The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I'm not old enough to vote,but if I was,I'd pick Bush.

I'd have to go with "Other" as those two + nobody aren't my only options in real life. Also, it's not difficult to tell who supports who on this board just by reading other threads, and that way you don't have to ask the (semi) rude question outright like that.

See FFA they are our only choices here in VA. Nader was pulled from our ballot. Something about faking signatures.

I know who I'm not voting for
1.)Michael A. Peroutka for Pres running mate is Chuck (not Charles) Balwin
2.)David Cobb and Patricia LaMarche
3.)Walter F. Brown and Mary Alice Herbert
4.)Michael Badnarik and Richard V. Campagna
5.)James Harris and Margaret Trowe
I can't vote for any of these candidates because I don't know what they stand for

These people are really on the ballot her in Fla.....
anybody heard of them
Nader/Camejo are on the balot also but everybody know Nader so I didn't include him in the above list

Kerry.

Bacon, you give me hope that our country will be in good hands for a long time. I'm for Bush - no question about it at all.

I'm not necessarily a Bush fan...but I hate Edwards with such a passion, Bush has got to get my vote.

I'm going to do a write in vote: Joe Gibbs.

If Mark Solway wasn't from freakin' Canada, he'd get my vote!

NikiH wrote:See FFA they are our only choices here in VA. Nader was pulled from our ballot. Something about faking signatures.

Ich, I'm no Nader supporter.

You know, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate extraordinaire, is on the ballot in your state. . . (he's on the ballot in 48 states + DC, and Nader is on something like 35, but guess who gets all the press. . . .)

Gibbs/Bugel 2004

13 measly votes...come on people, you don't have to be a registered voter! hell, you don't even have to be from the States!

I have a question. Why is it that the Republicans can run an entire campaign saying that they will protect us from terrorists when the worst history attack in the history of the world happened on their watch?

the attack would have never happened IMO, if the Democrats hadn't ignored the "nuisance" terrorists on their watch

That's not a question. It's bait - take it to smack down and I'll "answer" you.

How is that bait? What I said there was absolute fact.

Gee wonder how you're voting for... smells like bait to me.

Actually, I'm not voting. I'm not even registered to vote, and I don't really like Kerry. I'm just saying that the idea that Bush has protected America is laughable.

patrickg68 wrote:Actually, I'm not voting. I'm not even registered to vote, and I don't really like Kerry. I'm just saying that the idea that Bush has protected America is laughable.

If this kind of thing was a "fact" as you say it is, then perhaps the election wouldn't be so close. I suppose no one could have expected better from the thread, but don't take potshots to try and prove yourself here. Please take stuff like this to smack forum--I don't have the will to answer you but there are plenty on this site who would. We Redskins fans aren't as dumb as you might think, and we can recognize bait when we see it.

What exactly am I baiting people into doing? Is it not a fact that Bush was president when the 9/11 attacks occured?

patrickg68 wrote:What exactly am I baiting people into doing? Is it not a fact that Bush was president when the 9/11 attacks occured?

If that was the extent of what you said, no one would have had a problem.

What exactly am I baiting people into doing? Is it not a fact that Bush was president when the 9/11 attacks occured?

pg68, this should probably go to smack, but I'm going to respond and let the mods move it.

My position on the war in Iraq is already known, by means of a previous thread. Having said that, the point that you bring up here is really not a point worth bringing up if you're going to get into a debate on the the war on terror. First of all, if you're going to break it down to who was President when the terrorists attacked us, you have to also look at who was President when these terrorists were plotting their attack. Who was President while the terrorists were travelling around the United States scouting for targets, and learning how to fly planes? The point is, these terrorists would have attacked no matter who was President of the United States. The terrorists hatred for the United States goes far beyond who the President is. As for the timing, Bush was elected in 2000, but the planning of the attack goes as far back as 1993. They started planning it shortly after the World Trade Center bombing in 93, and it just so happens that they were finally ready to attack in 2001. The fact that Bush was the President when they attacked is irrelavent.

Well, if the president is truly irrelevant concerning national security matters, than does Bush even know why he should be reelected? His entire campaign has been that he will protect America from terrorists. Cheney even said that if Kerry was elected that we WOULD be attacked. My point isn't necessarily that Bush was really at fault for the 9/11 attacks, but if he wants to say that if he is reelected that he will protect America from terrorists, then he has to take the blame for the terrorist attacks that occured during his tenure.