost killed a twelve-year-old boy who was trying to restore his home to the way it was before America invaded.
This kid says that "everyone is starting to talk about how this is like Vietnam." A lot of kids don't really understand what they're supposed to be doing there.
I'm certain this young man, Eutrusca, means no disrepect to you and others who served in the above-quoted police action. Just remember, this parallel is coming from American servicemen, not some whiney liberals from the whiney liberal press.
While he didn't get specific about his choice of candidate, I think it might be fair to say he's simply 1 rather than one of the 4.

Kerry voted (as your website link so conveniently points out...did you read it?) to give the president the authority to prosecute the war WITH a report that all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted. This has been repeatedly shown to not be the case. Regardless of whether or not Saddam was playing with us, there were still diplomatic options to be pursued and Iraq was complying.Yes I read it, I think it's erroneous that the constitutes of Massachusetts pay his salary.
What diplomatic options? Another attack like the WTC? Or, as bill clinton did, us the voice. "I said"Don't do that again.



How convenient that you know all this and give no evidentiary support. Spin, spin, spin...to the right, ahh, a little more, ah? http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=155
I was there, where were you?
And the fungibility argument, "he White House has procured two more supplemental appropriations since but they were expressly earmarked for Iraq as well as Afghanistan and homeland defense: $78.5 billion in April 2003 and $87 billion approved in November 2003. Correct, but this is just an addendum from you to spin back left.

Even if the White House did not notify Congress, a Democratic official admitted the Bush administration has political cover.

They can argue the money was approved for the "global war on terror," of which it clearly considers the Iraq war to be a part. A senior Pentagon official said Monday: "that stuff is fungible." (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11350541&BRD=1077&PAG=740&dept_id=226956&rfi=6)
Wow, just another liberal communicating from his rectum.

And your unwarranted claim of no "hidden agenda"...are you usually this intentionally obtuse? Of course there was a hidden agenda. Every politician (including Kerry) has a hidden agenda. Or are you just so blinkeredly ignorant that you think only the conservative administrations are honest? Come back to reality, please.That did exactly what it needed. It got YOU to admit Mr Kerry is not the peach *most* of the others think he is.

Thanks. I already used that argument against you. Try again.I think not, that was my link directly to Mr Kerrys seated page of the senate voting record. Yours was just a 'home page' per se.

Yes I read it, I think it's erroneous that the constitutes of Massachusetts pay his salary.
What diplomatic options? Another attack like the WTC? Or, as bill clinton did, us the voice. "I said"Don't do that again.

Well, apparently that's for the "constitutes" of Massachusetts to decide, don't you think?

Additionally, diplomatic options would include weapons inspections by the UN, which were progressing until Cowboy Bush decided it was time to "saddle up" and go attack the Injuns. I thought you would be aware that there was an option other than military invasion, but apparently not. Additionally, you blatantly ignore the preempt to this argument. Is it because you don't know how to make a warranted argument?

I was there, where were you? Correct, but this is just an addendum from you to spin back left.

Brilliant, so you concede that Bush's (and your) representation of his voting regarding the $87 billion is bunk. Factcheck.org is a non-partisan organization, and in fact has a ton of analysis that is critical of Kerry. They dispassionately bust both sides. Of course, I'm sure you didn't (couldn't?) read far enough to figure that out.

Wow, just another liberal communicating from his rectum.

Ah, the senior Pentagon officials are all liberals, I see. Oh wait, it's the Pentagon officials that rain on your idiot parade. Must be nice to live in a self-referential world.

That did exactly what it needed. It got YOU to admit Mr Kerry is not the peach *most* of the others think he is.

I'm pretty certain that most Kerry supporters hardly think of him as a "peach". The fact is that your boy is so awful that a lot of people are looking for ANYONE to supplant him. I, however, have never maintained that Kerry was a great candidate. I'd much rather have Kucinich, but I'll definitely take Kerry (the not-peach) over Bush (the psychotic idiot-boy).

I think not, that was my link directly to Mr Kerrys seated page of the senate voting record. Yours was just a 'home page' per se.

Wonderfully non-warranted argument, yet again. Keep posting your puerile diatribe. I'll keep making you look like a jackass in front of everyone else.

Wonderfully non-warranted argument, yet again. Keep posting your puerile diatribe. I'll keep making you look like a jackass in front of everyone else.Oooh, what a wonderful influential reply a beeatch can do from behind the scenes. Lets see, MS Word for thesaurus so you can understand words you are unsure of, and grammar check to ensure they are correctly emplaced.

What was the topic, oh, yes, you are a left weenie hole, and I'm a right fielder.

I have hair on my back, and my knuckles drag the ground, my peers refer to me as Moose, and I get paid $250 a night at the local club. I presume you wear silk undies, and attened some place I cannot pronounce, and was probably tossed head over heels for acting posh while in my presence. :eek:

Oooh, what a wonderful influential reply a beeatch can do from behind the scenes. Lets see, MS Word for thesaurus so you can understand words you are unsure of, and grammar check to ensure they are correctly emplaced.

What was the topic, oh, yes, you are a left weenie hole, and I'm a right fielder.

I have hair on my back, and my knuckles drag the ground, my peers refer to me as Moose, and I get paid $250 a night at the local club. I presume you wear silk undies, and attened some place I cannot pronounce, and was probably tossed head over heels for acting posh while in my presence. :eek:

No one accused you of having knuckles that drag the ground, etc, etc. Your personal "insults" are not only stupefying in their unoriginality, but make my point more clearly. You get upset because I use big words? Why don't you cry about it? Oh wait, you are. If you don't like them, tough. Use the opportunity to learn something instead of denegrating someone who has a better vocabulary than you. The fact that you drop the sham of trying to make substantive arguments in favor of personal insults is all too telling.

No one accused you of having knuckles that drag the ground, etc, etc. Your personal "insults" are not only stupefying in their unoriginality, but make my point more clearly. You get upset because I use big words? Why don't you cry about it? Oh wait, you are. If you don't like them, tough. Use the opportunity to learn something instead of denegrating someone who has a better vocabulary than you. The fact that you drop the sham of trying to make substantive arguments in favor of personal insults is all too telling.Oh really? I do beleive if we back this thread up, *YOU* are the one who could*NOT* handle the heat, and initiated the bashing, and personal insult attacks. But unlike your liberal politician I'm not going to quit when a little toughness hits the plate, for I'm likened to a caged animal.

Oh really? I do beleive if we back this thread up, *YOU* are the one who could*NOT* handle the heat, and initiated the bashing, and personal insult attacks. But unlike your liberal politician I'm not going to quit when a little toughness hits the plate, for I'm likened to a caged animal.

Please. You couldn't handle my arguments, plain and simple. When you realized that you had nothing to say to them, you started with the name calling. I asked a question if you were being intentionally obtuse. That isn't name calling. It's calling you on your behavior. Additionally, I told you not to be so ignorant. Your ignorance on this issue was displayed in plain view for everyone.

You initiated the personal attacks, with names like "smug bitches". Now, you try and compensate for the fact that you were getting schooled on the arguments by acting e-tough. Yes, you're amazingly able to be tough on the internet. Now if you could only make a decent argument, you might be getting somewhere.

my family is voting bush becouse they dont trust kerry to keep me(active duty) and my family safe
As is mine, to include my mother, who worked on every campaign that ran against Cheney when he was our representative. No one in my family trust Kerry to keep those of us in the miltary safe, either.