Lets see......... No massive tax increase when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Solid, experienced military leadership. The protection of the unborn. Protection of your 2nd amendment rights. Someone who doesn't require on-the-job training. Someone who examines the facts instead of examining their emotions. Someone who believes in smaller government. Someone who is going to curtail frivolous government spending and end earmarks. Someone who actually has a vision and a PLAN for the future of the country instead of standing there and yelling "Yes we can" or "Change". Someone who actually believes we are in a war against people who want to destroy us. Someone with the, er... "stones", to do what must be done to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, as opposed to those who want to cozy up to these tyrants out of fear he may upset someone.. Someone who is more understanding of the needs and desires of the common person, and who isn't quite so "Bitter" towards us. And most importantly a TRUE PATRIOT instead of someone who loathes the country.Originally Posted by apb
Other than, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the three.
To think that one could vote for one of these two jokers who can not even unite their own party, not to mention the country, when someone with the resume of McCain is opposing them is baffling. To vote for "change" just for sake of "change" is dangerous... especially when neither of the Democrats have the ability (or honesty) to explain just what exactly that change is, is beyond me. Lets see.... the Russians wanted change in 1918, the Germans in 1933, the Chinese in 1949, and the Iranians in 1978. Not to say that either of the Dim's would bring about such drastic "change", but it would definately move us in those directions. A good piece of advice, look before you leap.
Keep on chuckin'
Reply With Quote