NationStates Jolt Archive

I am personally voting for George W. Bush.

With a name like that, I'm not surprised.

I am personally voting for George W. Bush.
as am i

I have already sent in my ballot and I did not vote for Bush.

Im voting for Donald Duck.

With a name like that, I'm not surprised.

My s/n on a made up game have nothing to do with my choice in President of this country.

I'm voting for Bush.

My s/n on a made up game have nothing to do with my choice in President of this country.

Two out of three names on this thread so far voting for Bush demonstrate similarity.

I'm not saying its a hard and fast trend, but it does say something. You guys either support the ideals, or think they're something to make fun of.

as am i
I'm not surprised. :p


oh, and I'm voting Kerry for obvious reasons.

Bush.

Two out of three names on this thread so far voting for Bush demonstrate similarity.

I'm not saying its a hard and fast trend, but it does say something. You guys either support the ideals, or think they're something to make fun of.

I vote for Bush because I feel he has done as good a job as can be expected and if John Kerry gets into office all he will do is mess this country up a lot more than it already is.

Im voting for Alan Keyes, that way Illinois can become just as F***** as the rest of the nation.

Let me just clear that all the people who voted for Bush are puppets of the first guy.

Let me just clear that all the people who voted for Bush are puppets of the first guy.


Actually SecondNaziGermany is the puppet of me. The others voting for Bush are different people.

Let me just clear that all the people who voted for Bush are puppets of the first guy.
:rolleyes:

Does it really matter that Clinton supports Kerry?
I mean its quite obvious he wants the Democrats to win right?
Is anyone concerned by the theory my father voted Democrat his father voted Democrat his father voted Democrat so ill vote Democrat?*

*Just an example could use Republicans

I'm voting Libertarian, because the lesser of the evils is a person whom you know won't get elected. :fluffle:

I can't vote yet, but if I could I'd probably vote Nader. I would vote Kerry if Maryland was a swing state, which it pretty much never is.

The polls are even on this thread, exactly even.

I can't vote yet, but if I could I'd probably vote Nader. I would vote Kerry if Maryland was a swing state, which it pretty much never is.

I like the way you think. I would vote for Nadar but I live in Pennsylvania so well, you know, being the second biggest swing state and all Kerry needs me.

The polls are even on this thread, exactly even.
not for long, once the majority of NS comes by the polls average out anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 for Kerry. At least, that's been my experience over the past month.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how Kerry could possibly do a worse job than the person we have in office today. Those who vote Bush are disconnected from reality.

I vote for Bush because I feel he has done as good a job as can be expected and if John Kerry gets into office all he will do is mess this country up a lot more than it already is.

If you feel Bush has done a good job, you have either ignored much of what has happened for the past four years, or have another reason for electing a president determined to break down the foundations of this country to a second term in which he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

not for long, once the majority of NS comes by the polls average out anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 for Kerry. At least, that's been my experience over the past month.

Oh I know, its just interesting that all the Bush supporters on this thread (or at least half) are puppets of each other.

If you feel Bush has done a good job, you have either ignored much of what has happened for the past four years, or have another reason for electing a president determined to break down the foundations of this country to a second term in which he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Or they are just dumb and think Bush has been great.

Oh I know, its just interesting that all the Bush supporters on this thread (or at least half) are puppets of each other.

It's amazing how when Bush starts to gain some ground people cry miss vote.

I dunno about other people, but I don't really think Bush has been great. Just that Kerry would be worse - much like a lot of people don't really like Kerry but think Bush is worse.

I dunno about other people, but I don't really think Bush has been great. Just that Kerry would be worse - much like a lot of people don't really like Kerry but think Bush is worse.

I'll admit. I hate both candidates. I just feel that Kerry sucks just a little more than Bush. If it were allowed I'd say bring back Clinton. I voted for him and liked him as president.

I'm still deciding if I should vote for Nader, the guy I actually agree with on just about everything, but has no chance of winning; or vote for Kerry which I don't agree with very much, or trust, however I would rather have him in office then Bush and his administration :mad:

I'm shocked that there are no undecided votes. :confused:

I dunno about other people, but I don't really think Bush has been great. Just that Kerry would be worse - much like a lot of people don't really like Kerry but think Bush is worse.

You aren't thinking politically enough.

If you don't think Bush has been great - realize that without having to worry about re-election - he can do even worse with no threat of retribution.

If you think Kerry will suck - realize that he will be a first-term president who *will* have to worry about re-election. Thus, he isn't going to do anything too terribly drastic.

You aren't thinking politically enough.

If you don't think Bush has been great - realize that without having to worry about re-election - he can do even worse with no threat of retribution.

If you think Kerry will suck - realize that he will be a first-term president who *will* have to worry about re-election. Thus, he isn't going to do anything too terribly drastic.
Do you think what Bush has done in his first term has been drastic?

I'm amazed at the lack of real political choice in the world. A bunch of corporate sponsored fear and hatred mongers the lot. Everyone should spoil their votes so that everyone has registered their vote but have not actually voted for any candidate. Now that would be an interesting experiment. Totally ridiculous idea I know but the imagination is always better than reality.
Things can happen. Did you know that so many Students in Britain registered their official religion as "Jedi Knight"[ under state other ] on the Census Form that now it is an officially recognised option and must now by Law appear next to Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. as an option on Future Census surveys.

Do you think what Bush has done in his first term has been drastic?

I think he has held back quite a bit.

I think he has held back quite a bit.

Held back? Could you elaberate on how he's held back?

I think he has held back quite a bit.
Ok, I was just wondering because a lot of people who support Kerry spectrum don't think he's held back - tax cuts, the War in Iraq, etc... I don't see any reason to think that Bush's second term will be any more "extreme" than his first, though. He won't have to worry about re-election, but its not like Clinton and Reagan shot off the charts once they were elected again.

Plus, its a possibility that three Supreme Court Justices will retire. At best (in my point of view), if Kerry gets elected, we'll get three Sandra Day O'Connors with liberal leanings. If Bush gets elected, Republicans all around can finally see change in many of the issues that have been usurped from the legislatures to the courts.

I've already voted via absentee!

My vote went to GWB for 4 more years.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how Kerry could possibly do a worse job than the person we have in office today. Those who vote Bush are disconnected from reality.

I could say the same for Kerry but I won't because I'm above childish insults like these.

None of you Kerry Supporters have yet to raise a reason why Bush deserves to lose his presidency to Kerry.

None of you Kerry Supporters have yet to raise a reason why Bush deserves to lose his presidency to Kerry.

Because they don't BaillieC! They just want Bush out of office and will support any candidate that is against him.

Libertarian, here.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia was once a Libertarian musing over the possibility of voting for Bush. Now, after putting up with all of the hatred, venom, and utter mindlessness that have been spewed by those who favor Kerry, he has decided that he is definately voting for Bush. Every person who has called Bush a moron, every person who has compared him to Hitler, every person who has called each and every Republican a mindless, drooling fool walking lockstep because of their idiocy - each and every one of them has pushed him to this choice.

Because they don't BaillieC! They just want Bush out of office and will support any candidate that is against him.

Exactly, it is complete and utter bull that everyone that has commented her on this thread in favor of Kerry has not made any valid points.

Exactly, it is complete and utter bull that everyone that has commented her on this thread in favor of Kerry has not made any valid points.
Okay we mislead us into war in Iraq and Bush has the gall to say he never made any mistakes. Either he meant to mislead us or it was a mistake: he can't flip both ways.

We gave the warlords much of the security power of afganistan.

We outsourced our vaccines. And Bush said we would never out source our security... Bush please remember what you say.

Bush has made the country lose respect, creddibility, and more around the world. I bet i'll hear the old, "they always hated us routine." But hey why should we lose more?

Bush has been fiscally unconservative. He is a disrespect to his party.

He hired Rush Limbaugh to be his advisor. Mostly channeling dislike I have against Rush there.

He has lied when he said Uniter not divider.

And more.

So I'll stop because most of us don't like Bush. Kerry promises a better way. I would like to think there is.
He cannot do as bad as Bush.

So I'll stop because most of us don't like Bush. Kerry promises a better way. I would like to think there is.
He cannot do as bad as Bush.

Sure he can--he'll just take DIFFERENT rights away from us....and more money.

I did early voting (yesterday) and I voted for Kerry. But the laws in North Carolina sucks. You can't vote for a straight ticket (either way) and then vote for President. It sucks, so I either chose Democrat, or Libertarian lol.

Sure he can--he'll just take DIFFERENT rights away from us....and more money.

uh how will a democrat take rights away from us? aka abortion, gay rights, etc..?

besides, he wont take more taxes from the everyday person, rather those that deserve to be taxed..as in the wealthiest 2% of americans..

uh how will a democrat take rights away from us? aka abortion, gay rights, etc..?
Probably referring to guns.

uh how will a democrat take rights away from us? aka abortion, gay rights, etc..?

Let's see, limiting the 2nd amendment even further, putting us under the rule of the UN, things like that.

I'd prefer to have all the rights, as opposed to just switching on and off which ones from presidential term to presidential term.

besides, he wont take more taxes from the everyday person, rather those that deserve to be taxed..as in the wealthiest 2% of americans..

Sure he won't....right. He'll tax us all--just the more wealthy even further.

And why does income level determine those who "deserve" to be taxed?

Sure he can--he'll just take DIFFERENT rights away from us....and more money.
I'll choose rights over freedoms anyday.
Patriot Act allows the govt to take away rights.

Having semi assualts, costmetic or not, are a freedom not a right. To own an arm is a right. But there are limits to what kind of arm which is why geneade launchers are banned since long time ago.

One thing to consider when it comes to the tax issue is that many wealthy people can buy into a program which allows them to put money away in a fund that will not be taxed. Kerry's wife has one of these funds, in fact. If many of the wealthy choose to do this, the tax burden will once again fall on the middle class.

I do support Bush, by the way, and have already voted for him via absentee ballot.

I'll choose rights over freedoms anyday.
Patriot Act allows the govt to take away rights.

Having semi assualts, costmetic or not, are a freedom not a right. To own an arm is a right. But there are limits to what kind of arm which is why geneade launchers are banned since long time ago.

I don't like the Patriot Act any more than anyone else--I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican.

Until I am a threat to someone, I feel I have the right to do just about anything I want--which is rather guaranteed in the Constitution. Including no limits on arms. Or speech. Or the right to control my own body.

I want economic freedom--no one taxing me for others. If I want to give to a charity that supports people in need, that's my choice--but it can't be forced.

I want personal freedom--no one telling me what I can or cannot do to or with my own body (be it drugs, sexual orientation or specific sexual acts, etc.)

I want to be held accountable for what I actually do, not what I MIGHT think or do.

Both Democrats and Republicans want to restrict some of my rights in some fashion. Moderates want to restrict me less on individual rights, but cover more rights in general.

Neither Bush nor Kerry is a good solution. They're both extremes.

I personally support Walt Brown(Socialist Party) since I'm a communist. I'd choose the communist candidate, but...........there...........isn't one :(

I personally support Walt Brown(Socialist Party) since I'm a communist. I'd choose the communist candidate, but...........there...........isn't one :(

We havn't had many people at all talk about their choice of a third party member and there are 8 total votes for them. Why dosn't anyone supporting them tell us why. Thank you for actually voicing your opinion instead of just voting.

I want economic freedom--no one taxing me for others. If I want to give to a charity that supports people in need, that's my choice--but it can't be forced.

I want personal freedom--no one telling me what I can or cannot do to or with my own body (be it drugs, sexual orientation or specific sexual acts, etc.).
I agree too mostly, but I feel much stronger about personal freedom than economic freedom. Thus, I'd gladly take a Democrat over a Republican any day.

I agree too mostly, but I feel much stronger about personal freedom than economic freedom. Thus, I'd gladly take a Democrat over a Republican any day.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see how the Democrats will give us more freedoms.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see how the Democrats will give us more freedoms.
Abortion, contraception, gay marriage, easing restrictions on drugs, doctor assisted suicide, easing restrictions on prostitution, religious freedom...you get the idea.

The one fly in the soup is some of their overzealous gun control measures, but you work with what you get.

I would ideally vote Libertarian, if I was voting on social issues alone. But alas, I have economic concerns as well.

Abortion, contraception, gay marriage, easing restrictions on , doctor assisted , easing restrictions on prostitution, religious freedom...you get the idea.

The one fly in the soup is some of their overzealous gun control measures, but you work with what you get.

I would ideally vote Libertarian, if I was voting on social issues alone. But alas, I have economic concerns as well.


And the Democrats don't wan't to take away some of our freedoms?

And the Democrats don't wan't to take away some of our freedoms?
Kerry will stand for most personal freedoms, while Bush only stands for one (guns).

Democrats will take away your freedoms if your freedoms impinge on others (in their eyes).

Republicans will take away your freedoms if it bothers their morality.

I go with the first option (although I've said, Libertarians do have it down better socially).

Voted Libertarian. Woo absentee ballots.

Kerry and Edwards have been speaking "lawyer-ese" throughout this entire campaign. I have yet to hear a concrete plan of how they would run the country any differently. Also, do we really need two lawyers appointing Supreme Court Justices? Think about that one for a while....I'm voting Bush.

We havn't had many people at all talk about their choice of a third party member and there are 8 total votes for them. Why dosn't anyone supporting them tell us why. Thank you for actually voicing your opinion instead of just voting.

I did. :D

I did. :D

I'm glad, the point is to vote on the poll yes, but also to voice your opinion.

I'll choose rights over freedoms anyday.
Patriot Act allows the govt to take away rights.

Wrong BastardSword!

We still have all of our rights that we started this war with. You still need a judge to grant approval for a warrant to tap your phone and all the other stuff that requires a warrant.

You also have the right to protest, express yourself (unless your a christian thanks to judges), Say what you want, and the right to say what you want. We still have freedom of the press as well.

So please tell me what rights have been taken away?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how Kerry could possibly do a worse job than the person we have in office today. Those who vote Bush are disconnected from reality.
As opposed to liberals who live in a very real world of their own fabrication. A world in which everyone is exactly the same, and if not then the government gives them enough money to fix it. A world in which everyone who disagrees with them is, in fact, a Nazi and not just another reasonable human being. A world in which being a Congressman means you don't really have to show up if you don't want to. A world in which Pennsylvania is the "second biggest swing state", when everyone should know Ohio is, after Florida. Yes, we Republicans who vote for Bush are about as disconnected as those wonderful utopian minded liberals who actually believe that Communism actually works in practice, or that Socialism is really the best form of government.

Wrong BastardSword!

We still have all of our rights that we started this war with. You still need a judge to grant approval for a warrant to tap your phone and all the other stuff that requires a warrant.

You also have the right to protest, express yourself (unless your a christian thanks to judges), Say what you want, and the right to say what you want. We still have freedom of the press as well.

So please tell me what rights have been taken away?
Shh, we are still in liberal land, where the actual facts don't count. As long as they can keep up the media hype they don't need those ridiculous facts... Don't bother asking a law student if the Patriot Act actually violates the Constitution, just assume it does. It is obviously the most rational thing to do.

Wrong BastardSword!

We still have all of our rights that we started this war with. You still need a judge to grant approval for a warrant to tap your phone and all the other stuff that requires a warrant.

You also have the right to protest, express yourself (unless your a christian thanks to judges), Say what you want, and the right to say what you want. We still have freedom of the press as well.

So please tell me what rights have been taken away?

Perhaps the suspected terrorists being held without being charged, access to a lawyer etc.? TV went really nuts on this. I suppose the 'protest zones' were fiction too.

Perhaps the suspected terrorists being held without being charged, access to a lawyer etc.? TV went really nuts on this. I suppose the 'protest zones' were fiction too.

Now there's a key word in there, terrorists. They don't deserve lawyers. They have military lawyers that are trying them in military tribunals. If they are found not guilty, they will be released. If found guilty, I don't know what their sentences will be.

As for TV going nuts over this, I really don't care. They are NOT citizens of the US thus they are not protected under the US Constitution in my book.

As for the protest zones, all presidents have them so you really can't use that as an excuse.

Now there's a key word in there, terrorists. They don't deserve lawyers. They have military lawyers that are trying them in military tribunals. If they are found not guilty, they will be released. If found guilty, I don't know what their sentences will be.

As for TV going nuts over this, I really don't care. They are NOT citizens of the US thus they are not protected under the US Constitution in my book.

As for the protest zones, all presidents have them so you really can't use that as an excuse.

Deserve doesn't really matter. All deserve their day in a CIVILIAN court with a lawyer who actually knows stuff without being able to do anything because "national security" can be used for anything. Whether you like a person or not, they have rights. That's the point of being in America.

Deserve doesn't really matter. All deserve their day in a CIVILIAN court with a lawyer who actually knows stuff without being able to do anything because "national security" can be used for anything. Whether you like a person or not, they have rights. That's the point of being in America.

Actually it does. If you are NOT a US Citizen and you are caught fighting, you deserve what you get. The people that are being tried right now are given FAIR TRIALS!!! Just because they are military courts does not mean that they won't receive a fair trial. They will and are getting them. A military lawayer do actually know stuff as you put it. Im glad that they are getting these trials they way they are otherwise, it'll turn into a public specticle.

I've already voted via absentee!

My vote went to GWB for 4 more years.
One absentee voting for another. Makes sense. :eek:

Why vote for just one party? Blindly following party lines is part of what makes this country so screwed up. If people would actually examine the candidated, unbiased and equally even though it might (will) require a little independent thinking and *gasp* research (involves work), and then voted for whoever they thought was the most sound candidate and would do the best job, rather than just based on the R or D next to their name than this country would run a heck of a lot smoother and probably be a better place. This would also encourage politicians to actually have substance rather than a little letter they can put next to their name, we would therefore end up with better people in office (or at least people better at the job). (Listening to one candidates adds about the other is niether unbiased or eqaul, and often innacurate, don't try to use them to shoot me down)

One absentee voting for another. Makes sense. :eek:

There is absolutely no proof that he was awol so I wish the left stop hammering it. Ironically, this has pretty much dropped off the Kerry Campaign's rolladex because it has no proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utracia
Perhaps the suspected terrorists being held without being charged, access to a lawyer etc.? TV went really nuts on this. I suppose the 'protest zones' were fiction too.


Now there's a key word in there, terrorists. They don't deserve lawyers. They have military lawyers that are trying them in military tribunals. If they are found not guilty, they will be released. If found guilty, I don't know what their sentences will be.

As for TV going nuts over this, I really don't care. They are NOT citizens of the US thus they are not protected under the US Constitution in my book.

As for the protest zones, all presidents have them so you really can't use that as an excuse.
Now for a guy so staunchly defending Iraqi "Freedom", I am surprised that you don't see the true "key word" in the post by Utracia. The true key word is "suspected"???? :eek:

Ahhhh the former bastion of democracy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utracia
Perhaps the suspected terrorists being held without being charged, access to a lawyer etc.? TV went really nuts on this. I suppose the 'protest zones' were fiction too.



Now for a guy so staunchly defending Iraqi "Freedom", I am surprised that you don't see the true "key word" in the post by Utracia. The true key word is "suspected"???? :eek:

Ahhhh the former bastion of democracy?

And as I said, I"m going to let the Military Tribunals do their thing. If they agree that they are not terrorists and/or not dangerous then they will be freed. If they are found to be terrorists and/or a danger then they won't be set free.

Actually it does. If you are NOT a US Citizen and you are caught fighting, you deserve what you get. The people that are being tried right now are given FAIR TRIALS!!! Just because they are military courts does not mean that they won't receive a fair trial. They will and are getting them. A military lawayer do actually know stuff as you put it. Im glad that they are getting these trials they way they are otherwise, it'll turn into a public specticle.

People deserve to know what's going on to prevent secrecy. Besides, liking them isn't neccessary for rights once again. Illigal immigrants get tried here, and if convicted they serve their sentence and are deported. Terrorism is much more serious and all the more reason to put this in a civilian court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utracia
Perhaps the suspected terrorists being held without being charged, access to a lawyer etc.? TV went really nuts on this. I suppose the 'protest zones' were fiction too.



Now for a guy so staunchly defending Iraqi "Freedom", I am surprised that you don't see the true "key word" in the post by Utracia. The true key word is "suspected"???? :eek:

Ahhhh the former bastion of democracy?

Ah, I slipped. Yes, "suspected."

Now there's a key word in there, terrorists. They don't deserve lawyers. They have military lawyers that are trying them in military tribunals. If they are found not guilty, they will be released. If found guilty, I don't know what their sentences will be.

As for TV going nuts over this, I really don't care. They are NOT citizens of the US thus they are not protected under the US Constitution in my book.

As for the protest zones, all presidents have them so you really can't use that as an excuse.

Read the constitution and the bill of rights, it doesn't talk about all american being created equal, or the basic rights of americans, it talks about all men, You heard me, all men.

And as I said, I"m going to let the Military Tribunals do their thing. If they agree that they are not terrorists and/or not dangerous then they will be freed. If they are found to be terrorists and/or a danger then they won't be set free.
I will give you four words that defeat your argument:

Abu Ghraib Guantanamo Bay :eek:

Read the constitution and the bill of rights, it doesn't talk about all american being created equal, or the basic rights of americans, it talks about all men, You heard me, all men.

And yet it is the US Constitution. It only applies to US Citizens, hence its title, The Consitution of the United States

I will give you four words that defeat your argument:

Abu Ghraib Guantanamo Bay :eek:

Abu Ghraib was being taken Care of before it ever hit the media and the people responsible are being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

As for Gitmo, that is where the military tribunals are held at :eek:

I will give you four words that defeat your argument:

Abu Ghraib Guantanamo Bay :eek:
People have already been released from Guantanamo that have been cleared of charges. Well over a thousand, I think.

And yet it is the US Constitution. It only applies to US Citizens, hence its title, The Consitution of the United States

Regardless, whether it is our constitution or not, it says all men, and I belive all men. Just like most religions belive that non-members will be judged by the same standards, in the afterlife, that they are. Read it. It usaully seems to be the conservatives that are bent on following the constitutions to the letter, yet in this case they seem to be throwing it our the window, interesting....

People have already been released from Guantanamo that have been cleared of charges. Well over a thousand, I think.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Despite a major international outcry and expert condemnation of US government policy, hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in a legal black hole at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits. Denied their rights under international law and held in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the detainees face severe psychological distress. There have been numerous suicide attempts.

As more evidence surfaces that the abuse of Guantánamo detainees has been widespread, it is ever more urgent to end the plight of the detainees. US authorities must bring all detainees to trial, in full accordance with international law and standards, or else release them immediately and unconditionally. :(

What is happening to the America that I had so much respect for?

Regardless, whether it is our constitution or not, it says all men, and I belive all men. Just like most religions belive that non-members will be judged by the same standards, in the afterlife, that they are. Read it. It usaully seems to be the conservatives that are bent on following the constitutions to the letter, yet in this case they seem to be throwing it our the window, interesting....

It is of my opinion that it refers only to American Citizens and not foreigners that are not American Citizens and that includes illegals.

O'Kay is the system more screwed up or the participants?

Was it fair to blame Nader voters for Bush election?

Is it Bush's fault for Sep 11 or Clinton's?.....

And could Gore have done a better job?

Because it isnt the fault of Bush if he is incompetent and gets in when he is up against someone equally as bad Surely?(thats how this election should play out)

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[i]Despite a major international outcry and expert condemnation of US government policy, hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in a legal black hole at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits. Denied their rights under international law and held in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the detainees face severe psychological distress. There have been numerous suicide attempts.



Their is no legal blackhole they are either Terr or spies = shot them imprison them etc;
Soldiers = the war in Afghanistan is over set them free
Their is no such thing as an Enemy combatant only one of the above or others

I'm glad, the point is to vote on the poll yes, but also to voice your opinion.

Ohhhhh....you meant everyone ELSE. Gotcha. ;)

It is of my opinion that it refers only to American Citizens and not foreigners that are not American Citizens and that includes illegals.

Except the framers of the constitution listed it as a "natural right". This transcends national boundaries and applies to all of God's children--again, according to the people that wrote the constitution.

Foreigners and illegal aliens fall under all the laws and protections of this country. That includes the Bill of Rights. We can't pick and choose when it's convenient. Being held without timely judicial process is unconstitutional, regardless of the nation of origin of the person being held.

Ohhhhh....you meant everyone ELSE. Gotcha. ;)

I have taken part in this discussion quite a few times my friend so I guess you just havn't read the whole thread.

I have taken part in this discussion quite a few times my friend so I guess you just havn't read the whole thread.

I meant everyone else but us. :D

Except the framers of the constitution listed it as a "natural right". This transcends national boundaries and applies to all of God's children--again, according to the people that wrote the constitution.

Foreigners and illegal aliens fall under all the laws and protections of this country. That includes the Bill of Rights. We can't pick and choose when it's convenient. Being held without timely judicial process is unconstitutional, regardless of the nation of origin of the person being held.

If you are an Illegeal alien then why should any rights of the United States apply to you? People sneaking into this country don't deserve the rights that people that enter the country the correct way get.

I meant everyone else but us. :D

Oh ok. Wow, see what not reading between the lines gets you? I was quite mad for a minute there. I enjoy the conversationwe few are having, but I like to hear what the Third party voters have to say too, because they are few compared to the Democratic and Republican voters.

If you are an Illegeal alien then why should any rights of the United States apply to you? People sneaking into this country don't deserve the rights that people that enter the country the correct way get.

That's how natural rights work--everyone human is entitled to them. I didn't define them, the founding fathers did, but that's how they work. They are universal, whether or not you are a citizen of the US.

Oh ok. Wow, see what not reading between the lines gets you? I was quite mad for a minute there. I enjoy the conversationwe few are having, but I like to hear what the Third party voters have to say too, because they are few compared to the Democratic and Republican voters.

Yes, we are indeed few, but we are rapidly poaching from the Democrats and Republicans.
:eek:

That's how natural rights work--everyone human is entitled to them. I didn't define them, the founding fathers did, but that's how they work. They are universal, whether or not you are a citizen of the US.

I suppose I can see where they should get those rights, but isn't there a limit to it? They are illegal aliens after all. I don't know, my opinion on this matter is probibly wrong, I just wan't to be shown why I'm wrong.

Yes, we are indeed few, but we are rapidly poaching from the Democrats and Republicans.
:eek:

That is the job of the third party voters. To take away votes from which ever main party they don't like the most. That is the reason I like Third Parties, they make the election that much more interesting.

George W. Bush

He has done a fantastic job reversing the economic dip, he has had the right attitude with the war in Iraq, he has shown respect for life, he has been clear on his positions, he is for protecting the citizens of the U.S., he recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman and realizes that is very much does affect everyone in the country, he recognizes that the constitution shouldn't have extremely stretched out interpretations, literally giving judges the power to make up almost any law they want, and has shown that he isn't afraid of having faith. He is a very intelligent man -- perhaps not the best speaker, but very intelligent.

I've seen far more posts here claiming that anyone who votes Republican is an ignorant fool than I'd like to see. I happen to be Canadian, but if I was able to vote in this year's U.S. election, I'd choose Bush, and I have valid reasons for doing so:

Nationalized Health Care - I'm for it, but Kerry's plan for it, quite frankly, sucks, and it's better to have no national health care at all than a plan even worse than Canada's.

Social Security - I believe a privatized (at least partially) social security system is the only viable option in a country with the capitalist leanings of the US.

Deficit - like hell he'll reduce it. I don't buy that with all the money he wants to put into nationalized health care, social security, etc.

The War on Iraq - Kerry's "plan" to bring more countries into Iraq simply won't work. It's far too unpopular in those nations to commit troops to the area. What is needed is the training of more Iraqis, which both agree upon, and which Bush is already doing, so why vote for Kerry? I will add that I'm against the war and don't think it ever should have happened, but crying about it now isn't going to do anyone any good.

Bilateral talks with North Korea - stupid idea, as has been proven historically.

There's also the less factually tangible problem of Kerry's character. I'm not saying he's a flip-flopper, because I think that's bull, but most of what I've heard coming out of his mouth is either far too liberal for my tastes in a more general sense, or Bush bashing, which I'd heard quite enough of months ago. Yes, Kerry, we get the point, you think Bush sucks. Now what do YOU intend to do to fix things? And his response to that question on the War in Iraq is, in my opinion, just not good enough. Same for the economy (and, I might add, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear Kerry blaming Bush for the state of the economy since the economy was due for a recession, the tech bubble was due to burst, and 9/11 had an impact). I haven't heard anything satisfactory about what he'd do better than Bush on several issues that are of importance to me, so I'd prefer to stick with the devil I know.

Except the framers of the constitution listed it as a "natural right". This transcends national boundaries and applies to all of God's children--again, according to the people that wrote the constitution.

Foreigners and illegal aliens fall under all the laws and protections of this country. That includes the Bill of Rights. We can't pick and choose when it's convenient. Being held without timely judicial process is unconstitutional, regardless of the nation of origin of the person being held.

However there is a flaw in your logic. Under the Law, it is illegal to enter the US illegally.

Nationalized Health Care - I'm for it, but Kerry's plan for it, quite frankly, sucks, and it's better to have no national health care at all than a plan even worse than Canada's.

Problem: If you wait for the perfect nationalised health care, then it will never happen. Getting it installed is a gigantic step. You can always go back and correct the flaws. So Kerry is moving in the right direction. Hmmm you don't like Canada's setup?


Social Security - I believe a privatized (at least partially) social security system is the only viable option in a country with the capitalist leanings of the US.

God no. With all the corporate fraud, it would be gone in no time. It worked for 70 years.


Deficit - like hell he'll reduce it. I don't buy that with all the money he wants to put into nationalized health care, social security, etc.


Still better then the shrub. For all his little goverment talk, he has increased it and spends money like a drunken sailor. How do you spend 9 trillion dollars in 4 years?


The War on Iraq - Kerry's "plan" to bring more countries into Iraq simply won't work. It's far too unpopular in those nations to commit troops to the area. What is needed is the training of more Iraqis, which both agree upon, and which Bush is already doing, so why vote for Kerry? I will add that I'm against the war and don't think it ever should have happened, but crying about it now isn't going to do anyone any good.

Still better the the shrub. The shrubs gigantic failure is the peace time part. Unemployment is something like 60%. The only jobs are the police and the army. So you don't get "loyal" recruits with that. Did you know the truck bomb that killed all those kids went through a police check point?


Bilateral talks with North Korea - stupid idea, as has been proven historically.

Ahhh so attack them right?

Same for the economy (and, I might add, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear Kerry blaming Bush for the state of the economy since the economy was due for a recession, the tech bubble was due to burst, and 9/11 had an impact). I haven't heard anything satisfactory about what he'd do better than Bush on several issues that are of importance to me, so I'd prefer to stick with the devil I know.

Ahh Good Republican sound bites... :rolleyes:

Stick with the devil I know? Sorry but I know he will screw me so I am going to give Kerry a chance.

The shrub offers nothing.

Seriously is anyone worried about the two party system?

Two campaign slogans youll never hear
Bush-Better the devil you know
Kerry-Lesser of two evils

how about

Nader - why not?

I'd vote for Nader (if I was American) but hasn't he been disqualifed or something? Heck just cast my vote for the futhest left candiate there is.

However there is a flaw in your logic. Under the Law, it is illegal to enter the US illegally.

I disagree. It's not in the constitution that it's illegal to enter the country without using our current process. However, with laws in place making it illegal, the aliens are allowed the protection of the 5th amendment--right to expiditious due process--and the boot out of the country--not unlimited captivity.

Now, whether or not having laws against entering the country in any fashion is unconstitutional is another thing entirely....

Presidential Elections are tomorrow. Anyone else that has anything to say on this thread should come in and make their comments today or early tomorrow. All I have to say is GO BUSH!

I'd vote for Nader (if I was American) but hasn't he been disqualifed or something?
More like discredited, after he became the GOP's bitchboy. :p

Go Bush fans

I disagree. It's not in the constitution that it's illegal to enter the country without using our current process. However, with laws in place making it illegal, the aliens are allowed the protection of the 5th amendment--right to expiditious due process--and the boot out of the country--not unlimited captivity.

Now, whether or not having laws against entering the country in any fashion is unconstitutional is another thing entirely....

I think you and everyone else debating this little discussion in this thread got way off from your original line of thought. Please allow me to haul you all back to reality. The debate, before going off on this odd illegal alien tangent, was should the prisoners at Guantanamo and the like have the right to a civilian trial? The answer is no. The 14th amendment mentions all rights of citizens not being abridged by the government. The This does not mention non-US citizens and therefore doesn't automatically extend to them. The same goes for non-US citizen enemy combatants not being mentioned as protected by the Constitution. Only US citizens are. As mentioned earlier, they will get a military trial. Are they entitled to even THAT, no. But we do it anyway.

I'm voting for Mike Badnarik. The guy that would actually fix the country... because eff security we need our freedoms back.

Why vote for just one party? Blindly following party lines is part of what makes this country so screwed up. If people would actually examine the candidated, unbiased and equally even though it might (will) require a little independent thinking and *gasp* research (involves work), and then voted for whoever they thought was the most sound candidate and would do the best job, rather than just based on the R or D next to their name than this country would run a heck of a lot smoother and probably be a better place. This would also encourage politicians to actually have substance rather than a little letter they can put next to their name, we would therefore end up with better people in office (or at least people better at the job). (Listening to one candidates adds about the other is niether unbiased or eqaul, and often innacurate, don't try to use them to shoot me down)

Sweet someone does agree

how about

Nader - why not?

Problem is he runs at 4% a wasted vote thanks to the two party system

Hmm how about the guy whos running on the Prohibition ticket collected 200 odd votes in 2000

I think you and everyone else debating this little discussion in this thread got way off from your original line of thought. Please allow me to haul you all back to reality. The debate, before going off on this odd illegal alien tangent, was should the prisoners at Guantanamo and the like have the right to a civilian trial? The answer is no. The 14th amendment mentions all rights of citizens not being abridged by the government. The This does not mention non-US citizens and therefore doesn't automatically extend to them. The same goes for non-US citizen enemy combatants not being mentioned as protected by the Constitution. Only US citizens are. As mentioned earlier, they will get a military trial. Are they entitled to even THAT, no. But we do it anyway.

Okay, you want reality? Here it is:
http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm

Look for the part that says, "The full constitutional due process protections apply on U.S. territory to citizens and legal residents or visitors, provided they did not gain legal entry by fraud. That does not mean such foreigners don't have full rights of life, liberty, and property, but due process may be truncated, provided authority for doing so is conferred by Congress, by either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal. That authority is needed for such actions as trial of prisoners by a military tribunal, or putting bounties on the heads of suspects. In the absence of such authority, only defensive actions may be taken, without violating the law, represented by 18 USC 2441, which applies to everyone involved, including the president."

Last I checked, we've had no formal declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal by congress. So, NO ONE can be held without due process at this time.

I heard 75% of Rep believe Iraq had weapons of mass Destruction after the War.

Looks like its all over Demos