[Cerek]

Originally posted by Ziroc: Notice the person didn't DARE sign his name to this piece of shit article? Totally insane. Whoever wrote this is a moron, and acts like a 10 year old kid that didn't get his candy. WAAAA. Get over it, loser. If anyone can find out who wrote this slag, let us all know here. An email address would be even BETTER! [img]graemlins/evillaughter1.gif[/img]

It wouldn't be worth the time it took to type the email, Ziroc. And it would only serve as "justification and proof" to the author that he was right about Americans.

Personally, I found the article to be so idiotic it was laughable. The part quoted by wellard clearly shows what type of prejudiced bigot the author is. He (or she) is a perfect example of somebody hanging themselves if you give them enough rope. If you give a blantant bigot the opportunity to express his (her) opinion - then they can't help but let their prejudices and bias show through. In my opinion, the author destroys his (her) own credibility early into the article.

Donut - it didn't really take any courage to "oppose" Kerry. I liked a lot of what Kerry said and some of the ideas he had and I had to give a LOT of consideration as to whether or not he would get my vote this time. But I eventually decided to vote for Bush because I didn't feel Kerry could actually carry through on even half of the programs he was promising. When asked how he planned to fund his various program proposals on education, Social Security, National Health Care and a couple of others, his first answer for every program was "I'll use the funds we gain by repealing the tax cut my opponent gave to the wealthiest 1% of the American citizens". That makes a good sound byte, but the fact is that the funds from that repeal could not fund even a SINGLE program completely, much less provided funding for ALL of them - but that was his answer to each of those issues in the 3rd debate. The bottom line is that BOTH sides lie a great deal about what they can (or will) deliver. I just decided that Bush was telling fewer lies and could deliver more of what was important to ME and my values than Kerry could. So it had nothing to do with "courage", rather it was based on intellectual discernment (which us dumb, ignorant, in-bred redneck ain't even supposed to be capable of).

Jonas Strider - Yes, President Bush does represent my moral values better than Kerry does. And, YES, that IS important to a large part of the country. In fact, it is apparanlty important to a majority of the country. You feel he doesn't represent your moral values - that's fine and dandy. You voted for your guy and I voted for mine. That's all either of us can do.