Just got back from a little time for yardwork, no, a lot of time from yardwork, which I hate.
A couple things I want to go back to from my original statement.
The story on John McCain being unfairly smeared by this group of “impartial vietnam vets” The segment I viewed on that story was from CNN, one of their “breaking news!” stories that they do constantly. I do not have a link to it, as not every single piece of information that I see is on the internet, I do not believe, however, that since I do not get all of my information from the internet, that that makes it sh*t as Gianni has suggested. It was a story that I saw on a 24 hour news channel, and if it came out of Senator John McCain’s mouth, (which it did) it is a fact.
Comparing John Kerry to Jane Fonda? are you kidding me? because he attended an anti-war rally that she did also? I can’t say for sure, but I’m pretty sure Hanoi Jane isn’t carrying around a piece of shrapnel in her thigh. And that brings me to another point. If Kerry was never really “injured” in Vietnam, and his shrapnel wounds were superficial, wouldn’t they just pull them out and stick a bandaid over them? The guy is still carrying shrapnel in his body from a grenade, I’m guessing that it would have breen a pretty hard sell to the Navy doctors to ask them to implant it further into his body so that he could brag about it one day when he ran for President.
Is John Kerry touting his war record for his benefit as a presidential candidate? Of course, it’s a qualification for the office, and he has every right to be proud of it. He came back from the war and protested against the politics of the war, he didn’t spit on the other troops when they got off the plane, he didn’t pat charlie on the back like Jane did (litteraly), he disagreed with his government, and let them know.
As for the “swift boat veterans for truth”, do a little research on them, they are tied to the Bush campaign, they are basicly the Republican’s version of moveon.org, and their way of trying to jam Kerry’s service record, so that they don’t look like the bad guy.
Gun control.
Now here is one of my problems with the Democratic party. Spending the last several years of my life protecting and serving you fine folks, I can tell you from experience, that convicted felons don’t go to the local gun shop and ask to buy a new Glock for $500, then, after failing a background check, leave dissapointed, and concede defeat and give up their life of crime. I also understand that you can’t tell gun control goups that and expect them to listen. I do not, however, mind going to buy a gun, and having to endure a 3 minute background check, to me, it’s not an inconvenience, and I don’t see it as a sign of impending doom on responsible gun owners. The second ammendment to the U.S. constitution says that citizens have the right to bear arms, and that will never be overturned, they will never come knocking on your door to take your guns, unless (and please correct me if I’m wrong) the states all vote to repeal that ammendment.
The bigger and much more immediate threat to sportsmen is habitat loss, and the loss of environmental protections. Consider this when you vote, please, it is a threat that we have to deal with NOW. I have read comments on this thread from some people saying that Clinton did nothing for sportsment, but without the clean water act, you wouldn’t even consider eating a fish out of the Mighty Miss. I could go on about National Forest protection, drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, etc, but we’ve already heard about it, and until Republicans go back to being true conservatives (ie, Teddie Roosevelt), they don’t deserve my vote as a sportsman, and if we don’t start addressing it, you’ll be sitting at home telling your grandkids what it used to be like.
Bush linking Iraq to 9-11.
I don’t have to read the 9-11 report for that. Go back to every speech Bush made before he attacked Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeldt, while they were trying to make their case to attack Iraq, they couldn’t make a speech about Iraq without saying things like “after the attacks of 9-11, we need to take these steps to Make America safer” they couldn’t mention Iraq without saying the words “9-11” at least once in the same sentence.
Looking at the results of overthrowing Saddam, how can we claim that country is less of a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world now than it was when Saddam had control? Yes he was a tyrant to his own people, and a ruthless dictator, but now Iraq is nothing more than another version of the messed up, religously insane middle east terrorist breeding grounds. It is more of a threat to us now than it was when Saddam was there, and it will be for a very long time, at the expense of the lives of a lot of great men and women of the U.S. Military, all to settle W’s grudge, make Cheney and his pals richer, blah blah blah.
If we were after ruthless dictators harboring weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t we start with North Korea first? All indications say that Kim is as ruthless or worse to his people than Saddam ever was. North Korea has basicly said “we got nukes, what are you going to do about it?” And what have we done about it? Asked them “please?”
As I said, Kerry has his flaws, and there are things about him I don’t care for, but weighing out what is important to ME, he is the better of the two. I realize that there are people out there who feel the same about Bush, and think that he is the better of the two, but as I said before, please don’t try to convince anyone that he is the Perfect, Honest, Stand Up guy that some seem to be convinced of.
Am I the only person who wishes John McCain was running in this race? 
, that wasn’t the case, I wish I would have realized that, I was simply trying to type his first name, so when I typed it, I was reffering to Richard Cheney and Ken Lay, not Profanity Cheney, then Profanity Cheney and Ken Lay.
