NationStates Jolt Archive

who do you think is a better president of the US?
George Bush or Kerry?

Kerry isn't a president of the United States.

As Kerry has never been, nor will he ver be, President of the U.S., then Goerge bush is by default a much better President than Kerry.

I think Kerry would be a better president. Which is why I plan on voting for him in a few months' time.

Edit: but you have to wonder why on earth we need another thread on this subject.

Kerry isn't a president of the United States.

then who do you think will be a better president?

Bush.

Kerry.

Don't we already have a few hundred threads on this topic? Can we just sticky one and call it a day?

i think they both sux but if i had to pick one Kerry

Bush!

bush

i think we should pick the president by lottery, with screening tests to get rid of the idiots and the crazies. i think it would be an improvement(well at least in regard to idiots and crazies).

errr Bush wins by dafault as being the only one of the 2 who is or has been president, but I'd rather have someone else in charge, and that someone else happens to be Kerry based on the US's lame ass system.

who do you think is a better president of the US?
George Bush or Kerry?

Well kerry is an idiot and has no idea what he has to do to fix problems that we have. Though bush isn't the greatest president I feel more comfortable having him in office.

Well kerry is an idiot and has no idea what he has to do to fix problems that we have. Though bush isn't the greatest president I feel more comfortable having him in office.

Even after all that US intelligence messup?

If you people still like Bush after all he did, then you're just idiots.

Kerry!

What all did bush do? make the world safer? I guess if you don't like that then vote for kerry, he's sure to get us all killed. I personally like the freedoms i enjoy in america, and thus my vote goes to bush.

If Bush can't win the support of New York, even as he uses his leadership during Sept. 11 in his campains, he dosen't deserve to keep the Presidency.

What all did bush do? make the world safer? I guess if you don't like that then vote for kerry, he's sure to get us all killed. I personally like the freedoms i enjoy in america, and thus my vote goes to bush.

You better check the numbers that came out for 2003 on terrorism.. Bush made the world less safe, not more.

i think we should pick the president by lottery, with screening tests to get rid of the idiots and the crazies. i think it would be an improvement(well at least in regard to idiots and crazies).
I agree, but only if we extend the same lottery to include the Senate, the House, and all state and local offices, and if we immediately disqualify anyone who shows the slightest interest in the job.

Bush made the world safer? I guess if "safer" means "more terrorist attacks", then you're right. I like the freedoms America offers me, but the Patriot Act is pretty scary. Kerry isn't anything special, but my god, he is light years ahead of Bush. No more religious zealotry. Let the Republican party heal from these neocons, so I can proudly join it again.

If Bush can't win the support of New York, even as he uses his leadership during Sept. 11 in his campains, he dosen't deserve to keep the Presidency.
Dude--I've got more of a chance of winning New York, and I'm not even running.

Bush:

- was not elected
- claims he cares deeply for the security of the USA (and naturally its 51st state- Isreal) and claims he is the only one who can protect America, yet a bi-partisan commission has reported that prior to 9/11 the intelligence services (ultimately under his command) were not suitable/efficient/effective/adequately funded etc to defend the bloody country against the worst terrorist attack in US history
- appointed John Ashcroft as A.G
- has started two wars in two years: one of which is the least justified (He lied or was too impatient/inept to wait for the intelligence to show his ass was wrong on WMDs, Links with Al-Quaeda- not explicitally stated but read around and see how many people in the White House/Pentagon mentioned attacking Iraq/Saddam Hussein in the week after 9/11) full-scale war that the US has been involved in since Vietnam, whilst having the audacity to critices Kerry's war record (a decorated combatant)
- Wants to remove the ability to gain legal rights for various groups (gay marriage) no matter how outrageously discriminatory it may be
- ignores the second amendment that religion is to be seperate from state (not everyone in the US/World beleives in god George...) and is on, of all things, a 'crusade' (look up the crusades to get a feel for what that entailed last time- it's makes many Moslems feel the same way we feel when we here 'jihad')
- Claims he supports the US military, yet he has thrown them into what can only be described as a political nightmare (Iraq- I haven't had enough time to read about Afghan. and the media here hasn't reported anything significant in it anyway for months) and the coward himself joined (that is, whenever he bothered to rock up) the Texas Air National guard during a war not too unlike his own.
- Increased unemployment in the US by...a mere million or so last count
- Expressed a firm desire to implement THE STUPIDEST military program since the other right-wing idiot dreamed up its 'father. 'Son of Star Wars' will cost roughly 50 billion USD (Republican estimate), protect us against whose nukes again? North Korea and Iran (his 'axis of evil'- another show of brilliant statesmanship there George..) don't have the ability to launch them. China- yes China can launch them, but lets take a look at it from China's point of view- if this project is even successful (which is debatable) the US will now have the ability to launch a nuclear strike whilst itself escaping retribution. Now China can either a) develop a system of its own, which will undoubtably prompt others to do likewise in order to save their asses from the same situation and thus we have a lovely little arms race when the US/China/others design ways of delivering their now redundant but expensive nukes in ways that the Missile defence system will not be able to defend against (upgrades of ICBMs- who knows?. Or they can take option b)- more nukes on the principle that system or no system, some will get through. Great, countries producing more nukes....good one George
- Claimed (quote) "...the thing about the French is, they don't have a word for 'Entrepreneur'..."

I could throw in some more stuff here, but why bother?
In case your wondering, I actually haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet

Even after all that US intelligence messup?

the CIA and FBI and NSA and other security agencies gather intel, not mr.bush. dont blame him for someone else's mistakes. he takes the intel he gets and makes the best decision based on it, so if he gets faulty intel its not his fault he made a faulty decision, its those who gather the faulty intel and give it to him.

the CIA and FBI and NSA and other security agencies gather intel, not mr.bush. dont blame him for someone else's mistakes. he takes the intel he gets and makes the best decision based on it, so if he gets faulty intel its not his fault he made a faulty decision, its those who gather the faulty intel and give it to him.Is anything ever his fault? Anything? His entire term seems to be grounded in shifting blame to other people.

When you're the guy at the top, you have to take the blame when something goes wrong--that's called accountability, except in the business world where it means you get a golden parachute buyout and the company brings in someone else. Wasn't Bush the first MBA president? Here's your parachute.

yea you are right, he should technically be blamed on accountability for his decisions he makes even if they were based on faulty intel, but its still not his fault, but he should take the blame for it. good point.

Vote Bush. Do the right thing for once.

Personally, I hate Kerry. Secondly, I think Bush is a moron. I like Ralph, he likes the New York Yankees.

Bush:

- was not elected
- claims he cares deeply for the security of the USA (and naturally its 51st state- Isreal) and claims he is the only one who can protect America, yet a bi-partisan commission has reported that prior to 9/11 the intelligence services (ultimately under his command) were not suitable/efficient/effective/adequately funded etc to defend the bloody country against the worst terrorist attack in US history
- appointed John Ashcroft as A.G
- has started two wars in two years: one of which is the least justified (He lied or was too impatient/inept to wait for the intelligence to show his ass was wrong on WMDs, Links with Al-Quaeda- not explicitally stated but read around and see how many people in the White House/Pentagon mentioned attacking Iraq/Saddam Hussein in the week after 9/11) full-scale war that the US has been involved in since Vietnam, whilst having the audacity to critices Kerry's war record (a decorated combatant)
- Wants to remove the ability to gain legal rights for various groups (gay marriage) no matter how outrageously discriminatory it may be
- ignores the second amendment that religion is to be seperate from state (not everyone in the US/World beleives in god George...) and is on, of all things, a 'crusade' (look up the crusades to get a feel for what that entailed last time- it's makes many Moslems feel the same way we feel when we here 'jihad')
- Claims he supports the US military, yet he has thrown them into what can only be described as a political nightmare (Iraq- I haven't had enough time to read about Afghan. and the media here hasn't reported anything significant in it anyway for months) and the coward himself joined (that is, whenever he bothered to rock up) the Texas Air National guard during a war not too unlike his own.
- Increased unemployment in the US by...a mere million or so last count
- Expressed a firm desire to implement THE STUPIDEST military program since the other right-wing idiot dreamed up its 'father. 'Son of Star Wars' will cost roughly 50 billion USD (Republican estimate), protect us against whose nukes again? North Korea and Iran (his 'axis of evil'- another show of brilliant statesmanship there George..) don't have the ability to launch them. China- yes China can launch them, but lets take a look at it from China's point of view- if this project is even successful (which is debatable) the US will now have the ability to launch a nuclear strike whilst itself escaping retribution. Now China can either a) develop a system of its own, which will undoubtably prompt others to do likewise in order to save their asses from the same situation and thus we have a lovely little arms race when the US/China/others design ways of delivering their now redundant but expensive nukes in ways that the Missile defence system will not be able to defend against (upgrades of ICBMs- who knows?. Or they can take option b)- more nukes on the principle that system or no system, some will get through. Great, countries producing more nukes....good one George
- Claimed (quote) "...the thing about the French is, they don't have a word for 'Entrepreneur'..."

I could throw in some more stuff here, but why bother?
In case your wondering, I actually haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet


there's always a good and bad to everything...can't call anyone stupid, especially Bush,...have you been president??? have you made those kind of decisions?? if you haven't tried it don't judge

there's always a good and bad to everything...can't call anyone stupid, especially Bush,...have you been president??? have you made those kind of decisions?? if you haven't tried it don't judge

Erm... 'judging' is what democracy is all about. If you think everyone should have to say nice things about their leader just because they're their leader, move to North Korea or something.

I'm interested in the nationalities of the people posting here, although you're probably all american. Im an australian, and every person I've ever talked to over here, including me, hopes like hell that Bush doesn't get re-elected. But he wasn't elected in the first place, was he?

Well kerry is an idiot and has no idea what he has to do to fix problems that we have. Though bush isn't the greatest president I feel more comfortable having him in office.
bush knows what he has to do to fix problems... stifle the multiple rights found in the first ten amendments so no one can complain and make him look bad.

What all did bush do? make the world safer? I guess if you don't like that then vote for kerry, he's sure to get us all killed. I personally like the freedoms i enjoy in america, and thus my vote goes to bush.
really, bush's jumping other countries makes the world safer how? by making everyone angry at us? terrorist activities have jumped sicne this "war on terror" crap, and if you LIKE the freedoms you enjoy in americai wouldnt be voting for a hardcore GOP candidate

there's always a good and bad to everything...can't call anyone stupid, especially Bush,...have you been president??? have you made those kind of decisions?? if you haven't tried it don't judge
its not hard to call stupid people stupid, dan quayle may have been vice president but he was still pretty stupid.

there's always a good and bad to everything...can't call anyone stupid, especially Bush,...have you been president??? have you made those kind of decisions?? if you haven't tried it don't judge

That would be the most ludicrous statement I have heard in a political debate....by your logic we are wrong to criticize anyone in power

Try this

"there's always a good and bad to everything...can't call anyone bigotous, especially Hitler,...have you been Furher??? have you made those kind of decisions?? if you haven't tried it don't judge"

Bush is simply reprehensible as a President, he has only survived thus far by appealing to the loony christian right (and thus breaking the second amendment in doing so) and providing some token tax cuts

Pretty much every reason to vote for Bush can be refuted.

Makes the world safer? Al-Qaeda has never had such an easy time recruiting young people into its terrorist ranks.

You enjoy freedom? Bush put forward the USA PATRIOT Act, and is forumulating other plans to shred the US Constitution.

There aren't really any reasons to suggest that John Kerry would be weaker on terrorists. (Well, outside of "just cuz!" arguments.)

Typical liberal BS crap... Someone needs to listen to less Carvile...
Just to take a few:

Bush:

- was not elected

Yes he was. Don't be stupid. It may not have been a popular majority, but it was an election that followed the laws of the state. How soon we forget that Gore was putting out letters before the election emphasizing how the popular vote wasn't important - Mainly because he feared it happening to him!


- claims he cares deeply for the security of the USA (and naturally its 51st state- Isreal) and claims he is the only one who can protect America, yet a bi-partisan commission has reported that prior to 9/11 the intelligence services (ultimately under his command) were not suitable/efficient/effective/adequately funded etc to defend the bloody country against the worst terrorist attack in US history

The 9/11 commission looked at 8 months of Bush and 8 YEARS of the previous Decocrat admin. So sure, this is all Bush's fault.


- has started two wars in two years: one of which is the least justified (He lied or was too impatient/inept to wait for the intelligence to show his ass was wrong on WMDs, Links with Al-Quaeda- not explicitally stated but read around and see how many people in the White House/Pentagon mentioned attacking Iraq/Saddam Hussein in the week after 9/11) full-scale war that the US has been involved in since Vietnam, whilst having the audacity to critices Kerry's war record (a decorated combatant)
- Wants to remove the ability to gain legal rights for various groups (gay marriage) no matter how outrageously discriminatory it may be

A LOT of people see these as the right decisions. The vast majority of this country is opposed to gay marriage. Even Kerry claims to oppose gay marriage (and of course support it when that suits he cause, too!)

- Increased unemployment in the US by...a mere million or so last count

Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that this recession started while Clinton was still in office. And that recent economic reports show that it would have been worse but for Bush's economic policy.

What all did bush do? make the world safer? I guess if you don't like that then vote for kerry, he's sure to get us all killed. I personally like the freedoms i enjoy in america, and thus my vote goes to bush.

THATS RIGHT! If you don't vote for Bush you must HATE freedom, just like all the other liberal, communist, homosexual, tax-evading, baby-eating, terrorist, conspiacy theorists. In fact, if you don't have something nice to say about the president don't say anything at all.


Bust seriously, I would love to see some specific examples of how Buhs has made teh world safer by making them more angry? If you think you are any safer than you were 4 years ago, you should read the 9/11 report.

Me for one wouldnt vote bush if my life depended on it. He messed up everything in Iraq even before we sent troops in (ie going in without UN support). The only problem is I dont think Kerry will be much better but even a little bit helps.

If you people still like Bush after all he did, then you're just idiots.

If you're calling me an idiot because I listen to somebody who actually has a campaign over some horse-faced idiot who does nothing but slander Bush, than I think the only idiot here is you. I pretty much made up my mind about six months ago when Kerry was starting shit with Bush. To this day I don't think I've heard anything out of his mouth other than "Bush is an idiot, Bush did it all wrong, I can do it better." On top of that, you're saying that the war in Iraq was a bad idea. Well here's a news flash for ya, KERRY SUPPORTED IT! On top of that, I disagree with the birth control, abortion, and several other views that the Democrats have, so I'm voting for Bush, and YOU CAN'T STOP ME! W00T!

Even after all that US intelligence messup?but Bush didn't do that, now, did he?

If you're calling me an idiot because I listen to somebody who actually has a campaign over some horse-faced idiot who does nothing but slander Bush,

Yeah, and Bush doesn't say a single negative thing about Kerry :rolleyes:

In fact, that's almost all he does for his reelection campaign.

In fact, for all the bullshit talk about Kerry's negative capaigning, a recent study showed that the Bush campaign has run 3 times more negative ads than Kerry has.

How can you tell what the Republican party is going to do next? Watch what they accuse the Democrats of doing. It's their tell.

I like Bush, he goes to war with insane dictators...wait a second! Insane dictators! But I'm an insane dictator! I hate bush.

Yeah, and Bush doesn't say a single negative thing about Kerry :rolleyes:

In fact, that's almost all he does for his reelection campaign.

I think the key point there was horse-faced.

Kerry does remind me of a guy from a toothpaste-commercial when he smiles, so he may have a point :)

I haven't looked at the second part yet. Still reading the first.

Did they release the Presidential Daily Briefs pertaining to terror and iraq links to terror?

If they did then there is not much that can be said if they show he didn't get the right information.

If they are didn't then the "validity" of the report comes into question.

i think we should pick the president by lottery, with screening tests to get rid of the idiots and the crazies. i think it would be an improvement(well at least in regard to idiots and crazies).

I don't see why not. Although I don't think people would be as happy with that system, and it would probably be even easier to manipulate than representative democracy.

who do you think is a better president of the US?
George Bush or Kerry?

Neither!

Kerry would be a better president, with Bush American economy will suffer, he would go to invade more countries and continue to lie to all the people of the world. He and his bullshit friends just want to take over everything with a "twisted christianity" of killing and greed for money and oil while he cuts services and freedoms. Don't be stupid, don't let the masses manipulate you. Bush is eveil

Kerry is the lesser evil...

What all did bush do? make the world safer? I guess if you don't like that then vote for kerry, he's sure to get us all killed. I personally like the freedoms i enjoy in america, and thus my vote goes to bush.

Let's see... "make the world safer"...

Remember that intelligence report Bush used to justify the "war on terrorism" that showed a decrease in terrorism in 2003? According to the Bush Administration that report demonstrated that Bush's policies worked. Then it turned out that report was either mistaken or, more likely, falsified. BY THEIR OWN LOGIC, that means their strategy is NOT WORKING, that Bush has NOT made the world safer.

Furthermore, it's easy to see how the world is not safer now that America is hated more and more. If your argument is to scare the shit out of potential suicide terrorists, I don't think that's going to work. These people are already committed to dying for their cause, and threatening them with military might is not going to stop them.

How about "freedom"? If you love freedom, Bush is not your man. Look at John Ashcroft! John Ashcroft is doing his best to destroy our civil liberties. And Bush is doing his best to erode the checks and balances in our system of government.

www.freepress.net
Read foreign newspapers so you see what your media is hiding, Americans never get the whole truth because they are so busy watching reality stupid TV shows and the news "select" the info for you. Read the Independent, read Robert Fisk, read the real reporters that are not censored. There are a lot of Michael Moores out there for your education

Nader

I think Kerry would make a good president
Bush is a real idiot the only reason he got voted president last election is because of his father. Also I don't support most of his decisions that he has made in office

Kerry would be a better president, with Bush American economy will suffer, he would go to invade more countries and continue to lie to all the people of the world. He and his bullshit friends just want to take over everything with a "twisted christianity" of killing and greed for money and oil while he cuts services and freedoms. Don't be stupid, don't let the masses manipulate you. Bush is eveil
I would rather have that then Kerry coming in and trying to "talk" the terrorist and get us all killed. PLus he is a frigin liberal and he flip-flops on decisions. Its not bush's fault that 9/11 happened when he came into office and thats probaly what effected our economy the most, not bush.

You should all watch the movie at this link.
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&track=0&ratingBar=off
Its soooooo funny!!!!! It stars Bush and Kerry. Its called "This Land".

All Dial up users beware it took me one and a half hours w/ my dial up to load it, but mine is the worst u can get. It is 3.7 Megabytes.

What freedoms do you have when you cannot smoke a joint without going to jail, is not even legal to own a pipe. You cannot say a lot of things eventhough they say you can. They convict hundreds of people to jails to get cheap labour 60 cents an hour. what about death penalty, what about same sex marriages, what about abortion laws, what about all the protest that were forbidden, what about hiding the truth from the war, WHERE IS THE FREEDOM? What abouit going to CUBA???

Sonicvortex I completely agree with you
Bush wants everybody to act all christian and holy. Its so anoying.

which terrorist is going to kill you?? That is all lies, there wasn;'t any danger whatso ever in Irak, not a glipse of danger even for Israel that is so close to them. Don't be ignorant

represion

Bush:

its 51st state- Isreal

- Claimed (quote) "...the thing about the French is, they don't have a word for 'Entrepreneur'..."


Regarding Israel, it's an oversimplification to call Israel the 51st state. That doesn't even really mean anything.

And as for that quotation, it's not certain he said it.

Personally, I think President Bush is a burn-out case who did too many hard drugs in college, and although his emotional growth is stunted by alcohol and said hard drugs, and he is grievously ignorant and lacks intelligence as far as manipulating concepts, I think he actually has a razor-sharp, damn-near British-grade wit, and that on the rare occasion he figures out what the hell's going on, he is capable of making really funny remarks about it. He's also great at manipulating people.

if we use a 1% of the military spending and the waste of money on the drug on wars there would be no poor people in USA and in many other countries. There would be humanitarian help and no occupation, there would be no need for oil and there would be friendly energy.

We can go to Saturn and we can not have a solar energy in our houses. Thanks to the greed

Kerry is far more evil than Bush...not to mention an arch-traitor. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush, but I absolutely HATE Kerry.


www.hanoijohnkerry.com

Go to http://www.hanoijohnkerry.com/links.html for links to the following pages:

Beat Kerry 2004
Crush Kerry
Dirty Kerry
I Hate John Kerry
John F. Kerry Sucks
John F'n Kerry
John Kerry Truth
Kerry Lied
Kerry Quotes
No Kerry
No To Kerry
POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry
Protest Warrior
Senator FlipFlop
Socialist Kerry
Useful Fools
Vets Against Kerry
Vets Truth
Vietnam Special Forces Veterans Against Kerry
Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry
Wintersoldier.com

I would rather have that then Kerry coming in and trying to "talk" the terrorist and get us all killed. PLus he is a frigin liberal and he flip-flops on decisions. Its not bush's fault that 9/11 happened when he came into office and thats probaly what effected our economy the most, not bush.

You should all watch the movie at this link.
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&track=0&ratingBar=off
Its soooooo funny!!!!! It stars Bush and Kerry. Its called "This Land".

All Dial up users beware it took me one and a half hours w/ my dial up to load it, but mine is the worst u can get. It is 3.7 Megabytes.

I swear to God I'm going to smack the next person who says that Kerry "flip-flops". It actually is uncertain whether it was Bush's fault that 9/11 happened, but there's a lot of evidence to support the claim, and certainly Bush benefited greatly from it (obviously it's more Osama bin Laden's fault).

And I'm also going to smack the next person who calls Kerry a "liberal". Kerry is a moderate by American standards, and right-of-center by global/historical standards. He doesn't flip-flop: he has a mammalian brain, and he sometimes fails to conceal the fact that he is capable of making fine distinctions on issues that our mass media and the vast right-wing conspiracy love to ignore.

Who would like to vote for Bush? He is an ignorant liar, a puppet of the neocons, they are only interested in their own projects (money, oil, territories, destroy to recosntruct and give money to their friends) They manipulate while our farmers are getting poorer and the cities have more homeless every time. Bush is destroying the world and he doesn't even want to be on the Kyoto accord

I would love for a miracle to happen and Nader somehow be elected, but that isn't going to happen. So, instead, my vote is for Kerry. I refuse to follow any leader regardless of how much he has helped/hurt our nation if they are claiming guidance from above. God has not sent American soldiers on a Crusade against the Iraqis. Bush has sent American soldiers to occupy a country we had no business stepping foot in. Church and state must be seperated, for no American should feel alienated or offended because their leader is spouting off about how God sent him on a mission. I follow somewhat Christian based beliefs, and I myself am offended by his statements.

IRL, I guess you could say I'm a Christian Republican, and never before have I ever felt so ashamed of the Republican party. This is not the America I envisioned when I voted for Bush.

You know, this is exactly what the terrorists want, bickering amongst ourselves. It is necessary that we elect a President who is willing to combat terrorists, which happens to be Bush. Bush is a better wartime President than Kerry, but Kerry can do more domestically than Bush. Since we are fighting a war, it is best that we remember that we need to elect a War President, and when the war is over, we need to elect a Peace-time President.

Hmm...You know, I don't particularly like either, neither should be, nor can they live up to the standards of being president. Both stand for things that would help us, but bush didnt deliver. There should be private school vouchers, money should be put into public schools as well. We shouldn't go getting into stupid wars over rumors, we should defeat Al Qaeda, but all our "great" president ever did was invade Iraq, first of all, he only finished what his father tried to do eight years prior, second he should have taken over Iraq, why? Because, that way we could get cheaper oil(theoretically) and we could easily kill Osama, but did we? No, we gave IRaq back to the people, who will only turn it into another battle ground. And still despite the warnings of beheading innocent people, we still remain in Iraq, why? Because, Bush feels it is easier to lose a few people who don't deserve to die, then to be satisfied, he had accomplished his twisted idea of taking down Hussein, we have tighter security, so terrorism is nearly impossible, but yet we lose more and more people, and those countries that back out to save theirs, what do we do? We frown upon them. The policy on Gay Marriage with both of them is something that I abhorre too, not that I am, but come on, we say we're the land of the free, home of the brave, that the united states is a place of freedom, but we exclude others, there are still hate crimes against homosexuals, why? Because people are against uniqueness, they feel safer with people who share the same personality, that's natural, but is it right that people can do things maliciously, religion is ****-****. We say we have freedom of religion, yet the religions we have are all about a union between a man and a woman, well that supports christianity, judaiism, and the others, but where does it come from? It comes from the bible, now tell me, where does it state in the constitution and such that church and state are to be kept seperate, except in marriage? It doesn't, marriage is something we've had since the begining of history, it wasn't elaborate, it wasn't about who could get married, all it was, was two people, they didn't state between which genders, why? Because they were witout knowledge, all people did in the begining was reproduce and eat, they had only one mate, except in weird contries where men thought they could please more then one woman, obviously he didn't think they were faking it. But later on, before all of these religions came up, it didn't matter, people could be open, and no one would care, it wasn't frowned upon by the people because there wasn't anyone telling them otherwise. In japan's history(something I'm more familiar with, oddly enough) Samurai slept with their swords near them, because they thought their wives may be supporting a rival daimyo, but those of the same daimyo(talking about male samurai here) they became closer then good friends, a little too affectionate, but alright. Now, onto why I still hate both of them, Kerry, may or may not have served in 'Nam, I don't care, Bush, unfortunately didn't die in the navy(or whereever he was). So on the polls, I would write in Wacko Jacko(M. Jackson) Why? Because he could lead this country better then those two ever could.

You know, this is exactly what the terrorists want, bickering amongst ourselves. It is necessary that we elect a President who is willing to combat terrorists, which happens to be Bush. Bush is a better wartime President than Kerry, but Kerry can do more domestically than Bush. Since we are fighting a war, it is best that we remember that we need to elect a War President, and when the war is over, we need to elect a Peace-time President.How the hell do you know what the terrorists want us to do unless you're one of them?

No--I'm not suggesting you're a terrorist, just pointing out how ludicrous that kind of reasoning is. Think about what you're saying.

I don't care for either of them, but Kerry is so out of step with my beliefs that I could NEVER vote for him. He DOES flip flop on a LOT of issues, and the fact that he has only showed up for work ONE time this entire year to vote in the Senate is indicative of his commitment to the people who put him in the Senate to begin with. As for Bush, he HAS to do his job every day. Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. Edwards is greatly disliked in North Carolina and will not get a second term. Gore could not carry Tenn, Edwards will not help Kerry out in the south either.

I don't care for either of them, but Kerry is so out of step with my beliefs that I could NEVER vote for him. He DOES flip flop on a LOT of issues, and the fact that he has only showed up for work ONE time this entire year to vote in the Senate is indicative of his commitment to the people who put him in the Senate to begin with. As for Bush, he HAS to do his job every day. Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. Edwards is greatly disliked in North Carolina and will not get a second term. Gore could not carry Tenn, Edwards will not help Kerry out in the south either.Point one--Kerry has been in the Senate more than once this year. In fact, he was in town specifically for a vote about a month ago that the Republicans then cancelled, just so he wouldn't be able to cast his vote.

Point two--Edwards was never going to get a second term regardless. Why? He wasn't running for re-election.

Point three--Bush having to do his job everyday certainly hasn't stopped him from taking vacations all the time or from campaigning non-stop.

Vote for Bush if you wish, but don't spread bullshit about the opponent in the process.

Point one--Kerry has been in the Senate more than once this year. In fact, he was in town specifically for a vote about a month ago that the Republicans then cancelled, just so he wouldn't be able to cast his vote.

Point two--Edwards was never going to get a second term regardless. Why? He wasn't running for re-election.

Point three--Bush having to do his job everyday certainly hasn't stopped him from taking vacations all the time or from campaigning non-stop.

Vote for Bush if you wish, but don't spread bullshit about the opponent in the process.

Good points. (gee, I sound like I'm talking about a tennis match, or something, lol!)

Point one--Kerry has been in the Senate more than once this year. In fact, he was in town specifically for a vote about a month ago that the Republicans then cancelled, just so he wouldn't be able to cast his vote.

Point two--Edwards was never going to get a second term regardless. Why? He wasn't running for re-election.

Point three--Bush having to do his job everyday certainly hasn't stopped him from taking vacations all the time or from campaigning non-stop.

Vote for Bush if you wish, but don't spread bullshit about the opponent in the process.

Firstly, I NEVER said WHO I was going to vote for.

Secondly, Edwards was not going to run again, because he KNOWS he would not be re-elected. Kerry did not get to vote because the vote was postponed due to amendments that were clogging up the bill in question, NOT because Kerry FINALLY showed up. Of course Kerry HAD to politicize that though. "It's all about me." :rolleyes:

Thirdly, EVERY president takes vacations. Clinton even followed the polls to determine where HE should vacation. :rolleyes: FDR spent MONTHS at his home in Georgia during WW2 and noone thought anything of it. In todays age of instant communications any of us can work from anywhere, even when on "vacation." I guess you would think that Kerry would never go on vacation. :rolleyes:

Forthly, you may think my opinion is "bullshit" but I have just as much right to it as you to yours.

Firstly, I NEVER said WHO I was going to vote for.

Secondly, Edwards was not going to run again, because he KNOWS he would not be re-elected.

Thirdly, EVERY president takes vacations. Clinton even followed the polls to determine where HE should vacation. :rolleyes: FDR spent MONTHS at his home in Georgia during WW2 and noone thought anything of it. In todays age of instant communications any of us can work from anywhere, even when on "vacation." I guess you would think that Kerry would never go on vacation. :rolleyes:

Forthly, you may think my opinion is "bullshit" but I have just as much right to it as you to yours.
Firstly, I never suggested who you were going to vote for. All I did was refute the notion that Kerry has been out of the Senate all year while campaigning. Sure, he's missed a lot, but so has pretty much every other Senator who ever ran for President.

Secondly, how you know this is beyond me. I guess you're fucking Karnak the Magnificent or something. Edwards himself said from the very beginning of his Presidential campaign that he was not running for re-election because he was running for President and didn't want to divide his energies.

Thirdly, you were the one who was suggesting that Kerry couldn't do his job as a Senator because he was campaigning, while Bush was doing his job every day. I was merely pointing out that Bush has spent a goodly amount of time away from work, so to chastise Kerry while giving Bush a pass is hardly fair.

Fourth, I wasn't calling your opinions bullshit. I was asking you to be honest and accurate in your accusations against Kerry.

If you people still like Bush after all he did, then you're just idiots.
i agree i mean cmon hes trying to link iran with the 9/11 attacks now hes a dumb ass

Firstly, I never suggested who you were going to vote for. All I did was refute the notion that Kerry has been out of the Senate all year while campaigning. Sure, he's missed a lot, but so has pretty much every other Senator who ever ran for President.

Secondly, how you know this is beyond me. I guess you're fucking Karnak the Magnificent or something. Edwards himself said from the very beginning of his Presidential campaign that he was not running for re-election because he was running for President and didn't want to divide his energies.

Thirdly, you were the one who was suggesting that Kerry couldn't do his job as a Senator because he was campaigning, while Bush was doing his job every day. I was merely pointing out that Bush has spent a goodly amount of time away from work, so to chastise Kerry while giving Bush a pass is hardly fair.

Fourth, I wasn't calling your opinions bullshit. I was asking you to be honest and accurate in your accusations against Kerry.

Kerry has shown up ONE day to work in the Senate this year. He has the WORST attendence record by far. (FACT)

Polls in N.C. have shown that Edwards would NOT be re-elected if he ran. He is greatly disliked in the state. How do I know this? I am from North Carolina and have seen his lies and the damage he has done to the state.

Bush HAS to do his job, 24/7 even when on "vacation." His staff is with him wherever he goes. To say he is on "vacation" is to imply that he is not working. Every president takes a vacation, but let Bush play golf for a day and it is labeled a "vacation." Hardly fair. neither man is perfect, but Kerry would rather sit down with Osama Bin Laden over tea and discuss his differences with us and Bush would rather drop a bomb on him. THATS the difference that matters. Kerry is a scary man, Bush is a dullard, but we are fighting an enemy like no other, and talking is not the answer.

i agree i mean cmon hes trying to link iran with the 9/11 attacks now hes a dumb ass

Where did you see that? I have not heard that one. It has been proven that some of the 9-11 hijackers did travel through Iran on their way to the US, there has been no assertion that Iran was involved. In fact, the 9-11 commission has dispelled any notion that Iran was involved, but it did not the transition THROUGH Iran by some of the hijackers. Saddam hussein had contacts with Al Quaeda as far back as 1998 and even offered them sactuary in Iraq in 1999 but no "working" relationship was found.

Ok I check out that site and a couple others. The main points

1) He spoke out against the war so he was a traitor
2) You can give yourself a purple heart if you are in command so wink wink you know how he "really" go them.

Are they valid or are they not?

A buddy was a Ranger for two tours; starting with TET. He spoke out against the war. So I guess he was a traitor as well? :rolleyes:

So I am not seeing anything wrong with his service record yet.

Can you say that for the shrub?

Kerry is far more evil than Bush...not to mention an arch-traitor. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush, but I absolutely HATE Kerry.


www.hanoijohnkerry.com

Go to http://www.hanoijohnkerry.com/links.html for links to the following pages:

Beat Kerry 2004
Crush Kerry
Dirty Kerry
I Hate John Kerry
John F. Kerry Sucks
John F'n Kerry
John Kerry Truth
Kerry Lied
Kerry Quotes
No Kerry
No To Kerry
POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry
Protest Warrior
Senator FlipFlop
Socialist Kerry
Useful Fools
Vets Against Kerry
Vets Truth
Vietnam Special Forces Veterans Against Kerry
Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry
Wintersoldier.com

Ok I check out that site and a couple others. The main points

1) He spoke out against the war so he was a traitor
2) You can give yourself a purple heart if you are in command so wink wink you know how he "really" go them.

Are they valid or are they not?

A buddy was a Ranger for two tours; starting with TET. He spoke out against the war. So I guess he was a traitor as well? :rolleyes:

So I am not seeing anything wrong with his service record yet.

Can you say that for the shrub?

One thing he DID do was accuse his fellow soldiers of, and admit to commiting war crimes himself. When the DoD tried to contact the men Kerry listed as being involved, or as witnesses, 150 in total, they were nowhere to be found. They did not exist. Kerry was so anti-war he fabricated many stories.

Something that is telling is that every commanding officer Kerry had has come out and said he is unfit to be the commander-in-chief. EVERY ONE of them. As a disabled veteran myself (I retired in June 2001) I would not trust Kerry to be in command of a girl scout troop. His attitude toward the military is abysmal. The ONE vote he was trying to cast this year in the Senate was to increase veterans benefits. He was going to vote against it of course. It was bogged down by riders to the bill and he was unable to vote against it. Far be it for him to show up to work on a routine basis. :rolleyes:

Ok I check out that site and a couple others. The main points

1) He spoke out against the war so he was a traitor
2) You can give yourself a purple heart if you are in command so wink wink you know how he "really" go them.

Are they valid or are they not?

A buddy was a Ranger for two tours; starting with TET. He spoke out against the war. So I guess he was a traitor as well? :rolleyes:

So I am not seeing anything wrong with his service record yet.

Can you say that for the shrub?

No, he was not a traitor (your buddy, I mean). But he didn't help cover up evidence that POWs were abandoned, viciously smear and slander his fellow vets the way Kerry did, or give moral aid to the enemy.

One thing he DID do was accuse his fellow soldiers of, and admit to commiting war crimes himself. When the DoD tried to contact the men Kerry listed as being involved, or as witnesses, 150 in total, they were nowhere to be found. They did not exist. Kerry was so anti-war he fabricated many stories.

Something that is telling is that every commanding officer Kerry had has come out and said he is unfit to be the commander-in-chief. EVERY ONE of them. As a disabled veteran myself (I retired in June 2001) I would not trust Kerry to be in command of a girl scout troop. His attitude toward the military is abysmal. The ONE vote he was trying to cast this year in the Senate was to increase veterans benefits. He was going to vote against it of course. It was bogged down by riders to the bill and he was unable to vote against it. Far be it for him to show up to work on a routine basis. :rolleyes:

I agree with you, my friend.

Ok I check out that site and a couple others. The main points

1) He spoke out against the war so he was a traitor
2) You can give yourself a purple heart if you are in command so wink wink you know how he "really" go them.

Are they valid or are they not?

A buddy was a Ranger for two tours; starting with TET. He spoke out against the war. So I guess he was a traitor as well? :rolleyes:

So I am not seeing anything wrong with his service record yet.

Can you say that for the shrub?

Look, I was in no way defending Bush. I think he's a traitor, too, but when it comes to treachery, Kerry is hard to top.

Bush is more dangerous to the world than kerry, do you want suicide bombers in USA? Vote Bush. Do you want another 1000 kids killed in combat? Vote BUsh

Bush is more dangerous to the world than kerry, do you want suicide bombers in USA? Vote Bush. Do you want another 1000 kids killed in combat? Vote BUsh

I think you have that backwards. 1000 kids killed in combat in ANOTHER country is preferable to having them have to fight here. That has been the entire defensive plan of the US since 1945. Thats why we have troops stationed in 120 other countries. Better to fight on someone elses turf than ours. ;)

As an isolationist I think we should just bring all our troops home. Then if we are attacked, we send a few nukes over. 15 of 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.....goodbye Saudi Arabia. Now, where were the other 4 from? ;)

Of course we would never do that. We have to keep up an image for the rest of the world and be their doormat. Kerry would rather talk to the man with the knife at his throat than fight him. The time for talking is over.

who do you think is a better president of the US?
George Bush or Kerry?

Kerry is a "Senator". Not a "President".

Bush is. Hopefully, he'll remain so for another 4yrs.

imho.

Kylara

I believe that the Patriot Act expires and has to be renewed by Congress every 6 months. Yeah, it's a scary piece of legislation, but the damn thing expires! When this terrorist crap is all over, the Patriot Act will just go away... unless Congress gets all crazy on us....

Not every six months, but it does come up for periodic renewal. Fortunately it's got enough opposition from people on both sides of the aisle that the more egregious sections probably won't renew.

I think you have that backwards. 1000 kids killed in combat in ANOTHER country is preferable to having them have to fight here. That has been the entire defensive plan of the US since 1945. Thats why we have troops stationed in 120 other countries. Better to fight on someone elses turf than ours. ;)

As an isolationist I think we should just bring all our troops home. Then if we are attacked, we send a few nukes over. 15 of 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.....goodbye Saudi Arabia. Now, where were the other 4 from? ;)

Of course we would never do that. We have to keep up an image for the rest of the world and be their doormat. Kerry would rather talk to the man with the knife at his throat than fight him. The time for talking is over.

Oceanica you really must be a dumbass. Do you honestly think that using nuclear weaponry on a country is excusible merely because terrorists came from said country? The fact is that Bush is a murderer and I could not stand to see him in office another four years. It is for this reason that I signed up to volunteer for the Kerry Edwards campaign. And as for the reason that I did not use the phrase reelection when reffering to Bush, I did so for the simple reason that Bush was not elected. No I am not speaking of the antiquated system that is the electoral college, I am reffering to the fact that Bush and his brother had certain voters disenfranchised on the grounds that they "were not likely to vote". The only problem with this is that these people were mostly african american or seniors. So all I have to say is...


Hail to the theif!

OKAY, END OF DAMN STORY!! Kerry is a COMMUNIST!!! UNLESS YOU WANT THE RICHER TO GET RICHER AND THE POORER TO GET POORER, VOTE BUSH!!

That would be the most ludicrous statement I have heard in a political debate....by your logic we are wrong to criticize anyone in power

Try this

"there's always a good and bad to everything...can't call anyone bigotous, especially Hitler,...have you been Furher??? have you made those kind of decisions?? if you haven't tried it don't judge"

Bush is simply reprehensible as a President, he has only survived thus far by appealing to the loony christian right (and thus breaking the second amendment in doing so) and providing some token tax cuts

good point...okay 1 point to you 0 for me...see how easy that was??

Kerry would be a better president, with Bush American economy will suffer, he would go to invade more countries and continue to lie to all the people of the world. He and his bullshit friends just want to take over everything with a "twisted christianity" of killing and greed for money and oil while he cuts services and freedoms. Don't be stupid, don't let the masses manipulate you. Bush is eveil

Are you listening to yourself?

OKAY, END OF DAMN STORY!! Kerry is a COMMUNIST!!! UNLESS YOU WANT THE RICHER TO GET RICHER AND THE POORER TO GET POORER, VOTE BUSH!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wait a second

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OKAY, END OF DAMN STORY!! Kerry is a COMMUNIST!!! UNLESS YOU WANT THE RICHER TO GET RICHER AND THE POORER TO GET POORER, VOTE BUSH!!


YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY RIGHT OTHERWIZE YOU WOULDNT TALK IN ALL CAPS!!! AND USE SO MANY EXCLAMATION POINTS!! YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED EARLIER THEN WE WOULD HAVE ALL KNOWN!!!

OKAY, END OF DAMN STORY!! Kerry is a COMMUNIST!!! UNLESS YOU WANT THE RICHER TO GET RICHER AND THE POORER TO GET POORER, VOTE BUSH!!
Because this is obviously what Communism is all about...

OKAY, END OF DAMN STORY!! Kerry is a COMMUNIST!!! UNLESS YOU WANT THE RICHER TO GET RICHER AND THE POORER TO GET POORER, VOTE BUSH!!

Of course, how come we all didn't see it, Kerry- with his millions of dollars and his far more liberal political views- could not be anything else but a communist, a red under the bed if you will.

I don't think you realise how ironic it is that you contend that Kerry, a democrat (if your a republican read: tax-hiker), would extend the rich-poor gap, whereas Bush has done precisely that over his years of office. His tax cuts are regressive and are pretty much for the benefit of the rich

Allow me to explain this

lets say (for the sake of argument) Our hypothetical president George F. Kerry
lowers taxes to a universal 20% on everyones salary, but cuts funding to health/other social benefit schemes to prevent a deficit.

Rich person- benefits. Why? Simple. This person is unlikely to have used social service benefits funded by the govt. anyway given that he would have been able to afford private alternatives (e.g. healthcare). 20% of his large salary (say $500,000) a year he could more or less happily lose and still be going nicely

Poor person- loses badly. 20% of say $30,000 becomes a big chunk if the person additionally has to pay for expensive private services.

The question then is- but isn't that just their hard luck for being poor? Stop listening to Rush Limbough, there are a thousand reasons for people being in the lower class, and most of them do not involve laziness or some other sloppy, flipant dismissal.

And thus we get a country with a large rich-poor divide. For examples of other wonderous countries with a consistenly happy people and a rich-poor situation like this, look at Russia, China, South Africa, Bangledesh etc. High crime rates, massive social problems. Is this what you want for your country- if not, vote Kerry

Even after all that US intelligence messup?
ok for all those that have a bad memory or just chose to forget bush was useing the same intell as clinton. both clinton and kerry have been on tv stating sadom had wmd. the difernce is kerry flip flops to apease for votes. any one that wants a man that does not stand by what he belives may just be to stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. it really supprises me how people that want him seem to forget what he has said or done in the past.

Kerry, he's the lesser of two evils, IMO.
:sniper:

Where did you see that? I have not heard that one. It has been proven that some of the 9-11 hijackers did travel through Iran on their way to the US, there has been no assertion that Iran was involved. In fact, the 9-11 commission has dispelled any notion that Iran was involved, but it did not the transition THROUGH Iran by some of the hijackers. Saddam hussein had contacts with Al Quaeda as far back as 1998 and even offered them sactuary in Iraq in 1999 but no "working" relationship was found.
read it more carefully. it said there was not compelling evidence not that there was none.

Typical liberal BS crap... Someone needs to listen to less Carvile...
Just to take a few:



Yes he was. Don't be stupid. It may not have been a popular majority, but it was an election that followed the laws of the state. How soon we forget that Gore was putting out letters before the election emphasizing how the popular vote wasn't important - Mainly because he feared it happening to him!



The 9/11 commission looked at 8 months of Bush and 8 YEARS of the previous Decocrat admin. So sure, this is all Bush's fault.



A LOT of people see these as the right decisions. The vast majority of this country is opposed to gay marriage. Even Kerry claims to oppose gay marriage (and of course support it when that suits he cause, too!)



Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that this recession started while Clinton was still in office. And that recent economic reports show that it would have been worse but for Bush's economic policy.

1) Votes- You seem to ignore that the so called 'private' vote counting company for florida (chaired by an ex-Bush campaigner) illegally disenfranchised thousands of voters in Florida prior to the elections.

2).....Yes it also shared the blame around, but notably 6 of the 10 opportunities to catch the terrorists before they hit the WTC and Pentagon occured during the Bush Era. Remember, it was also under Clinton that 75 cruise missiles were fired at what was beleived to be ObL's headquaters in 1998, so don't say they completely sat on their ass like Bush...

3) Kerry didn't introduce legislation trying to BAN it though, nor did he actually support it. He doesn't beleive it is right, but he has said that he realizes it is not up to him to make such a decision. Bush on the other hand, beleives that anything which doesn't directly conform to his narrow Southern Baptist ideals is wrong.

4) Bullshit, cite these so-called 'reports'

read it more carefully. it said there was not compelling evidence not that there was none.

Well according to the 9/11 Report (which I can't wait to read when I get home :)) it said that hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship. They didn't cooperate on 9/11 but they did have a relationship!

not every six months but it does come up for periodic renewal. Fortunately, it has enough opposition from people on both sides of the aisle that the more egregiuos sections won't be renew

I guess you don't follow the news, All sections have been approved by the US House! Or so i've heard!

As for who I think is better, I'd go Bush! Though I can't vote in this election, I woud vote for Bush if I could. Why? Because he is going after the terrorists on their home field. Kerry would rather talk than act. Also, it seems that people are forgetting that 2/3 of al Qaeda's leadership is either dead or captured.

::typed on Vacation::

Oceanica you really must be a dumbass. Do you honestly think that using nuclear weaponry on a country is excusible merely because terrorists came from said country? The fact is that Bush is a murderer and I could not stand to see him in office another four years. It is for this reason that I signed up to volunteer for the Kerry Edwards campaign. And as for the reason that I did not use the phrase reelection when reffering to Bush, I did so for the simple reason that Bush was not elected. No I am not speaking of the antiquated system that is the electoral college, I am reffering to the fact that Bush and his brother had certain voters disenfranchised on the grounds that they "were not likely to vote". The only problem with this is that these people were mostly african american or seniors. So all I have to say is...


Hail to the theif!

I guess you missed my "wink" acknowledging where I was kidding. Bush is a murderer? Who did he kill? Now Ted Kennedy, we KNOW he has killed someone. Now before we go talking about "stealing" an election, you might want to look at that again. As for the Electoral College, THAT is how our presidents are elected...not the popular vote. The popular vote means NOTHING. Thats the way the system works, so if you want to change it, then petition congress. Bush got the majority of the electoral college votes....and thus he won, PERIOD. IF kerry is elected, he WILL raise your taxes, so you will have less money to buy things, then the economy will suffer, and you will suffer. He is also anti-military and wants to "TALK" to the terrorists to see why they don't like us. He is an idiot and he will not win, but you go ahead and volunteer for him.

1) Votes- You seem to ignore that the so called 'private' vote counting company for florida (chaired by an ex-Bush campaigner) illegally disenfranchised thousands of voters in Florida prior to the elections.

2).....Yes it also shared the blame around, but notably 6 of the 10 opportunities to catch the terrorists before they hit the WTC and Pentagon occured during the Bush Era. Remember, it was also under Clinton that 75 cruise missiles were fired at what was beleived to be ObL's headquaters in 1998, so don't say they completely sat on their ass like Bush...

3) Kerry didn't introduce legislation trying to BAN it though, nor did he actually support it. He doesn't beleive it is right, but he has said that he realizes it is not up to him to make such a decision. Bush on the other hand, beleives that anything which doesn't directly conform to his narrow Southern Baptist ideals is wrong.

4) Bullshit, cite these so-called 'reports'


How do you disenfranchise voters BEFORE an election? Do you hold them at gunpoint to keep them from voting?

75 cruise missles that destroyed an aspirin factory in Sudan and an EMPTY training camp in Afganistan. They were a pointless shot in the dark that accomplished nothing but show that the US was a "paper tiger."

Kerry is PAID to have a position and come to a DECISION about issues, that he cannot do so is indicative of his lack of leadership. In trying to please everyone, he pleases noone.

Of course, how come we all didn't see it, Kerry- with his millions of dollars and his far more liberal political views- could not be anything else but a communist, a red under the bed if you will.

I don't think you realise how ironic it is that you contend that Kerry, a democrat (if your a republican read: tax-hiker), would extend the rich-poor gap, whereas Bush has done precisely that over his years of office. His tax cuts are regressive and are pretty much for the benefit of the rich

Allow me to explain this

lets say (for the sake of argument) Our hypothetical president George F. Kerry
lowers taxes to a universal 20% on everyones salary, but cuts funding to health/other social benefit schemes to prevent a deficit.

Rich person- benefits. Why? Simple. This person is unlikely to have used social service benefits funded by the govt. anyway given that he would have been able to afford private alternatives (e.g. healthcare). 20% of his large salary (say $500,000) a year he could more or less happily lose and still be going nicely

Poor person- loses badly. 20% of say $30,000 becomes a big chunk if the person additionally has to pay for expensive private services.

The question then is- but isn't that just their hard luck for being poor? Stop listening to Rush Limbough, there are a thousand reasons for people being in the lower class, and most of them do not involve laziness or some other sloppy, flipant dismissal.

And thus we get a country with a large rich-poor divide. For examples of other wonderous countries with a consistenly happy people and a rich-poor situation like this, look at Russia, China, South Africa, Bangledesh etc. High crime rates, massive social problems. Is this what you want for your country- if not, vote Kerry


How is a 10% CUT in taxes for EVERYONE better for the rich than the poor? Oh I see where you are coming from. 10% of $500,000 is a bigger number than 10% of $50,000. Therefore the guy making $500,000 is getting a bigger tax break. :rolleyes:

Ben Affleck received a $150,000 tax refund and thought that it was wrong for the government to "give" him that much money when others who worked harder did not get such a refund. Hey DUMBASS, that is YOUR money!! The government does not GIVE anyone money. Some people are just too stupid to live in a free society.

Private Services? Yeah, you do have to pay for those....they are PRIVATE. Public services....those are free. We do NOT have free healthcare and we really don't want it. Socialized medicine is the WORST. People hold the UK and Canada up as great examples of public healthcare, yet have they actually seen how it works? I have.... My wife is half English and her aunt needed surgery on her hip. The poor woman was in constant pain and did not have the money to pay for PRIVATE care. So she went for PUBLIC care and had to wait SEVEN years for her surgery! Why so long? Because it was not LIFE THREATENING. Had she been able to pay for PRIVATE care, she could have been seen immediately. THATS what Hillary Clinton wanted for us....and it is what Kerry is pushing for, and it is a socialist agenda. I do not trust the government to make decisions for me, and anyone who does is a fool.

Bush, bro. Seriously. Ain't nobody better'n him. NOBODY. Not even George Adams, Warren Harding, or Theodore Rosavelt. Seriously.

Bush, bro. Seriously. Ain't nobody better'n him. NOBODY. Not even George Adams, Warren Harding, or Theodore Rosavelt. Seriously.

PLEASE!!
Do not even take the names of all those great people AND that of Bush in the same breath.Bush doesn't even compare to their toenails!!

How is a 10% CUT in taxes for EVERYONE better for the rich than the poor? Oh I see where you are coming from. 10% of $500,000 is a bigger number than 10% of $50,000. Therefore the guy making $500,000 is getting a bigger tax break. :rolleyes:

Ben Affleck received a $150,000 tax refund and thought that it was wrong for the government to "give" him that much money when others who worked harder did not get such a refund. Hey DUMBASS, that is YOUR money!! The government does not GIVE anyone money. Some people are just too stupid to live in a free society.

Private Services? Yeah, you do have to pay for those....they are PRIVATE. Public services....those are free. We do NOT have free healthcare and we really don't want it. Socialized medicine is the WORST. People hold the UK and Canada up as great examples of public healthcare, yet have they actually seen how it works? I have.... My wife is half English and her aunt needed surgery on her hip. The poor woman was in constant pain and did not have the money to pay for PRIVATE care. So she went for PUBLIC care and had to wait SEVEN years for her surgery! Why so long? Because it was not LIFE THREATENING. Had she been able to pay for PRIVATE care, she could have been seen immediately. THATS what Hillary Clinton wanted for us....and it is what Kerry is pushing for, and it is a socialist agenda. I do not trust the government to make decisions for me, and anyone who does is a fool.

What do you not understand about how it is increasingly harder for the person on the lower income to afford the necessities of life when additionally paying for private health care and other services. Those on larger incomes are certainly affected too, but clearly not as badly due to their higher income rate. Under Bush, said services are getting even less of the tax pie now that the idiot is pissing away vast amounts of money on, of all things, a Star Wars program :rolleyes: in addition to fighting a useless, expensive and unethical war.

The aunt example- over here in Aus, the private health system is vastly more expensive but little better in reality than public healthcare (which up until a few months ago had successive funding cuts since about 1996). The situation works two ways and in any event, at least your wife's aunt received treatment, belated as it was, its BETTER than NOTHING correct?

Socialist agenda....do you even know what socialism is?

All this crap about CIA and FBI messing up is probably just a big cover up for Bushs bad decisions. If he maybe read the papers and thought it over, he might have concluded that there was not enough evidence to start a damn war.

But wait, he's a warmongering president. He just had to. I understand that he had to do something about Osama, but Iraq? Come on! No wonder that the world is angry about the US, more than half of it was out protesting about it. These attacks from the US against other countries are sinking as low as attacks made in the dark ages, for money and power.

I say, listen to the rest of the world and kick Bush the hell out of the whitehouse.

My 2 cents, I'm out.

What do you not understand about how it is increasingly harder for the person on the lower income to afford the necessities of life when additionally paying for private health care and other services. Those on larger incomes are certainly affected too, but clearly not as badly due to their higher income rate. Under Bush, said services are getting even less of the tax pie now that the idiot is pissing away vast amounts of money on, of all things, a Star Wars program :rolleyes: in addition to fighting a useless, expensive and unethical war.

The aunt example- over here in Aus, the private health system is vastly more expensive but little better in reality than public healthcare (which up until a few months ago had successive funding cuts since about 1996). The situation works two ways and in any event, at least your wife's aunt received treatment, belated as it was, its BETTER than NOTHING correct?

Socialist agenda....do you even know what socialism is?


Since you live in AUS, you really have no dog in the fight. Why do YOU care who the US president is? He has no more power over you than your president has over me. As for socialism...yes, I lived in Europe for 4 years, so I saw socialized industry AND other services. Cars made in England during the socialized era were awful. Now that the companies are private once again, their quality is better because they cannot rely on the government. Afterall, who is going to work hard if they have a guaranteed paycheck regardless of how they perform? Here in the US, ANYONE can be successful if they work hard. Social services being free stifle that incentive. "You get what you pay for" comes to mind. Had my wifes aunt been here in the US she would have been seen and her operation paid for my the government, and in weeks, not YEARS. Many people are unaware that here in the US hospitals are REQUIRED to see every patient even if that patient cannot pay. Hospitals in the southwest are struggling because of all the illegal aliens from Mexico they are required to take care of.

My business partner came to the US with $300 to his name....today he and I have built our small company into a $5,000,000 enterprise. We did it ourselves with NO government help, and if we can do that, so can ANYONE who wants to work hard. Socialist countries STIFLE the individual for the "common good." Afterall, you cannot have more than your neighbor.

As for a "Star Wars" program that you mention, that is news to me. I am unaware of any such program. There IS a limited anti-ballistic missle program, conceived and planned during the CLINTON administration, with MAYBE 3 missles being deployed in Alaska. That being for the defense of the US against missles from Noth Korea, should be of no business to AUS since they are not paying for it. If AUS wants to deploy such a system, feel free. As for the war in Iraq, you fail to see the big picture, but most other countries do not seem to mind mass graves or concentration camps in other countries. The US had to lead the way in Bosnia when the Serbs rounded up the Bosnian men and starved them to death in camps. The socialist Europeans would never have taken any action had the US not stepped in to put a stop to it. They seem to forget their own history. mass graves and torture chambers have been found all over Iraq, yet noone cares that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of his own people and caused great ecological damage to the area draining the great marshes in an attempt to wipe out the Marsh Arabs who opposed him. No, the rest of the world would just stand by. We here in the US help out everyone and while I personally do not like that we do, I would not have it any other way. I just know that if we ever needed help, our "allies" would disappear. Fair weather friends indeed.

Why do those outside the US actually feel they should have a voice as to who WE choose as our President? Since you are not from the US, your opinion on the candidates, while appreciated....is really not valid since you are not affected by their policies. Unless you are one of those people who actually believes that the US has some sort of influence over other countries. :rolleyes:

All this crap about CIA and FBI messing up is probably just a big cover up for Bushs bad decisions. If he maybe read the papers and thought it over, he might have concluded that there was not enough evidence to start a damn war.

But wait, he's a warmongering president. He just had to. I understand that he had to do something about Osama, but Iraq? Come on! No wonder that the world is angry about the US, more than half of it was out protesting about it. These attacks from the US against other countries are sinking as low as attacks made in the dark ages, for money and power.

I say, listen to the rest of the world and kick Bush the hell out of the whitehouse.

My 2 cents, I'm out.

Lets see...the British Intelligence services were telling him the same thing. So were the Germans, the Russians...AND the French. So with ALL those intelligence services telling him these things....what would YOU do? Of course you are probably not from the US, so you really have no more voice in the matter than I do in who YOUR leader is.

4) Bullshit, cite these so-called 'reports'

Here you go. Comments from Greenspan:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/business/9211854.htm?1c

Bullshit on you.

(And before anyone starts calling this biased as he's "Bush's lackey" or other nonsense like that, remember that he was around long before Bush and didn't even support the cuts 100% at first.)

Bush rocks, bro. Kerry don't. He done thinks he's hot shit just 'cause he stubbed his goddamn toe during the friggin' A Korean War. Seriously, dued. :mp5:

I see little difference between Fuhrer Bush or Komrade Kerry.

I guess you don't follow the news, All sections have been approved by the US House! Or so i've heard!Approved by the House is a long way from renewed--they have to get through the Senate first, and as is generally the casw, that's a much harder sell.

No offense, but the people who are voting for Kerry "just to get rid of Bush" remind me an awful lot of the Germans who elected Hitler in the early 1930's...

George McGovern

Since you live in AUS, you really have no dog in the fight. Why do YOU care who the US president is? He has no more power over you than your president has over me. As for socialism...yes, I lived in Europe for 4 years, so I saw socialized industry AND other services. Cars made in England during the socialized era were awful. Now that the companies are private once again, their quality is better because they cannot rely on the government. Afterall, who is going to work hard if they have a guaranteed paycheck regardless of how they perform? Here in the US, ANYONE can be successful if they work hard. Social services being free stifle that incentive. "You get what you pay for" comes to mind. Had my wifes aunt been here in the US she would have been seen and her operation paid for my the government, and in weeks, not YEARS. Many people are unaware that here in the US hospitals are REQUIRED to see every patient even if that patient cannot pay. Hospitals in the southwest are struggling because of all the illegal aliens from Mexico they are required to take care of.

My business partner came to the US with $300 to his name....today he and I have built our small company into a $5,000,000 enterprise. We did it ourselves with NO government help, and if we can do that, so can ANYONE who wants to work hard. Socialist countries STIFLE the individual for the "common good." Afterall, you cannot have more than your neighbor.

As for a "Star Wars" program that you mention, that is news to me. I am unaware of any such program. There IS a limited anti-ballistic missle program, conceived and planned during the CLINTON administration, with MAYBE 3 missles being deployed in Alaska. That being for the defense of the US against missles from Noth Korea, should be of no business to AUS since they are not paying for it. If AUS wants to deploy such a system, feel free. As for the war in Iraq, you fail to see the big picture, but most other countries do not seem to mind mass graves or concentration camps in other countries. The US had to lead the way in Bosnia when the Serbs rounded up the Bosnian men and starved them to death in camps. The socialist Europeans would never have taken any action had the US not stepped in to put a stop to it. They seem to forget their own history. mass graves and torture chambers have been found all over Iraq, yet noone cares that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of his own people and caused great ecological damage to the area draining the great marshes in an attempt to wipe out the Marsh Arabs who opposed him. No, the rest of the world would just stand by. We here in the US help out everyone and while I personally do not like that we do, I would not have it any other way. I just know that if we ever needed help, our "allies" would disappear. Fair weather friends indeed.

Why do those outside the US actually feel they should have a voice as to who WE choose as our President? Since you are not from the US, your opinion on the candidates, while appreciated....is really not valid since you are not affected by their policies. Unless you are one of those people who actually believes that the US has some sort of influence over other countries. :rolleyes:

"England during the socialzed era".....wtf? Read up on some English political history son, I can assure you that england has never been socialist during the 20th century.

Put simply- I would dearly love to see the US just go through its wonderous democratic process with no problems. The problem is that quite simply, Bush's foreign policy is so abysmally bad that it has major effects for most of the world. See: North Korea/Iraq (one of hundreds of examples)- his actions directly affect Aus (for example), because the war has now further increased the threat to Aus. Worst still is when our own political leaders are bullied by said 'elected' president into wars (read: free trade agreement/arms sales to Aus etc).

Saddam killed thousands- sure no problem, everyone agrees with that. How about this though- the US (and, I stress here, the rest of the Allies too) nuked two cities, blanket bombed dozens in Japan/Germany. Hundreds of thousands killed, maybe even a million or two- civilians in cities (how much more civilian do you need than a city). Korea/Vietnam, at least 2 million or so civilian casualties in nam, I'm not sure about Korea, but you have got to figure with a large-scale 3 year conflict like that that at a minimum, thousands. My point to all this is simple- The US (and again, I must stress, others too, Britain, France, Aus- we all played a part) has been responsible for many a bloodbath themselves, so to use the fact that Saddam killed thousands and overlook our own bloody fingers is disgraceful.

As for the allies- what, pray tell, did the friends of the US say on sept. 12, 2001. As I recall it was universal support for the US as a result of that atrocity. The fact that many (rightly) doubted Bush's quote unjustified "crusade", means that they disagree with a particular US policy,
not because they hate the US or any other FOX news-fed bullcrap.

"Son of Star Wars" as it has been dubbed by the media, is a Anti-Ballistic missile program planned actually under Bush's administration, as it was actually he who authorized the US pulling out of the ABM treaty (which basically stated that no one would build such a thing for all the problems it will cause)

(quoted from The Age newspaper)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/10/1089000397136.html?oneclick=true

Cost is expected (by I think the Pentagon- don't quote me though) to be in the $50 billion USD area, spent over several years.

Your last sentence....I'm just going to assume you didn't imply that the world's largest military and economic power has no influence in other countries.

That link before that someone posted- you need to be a member to log in, so no one can even see it

"England during the socialzed era".....wtf? Read up on some English political history son, I can assure you that england has never been socialist during the 20th century.

Put simply- I would dearly love to see the US just go through its wonderous democratic process with no problems. The problem is that quite simply, Bush's foreign policy is so abysmally bad that it has major effects for most of the world. See: North Korea/Iraq (one of hundreds of examples)- his actions directly affect Aus (for example), because the war has now further increased the threat to Aus. Worst still is when our own political leaders are bullied by said 'elected' president into wars (read: free trade agreement/arms sales to Aus etc).

Saddam killed thousands- sure no problem, everyone agrees with that. How about this though- the US (and, I stress here, the rest of the Allies too) nuked two cities, blanket bombed dozens in Japan/Germany. Hundreds of thousands killed, maybe even a million or two- civilians in cities (how much more civilian do you need than a city). Korea/Vietnam, at least 2 million or so civilian casualties in nam, I'm not sure about Korea, but you have got to figure with a large-scale 3 year conflict like that that at a minimum, thousands. My point to all this is simple- The US (and again, I must stress, others too, Britain, France, Aus- we all played a part) has been responsible for many a bloodbath themselves, so to use the fact that Saddam killed thousands and overlook our own bloody fingers is disgraceful.

As for the allies- what, pray tell, did the friends of the US say on sept. 12, 2001. As I recall it was universal support for the US as a result of that atrocity. The fact that many (rightly) doubted Bush's quote unjustified "crusade", means that they disagree with a particular US policy,
not because they hate the US or any other FOX news-fed bullcrap.

"Son of Star Wars" as it has been dubbed by the media, is a Anti-Ballistic missile program planned actually under Bush's administration, as it was actually he who authorized the US pulling out of the ABM treaty (which basically stated that no one would build such a thing for all the problems it will cause)

(quoted from The Age newspaper)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/10/1089000397136.html?oneclick=true

Cost is expected (by I think the Pentagon- don't quote me though) to be in the $50 billion USD area, spent over several years.

Your last sentence....I'm just going to assume you didn't imply that the world's largest military and economic power has no influence in other countries.

That link before that someone posted- you need to be a member to log in, so no one can even see it


After WW2 England most certainly did become a "socialiist" country. All industries were nationalized. THAT is the foundation of a socialist country. The auto industry in particular. Before nationalization, British cars were bad. Afterwards, under "British Leyland" they were awful.

Now, since you seem to want to bring history up, and US history to be precise, you might want to research the isolationist movement. The US was dragged kicking and screaming into world affairs. The Monroe Doctrine worked very well for us. I wish we were still adhering to it. You might want to read that gem too. Basically it said that...

"The United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs."

The US stayed out of others affairs for almost 100 years. We were dragged into WWI and that began our opening up to the rest of the world. WWII was thrust upon us, we did not start it, but we sure did a lot to help finish it. Korea was a UN operation, NOT a US action and it was started by the North Koreans. Vietnam was also a UN operation, there were forces from MANY countries there, but as usual the US had to bear the brunt of the fighting. Trying to equate those conflicts with what Saddam was doing to his own people, and those of two other countries (Iran and Kuwait) is a real stretch. Iraq is the ONLY country that has used chemical weapons against its own people. We are finding artillery shells loaded with chemical weapons now, they are out there and time will prove that correct.

The ABM defense system was concieved during the Clinton administration and research was completed during his term of office. The decision to deploy it was made by Bush. It took years to perfect the technology, there was no "off the shelf" system they could buy.

As for US influence in other countries....sovereign nations have the right to do as they please, just look at France and Germany, they do their own thing. What can the US do about it? Nothing.

My main point is that the US has been pulled into world events and became the most powerful nation due to the outcome of WWII and the fact that the infrastructure here was not destroyed. Had the Europeans left the US alone...would it have been so? Now we are expected to be the worlds policeman. I could not care less if a war breaks out in another part of the world, as long as they leave the US alone. Yet every time there is a flareup, the world expects the US to help out, then bitches about how we do it. Find ONE other country that has done more for the rest of the world than the US. Just ONE. If not for the US, Europe would have been lost to the Nazi's. Failing that, certainly to the Soviet Union. Aus too would have been lost to the Japanese as it was the US that halted their advance in the Pacific. No matter WHAT the US does, there will be people who will argue that we could have, should have done it differently, yet I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate to help as much as the US.

Will Kerry do a better job than Bush? I doubt it. He has a shady past and has lied about many things. he has the WORST attendence record in the Senate, having only showed up ONCE this year to work. That was to vote AGAINST a bill granting veterans more benefits. As a disabled veteran, that shows me where his loyalties lie. he has repeatedly said he would rather talk to terrorists than fight them. Imagine him inviting Bin Laden to the White House for tea. He has said the FIRST thing he will do if he wins to to create free healthcare for everyone. How is he going to pay for that? By raising taxes. What people don't realize is that when you raise taxes, you take money OUT of the economy and put it into the governments hands. If there is a more inefficient method of getting anything done, I have never seen it. You also prevent people from buying things with that money, and that stimulates economic growth. No, Kerry will bring the economy down by creating an inefficient "socialist" medical system. I seriously doubt he will win in the end anyway. he brags about his military service, but EVERY commanding officer he served under says he is unfit to lead. If it was one or two, there would be questions...but EVERY one has come out against him. That says something....

I for one am a great proponent of the isolationist policy of the USA, and I wish that GWB/Blair/Howard (and to be fair, those that attack the US/West- i.e various terrorist groups) held the same sorts of policy. However, an unprovoked attack on Iraq runs directly counter to this concept. As for WMD- give me a break, they have barely found a firecracker in Iraq (aside from the army, which- last time I looked- was legal for a sovereign nation to have). What happened to the 'stockpiles' of WMD, such as Anthrax which Powell claimed was so ubiquitous in Iraq? And please, lets not here anymore 'we haven't really begun searching' that I heard a few months ago- thats a load of crap- the US has been desperately checking that country inside out for whatever they could find. Their results- a handful of shells that could possibly deliver anthrax. No matter what spin you put on that, the fact is its a far cry from the large amounts of deadly WMDs that Iraq was going to use itself or sell to the thousands of terrorist groups it didn't have contact with.

Socialism....So let me get this straight- "after WW2" (lets say late 40's, early 50's) Britain became socialist. This, I take it, is while it is fighting socialisms' direct opposite Communism during the Cold War.....come on son, think about that one for a bit...

Next up- you mistake the terms 'autonomy' and 'influence' here. The US most definately has influence in economics and military power in other countries: just as an example: the US foreign policy of possibly defending Taiwan against a PRC (China) strike (i.e, sending in the 7th fleet as it did in '96)means that the PRC has thus far not used an armed invasion to achieve its avowed goal of taking the province. Now China is still autonomous- the bottom line is, it can make its own decisions, however, the US (and others) have a significant influence in this example of their foreign policy and relations with Taiwan.

I have to ask- did you actually read the link? It was first thought up during the Reagan administration. It was put on hold/backburner during the Cliton years and now Bush has fired it up again.

Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that the US did win WW2 for everyone (thats a big bloody thing to say, considering say the imput of the USSR). Please tell me how that in any way mitigates the faults it currently makes. If a doctor who saves lives each day then goes and clearly murders someone, how is he any less to blame? And btw, Vietnam WAS NOT a UN-consented war. It was the US proping up its puppet regime against the 'domino theory'. I suggest you read up on Vietnam, there are some rather unsettling paralells between it and Iraq at the moment (specifically to do with nationalism and the rise of insurgents and hostility in the country to the US). Not even Britain got its hands dirty in that one. (though Australia did of course, thanks to our fellatious...I mean illustrious prime minister Harold Holt)

Bush has thus far started two wars in two years. Afghanistan is of a shady nature (I don't know enough about it to really comment, hopefully others will do the same for the sake of this arguement). However, Iraq was the worst military foreign policy mistake since Vietnam and the Reagan era. Personally I don't expect a hell of a lot more from Kerry- but by this stage nearly ANYTHING has to be better.

better is one of those concepts dependent on context for its meaning.

if you think organized crime should be legalized
corporate crime given a blank check
you can breathe methane
and elections ought to be suspended or discontinued entirely
then bush is your man

=^^=
.../\...

I for one am a great proponent of the isolationist policy of the USA, and I wish that GWB/Blair/Howard (and to be fair, those that attack the US/West- i.e various terrorist groups) held the same sorts of policy. However, an unprovoked attack on Iraq runs directly counter to this concept. As for WMD- give me a break, they have barely found a firecracker in Iraq (aside from the army, which- last time I looked- was legal for a sovereign nation to have). What happened to the 'stockpiles' of WMD, such as Anthrax which Powell claimed was so ubiquitous in Iraq? And please, lets not here anymore 'we haven't really begun searching' that I heard a few months ago- thats a load of crap- the US has been desperately checking that country inside out for whatever they could find. Their results- a handful of shells that could possibly deliver anthrax. No matter what spin you put on that, the fact is its a far cry from the large amounts of deadly WMDs that Iraq was going to use itself or sell to the thousands of terrorist groups it didn't have contact with.

Socialism....So let me get this straight- "after WW2" (lets say late 40's, early 50's) Britain became socialist. This, I take it, is while it is fighting socialisms' direct opposite Communism during the Cold War.....come on son, think about that one for a bit...

Next up- you mistake the terms 'autonomy' and 'influence' here. The US most definately has influence in economics and military power in other countries: just as an example: the US foreign policy of possibly defending Taiwan against a PRC (China) strike (i.e, sending in the 7th fleet as it did in '96)means that the PRC has thus far not used an armed invasion to achieve its avowed goal of taking the province. Now China is still autonomous- the bottom line is, it can make its own decisions, however, the US (and others) have a significant influence in this example of their foreign policy and relations with Taiwan.

I have to ask- did you actually read the link? It was first thought up during the Reagan administration. It was put on hold/backburner during the Cliton years and now Bush has fired it up again.

Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that the US did win WW2 for everyone (thats a big bloody thing to say, considering say the imput of the USSR). Please tell me how that in any way mitigates the faults it currently makes. If a doctor who saves lives each day then goes and clearly murders someone, how is he any less to blame? And btw, Vietnam WAS NOT a UN-consented war. It was the US proping up its puppet regime against the 'domino theory'. I suggest you read up on Vietnam, there are some rather unsettling paralells between it and Iraq at the moment (specifically to do with nationalism and the rise of insurgents and hostility in the country to the US). Not even Britain got its hands dirty in that one. (though Australia did of course, thanks to our fellatious...I mean illustrious prime minister Harold Holt)

Bush has thus far started two wars in two years. Afghanistan is of a shady nature (I don't know enough about it to really comment, hopefully others will do the same for the sake of this arguement). However, Iraq was the worst military foreign policy mistake since Vietnam and the Reagan era. Personally I don't expect a hell of a lot more from Kerry- but by this stage nearly ANYTHING has to be better.

Socialism and Communism are TWO different things. When industries are "nationalized" a country is considered to be "Socialist" due to the fact that there is no "private" industry. That certainly applied to Britain and much of Western Europe until the mid 80's. Remember when the miners tried to bring down the gov't. in Britain in the mid 80's?

The WMD's were there, we knew they were there because we sold them to Saddam. Where are they now? Probably in Syria or in Lebanon in the Bakaa Valley. Or they could be buried ANYWHERE in Iraq. The remnants of the Iraqi Air Force were recently found....buried in the desert. If you can hide squadrons of MIG-25's in the desert, hiding bombs and artillery shells the same way is a snap. Iraq is a large country and there are hundreds of thousands of square miles of desert to bury anything in.

I NEVER said the US won WW2. However, in the Pacific it bore the brunt of the fighting, as it did in Western Europe. The USSR operated in Eastern Europe.

As for the link, no I did not read it. I was in the USAF during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and the first 6 months of Bush 2 so I know a few things about that program that others probably would not. Yes, the brunt of the research was done in the 80's, but all the testing was done during the Clinton years and Clinton recommended deployment. That it was Bush in office and carried that out does not make him alone responsible for the decision.

As for Afganistan being a country under the Taliban? The only countries that recognized them as a legitimate government were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The UN did not consider Afganistan a country at all in the usual sense. Now they have that distinction.

We have strayed away from what this thread is about, Kerry or Bush. Kerry would be a disaster for the US, his voting record in Congress is one of TAX, TAX, TAX. He has NEVER voted for a tax cut in his entire career. The Democrats want to punish those who are successful and reward those who are not. I don't imagine you have ever lived here and seen the differences between the two parties. They are similar in many ways, but the big difference is their policy on government. The Rebublicans want to get the government off the backs of the people and allow the economy to grow as it was meant to. The Democrats believe that big government is the answer and we should all be glad that big brother is watching out for us. They want price controls and wealth re-distribution. They also want to limit gun ownership and put greater controls over industry. Remind you of another government?

Communism + Socialism: I know they are different things...that was precisely what I was implying. I'll keep this simple: type into google "socialism" and "england" and we do not get something along the lines of "socialist movement of 1940's, 50's. I admit that my knowledge of Englands economic history during this time is somewhat hazy, but simple logic dictates that if it was socialist in any great measure, it would have opposed the right-wing US, not the left-wing USA. I have not found any evidence to support your theory that Britain was socialist during the time that you mentioned, and I can tell you there was definately a good deal of private enterprize in Britain during this time...however, for the sake of the benefit of the doubt, I am hoping that someone who has greater knowledge of the subject on this forum can prove me right (i.e, Britain was certainly not socialist)

WMD. I think your first statement in that paragraph of yours effectively shoots whatever moral case the 'Coalition of the willing' had in the foot. We arm the guy then go after him for having weapons- gotta love that logic right there...As for the rest- this is the same crap we have heard since the beginning of this Bush-created mess. "its buried in the desert, its in Syria..." etc: for the first one, my simple response is how convenient it is, but surely you can prove that and its not just another baseless call (I say you as an individual, but I really mean ALL of those who have made such blatantly incorrect comments)right?....oh wait. As for Syria, now we KNOW this is bullcrap: if there was the slightlest bit of evidence to support that, the hawks in the admin would have jumped upon it and whored it out to give them another chance to 'hunt terrorists'. Lets face it, they aren't there and they weren't, it was just a load of crap to grap all that oil that.....well well, haliburton managed to get a look in at.

Pray tell- what was your job in the USAF? It's interesting that you didn't click the link....

As for WW2- we have missed the point here- what I am saying is, we (the allies: US, Britain, Aus, etc) to 'blanket' bomb and nuke, and repeat the process in Vietnam, then have the audacity to label Saddam a mass murderer, when there is clearly blood on our own hands.

Afghanistan: I was hoping for another voice on the issue here, but indeed, they are now more or less a country- I wonder at what cost?

I've actually spent several months in the US, hell i even went out with one for about 11 months. And indeed, the fact that I am an 'outsider' to the issue removes alot of bias (i.e. neither of my parents voted for a party, etc etc). Democrats like big brother hey? Tell me, who appointed ASHCROFT (the man is simply McCarthy all over again) and who introduced the so called 'Patriot' Act (there is that awful word again). Limiting gun ownerships and limiting industries which seem to have such a stranglehold over the current administration...this is in a country btw, which had thousands of gun-related homicides per year. Please don't bring up 'right to bear arms' either, you've got to be kidding me that the drafters of said ammendment imagining the high-powered assault rifles currently availible. Now, having lived in both systems I can tell you Australia's extremely tight gun laws have may have something to do with the fact that our homicide rates (as a percentage of our population btw) is a fraction of the US's. As i've said, i'll bet Kerry has many faults of his own, but Bush is simply beyond compare when it comes to administrational idiocy and corruption. Let's overcome this paranoia we have of the democrats being 'left wing' (as if they are anyway) and get rid of those we know have failed.

Let's overcome this paranoia we have of the democrats being 'left wing' (as if they are anyway) and get rid of those we know have failed.

Which "we" are you talking about? Since you are not a US citizen and have no "real" say in the election I find it amusing that you feel the need to decide who "our" president should be. When was the last time that US citizens bitched about the leaders of other countries to the point that we see them bitching about ours? You don't for many reasons. Everyone dislikes the US for one reason or another, yet so many people try to get here from all over the world. Anti-US fighters in Iraq, when asked say they would love to come to the US to live.

Now, do I wish our government would stay out of the affairs of others? You bet I do! We should leave others alone to fight and kill each other if thats what they wish. However, if we do nothing, we are chastized for that too. France threw a fit about Iraq, yet jumped up and down to get us to intervene in Sierra Leone. I guess they had no financial arrangement with Charles Taylor. Ironic huh? We have troops stationed in 120 different countries. Why? Well, during the cold war it was to prevent the Soviet Union from overrunning Western Europe. Would they have without the US being there? More than likely they would have. Plus it is always better to fight a war on someone elses land.

As for arming Saddam and then attacking him. We arm many countries, AUS included. The F-111 being US made (I loaded nukes on those in England for 4 years) is still being used by the RAAF. Yes, we DID sell Saddam chemical weapons when he was fighting the Iranians and he used them on the battlefield. Where he crossed the line was in using them on his own people. Civilians are not to be used in that fashion.

As for the "legitimacy" of attacking Iraq. How many UN resolutions does one country have to violate before something is done? Koffi Anan was involved with Saddam as well with the "oil for food" program that has turned up quite a bit of incriminating evidence against his son who was getting rich on that program. Thats another useless organization that I wish the US would not only get out of, but also get them out of the US. Mr. Kerry has said he will "apply" to the UN before taking any action in the future. Imagine that, a president of the US asking for the permission of the world body to defend itself. This, the SAME UN that ordered its troops (Dutch) to stand by while Serbs slaughtered Bosnians in broad daylight. I for one am tired of the US having to enforce UN resolutions.

As for guns, while I personally do not own a gun, our constitution protects our right to own them. If you look at our Bill of Rights, it was written to right wrongs imposed on the colonists by the British. Does that right keep people from using them? No. With rights come responsibility. A study was done recently, I cannot find a link, but I saw it in the newspaper. It looked at the victims of shootings and found that 80% of them were drug related shootings. Dealers shooting each other. So is the death of a drug dealer a great loss to ANY society? I don't think so. However, that still leaves 20% of the victims being killed for other various reasons, none good. I cannot defend that, but I will always defend the right to own firearms, even if I do not own one myself. One thing is true about an armed society, no government will ever subjugate the people. Why do countries like China forbid the people to own firearms?

Before you think that I am a Republican, I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I do not really care for either of the two "main" parties as they have a stranglehold on the government. Bush might be scary to the rest of the world, but Kerry is scary to me. The rest of the world is not my concern as other countries policies do not affect my daily life. Now, if others would give the same consideration to the US, we might all get along better.

Michael Badnarik! yay libertarians!

A shockwave parody of the Bush/Kerry race:

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1

Also, Bush for President.

Which "we" are you talking about? Since you are not a US citizen and have no "real" say in the election I find it amusing that you feel the need to decide who "our" president should be. When was the last time that US citizens bitched about the leaders of other countries to the point that we see them bitching about ours? You don't for many reasons.

<coughcoughSaddamHusseincoughcough> Our government complained for years about him.

While I agree that the the world shouldn't have a say in who our elected officials are, don't think for one second the US government doesn't try to affect who other governments put in. You did acknowledge that in your earlier post as well. I just had to point out the complaint comment--it didn't fit your argument.

This is why I continue to vote Libertarian. The Dems and Republicans just keep thinking that everything is the US's business. When it most certainly is not. Given a choice of only Bush or Kerry--I abstain.

<coughcoughSaddamHusseincoughcough> Our government complained for years about him.

While I agree that the the world shouldn't have a say in who our elected officials are, don't think for one second the US government doesn't try to affect who other governments put in. You did acknowledge that in your earlier post as well. I just had to point out the complaint comment--it didn't fit your argument.

This is why I continue to vote Libertarian. The Dems and Republicans just keep thinking that everything is the US's business. When it most certainly is not. Given a choice of only Bush or Kerry--I abstain.

I vote Libertarian too, but I do find it funny on this forum how many from other countries complain about the candidates as though they were going to be THEIR president. We do not worry about who the Prime Minister of AUS is. Why should we? He/She does not have the ability to raise our taxes or screw up our economy. I just think that those who are not affected by it should not be so vociferous in their arguments for or against any of "our" candidates.

i would vote libertarian if i were not 15.

i would vote libertarian if i were not 15.


Aren't they the wackos who want to legalize drugs?

By the way, Bush for prez.

If enough people would, we could break the stranglehold the DEMS and REPS have on OUR government.

Aren't they the wackos who want to legalize drugs?

By the way, Bush for prez.

No, they are the wackos who believe that people should be free to do as they please as long as they do not hurt anyone else.

And if they do hurt someone else, they should be smacked--hard.

And if they do hurt someone else, they should be smacked--hard.

Exactly! Very hard.

I vote Libertarian too, but I do find it funny on this forum how many from other countries complain about the candidates as though they were going to be THEIR president. We do not worry about who the Prime Minister of AUS is. Why should we? He/She does not have the ability to raise our taxes or screw up our economy. I just think that those who are not affected by it should not be so vociferous in their arguments for or against any of "our" candidates.
Think about it for a second. If Australia's economy tanks, how badly does it affect the US? It probably hits some sectors, but not many, and not enough to send us into a tailspin. But the US has the world's largest economy, and is currently carries the world's largest amount of debt. If we continue on our current economic path, we're going to go deep into the shitter, and we're going to drag a bunch of people all around the world with us.

Same thing with the military. We have, or rather, had the ability to project power almost anywhere in the world at relatively short notice. The attitude of the President has a direct affect on other countries because of this--a belligerent unilateral cowboy like our current president makes other people more nervous--and not in the good way--than a multilateral and reasonable President like Clinton did.

Think about it for a second. If Australia's economy tanks, how badly does it affect the US? It probably hits some sectors, but not many, and not enough to send us into a tailspin. But the US has the world's largest economy, and is currently carries the world's largest amount of debt. If we continue on our current economic path, we're going to go deep into the shitter, and we're going to drag a bunch of people all around the world with us.

Same thing with the military. We have, or rather, had the ability to project power almost anywhere in the world at relatively short notice. The attitude of the President has a direct affect on other countries because of this--a belligerent unilateral cowboy like our current president makes other people more nervous--and not in the good way--than a multilateral and reasonable President like Clinton did.

In this analogy you are placing the US in the same light as the Soviet Union. We do have the ability to project power anywhere in the world. The US president, whoever he is, is the US president and I would HOPE he would have the guts to act unilaterally to defend the US without resorting to asking PERMISSION from anyone else to do so. THATS why he is the most powerful man in the world. Clinton asked permission...and it was not given. Would you put YOUR security into the hands of your neighbor, or would you defend yourself if attacked?

As for economics, it is a global economy now, China has the power to take the world economy down as does Japan. Brazil caused a huge economic ripple a few years ago, so the US is not alone in that ability.

The US president is still supposed to be beholden to us--the citizens. None of this "leader" crap. He's supposed to be operational overhead.

People keep thinking of the position as a leadership role, however, and so it continues.

Unless we're attacked, we're not supposed to interfere with anyone else--and our president can't declare war on ANYONE--it has to be an act of congress. These two reasons alone are good enough reason to kick Bush out. Unfortunately, Kerry doesn't seem to see that continuing any kind of interaction with Iraq is a bad thing. We also have democrats talking about reinitiating the draft. Both the republicans and democrats (Libertarians like to call them republicrats) are into force (both against their own constituents and abroad).

Thats true...and we elect the president to represent us, but once in office, he makes the decisions. By that mandate he is the defacto leader.

Congress gives the president the power to use force as needed for 90 day intervals, longer if deemed in the national defense.

As for the draft....it might be necessary one day. As a retired USAF Survival Instructor I am afraid they may call me back one day soon and I do not like that idea at all.

America affects the entire world! So yes, the rest of the world has EVERY right to complain about who is in the white house.

America affects the entire world! So yes, the rest of the world has EVERY right to complain about who is in the white house.

That might be true if there were no other sovereign nations. Since there are I think you place too much power on the US. US law has NO power outside US territory. We do not even have extradition treaties with many countries, so what influence do we really have?

Others might have the right to complain, but they cannot actually DO anything about who we vote for. Their opinions are usually based on incorrect information as they really do not know what it is like to BE an American. I have a friend from England who spent ONE WEEK in New York and now swears he knows what Americans are like. LOL That is like me going to London for a week and saying I know what it is like to be English. Has anyone BEEN to London lately? Not an Englishman in sight in many places. LOL The same is true in New York.

If we didn't have a huge international military presence spread out so thin across the globe, we wouldn't have to worry about forcing a person to enter the military.

I have nothing but respect for those who volunteered to serve, but it has been proven that conscripts tend to make less than ideal recruits.

Biff I like your posts. Very informative!

Keep Kerry out! Vote for bush or some other candidate!

Me I'd vote bush if I wasn't 15 yo!

That might be true if there were no other sovereign nations. Since there are I think you place too much power on the US. US law has NO power outside US territory. We do not even have extradition treaties with many countries, so what influence do we really have?

If California were another country, they'd have the fifth largest economy in the world. America's economy effects economies around the world...

Also, I don't see how the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq doesn't effect other nations...

If California were another country, they'd have the fifth largest economy in the world. America's economy effects economies around the world...

Also, I don't see how the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq doesn't effect other nations...


Thats true, but you discount the SOVEREIGNTY of other nations. What influence do we have over France or Germany? We may have a larger military and economy, but every other nation out there can tell us they will not help us and if they do, there is NOTHING we can do about it. We are NOT the Soviet Union, we do not invade other countries that will not help us. Iraq was in violation of how many UN resolutions? How many times was Saddam warned and told to come clean? The SAME countries that voted for military action then balked when it was going to happen. What could we do about it with all of our influence and "power?" Nothing....thats what.

Biff I like your posts. Very informative!


Thank you.

Which "we" are you talking about? Since you are not a US citizen and have no "real" say in the election I find it amusing that you feel the need to decide who "our" president should be. When was the last time that US citizens bitched about the leaders of other countries to the point that we see them bitching about ours? You don't for many reasons. Everyone dislikes the US for one reason or another, yet so many people try to get here from all over the world. Anti-US fighters in Iraq, when asked say they would love to come to the US to live.

I was actually using we as merely basic colloquial language, no particular intention to present myself as a US citizen or whatever. However, I find it incredibly ironic that those in the US is now complaining about others commenting on their political leaders. The hypocracy is mind-boggling. Especially as now Bush, Powell, Armitage, Moore and a few others have decided to directly and make undue comments on opposition groups and our government (such as the main opposition party- the ALP)...tis indeed quite amusing.

Now, do I wish our government would stay out of the affairs of others? You bet I do! We should leave others alone to fight and kill each other if thats what they wish. However, if we do nothing, we are chastized for that too. France threw a fit about Iraq, yet jumped up and down to get us to intervene in Sierra Leone. I guess they had no financial arrangement with Charles Taylor. Ironic huh? We have troops stationed in 120 different countries. Why? Well, during the cold war it was to prevent the Soviet Union from overrunning Western Europe. Would they have without the US being there? More than likely they would have. Plus it is always better to fight a war on someone elses land.

There is a clear difference between unsanctioned military aggression such as that of the US's in Iraq and that of policing actions when requested. Bush went into this war without a UN mandate (there is another thread on this, but the gist of it is: 1441 specified action when there was a clear threat posed by Iraq, and there was simply no such threat- no WMDs and no connections to terrorist groups, what would Iraq do- take the US on for no reason with its pitifully crippled military?))
The last sentence of yours is the most likely explanation as to why the US has troops stationed in areas.

As for arming Saddam and then attacking him. We arm many countries, AUS included. The F-111 being US made (I loaded nukes on those in England for 4 years) is still being used by the RAAF. Yes, we DID sell Saddam chemical weapons when he was fighting the Iranians and he used them on the battlefield. Where he crossed the line was in using them on his own people. Civilians are not to be used in that fashion.

So its ok to kill civilians but make sure its during a war and make sure its someone else's. This is the sort of mentality which just scares the crap out of me coming from a "libertarian". What scares me more is such a statement actually sums up the fact that few people seem to have spoken about the 13,000+ Iraqi civilian casulaties as a direct result of this war.

As for the "legitimacy" of attacking Iraq. How many UN resolutions does one country have to violate before something is done? Koffi Anan was involved with Saddam as well with the "oil for food" program that has turned up quite a bit of incriminating evidence against his son who was getting rich on that program. Thats another useless organization that I wish the US would not only get out of, but also get them out of the US. Mr. Kerry has said he will "apply" to the UN before taking any action in the future. Imagine that, a president of the US asking for the permission of the world body to defend itself. This, the SAME UN that ordered its troops (Dutch) to stand by while Serbs slaughtered Bosnians in broad daylight. I for one am tired of the US having to enforce UN resolutions.

Defend itself? From what pray tell? WMDs, Terrorists? If you really want I can find a few links to show that the US and others are now less safe as a result of this war. Some defence! So now you want to get rid of the UN too- the only international arena for debate at the moment? They don't agree with the largest croc of a war since Vietnam (which it did not mandate!) so we get rid of them? Why bother though, Bush has already shown he is happy to ignore it anyway.

As for guns, while I personally do not own a gun, our constitution protects our right to own them. If you look at our Bill of Rights, it was written to right wrongs imposed on the colonists by the British. Does that right keep people from using them? No. With rights come responsibility. A study was done recently, I cannot find a link, but I saw it in the newspaper. It looked at the victims of shootings and found that 80% of them were drug related shootings. Dealers shooting each other. So is the death of a drug dealer a great loss to ANY society? I don't think so. However, that still leaves 20% of the victims being killed for other various reasons, none good. I cannot defend that, but I will always defend the right to own firearms, even if I do not own one myself. One thing is true about an armed society, no government will ever subjugate the people. Why do countries like China forbid the people to own firearms?

So we need to arm people to prevent government subjugation? Surely a better situation would simply be the institution of the democratic principle of representative government. And the first place to look at subjugation would be the Patriot Act of that wonderful, balanced individual, Ashcroft. Another true thing of armed societies- it perpetuates itself, alot (not all of course) take the position that in order to be safe against those with guns, they should get a gun. Thankfully, here in Aus we have no such problem, we had a horrendous shooting back in '96 which was simply shocking, but since Howard finally came to his senses and got rid of most of the bloody things we have a firearm homicide rate that is a fraction of the size of that of the US. Think about that one for a bit. "So is the death of a drug dealer a great loss to ANY society?"- clearly a pleasant position here, some lives are more valuable than others. A life is a life is a life, our do we now dispense

Before you think that I am a Republican, I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I do not really care for either of the two "main" parties as they have a stranglehold on the government. Bush might be scary to the rest of the world, but Kerry is scary to me. The rest of the world is not my concern as other countries policies do not affect my daily life. Now, if others would give the same consideration to the US, we might all get along better.

US foreign policy directly affects other countries, for better or for worse, so it is not feasible to simply say "They should leave us alone", as the US is more or less incapable of doing the same. It seems both major parties are crap, but Bush is the greater of two 'evils' (One more thing, 'axis of evil'- just a beautiful example of statesmanship there :rolleyes: ), Iraq alone is more than enough reason to get rid of him, but there are plenty of other reasons. Kerry has his own faults, but Bush is simply a disgrace to the US.

NADER

Even if I wasnt already deadset in my loyalty to Bush as a man and president then watching Teresa speak at the DNC today....imagining her as first lady...would convince me to vote for anyone who's not Kerry. I just want to go down on the record saying that I would sooner vote for Nader whose at least sincere in his stupidity than Kerry.

Oceanica Prime, Im also pretty liberterian, not cardcarrying but in spirit. Im sure you realize that republicans have always wanted small government. Government isnt the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Reagen said that. Imagine what would happen to the size of government under Kerry?

Oceanica Prime, Im also pretty liberterian, not cardcarrying but in spirit. Im sure you realize that republicans have always wanted small government. Government isnt the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Reagen said that. Imagine what would happen to the size of government under Kerry?

Are you two so-called libertarians (I assume meaning civil libertarians) actually aware of the Ashcroft-initiated Patriot Act? If not, give it a read, I'm sure so McCarthist a piece will absolutely fall into line with your libertarian principles....

Oceanica Prime, Im also pretty liberterian, not cardcarrying but in spirit. Im sure you realize that republicans have always wanted small government. Government isnt the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Reagen said that. Imagine what would happen to the size of government under Kerry?

I agree. Kerry and the DEMS are big government types who think the government knows best and should take over our lives. The REPS want to get the government off our backs and out of our pockets. WE elect OUR leaders to meet OUR needs. I am an anacronism in that I believe we should bring ALL of our troops home and stop selling arms to other countries. Too many countries depend on the US for their defense and then denounce us at every opportunity. European countries have fallen way behind in technology militarily and have become all but useless in helping the US in times of conflict. Even in 1982 it took the British 6 weeks to get to the Falkland Islands. They had no troop transport then, and have even fewer ships now. It is time for the US to take care of itself and stop getting mired in world affairs that have nothing to do with us.

People decry our murder rate and hold theirs to be evidence of a better system. One would think we have running gun battles in the streets! I have NEVER seen or heard a gun being fired anywhere that was not apporpriate (hunting, practice, etc) What they fail to see is that our constitution guarantees our rights and that cannot be changed unless the PEOPLE say so. The US was founded on INDIVIDUAL freedoms and those who cannot respect the rights of others are dealt with. Our right to own firearms is a direct result from the British forbidding the colonists to own them. All of our original Bill of Rights were written in response to British tyranny. The US is unique in that it was the first country founded on the principle that ALL men are created equal. The European monarchies were anathema to us before and after the revolution.

I would suggest that those who so harshly critique the US really have little knowledge of it. They see movies and TV shows and believe they are a direct reflection of the US. Or they read something in the press and believe it to be absolute. We all know that reporters NEVER put their personal feelings into a story. :rolleyes: For all of our problems, the US is the number one destination in the minds of millions every day so I guess it can't be as bad as it is made out to be. As for who we elect as our president, that is OUR decision to make, at least those of us old enough to vote. While I appreciate the opinions of those who cannot, their vitriole is unnecessary, as is their constant boasting that their system or country is better. I would suggest that those folks stay home and never come to the big mean US. We have enough tourists and immigrants already. ;)

Are you two so-called libertarians (I assume meaning civil libertarians) actually aware of the Ashcroft-initiated Patriot Act? If not, give it a read, I'm sure so McCarthist a piece will absolutely fall into line with your libertarian principles....

Yes we are....and it has a limited life span. It is not unknown to have certain civil liberties suspended during times of war, crisis, etc. During WWII congress suspended MANY more freedoms for the duration of the war. This is nothing new, nor is it shocking. The Patriot Act has to be renewed every few months or so, and by congress, not the "omnipotent" Mr. Ashcroft as you imply.

As a citizen of AUS you do seem to have an intense dislike for all things US. The Patriot Act does not affect you, so why do you care? Gun control in AUS does not affect me so why would I decry it? It is what works for AUS and it is their system. We will get along just fine thank you. We will stumble and we will get up again, thats what makes us what we are, we keep trying.

Oceanica Prime, Im also pretty liberterian, not cardcarrying but in spirit. Im sure you realize that republicans have always wanted small government. Government isnt the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Reagen said that. Imagine what would happen to the size of government under Kerry?

The US's spending has NEVER been higher than in the last four years, with a Republican president AND congress. They could have actually enacted change, but didn't. They're taking lessons from the Democrats on how to buy votes. They don't want small government anymore--they want to stay in power. And to stay in power, you make the people think their victims and think they are "entitled" to things like money, homes, and food, without having to lift a finger to get it. Last I checked, one was supposed to WORK for those things. PUSUIT of happiness, not guarantee of it.

If the Republicans REALLY stood for small government and fiscal conservatism, I'd probably consider voting for them, but as it stands, they just spend like the Democrats--just on things they consider "morally superior".

This is why I vote Libertarian--small government, freedom to pursue what you want (provided you're not hurting anyone--well, unless you have their consent to hurt them :eek: ), and the support of a federal republic (which is what the US actually is--or was before all this socialism crap stepped in :mp5: ) where the rights of the individual supersede the mob rule that is democracy.

The US's spending has NEVER been higher than in the last four years, with a Republican president AND congress. They could have actually enacted change, but didn't. They're taking lessons from the Democrats on how to buy votes. They don't want small government anymore--they want to stay in power. And to stay in power, you make the people think their victims and think they are "entitled" to things like money, homes, and food, without having to lift a finger to get it. Last I checked, one was supposed to WORK for those things. PUSUIT of happiness, not guarantee of it.

If the Republicans REALLY stood for small government and fiscal conservatism, I'd probably consider voting for them, but as it stands, they just spend like the Democrats--just on things they consider "morally superior".

This is why I vote Libertarian--small government, freedom to pursue what you want (provided you're not hurting anyone--well, unless you have their consent to hurt them :eek: ), and the support of a federal republic (which is what the US actually is--or was before all this socialism crap stepped in :mp5: ) where the rights of the individual supersede the mob rule that is democracy.

I agree with most of what you have posted. However, if 9-11 had not happened, would the REPS have had to spend such amounts on increased security and the "war" on terror? I don't think they would have. I would postulate that Bush would have cut spending to coincide with his tax cuts. However, events got in the way of that. I doubt even a Libertarian president would have been able to do much better, if at all. As a Libertarian party member, I would rather see our candidates start at the grass roots levels. We need to get a few mayors elected first, then some state reps and senators, then some congressmen/women and THEN try for the president. I do feel that our failing is in not having a grass roots support syatem in place.

I agree with most of what you have posted. However, if 9-11 had not happened, would the REPS have had to spend such amounts on increased security and the "war" on terror? I don't think they would have. I would postulate that Bush would have cut spending to coincide with his tax cuts. However, events got in the way of that. I doubt even a Libertarian president would have been able to do much better, if at all. As a Libertarian party member, I would rather see our candidates start at the grass roots levels. We need to get a few mayors elected first, then some state reps and senators, then some congressmen/women and THEN try for the president. I do feel that our failing is in not having a grass roots support syatem in place.

I'm with ya on the grass-roots thing, however, the reason I still vote Libertarian in the presidential elections is to show that I don't like either of the "Big Two" candidates. It's not actually a waste--when more of us do this, political parties will start to get the message. When yet more of us do this, we'll actually get someone in on a national level. You definitely know that it takes steps--otherwise you wouldn't have brought up what you did. But why can't it happen at both ends? We can start getting the little venues out of the way, while taking nibbles off the big fish.

I'm with ya on the grass-roots thing, however, the reason I still vote Libertarian in the presidential elections is to show that I don't like either of the "Big Two" candidates. It's not actually a waste--when more of us do this, political parties will start to get the message. When yet more of us do this, we'll actually get someone in on a national level. You definitely know that it takes steps--otherwise you wouldn't have brought up what you did. But why can't it happen at both ends? We can start getting the little venues out of the way, while taking nibbles off the big fish.

Yes, I vote the same way you do, but the Libertarian party would get far more votes if they also had better recognition. There are no mayors, senators or representatives out stumping for the Libertarian candidate. THATS what we need.

When you build a house you build the foundation first, not the roof. We have no foundation yet.

Yes, I vote the same way you do, but the Libertarian party would get far more votes if they also had better recognition. There are no mayors, senators or representatives out stumping for the Libertarian candidate. THATS what we need.

When you build a house you build the foundation first, not the roof. We have no foundation yet.

I agree with you. We need Libertarians at all levels of government. I vote Libertarian locally as well. I just think we need to always vote that way, regardless of level of government--which it sounds like you do anyway. So, we're pretty much doing the same thing. Go figure--Libertarians agreeing. :D

kerry

I agree with you. We need Libertarians at all levels of government. I vote Libertarian locally as well. I just think we need to always vote that way, regardless of level of government--which it sounds like you do anyway. So, we're pretty much doing the same thing. Go figure--Libertarians agreeing. :D

Third parties are good at local levels, but in federal office they, or any third party candidates for that matter, don't have much public office experience, which is something the elephants and donkeys MUST have. Give it a thought.

I agree with you. We need Libertarians at all levels of government. I vote Libertarian locally as well. I just think we need to always vote that way, regardless of level of government--which it sounds like you do anyway. So, we're pretty much doing the same thing. Go figure--Libertarians agreeing. :D

Unfortunately I do not think we will EVER have a Libertarian president until we get the foundation built. Most people do not know what the Libertarian party stands for. Our foreign friends who decry the US foreign policy would love it, and then hate it as they would then have to defend themselves and they would lose all foreign aid. THAT I would like to see happen too. Leave all the other countries to fend for themselves, but engage in free trade. That was our policy up until we were dragged into WWI.

You might want to read up on Woodrow Wilson and his attempt to change the Treaty of Versaille (sp) and the European reaction to it. it is quite telling.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/14points.html

If you people still like Bush after all he did, then you're just idiots.

I utterly agree!

Well kerry is an idiot and has no idea what he has to do to fix problems that we have. Though bush isn't the greatest president I feel more comfortable having him in office.

Well, if Bush wasn't the war-mongering terrorist (yeah, you heard me!) he is, we wouldn't have quite the same problems we have, now would we? Does anyone have any idea how to gracefully get us out of this insane Israel/Palestinian-esque situation we're in now?

Give me a freakin' break! Obviously, neither Kerry nor Bush should be in office. Unfortunately we only have two viable (and barely at that) parties right now due to our bi-partisan system. Kerry has to be better than Bush right now just cause he's not Bush. However, what we really need is multi-partisan elections....and how!

However, what we really need is multi-partisan elections....and how!

You have obviously never voted before.

You have obviously never voted before.

I do vote, and I usually don't vote Republican or Democrat. My point is that even though we have many parties, most people see only "black and white"...Republican and Democrat. Because of this, and the fact that those two parties have the government, infrastructure, and money behind them, we really have problems. One of the biggest issues is that other parties are not invited to the nationally televised debates, nor are they given decent media coverage. And let's face it, most people are voting based on what they see/hear in the mainstream/popular media. ....and that paints such an honest picture....

I can't believe some people actually think that conventional warfare can reduce terrorism in any way.
Each bomb is like fertilizer on the fields of misery and from them the terrorists will reap a rich harvest of eager new recruits.

Btw, I think the reason many people like myself, who are not US citizens, still care alot about who will be leading your country, simply because for many of us, the USA is the biggest potential threat to our freedom.
It is painful to see a dear friend throwing his future into the toilet, but what can you do when he won't listen?

I agree about the black and white thing. Issues aren't always two-dimensional. Check out this political quiz to see where you actually fit politically:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

People who take this generally walk away a bit surprised. Not you, Biff, we already know you're a Libertarian. Good link to the WWI info, BTW.

Btw, I think the reason many people like myself, who are not US citizens, still care alot about who will be leading your country, simply because for many of us, the USA is the biggest potential threat to our freedom.
It is painful to see a dear friend throwing his future into the toilet, but what can you do when he won't listen?

THAT is just absurd. Then again, I am not surprised given all the anti-american sentiment out there. Just remember, if European countries could get along, the US would be just a backwater nation keeping to itself. European infighting made the US what it is today, not the other way around. The isolationist movement is starting to reawaken in the US and I for one hope it again takes hold and we quit trying to help everyone out. Afterall, when we need help, noone is ever around.

I do vote, and I usually don't vote Republican or Democrat. My point is that even though we have many parties, most people see only "black and white"...Republican and Democrat. Because of this, and the fact that those two parties have the government, infrastructure, and money behind them, we really have problems. One of the biggest issues is that other parties are not invited to the nationally televised debates, nor are they given decent media coverage. And let's face it, most people are voting based on what they see/hear in the mainstream/popular media. ....and that paints such an honest picture....

You are correct. Most people do not really look at the issues, they look at the news and follow that. The two-part system is flawed, the DEMS and REPS control who is invited to the debates. That is patently un-democratic. Then again, we do not live in a democracy anyway and most people do not even know that. Ours is a representative republic, not a democracy.

You are correct. Most people do not really look at the issues, they look at the news and follow that. The two-part system is flawed, the DEMS and REPS control who is invited to the debates. That is patently un-democratic. Then again, we do not live in a democracy anyway and most people do not even know that. Ours is a representative republic, not a democracy.

I agre Biff! I say we invite ALL Parties to the debates and let the people decide but we all know that won't happen anytime soon!

bush and kerry are cousins

Bush and Kerry----->Go to this site (http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1)

It might take a while to load for those with 56K

Bush and Kerry----->Go to this site (http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1)

It might take a while to load for those with 56K

Seen it and the page has already been bookmarked from its original sight!

I utterly agree!



Well, if Bush wasn't the war-mongering terrorist (yeah, you heard me!) he is, we wouldn't have quite the same problems we have, now would we? Does anyone have any idea how to gracefully get us out of this insane Israel/Palestinian-esque situation we're in now?

Give me a freakin' break! Obviously, neither Kerry nor Bush should be in office. Unfortunately we only have two viable (and barely at that) parties right now due to our bi-partisan system. Kerry has to be better than Bush right now just cause he's not Bush. However, what we really need is multi-partisan elections....and how!

Do you ever watch the news?

bush and kerry are cousins
Hmmmm... I guess a lot of things run thicker than blood, like ketchup.

I don't really think either of the two would make a good president. Bush has obviously demonstrated his lack of ability to perform as a good president, and Kerry (if you pay any attention to his talks whatsoever) is one of the biggest hypocitical contradictory nut-jobs next to Rosie O'Donnel. Personally, I think we should just get a group of tibetan monks to come in and be our president. They'd do a better job than any yuppie who seemingly knows what's best for our country.


I love a parade.:sniper:

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY RIGHT OTHERWIZE YOU WOULDNT TALK IN ALL CAPS!!! AND USE SO MANY EXCLAMATION POINTS!! YOU SHOULD HAVE POSTED EARLIER THEN WE WOULD HAVE ALL KNOWN!!!

Hmm... I wonder... Are you being sarcastic. Lol, you only have to move your pinky one-sixteenth of an inch in order to turn caps lock off and not sound like an idiot.

Hmm... I wonder... Are you being sarcastic. Lol, you only have to move your pinky one-sixteenth of an inch in order to turn caps lock off and not sound like an idiot.
Are you being sarcastic or did you seriously just rip that straight from Maddox?