NationStates Jolt Archive

This seems to be the topic of many threads, so I thought what the hell, i'll make one it too. I am not an American and therefore could not vote for either person but if I could, I would vote for John Kerry. Why, you may ask? In my opinion, President Bush has been the US worst president since it became a country. He has gotten them into two wars, one of which is the equivalent of a modern Vietnam (Iraq). He has driven the economy into the pits, with months of HUGE job loss. He has tried to change the precious document called the US Constitution because he thinks being gay is wrong. NO president should change it for any of their own reasons UNLESS it makes the US a safer place or certain human's rights issues need to either be made new or revised. In his home state of Texas while he was Senator there, it had the worst polution rates in the US, worst water quaility in the US, worst public schooling system in the US, and had huge social problems in the large Mexican communities. The final nail in the coffin for me is when he called Rumsfeld the "best secretary of defense the US has ever had". He is just defending a man who allowed the awful prison abuse to take place right under his watch and which leader to the American prisoner being beheaded. Not only should Rumsfeld be fired but so should the whole darn administration. Hopefully President Bush loses the election and then it will be a check mate for the Democrats and the people of America. As for John Kerry, who everyone mentions his opposition to Vietnam and throwing the medal ribbons away. The US army had a draft for Vietnam and some young men and women actually left the US to avoid it. Most everyone in the US then was opposed to the most pointless war in history. As for the medals ribbons, there darn ribbons. The medal itself is the only thing worth keeping because I personally would not want to wear medals from the war around my neck all the time like I was proud to have halted Communism in my tracks, even though the Viet Cong beat them and the Iron Curtain fell without any US involvement. Kerry may have alot more money than the average person, but hey does that really matter in the long run? No, he could be dirt poor and some people would be critical of him then. People running for President are not your average everyday folks. It takes a hell of a lotta money and time and you actually begin to sacrafice almost everything else in your life for it. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry's but when your alternative is a war lord who's try to change the US Constitution and has prison abuse happening under his administration's nose, I'd say almsot anything is better than that.

He has gotten them into two wars, one of which is the equivalent of a modern Vietnam (Iraq).
No, Iraq does not come close to Vietnam. Vietnam was larger in scale, had a coordinated enemy, and had both regular and irregular warfare. The North Vietnamese were supplied and funded by the second most powerful (if not the) country in the world at the time, and many more differences. In Vietnam we had no real objective except to help the South Vietnamese and to stop the communists. In Iraq, the goal is clear, to kill, imprison, or otherwise neutralize the terrorists and hand over power back to the Iraqis.

has driven the economy into the pits, with months of HUGE job loss.
Thanks to 9/11, a dot com bubble and bust, and the normal economic cycle. Take a look at the past 8 months and its all positive job growth, take a look at the last two months and we're back in a boom.

He has tried to change the precious document called the US Constitution because he thinks being gay is wrong. NO president should change it for any of their own reasons UNLESS it makes the US a safer place or certain human's rights issues need to either be made new or revised.
The President can't just decide to change the constitution. He backed the amendment, yes. But it also has to be supported by 2/3 of the Senate/House and 3/4 of the states - and proposed by someone in Congress, not the President.

Most everyone in the US then was opposed to the most pointless war in history.
The most pointless war in history? Containing communism is, in the end, the reason for the Vietnam war. And that certainly had a point, both humanitarianly and geopolitically. And nowhere close to everyone opposed it. Ever hear of the silent majority, a term used by Nixon, which is what he called the people who were for the war, but not vocal about it? Sure, a hippies and young people who never had to face a hardship in their life didn't support it, and heck, maybe even the majority didn't support the war - but nowhere close to "most everyone".

the Iron Curtain fell without any US involvement.
You've got to be kidding me. The US was one of the two most important factors in the Iron Curtain falling, the other factor being the rampant ineffectualness of Communism.

Going to church now. More later.

The Iraq conflict is a modern Northern Ireland.

In my opinion, Ralph Nader is much better than either of them. George W. Bush is a raving lunatic warmongerer and John Kerry can't make his mind up.

Kwangistar, you're obviously a Bush supporter. You seem to justify the war in Iraq as useful, even though they seem unprepared for the handover date of June 30th. The Allied soldiers are constantly under attack and now civilians are leading huge protests against the US-UK occupation. I'd say they want them out of there as fast as is possible. As for the Iron Curtain falling, well half the world was Communist, Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam, East Germany, Hungry, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Laos, Mongolia, Cuba etc. They had enough fire power to fight the US and all it's allies. No, they fell because of problems inside the countries and at the Kremlin. The army turned against the President because it refused to fight the people opposing him. Besides Communism would have eventually failed on it's own, I didn't really need a heck of alot of outside help. Most people living under Communist rule hated it and revolutions would bound to begin and cause huge collapses in the social structure of the country. Finally you say you are going to church, what denomination do you attend? I go to a church almost identical to the methodists and believe me, i'm not the only one who thinks thus way.

I'd vote for cherry pie over George Bush.

Kwangistar, you're obviously a Bush supporter. You seem to justify the war in Iraq as useful, even though they seem unprepared for the handover date of June 30th. The Allied soldiers are constantly under attack and now civilians are leading huge protests against the US-UK occupation. I'd say they want them out of there as fast as is possible.
Some do some don't. Even the latest polls during and after the April violence show a mixed results, to say that all of them want the coalition out as soon as possible is far from the truth.

As for the Iron Curtain falling, well half the world was Communist, Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam, East Germany, Hungry, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Laos, Mongolia, Cuba etc. They had enough fire power to fight the US and all it's allies. No, they fell because of problems inside the countries and at the Kremlin. The army turned against the President because it refused to fight the people opposing him. Besides Communism would have eventually failed on it's own, I didn't really need a heck of alot of outside help.
Probably, at least Soviet-style Communism. The inefficiency and internal problems were one reason, perhaps the biggest, that the Iron Curtain fell - but not the only one.

Finally you say you are going to church, what denomination do you attend? I go to a church almost identical to the methodists and believe me, i'm not the only one who thinks thus way.

I'm Catholic.

I'd vote for Aaron Russo.

There have been about 10 or more threads like this already. The fact that you whine about one of the poll options doesn't make yours any better than the others. Kerry or Nader will win, because of the large numbers of europeans and liberals on this site.

I guess I'd vote for Ralph Nader. I agree with him on a bunch of things like the environment and stuff, although I don't agree with him on social issues. I'm more of a George W. Bush on social issues. I really don't understand why a lot of evangelical Christians are so pro-business, and acting like it's wrong to be a socialist.

I guess I'd vote for Ralph Nader. I agree with him on a bunch of things like the environment and stuff, although I don't agree with him on social issues. I'm more of a George W. Bush on social issues. I really don't understand why a lot of evangelical Christians are so pro-business, and acting like it's wrong to be a socialist.

evangelical christians are irrational--they also worship the first known leftwinger (Jesus) while they do everything in their power to crucify the left of today

I guess I'd vote for Ralph Nader. I agree with him on a bunch of things like the environment and stuff, although I don't agree with him on social issues. I'm more of a George W. Bush on social issues. I really don't understand why a lot of evangelical Christians are so pro-business, and acting like it's wrong to be a socialist.

evangelical christians are irrational--they also worship the first known leftwinger (Jesus) while they do everything in their power to crucify the left of today
How is Jesus a leftwinger?

He supported many things that left-wingers support today, with one huge difference - left wingers today want to force people (via taxes and government) to do those things.

I wouldn't vote for any of them.

I guess I'd vote for Ralph Nader. I agree with him on a bunch of things like the environment and stuff, although I don't agree with him on social issues. I'm more of a George W. Bush on social issues. I really don't understand why a lot of evangelical Christians are so pro-business, and acting like it's wrong to be a socialist.

evangelical christians are irrational--they also worship the first known leftwinger (Jesus) while they do everything in their power to crucify the left of today
How is Jesus a leftwinger?

He supported many things that left-wingers support today, with one huge difference - left wingers today want to force people (via taxes and government) to do those things.

I dont like govt or taxes--but because of Bushs class warfare tax cuts Warren Buffet once asked his secretary why he pays a lesser tax rate then she does--thats republicans definition of tax cutting

I guess I'd vote for Ralph Nader. I agree with him on a bunch of things like the environment and stuff, although I don't agree with him on social issues. I'm more of a George W. Bush on social issues. I really don't understand why a lot of evangelical Christians are so pro-business, and acting like it's wrong to be a socialist.

evangelical christians are irrational--they also worship the first known leftwinger (Jesus) while they do everything in their power to crucify the left of today
How is Jesus a leftwinger?

He supported many things that left-wingers support today, with one huge difference - left wingers today want to force people (via taxes and government) to do those things.

I dont like govt or taxes--but because of Bushs class warfare tax cuts Warren Buffet once asked his secretary why he pays a lesser tax rate then she does--thats republicans definition of tax cutting

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

Despite being a Republican, I support Kerry over Bush.

The plan is, since most presidents do more bad than good, and the Republcians control Congress, hopefully the government will be hog-tied for four years until we can get a real president.

Besides, Bush isn't a real Republican. He's raised spending way more than Clinton did.

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

Warren Buffet pays less % taxes because of tax loopholes created by special interest groups. This problem could easiyl be alleviated by abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a more equitable means of collection (sales, tariffs, etc.) accompanied with mass spending cuts.

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

but republicans dont cut taxes progressively--they do it to benefit the undeserving

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

but republicans dont cut taxes progressively--they do it to benefit the undeserving

Who determines who is deserving and who isn't?

. . .Besides, Bush isn't a real Republican. He's raised spending way more than Clinton did.


Bill Clinton was not a real Democrat. Real Democrats don't hobnob with CEO's of multinational corporations. His friendship with Belinda Stronach shows where his real loyalties lie.

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

Warren Buffet pays less % taxes because of tax loopholes created by special interest groups. This problem could easiyl be alleviated by abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a more equitable means of collection (sales, tariffs, etc.) accompanied with mass spending cuts.

I agree with alla this but there should be no sales tax since that cripples consumerism

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

Warren Buffet pays less % taxes because of tax loopholes created by special interest groups. This problem could easiyl be alleviated by abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a more equitable means of collection (sales, tariffs, etc.) accompanied with mass spending cuts.

Yes - but not because of "class warfare tax cuts"

Interesting, because America still has a progressive tax system.

but republicans dont cut taxes progressively--they do it to benefit the undeserving

Who determines who is deserving and who isn't?
the Experts on Fairness