The problem here is that the democrats have a history of being soft on
terrorism and national defense.

jm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brice Yokem" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: More Raw Meat


> Mr Gates -
>
> --------------
>
> Question, how can being against Mr. Bush's re-selection be construed as
> 'supporting terrorists'?
>
> --------------
>
> Because the alternative is seen as being soft on terrorism.
>
> --------------
>
> Dude, I just don't like the way the guy and his staff are running the
> country.  Blame whom you want, but before, Mr. Bush took over, I wasn't
> doing half bad.  Since---It's a struggle to keep the lights on.  Whether
or
> not that is Mr. Bush's fault, I want to see what somebody else can do.
>
> --------------
>
> Can you say 'NAFTA'?  This started long before 'W' took office, and had
> bi-partisan support.
>
> --------------
>
> I also did not agree with the war in Iraq.  I still think it was the wrong
> thing for America to do, in spite of any advertised appreciation of our
> action by the Iraqi citizens.   There are many ruthless despots in the
> world, I do NOT happen to think it's the U.S. Army's job to act as
dictator
> exterminators.
>
> --------------
>
> I am not entirely satisfied with the job he is doing either, but even
> less satisfied withthe alternative.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *