NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats why I'm voting for Kerry. Under the Bush administration we had 9/11 and he made mess of both wars following it. If you really want the country to be safe vote for Kerry.

I agree. When are we going to get back to fighting the War on Terror? I thought that was a priority or something. :confused:

How can you vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act and supported the Iraq War until, convienently, he changed his mind around election time? He's no Bush, but I still don't trust him.

How can you vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act and supported the Iraq War until, convienently, he changed his mind around election time?

Because the alternative is far, far worse.

How can you vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act and supported the Iraq War until, convienently, he changed his mind around election time? He's no Bush, but I still don't trust him.

All Presidents do incredibly shitty things around election times & plus he's no Bush! yey!

Because the alternative is far, far worse.

There ARE other alternatives that must be realized. We can't keep pushing off third parties "until next election." We must start now. If we can a third party to get 15 percent of the popular vote, they'll be eligible to debate. And we know they'll kick the Democrat and republican ASS.

Voting for a third party is good if you favor the Democrat or Republican who will win (which is why I voted for Nader last election because Gore won my state... and the country, if you want to get technical) but without run-off voting there is no way for three or more parties to compete fairly.

There ARE other alternatives that must be realized. We can't keep pushing off third parties "until next election." We must start now. If we can a third party to get 15 percent of the popular vote, they'll be eligible to debate. And we know they'll kick the Democrat and republican ASS.

Actually, I think "next election" would be the perfect time to do it.

There's a lot of disillusionment in both parties right now. Next election is going to be the straw that kicks camel ass.

I agree. When are we going to get back to fighting the War on Terror? I thought that was a priority or something. :confused:

Just where is this war on terror going on? Here in England we seem to think it is a media driven thing. Every time we have any sort of explosion, no matter what the cause,we have the reports of "terrorist activity maybe by Al Quieda supporters" We then find out some unlucky worker got killed by a gas canister blow up. How many terrorist strikes have we had in the last couple of months? We have made our own bed in Iraq and have to lie in it. So where do we go to fight it, Afghanistan? I think we would not recognize who is on whose side there,so where do we look? The States are the same from what I can gather, Al quieda this, Al quieda that, they don't need to do anything,the media coverage does most of their terrorist propaganda for them, so how do you fight it?

I agree. When are we going to get back to fighting the War on Terror? I thought that was a priority or something. :confused:

Wait. You are going to vote? You will be the problem. *sigh*

Actually, I think "next election" would be the perfect time to do it.

There's a lot of disillusionment in both parties right now. Next election is going to be the straw that kicks camel ass.

What if Kerry becomes the democratic version of Bush or Bush manages to repeal the 23rd amendment (that's the 2-term one, right?)?

Wait. You are going to vote? You will be the problem. *sigh*

I thought about not voting. But since Connecticut is not a battleground state, It doesn't matter how I vote. So I've decided to vote afterall. :D

I thought about not voting. But since Connecticut is not a battleground state, It doesn't matter how I vote. So I've decided to vote afterall. :D

I will blame everything on you next time around. While doing that, I will completely forget that I voted also.

What if Kerry becomes the democratic version of Bush or Bush manages to repeal the 23rd amendment (that's the 2-term one, right?)?

That's why I'm saying, do it NEXT election.

This election is way too partisan for a third party to have a good chance. Next one people will probebly be a bit more chilled out.

I agree. When are we going to get back to fighting the War on Terror? I thought that was a priority or something. :confused:Get back to fighting...? When did it start? I'm still waiting for the US to stop selling weapons to the countries the terrorists came from. That'd probably be a good beginning.

I voted for Kerry (early voting in Florida), but the whole "war on terror" thing eludes me. Terror is not an enemy, it is a tactic. Military experts refer to it as "asynchronous warfare." You don't fight a war against a tactic. It is like fighting a war on "blitzkrieg" or "frontal assaults" or "pincer movements." You don't fight wars against tactics.

Terrorism is a tactic used by weaker fighters to offset the advantages of a bigger, stronger foe. It is absolutely impossible to totally eliminate the threat of terrorism, especially from open, democratic societies. When George W. Bush states this "war on terrorism" will go on until "terrorism" is defeated he is creating an American society in a state of perpetual war, with the kind of restriction of liberties George Orwell envisioned in 1984.

What if Kerry becomes the democratic version of Bush or Bush manages to repeal the 23rd amendment (that's the 2-term one, right?)?
If Bush tried to repeal the 2-term Amendment (I dont remember the number, you may be right), I think it would be the end of his political career. Even people who support him would realize that Amendment is there for a reason, and would turn away from him. Also, I honestly don't think our Congress can be THAT stupid to actually go along with it. Plus, you would need 2/3 of the states to ratify...also would not happen. People may be mislead easily, but they're not completely inept.

I voted for Kerry (early voting in Florida), but the whole "war on terror" thing eludes me. Terror is not an enemy, it is a tactic. Military experts refer to it as "asynchronous warfare." You don't fight a war against a tactic. It is like fighting a war on "blitzkrieg" or "frontal assaults" or "pincer movements." You don't fight wars against tactics.

Terrorism is a tactic used by weaker fighters to offset the advantages of a bigger, stronger foe. It is absolutely impossible to totally eliminate the threat of terrorism, especially from open, democratic societies. When George W. Bush states this "war on terrorism" will go on until "terrorism" is defeated he is creating an American society in a state of perpetual war, with the kind of restriction of liberties George Orwell envisioned in 1984.
It's like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on (insert any noun here)"...it never succeeds.

How can you vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act and supported the Iraq War until, convienently, he changed his mind around election time? He's no Bush, but I still don't trust him.

Because someone who doesn't change their mind when an avalanche of evidence should make them do so is a complete and utter idiot. You're pretending that changing your mind is a greater sin than waking up and realizing that you've made a mistake. Pathetic.

Furthermore, this case is more complex than you paint it. Kerry doesn't oppose all parts of the Patriot Act, just those that endanger our right to privacy. No one is suggesting removing the parts that make for greater information sharing and whatnot.

Likewise, Kerry doesn't oppose the war on Iraq so much as he opposes how it is being executed, and how quickly and poorly it was planned in the first place. Oh, and if you go back to October 9th 2002, you'll see the speech Kerry makes upon the war authorization reflects that sentiment EXACTLY. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong.

Are you really unable to see these distinctions? Are you so calcified in talking points that you can't see beyond the stupid "flip-flop" label?

There ARE other alternatives that must be realized. We can't keep pushing off third parties "until next election." We must start now. If we can a third party to get 15 percent of the popular vote, they'll be eligible to debate. And we know they'll kick the Democrat and republican ASS.


That's not how it works. They use polls to determine if a candidate can debate, not the prior election. How do you think Perot got to debate?

There are no third party candidates with enough popularity for their voice to matter. Don't vote 3rd party, vote Kerry. When the 2008 election comes up, hope for third party candidates who aren't maniac radicals that will tail spin the country into a quagmire so deep that only a military dictator will be able to pull us out.

Voting for Nader or Badnarik or any other third party candidate on the premise that it may help them debate next time around is, in fact, throwing away your vote.

Be an informed voter.

That's not how it works. They use polls to determine if a candidate can debate, not the prior election. How do you think Perot got to debate?

There are no third party candidates with enough popularity for their voice to matter. Don't vote 3rd party, vote Kerry. When the 2008 election comes up, hope for third party candidates who aren't maniac radicals that will tail spin the country into a quagmire so deep that only a military dictator will be able to pull us out.

Voting for Nader or Badnarik or any other third party candidate on the premise that it may help them debate next time around is, in fact, throwing away your vote.

Be an informed voter.

The downsides of a twoparty system is really obvious. Perhaps it would be a good idea to switch to parlamentarism?

Because someone who doesn't change their mind when an avalanche of evidence should make them do so is a complete and utter idiot. You're pretending that changing your mind is a greater sin than waking up and realizing that you've made a mistake. Pathetic.

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act takes away personal freedoms. If he opposed all the violations of civil liberties why didn't he vote against it? Surely civil liberties are more important.

Furthermore, this case is more complex than you paint it. Kerry doesn't oppose all parts of the Patriot Act, just those that endanger our right to privacy. No one is suggesting removing the parts that make for greater information sharing and whatnot.

I oppose the Patriot Act so I don't understand the relevance of this paragraph. Are you assuming I'm a Republican?

Likewise, Kerry doesn't oppose the war on Iraq so much as he opposes how it is being executed, and how quickly and poorly it was planned in the first place. Oh, and if you go back to October 9th 2002, you'll see the speech Kerry makes upon the war authorization reflects that sentiment EXACTLY. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong.

I oppose the war in Iraq. He supports it and supported it from the beginning. Why should I support someone who votes to send troops overseas on thin premises? It's noble to liberate a people, but that ain't what we're doing in Iraq.

Are you really unable to see these distinctions? Are you so calcified in talking points that you can't see beyond the stupid "flip-flop" label?

I oppose Kerry because HE SUPPORTS THE PATRIOT ACT AND IRAQ WAR. I OPPOSE HIM BECAUSE NOW ALL OF SUDDEN HE'S CRITICIZING THEM BOTH (Which he shouldve done to begin with) AT ELECTION TIME. Doesnt that sound the LEAST bit unnerving? How can I trust that civil liberties will be protected under the Kerry administration when he's voted for resolutions that violate them?

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act takes away personal freedoms. If he opposed all the violations of civil liberties why didn't he vote against it? Surely civil liberties are more important.Uh, that'd probably the same reason most of those who voted for it did, they simply weren't given time to read it fully. It was printed, distributed and pushed through in record time. No one except those who put it together understood fully what it contained. They foolishly trusted the Bush administration to not pull something sneaky at such a time, after all it was immediately after 9/11 and we were all coming together. Suerly no-one would be low enough to use it to push through partisan goals, right? Most of America is just figuring out how wrong we were.

Right on, Ogiek.

Though I don't know how Orwellian it all is. Sometimes these things just seem to happen.

Also, it's not about whether the war on terror/drugs/whatever ever succeeds... it has successes and failures. The problem is that those wars never end. The enemies are invincible by default. Like, take alcohol. Could the government win a War on Alcohol? could it really? I'm betting no. I'm betting, alcohol is stronger than government. I'll drink to that.

Uh, that'd probably the same reason most of those who voted for it did, they simply weren't given time to read it fully. It was printed, distributed and pushed through in record time. No one except those who put it together understood fully what it contained. They foolishly trusted the Bush administration to not pull something sneaky at such a time, after all it was immediately after 9/11 and we were all coming together. Suerly no-one would be low enough to use it to push through partisan goals, right? Most of America is just figuring out how wrong we were.

That's incompetence then.

All Presidents do incredibly shitty things around election times & plus he's no Bush! yey!

Seems like you're asking for trouble to me.

Right on, Ogiek.

Though I don't know how Orwellian it all is. Sometimes these things just seem to happen.

Also, it's not about whether the war on terror/drugs/whatever ever succeeds... it has successes and failures. The problem is that those wars never end. The enemies are invincible by default. Like, take alcohol. Could the government win a War on Alcohol? could it really? I'm betting no. I'm betting, alcohol is stronger than government. I'll drink to that.

That's damn right.
*Throws back a shot of Jack Daniel's*

And Gymoor, you need to relax bud. It's an election, not the end of the world.

Just where is this war on terror going on? Here in England we seem to think it is a media driven thing. Every time we have any sort of explosion, no matter what the cause,we have the reports of "terrorist activity maybe by Al Quieda supporters" We then find out some unlucky worker got killed by a gas canister blow up. How many terrorist strikes have we had in the last couple of months? We have made our own bed in Iraq and have to lie in it. So where do we go to fight it, Afghanistan? I think we would not recognize who is on whose side there,so where do we look? The States are the same from what I can gather, Al quieda this, Al quieda that, they don't need to do anything,the media coverage does most of their terrorist propaganda for them, so how do you fight it?

I somewhat agree with you. In the US it is the media that is at the forefront of the so called "war" on terror, but the root is the White House. Karl Rove and his gop allies are using it to try to get Bush re-elcted. Just as they used it to scare people and sway public opinion if favor of the Iraq War. And the media will take anything that drives up ratings, which is terror. And then there's FOX, which is basically state run television (until Kerry gets elected that is) and will tell you anything to get Bush in. SO its not entirely the media. They are at fault for even aknowledging such a stupid idea, but I still put most of the blame on the republican spin machine.

If Bush tried to repeal the 2-term Amendment (I dont remember the number, you may be right), I think it would be the end of his political career. Even people who support him would realize that Amendment is there for a reason, and would turn away from him. Also, I honestly don't think our Congress can be THAT stupid to actually go along with it. Plus, you would need 2/3 of the states to ratify...also would not happen. People may be mislead easily, but they're not completely inept.

I hate Bush but I disagree with everything you said except for the 2/3 state ratification part. That would stop it dead in it's tracks. People that support Bush wouldn't realize that it's they're for a reason. They don't realize anything and that's why they're voting for him. And congress is that stupid. It's gop controlled and the Dems would bend like they always do (although not quite as much lately). And yes, most of us Americans are completely inept.

Because the alternative is far, far worse.
Right, you mean someone who actually stands on the same side of the issues constantly. You may not agree with them, but at least you know where you stand.

Because someone who doesn't change their mind when an avalanche of evidence should make them do so is a complete and utter idiot. You're pretending that changing your mind is a greater sin than waking up and realizing that you've made a mistake. Pathetic.

Furthermore, this case is more complex than you paint it. Kerry doesn't oppose all parts of the Patriot Act, just those that endanger our right to privacy. No one is suggesting removing the parts that make for greater information sharing and whatnot.

Likewise, Kerry doesn't oppose the war on Iraq so much as he opposes how it is being executed, and how quickly and poorly it was planned in the first place. Oh, and if you go back to October 9th 2002, you'll see the speech Kerry makes upon the war authorization reflects that sentiment EXACTLY. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong.

Are you really unable to see these distinctions? Are you so calcified in talking points that you can't see beyond the stupid "flip-flop" label?

YEAH! You tell it like it is! The only reason the gop issues talking pts. is because they no their supporters are IDIOTS and can't argue for themselves. They also know that the media will use these talking pts. in "fairly" analyzing both sides of the story and that this will lead to increased use of the word "flip-flop", which will lead people to believe Kerry is a flip-flopper.

If you've ever read Mein Kamph by Adolf Hitler (I did for History), you'll notice how he mentions that propoganda works quite well as long as it is incredibly dumbed down and repeated over and over and over again. The mindless pubilc will eventually think it to be true. Sound familiar?

Thats why I'm voting for Kerry. Under the Bush administration we had 9/11 and he made mess of both wars following it. If you really want the country to be safe vote for Kerry.

After Clinton was too busy having oral sex to deal with that bin Laden guy when he was basically handed to us. He really made a mess of Afghanistan. I mean democracy, women's rights? Obviously a total failure. And look at Iraq. People died. OMG It's like a war or something.

After Clinton was too busy having oral sex to deal with that bin Laden guy when he was basically handed to us. He really made a mess of Afghanistan. I mean democracy, women's rights? Obviously a total failure. And look at Iraq. People died. OMG It's like a war or something.

You're right. The lives of civilians are irrelevant. We should totally nuke all of Iraq and say that we're liberating them from the oppressive nitrogen in the air.

Right on, Ogiek.

Though I don't know how Orwellian it all is. Sometimes these things just seem to happen.

Also, it's not about whether the war on terror/drugs/whatever ever succeeds... it has successes and failures. The problem is that those wars never end. The enemies are invincible by default. Like, take alcohol. Could the government win a War on Alcohol? could it really? I'm betting no. I'm betting, alcohol is stronger than government. I'll drink to that.

The government could win a War on Alcohol, it just wouldn't fly. We'd need to take funding away from sensitive areas and put it into border and smuggling security, we'd have to take down big alcohol companies which would blow jobs out the window, and money, and we'd have to destroy(or drink) all alcohol that was already in the US. That would lead to people drinking large amounts of illegal moonshine, making them hopelessly drunk, and liable to start a riot. Which would lead to more drinking, and a really screwed up nation. So the government decided long ago that a war on alcohol(I learned in American History about the "moral experiment:" an effort to stop all alcohol in the US back in the days of early government) would be a complete failure, and would deal with the small number of drunks there are, as opposed to creating more by trying to stop them.

Uh, that'd probably the same reason most of those who voted for it did, they simply weren't given time to read it fully. It was printed, distributed and pushed through in record time. No one except those who put it together understood fully what it contained. They foolishly trusted the Bush administration to not pull something sneaky at such a time, after all it was immediately after 9/11 and we were all coming together. Suerly no-one would be low enough to use it to push through partisan goals, right? Most of America is just figuring out how wrong we were.

It's also virtually impossible to read. It talks about modifying different sections of other documents' Here's an example:

SEC. 104. REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO ENFORCE PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES.
Section 2332e of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `2332c' and inserting `2332a'; and
(2) by striking `chemical'

For someone to fully understand what the USA PATRIOT Act says, they would have to read every single law, document, bill, and amendment ever passed. Like I said, impossible.

USA PATRIOT act is also a very clever and Orweillian acronym for the Act that was proposed by none other than Karl Rove: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001

The only reason the gop issues talking pts. is because they no their supporters are IDIOTS and can't argue for themselves.

At least we're smart enough to spell and punctuate better than liberals. I'm offended that you think I'm a mindless Bush droid who can't think or reason for myself. Liberals are the ones who use the same tired arguments over and over, most of which are basically "Bush sucks." In my experience, most liberals are elitists, like you yourself seem to be. We "common people" are just too stupid to understand your "higher logic." I guess an IQ of 142 just isn't quite high enough to even begin to understand the beliefs of the liberal geniuses that care so much and want only the best for me.

Terrorism is a tactic used by weaker fighters to offset the advantages of a bigger, stronger foe. It is absolutely impossible to totally eliminate the threat of terrorism, especially from open, democratic societies. When George W. Bush states this "war on terrorism" will go on until "terrorism" is defeated he is creating an American society in a state of perpetual war, with the kind of restriction of liberties George Orwell envisioned in 1984.

Also, Bush has said so in interviews and on the campaign trail that he thinks the war on terror may be unwinnable. If I were a dirty neocon I would be calling him a flip-flopper right now, but no. I don't sink that low. I pay attention to what really matters: the issues. And so do Kerry and the Dems. That's why they haven't mauled Bush for saying that, the way he and his gop allies would have done to Kerry had he said something similar.

At least we're smart enough to spell and punctuate better than liberals. I'm offended that you think I'm a mindless Bush droid who can't think or reason for myself. Liberals are the ones who use the same tired arguments over and over, most of which are basically "Bush sucks." In my experience, most liberals are elitists, like you yourself seem to be. We "common people" are just too stupid to understand your "higher logic." I guess an IQ of 142 just isn't quite high enough to even begin to understand the beliefs of the liberal geniuses that care so much and want only the best for me.
Liberals are elitest when you are the one flinging your IQ test points around? Hitler and his top advisors were intelligent too, but it didn't make them right.

At least we're smart enough to spell and punctuate better than liberals. I'm offended that you think I'm a mindless Bush droid who can't think or reason for myself. Liberals are the ones who use the same tired arguments over and over, most of which are basically "Bush sucks." In my experience, most liberals are elitists, like you yourself seem to be. We "common people" are just too stupid to understand your "higher logic." I guess an IQ of 142 just isn't quite high enough to even begin to understand the beliefs of the liberal geniuses that care so much and want only the best for me.

The reason I don't capitalize republican or punctuate gop is because I prefer not to aknowledge them. And it's not just them. All political parties tick me off. George Washington had it right when he said he didn't like them becuase they got in the way of real business. Imagine how much cleaner this election would be if it were just Bush v. Kerry, with no political parties backing either of them up. Then we wouldn't have all this mess about a two party system, because there would be no parties. That's why I'm registering as an independant when I turn 18.

And before you call me an elitist, you should realize that you did exactly to me, what I did to you by categorizing me with all liberals. You just assume that liberals can't spell or punctuate? Yes, I am admitting that I was wrong (something Bush would never do) by calling all repubilcans idiots, and don't just assume that you're 142 IQ is higher than mine.

Wow, this thread has kind of gotten off topic.

Liberals are elitest when you are the one flinging your IQ test points around? Hitler and his top advisors were intelligent too, but it didn't make them right.

No. Liberals are elitist when they go around bashing people and ideas they know nothing about and claiming they are stupid and inferior because obviously there is nothing that can elude their great understanding. I'm not tossing around an IQ score to try to show my supremacy. I'm using it to demonstrate my argument that I'm too stupid to make in the first place.

The reason I don't capitalize republican or punctuate gop is because I prefer not to aknowledge them. And it's not just them. All political parties tick me off. George Washington had it right when he said he didn't like them becuase they got in the way of real business. Imagine how much cleaner this election would be if it were just Bush v. Kerry, with no political parties backing either of them up. Then we wouldn't have all this mess about a two party system, because there would be no parties. That's why I'm registering as an independant when I turn 18.

And before you call me an elitist, you should realize that you did exactly to me, what I did to you by categorizing me with all liberals. You just assume that liberals can't spell or punctuate? Yes, I am admitting that I was wrong (something Bush would never do) by calling all repubilcans idiots, and don't just assume that you're 142 IQ is higher than mine.

Okay, you're the first liberal I've seen to actually explain his/her lacking grammatical skills. That's fine, and I accept your explanation. I was just commenting (in a periphrastic way, I'll admit) on an observation that I have made that in general, conservatives are more accurate in their use of the English language than liberals that I have seen in these sorts of threads. I'm not assuming that I'm smarter than you. I'm just saying I'm not stupid and I felt an IQ score was an accurate indicator of that fact.

ya know, I've been hearing alot about Kerry's plans... Kerry has a plan for the war in Iraq... Kerry has a plan for health care... Kerry has a plan for the economy... but does anyone know what his plan is? Can anyone prove that it will be better? And just because he has a plan does not mean he'll use it.

That's why I'm registering as an independant when I turn 18.

When I turn 25, I plan to run for the US House of Representatives as a Republican.