11-03-2004, 09:42 PM
The difference is that Bush has proven that he will take actions that result in the death of innocent men, women and children, while Kerry angers veterans because the war experience affected his ideals. Bush has the disadvantage of having been president - he's proven what he will do when it comes down to it. Kerry, for good or ill, hasn't had that office and therefore we don't know what he'd do. When it comes to presidential precedent, good and bad, we have facts for Bush and speculation for Kerry. So I think it's entirely logical that people would base opinions on Bush's record as commander in chief - not to exaggerate, since I don't fear for my life, but I do fear for freedom under the patriot act.
But if you have proof of that Kerry thing, I'd love to hear it.
Wait a minute. Nevermind.
:P
But if you have proof of that Kerry thing, I'd love to hear it.
Wait a minute. Nevermind.
:P