NationStates Jolt Archive

Written by a Libertarian who was in fact supporting the Democrats in this election and vehemently opposes George Bush and right-wing Republican policy.

Democrats, why have you lost this election? An election against arguably the least popular President (at least outside the US) in your history? Because Kerry has no personality. I knew about Bush's views before he was President, and I certainly know about them now. I've known about John Kerry for over a year now, and I've heard so much about him it's coming out of my ears. I still couldn't tell you one difference between John Kerry and George Bush on an important issue - or any issue he's given a solid opinion on.

So far I'm sounding very Republican, right? Well I'm not - I'm a Libertarian who was rooting for the Democrats in this election because I wanted rid of the Republicans - I'm just trying to point out where you went wrong. It wasn't because of dirty politics. It wasn't because of voter fixing. It wasn't because of Nader. You lost because you fielded a candidate who has no personality and seems utterly incapable of making a decision. I've heard people say that "it's flexibility, not flip-flopping", but I don't buy it. To be the President in the current world climate, you need to be able to make a decision, and stick to it. Changing your opinion every five minutes to suit the people you're trying to impress is not the sign of a strong President - and a strong America needs a strong President. Bush might have been wrong, but he was strong and resilient in his decisions. That counts to a lot of people. There is a lot of anti-American sentiment in the world at the moment, and there are a lot of people who wish to do a lot of harm to the US, and a country under threat needs a strong leader - one with a vision, one with a drive. Not John Kerry. Not Hillary Clinton. The only good electing Hillary Clinton would do would be getting Bill's influence back in the corridors of power.

As much as I hate Bush, I can see why he won this election. If I had to choose between a man who's spent four years wrecking the country but might just be able to decide on a way to get the country out of it or a man who can probably barely decide what pair of shoes to put on in the morning, I would choose the former. So in the next election, Democrats, field someone with a vision. With drive. The whole country laughed at Howard Dean for showing emotion in politics, yet it was lack of emotion, of feeling, that has lost this election for John Kerry. You should go crawling back to Howard Dean and beg him to be on the Democrat ticket in 2008, as Hillary Clinton is never going to be a strong contender, while the Republicans have a host of powerful candidates they could field, all of whom will look like Gods after another four years of George W. Bush. You need to stop moaning right now about losing another election, and hold them attack lawyers back - acting like a kid who's lost his favourite toy is going to get you nowhere, and will reinforce the Republican view that you are a bunch of limp-wristed whiners. That is not a strong image. That is not an image you want people forming of you.

Honestly, for the life of me I couldn't tell you one good thing about John Kerry other than he isn't George Bush, and I can see why that wasn't enough for the people of America - All the 'dirty politics' you can bitch about until the cows come home didn't matter, your fielding of a candidate devoid of personality and drive is what has lost you the election. So, Democrats, put this election behind you and get building for 2008. And give Howard Dean a call.

the voting machines didn't work in New Orleans -- thanks diebold!

Nice letter... well written... We may be on opposite sides of the politial platform, but I agree with heartily.

They seemed to be afraid of appearing "too Liberal." You got this whisy-washy 'centrist' bullshit where they tried to please everyone but satisfied no one.

Nader was right when he said the candidates were too similar. The democrats were afraid to take hard stances on the issues and it cost them.

I remember reading about Dean a long while back and I liked the cut of his jib.

They seemed to be afraid of appearing "too Liberal." You got this whisy-washy 'centrist' bullshit where they tried to please everyone but satisfied no one.

Nader was right when he said the candidates were too similar. The democrats were afraid to take hard stances on the issues and it cost them.

I remember reading about Dean a long while back and I liked the cut of his jib.

If he stuck through with the campaign, Dean would've had my vote. Even after the Dean-goes-nuts-speech.

As another Libertarian in the same position, I must disagree. I agree on the problem of Kerry being a nobody with little to offer for personality. Since no one knew him, his assertions of his positions were met with the drowning cries of flip-floppery by the Right, and as no one had base to judge Kerry on to begin with, his message met the ears of voters as a mess. Of all I heard from Bush's campaign, there was little that wasn't distortion, exaggeration, or utter fabrication. That Bush has done what he has on such tactics disgusts me, and makes me question the ability of the American people to think critically. I blame Rove for lowering politics to a new level, a strategy he's used for years and found success in. I only hope that his example doesn't carry to future elections, though I have little faith in that.

They should have gone with Dean.

They should have gone with Dean.

Even a Republican can see that.

the problem is with the people who voted for bush -- they voted for a man who brought them 9/11 and walked away with all the goodies... shame shame shame

Without the Dean Scream we probably would've won, and even if we did run Dean after the Dean scream, he probably would've had a good chance too. Kerry was running on the "Hey, at least I'm not that guy." platform.

There is just one little problem in your reasoning: Bush my be more stubborn, but he will bring greater storms upon your country. In 2000, one could say that no one knew how Bush would turn out. But now, the people of the US should have recognized is total incompetence in internal and external affairs. The world does, so don't expect the world to support you, to help you. On the contrary, from now on, it will be okay to support Alqaeda, and to put down the US, and that doesn't make you any stronger. This is a globalized world, where you need friends, not because of philosofical principles, but due to practical reasons. And Bush doesnt understand this. Though.

Anyway, this was the first stone on the US demise. It will take years, but its like this.. the people of my age (22) reallyyyy deslike the US, far more than our parent's. When we grow up, it will be us that will be taking the seats of power (Of the right and left parties), and we will reflect this deslike in the future. Like Rome, the US is only powerful when its provinces support it. And we are fed up of your petulance and arrogance.

There is just one little problem in your reasoning: Bush my be more stubborn, but he will bring greater storms upon your country. In 2000, one could say that no one knew how Bush would turn out. But now, the people of the US should have recognized is total incompetence in internal and external affairs. The world does, so don't expect the world to support you, to help you. On the contrary, from now on, it will be okay to support Alqaeda, and to put down the US, and that doesn't make you any stronger. This is a globalized world, where you need friends, not because of philosofical principles, but due to practical reasons. And Bush doesnt understand this. Though.

Anyway, this was the first stone on the US demise. It will take years, but its like this.. the people of my age (22) reallyyyy deslike the US, far more than our parent's. When we grow up, it will be us that will be taking the seats of power (Of the right and left parties), and we will reflect this deslike in the future. Like Rome, the US is only powerful when its provinces support it. And we are fed up of your petulance and arrogance.

way to judge us all.

They should have gone with Dean.

Actually, the Republican's would've perferred Dean. They were ready for him... not Kerry. They did some mighty fast and furious scrambling when Kerry pulled the win for the nomination.

BTW, I don't think it was the Screech (I think Dean himself refers it as such) that did him in. but it did make some heads turn (in pain maybe)

Portu Cale: Yeah, more and more parts of the woprld are getting anti-us. Why? Because a guy named George has driven the country into madness.
So don't be surprised if "terrorist" attack you again.

I do hope you realize that the election doesn't reflect EVERY american that ever lived. It reflects, at least, half of our population. I don't see the point in threats. I've never agreed with bush, but I can't do much more than vote against him.

There is just one little problem in your reasoning: Bush my be more stubborn, but he will bring greater storms upon your country. In 2000, one could say that no one knew how Bush would turn out. But now, the people of the US should have recognized is total incompetence in internal and external affairs. The world does, so don't expect the world to support you, to help you. On the contrary, from now on, it will be okay to support Alqaeda, and to put down the US, and that doesn't make you any stronger. This is a globalized world, where you need friends, not because of philosofical principles, but due to practical reasons. And Bush doesnt understand this. Though.

Anyway, this was the first stone on the US demise. It will take years, but its like this.. the people of my age (22) reallyyyy deslike the US, far more than our parent's. When we grow up, it will be us that will be taking the seats of power (Of the right and left parties), and we will reflect this deslike in the future. Like Rome, the US is only powerful when its provinces support it. And we are fed up of your petulance and arrogance.

Hmmm. Just don't make the same mistake the Japanese did in WWII. and you may have a chance of surviving... even if you succeed.

Portu Cale: Yeah, more and more parts of the woprld are getting anti-us. Why? Because a guy named George has driven the country into madness.
So don't be surprised if "terrorist" attack you again.

I am not American. My country is so tiny, that a terrorist wouldnt find it on the map, so im safe. I was more concerned about the security of the US, but they have choosen their path, now they will pay the price.

I am not American. My country is so tiny, that a terrorist wouldnt find it on the map, so im safe. I was more concerned about the security of the US, but they have choosen their path, now they will pay the price.

Funny thing about Terrorism. they don't care about size. They don't care if you're on the map or not. They only care about causing terror. If they can successfully terroize you into obeying them, then they will find you and target you for you will give them power. If they can use you as Hosteges on a world stage, they will for that to will give them power.

Oh and you better hope and pray that America does not fall. Remove America and the Global Chaos that will erupt will make Iraqi seem like a pleasant dream.

I am not American. My country is so tiny, that a terrorist wouldnt find it on the map, so im safe. I was more concerned about the security of the US, but they have choosen their path, now they will pay the price.

Your hatred for the US government is quite impressive. Especially the way you damn all American citizens while you're at it. Why wait for terrorists? You sound ready to bomb us yourself!

Funny thing about Terrorism. they don't care about size. They don't care if you're on the map or not. They only care about causing terror. If they can successfully terroize you into obeying them, then they will find you and target you for you will give them power. If they can use you as Hosteges on a world stage, they will for that to will give them power.

Oh and you better hope and pray that America does not fall. Remove America and the Global Chaos that will erupt will make Iraqi seem like a pleasant dream.


Like, they terrorized the US into being blind, and doing what they wanted: Osama always claimed that the West was doing a Cruzade against the Middle east, and what the US does? Invades an arab country! SMART! You never understand that you can't find terrorism with weapons..
Hell, alqaeda never been more active, and you talk about giving them power?? AH!

And if America falls, so what? the USSR fell, and we got better off. When the US leaves its imperialistic (with 180 military bases around the globe, that is what you are: A Militaristic empire) ways, we will also be better off.

Your hatred for the US government is quite impressive. Especially the way you damn all American citizens while you're at it. Why wait for terrorists? You sound ready to bomb us yourself!


I dont hate you. I try to warn you. You seem to acuse everyone that isn't with you to be terrorists. You need to grow up, the world isnt "With you aren't with us, you are with them".

I dont hate you. I try to warn you. You seem to acuse everyone that isn't with you to be terrorists. You need to grow up, the world isnt "With you aren't with us, you are with them".

"America will now pay for its crimes" is hardly a warning. It's a judgement. And you sound very much against America, it's not immature to address one such as yourself as an antagonist.

Like, they terrorized the US into being blind, and doing what they wanted: Osama always claimed that the West was doing a Cruzade against the Middle east, and what the US does? Invades an arab country! SMART! You never understand that you can't find terrorism with weapons..
Hell, alqaeda never been more active, and you talk about giving them power?? AH!

And if America falls, so what? the USSR fell, and we got better off. When the US leaves its imperialistic (with 180 military bases around the globe, that is what you are: A Militaristic empire) ways, we will also be better off.

Like the US is the only country to have Crusades in the Middle East... HISTORY Dude. Read and learn.

As for surviving if America Fell? RIGHT... And you people claim that Americans have no idea about the world outside their borders... You may have a chance for surviving if America fell. but not much. and remember this, The USSR went by different Philosophies and had different Foreign policies. The ripples that were felt when the USSR fell were thus relatively small. If you can't see what I'm talking about...fine, clear your head of all the Anti-American bulls##t and look at world history... to give you a hint, concentrate on the last 30 yrs.

Like the US is the only country to have Crusades in the Middle East... HISTORY Dude. Read and learn.

As for surviving if America Fell? RIGHT... And you people claim that Americans have no idea about the world outside their borders... You may have a chance for surviving if America fell. but not much. and remember this, The USSR went by different Philosophies and had different Foreign policies. The ripples that were felt when the USSR fell were thus relatively small. If you can't see what I'm talking about...fine, clear your head of all the Anti-American bulls##t and look at world history... to give you a hint, concentrate on the last 30 yrs.


Now THAT's a sane argument: Europeans made stupid, useless cruzades 700 years ago, LETS DO THE SAME! Now, that shows evolution, inteligence!

Really? And do you have any idea of how the world is outside the US? Ill tell you, its mostly poor. An Indian child, for example, as 1/29 the resources an American child as , when they both are born. You consume most of the resources, and make most of the polution, and still think you are great. And about the last 30 years of history.. want me to list the unprovoked wars you American's started, the goverments you brought down because they werent your staunch supporters, the goverments you supported (even when they were fascist) just because they were anti comunists?

I'd like to point out that the Western World has spent the past 20 years putting out brushfires caused by the USSR's demise. The loss of the USA would have far more serious repercussions, especially to the world economy. It would also certainly have a major affect upon the governments of most nations, whether they be Asian, European, African, North American, South American, or (hello down there) Australia.

Now THAT's a sane argument: Europeans made stupid, useless cruzades 700 years ago, LETS DO THE SAME! Now, that shows evolution, inteligence!

Really? And do you have any idea of how the world is outside the US? Ill tell you, its mostly poor. An Indian child, for example, as 1/29 the resources an American child as , when they both are born. You consume most of the resources, and make most of the polution, and still think you are great. And about the last 30 years of history.. want me to list the unprovoked wars you American's started, the goverments you brought down because they werent your staunch supporters, the goverments you supported (even when they were fascist) just because they were anti comunists?

If you think I was referring that far back... :D think again.

and still you don't understand the problems that will arrise should we fall. agian I say... look at history. The past 30 years has some good examples what would happen should America fall.

oh and like your government is not guilty of doing the same things. By the way, check your math on the resources bit and ask yourself, Do you REAALLY want us to change that?

Oh and Ancient and Holy Terra, you're mostly right. Still missing some very important points but you see what would happen.

Bush won because, while Kerry tried to take everything in the world, as complicated as it really is, and explain it to people, and how that affected what he wanted to do, Bush made it dead dead simple:

Cut taxes
Kill terrorists

Well shit someone running on a platform that simple, that "pure" is gonna have a hard time losing to someone who actually accepts the complexity of the world. And, all indicators point that he has indeed won, although if Kerry pulls a last minute victory out of Ohio (unlikely, yes, but so was Bush's in Florida in 2000) it still wouldn't greatly renew that the American people understand that Bush's world, however pretty and happy it is, has too little relation to the real world.

People want the world to be simple and pretty. Bush gives them that, and a pat on the head. And the Diebold machines are crooked ;)

Portu Cale: Yeah, more and more parts of the woprld are getting anti-us. Why? Because a guy named George has driven the country into madness.
So don't be surprised if "terrorist" attack you again.
Terorists attacked us before Bush, no reason to believe that has changed. The only difference is now we are attacking them back. Here's the score:
US - 2
Terrorist supporting nations - 0

Bush won because, while Kerry tried to take everything in the world, as complicated as it really is, and explain it to people, and how that affected what he wanted to do, Bush made it dead dead simple:

Cut taxes
Kill terrorists

Well shit someone running on a platform that simple, that "pure" is gonna have a hard time losing to someone who actually accepts the complexity of the world. And, all indicators point that he has indeed won, although if Kerry pulls a last minute victory out of Ohio (unlikely, yes, but so was Bush's in Florida in 2000) it still wouldn't greatly renew that the American people understand that Bush's world, however pretty and happy it is, has too little relation to the real world.

People want the world to be simple and pretty. Bush gives them that, and a pat on the head. And the Diebold machines are crooked ;)

Not disagreeing with you, but remember, we have two RICH men talking about how to ease the poor. and I do remember the Tax Cuts... got my PS2 with that.

Written by a Libertarian who was in fact supporting the Democrats in this election and vehemently opposes George Bush and right-wing Republican policy.

Democrats, why have you lost this election? An election against arguably the least popular President (at least outside the US) in your history? Because Kerry has no personality....They lost when they turned down Howard Dean...

Actually, the Republican's would've perferred Dean. some Repub leaders said on camera...that they prefer Dean...the question is are you naive enough to actually beleive them?...are you stupid enough?

I dont hate you. I try to warn you. You seem to acuse everyone that isn't with you to be terrorists. You need to grow up, the world isnt "With you aren't with us, you are with them".
Um, yes, it is. Ther can be no justifying terrorism. On other topics this does not apply, but be honest, terrorism is the contest that was used in.

Nations affected directly by terrorism understand this and that is why they overwhealmingly support Bush.

some Repub leaders said on camera...that they prefer Dean...the question is are you naive enough to actually beleive them?...are you stupid enough?

Well, imagine if "the Screech" was done after he got the nomination... The Reps would've loved that. Also they were planning for a DEAN - BUSH fight. Kerry's win partically took them by surprise.

Kerry ran a respectable campaign, though many of his allies used scummy tactics. In the end I did the opposite of what may liberals did:

I didn't vote for Bush, I voted against liberals.

That is why the Democrats lost - America is rejecting liberalism. Had they used a less liberal candidate with a less liberal agenda they would have had a good chance of getting my vote.

Bush did many things I don't like - spending whore and big givt the most egrigious, but Kerry only promised more of the same. I couldn't give him my vote.

Next time maybe the Dems will find an advocate of reducing the government. Billy C did a better job at that than W ever did. They may then get my vote, and probably many others as well.

Good luck next time, now lets make clear to W that the checkbook this go around must be balanced.

Well, imagine if "the Screech" was done after he got the nomination... .I have a video of the Screech...it was nothing compared to all the issues raised over anover...for weeks betwen Bush and Kerry...

The screech is like the Finger raised by Bush to the Camera....If you focus on those...istead of the econmy, the War, unemployement....you are indeed a poor mind.

The Democrats went with a safe candidate who didn't appear to have much in the way of conviction. They fielded a candidacy that was anti-Bush, not pro-Democrat.

I have a video of the Screech...it was nothing compared to all the issues raised over anover...for weeks betwen Bush and Kerry...

The screech is like the Finger raised by Bush to the Camera....If you focus on those...istead of the econmy, the War, unemployement....you are indeed a poor mind.

True, but in this day of television, How the canidates visually act is also a clue as to how they will be in office. Remember. 'The Screech' wasn't played as often that it would overshadow the issues, but his supporters did see it and I guess they just didn't like it. There are other reasons but for now, I don't want to discuss things we can't change. tho a debate between two dynamically opposed (personality wise) opponents would've been interesting.

True, but in this day of television, How the canidates visually act is also a clue as to how they will be in office

Exactly. Also.. if we didn't have TV presenters to analyse Bush and Kerry's "style" for us, we'd have to actually pay attention to the things they say... and think a little bit and understand some stuff in order to work out how to vote... I'm too busy guarding my house against suicide bombers for that sort of crap.

Without the Dean Scream we probably would've won, and even if we did run Dean after the Dean scream, he probably would've had a good chance too. Kerry was running on the "Hey, at least I'm not that guy." platform.

The 'Dean Scream' was nothing. Lets face it, the democratic supporters got uneasy when they somehow got the idea in their head that Dean wouldn't win so they all looked for a reason to get rid of him (so did the Repubs of course) and the scream was a good way to do it.

The liberals have to gain some backbone. Of course when talking about a country with no major left wing parties its not difficult to imagine that they just have no experience being liberal.

They got cold feet and pussied out.

Kerry ran a respectable campaign, though many of his allies used scummy tactics. In the end I did the opposite of what may liberals did:

I didn't vote for Bush, I voted against liberals.

That is why the Democrats lost - America is rejecting liberalism. Had they used a less liberal candidate with a less liberal agenda they would have had a good chance of getting my vote.

Bush did many things I don't like - spending whore and big givt the most egrigious, but Kerry only promised more of the same. I couldn't give him my vote.

Next time maybe the Dems will find an advocate of reducing the government. Billy C did a better job at that than W ever did. They may then get my vote, and probably many others as well.

Good luck next time, now lets make clear to W that the checkbook this go around must be balanced.

"Less liberal"?

Kerry's platform is pretty conservative. Don't believe the GOP's talking points. Take it from a foreigner who knows what a party on the left side of the spectrum looks like.

"Spending whore"?

Bush is creating a massive deficit and it can't be fixed the way he's going about it AND he's also creating the biggest government in US history.

What the dems needed was Dean, but alas...

.. Remember. 'The Screech' wasn't played as often that it would overshadow the issues, Do you ever wach FOX?

Do you ever wach FOX?

Even then, if it was a Dean/Bush election what... two or three weeks...after that it gets old fast. SNL would beat that horse dead but serious campain wouldn't dwell on it... unless it happened in say, sept. or oct. then even the radios would be screeching every two or three songs.

:headbang:

Gyyyaaaahhh! I wanna sstop aboout the ssscreech...I can't get it outta my Head now... ok I Give.

So don't be surprised if "terrorist" attack you again.
I wont... we have it coming... next 4 years Weather forecast: storm 40% chances

Like, they terrorized the US into being blind, and doing what they wanted: Osama always claimed that the West was doing a Cruzade against the Middle east, and what the US does? Invades an arab country! SMART! You never understand that you can't find terrorism with weapons..



And the world needs to learn that you can't "terrorize" or threaten the USA into changing. That's one fact about the cuture here that may make us unique among nations... And obviously something Osama and he band of thugs are too ignorant to understand.

The fact is, the USA has never really tasted a military defeat. Maybe this is perceived as arrogance around the world, but it's a fact that creates a powerful level of nationalism. The USA is also the most powerful nation in the world, but does not use it imperialisticly. You leave us and our friends alone, we'll leave you alone. But you attack us (physically or economically), or invade our friends, and we feel the need to bring the big stick. Partly because we can. If other countries had the power, most would do the same.

Y'know, you can complain all you want trying to make this country look like the bad guy, but with all the work done helping out around the world it falls hollow. Does anyone give even close to as much as the USA in foreign aid? Does any other countries' people give as much to charaties working abroad as the USA? I doubt it. Are we as progressive (socialist) domesticly as some of the European countries. Certainly not. But that's our choice.

And the world needs to learn that you can't "terrorize" or threaten the USA into changing. That's one fact about the cuture here that may make us unique among nations... And obviously something Osama and he band of thugs are too ignorant to understand....

Ossama has already changed America...

If you cant see it...you my poor friend...you are blind.

Response to OP:

We did have a record to judge Kerry by. We had two, actually. He chose to emphasize the wrong one. He based his campaign on four months in Vietnam, 35 years ago, instead of on the last 20 years he spent in the Senate.

You know, i've really grown tired of the "electet bush and omg the teorrists are goign to attack you!!!!!!!11111oneoneone eleven" bullshit. I am and american and i'm proud of it, and if the teorrists decided to attack that would be bad, but the threat of teorrists attacks do not make me stop living my normal life, why should it? that's what they want me to do. So if you guys want the threaten with attacks so be it. but you'll be in for one hell of a fight.
please excuse my bad grammar and spelling it was never my strong suit in school, and i could never get any help with it...:-(

... the threat of teorrists attacks do not make me stop living my normal life, why should it? that's what they want me to do.So all what the teorrists want is for you to stop living normally?

I tough they just wanted US to leave thier lands...
Thanks for telling me the truth :D

Howard Dean is too left wing to be elected in the U.S - not only are those kind of credentials out of the American mainstream but it provides the Republican party with an incredibly easy line of attack.

I think that John Edwards would have made the best candidate this time. Not sure about 2008 though, now he's been on a losing ticket those kind of connotations might hamper an election campaign.

So all what the teorrists want is for you to stop living normally?

I tough they just wanted US to leave thier lands...
Thanks for telling me the truth :D

A lot of them actually want to establish a global caliphate based on Sharia law.

There is just one little problem in your reasoning: Bush my be more stubborn, but he will bring greater storms upon your country. In 2000, one could say that no one knew how Bush would turn out. But now, the people of the US should have recognized is total incompetence in internal and external affairs. The world does, so don't expect the world to support you, to help you. On the contrary, from now on, it will be okay to support Alqaeda, and to put down the US, and that doesn't make you any stronger. This is a globalized world, where you need friends, not because of philosofical principles, but due to practical reasons. And Bush doesnt understand this. Though.

Anyway, this was the first stone on the US demise. It will take years, but its like this.. the people of my age (22) reallyyyy deslike the US, far more than our parent's. When we grow up, it will be us that will be taking the seats of power (Of the right and left parties), and we will reflect this deslike in the future. Like Rome, the US is only powerful when its provinces support it. And we are fed up of your petulance and arrogance.

we dont need any friends who would lick the boots of thugs and murderers just because they dont like oour president...besides if al-queda ever wins out over the u.s. ( refer to the snowballs chance in hell) they will quickly start their genocide against you..unless you are spineless enough to join them

Ossama has already changed America...

If you cant see it...you my poor friend...you are blind.

Yes, he's changed America... But in the polar opposite direction he intended!

When I said you can't change America through terrorism - I thought it would be obvious that I meant change "in the way you want..."

Now THAT's a sane argument: Europeans made stupid, useless cruzades 700 years ago, LETS DO THE SAME! Now, that shows evolution, inteligence!

I'm going to say something on this only!

Look at the Crusades for a moment! They were all aimed at JERUSELEM when the MUSLIMS took it over! They did not succeed.

Now look at what the US is doing! We are NOT going after Mecca, the most holiest site of Islam. We are going after ruthlesss dictators that have surpresssed freedom! Yes there are other countries we can go after but these two have known ties to terrorist groups! The Taliban with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein with Hamas and other terror groups. Are these crusades? In a way yes but not in the sense of the Crusades of 700 years ago. These are different types of Crusades in that we are going after specific people and governments, not cities.

Terorists attacked us before Bush, no reason to believe that has changed. The only difference is now we are attacking them back. Here's the score:
US - 2
Terrorist supporting nations - 0

Totally agree Bozzy!

There I was, watching a Bush rally, when he stated, "An elected official shouldn't sway in the wind, he shouldn't follow popular opinion, but lead with consistency and follow his heart".

And all these idiots starting clapping.
Yes, I called them idiots. Why? Because he just told them that he cares nothing about what they think, that he will continue to do what he wants because he cares less about what the voters who put him there ask.

John Kerry might change his opinion to go with the voters....BUT THAT'S DEMOCRACY! You are AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, you are to do what the voters ask, not what you want!

Flip-flopping, wavering, changing your opinion....all positives in my opinion. I want my elected official to listen to the people, and to change his mind when he is wrong.

In addition, I heard the democrats saying, "what do we need to change to get elected?"

Nothing! Stick with your principles and your ideals. Wait for the other side to screw up. If they don't, you're wrong. When they do, it's your victory day. Changing your opinion to match theirs will accomplish nothing, only make this country less of a democracy.

There I was, watching a Bush rally, when he stated, "An elected official shouldn't sway in the wind, he shouldn't follow popular opinion, but lead with consistency and follow his heart".

And all these idiots starting clapping.

I stopped here!

Ok, sometimes an elected official has to follow his own heart even if Public Opinion is against him. Bush was right in this regard. An Elected Official has to do what he believes is right for the country even if it is unpopular.

I stopped here!

Don't be a Republican and cut short the information prior to reading the explanation.....read the rest.....

I stopped here!

Ok, sometimes an elected official has to follow his own heart even if Public Opinion is against him. Bush was right in this regard. An Elected Official has to do what he believes is right for the country even if it is unpopular.
bush would be a horrible congressman, good thing his family connections got his ass alot of jobs where he didnt have to answer to anyone alot

bush would be a horrible congressman, good thing his family connections got his ass alot of jobs where he didnt have to answer to anyone alot
Yeah, but I bet Bush voted. That makes him a good citizen. And only good citizens have a right to complain about their government.

Don't be a Republican and cut short the information prior to reading the explanation.....read the rest.....

There was no need too! I did read the rest but alas, the rest wasn't worth responding too! But if you really want me too I will!

Yes, I called them idiots. Why? Because he just told them that he cares nothing about what they think, that he will continue to do what he wants because he cares less about what the voters who put him there ask.

This is utter bullshit! As I stated before, an elected official sometimes has to go against public opinion. Its called doing what he thinks is right. Yes, he should listen to them but a president should take their concerns and contemplate it. I've seen it done that he still does it anyway but modifies it to a point where it satisfies public opinion.

John Kerry might change his opinion to go with the voters....BUT THAT'S DEMOCRACY! You are AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, you are to do what the voters ask, not what you want!

Problem is he changed it too much to satisfy one group of voters to another. He changes his messege depending on where in the country he is at. Its fine to change opinion but not to an extent that John Kerry did.

Flip-flopping, wavering, changing your opinion....all positives in my opinion. I want my elected official to listen to the people, and to change his mind when he is wrong.

I could say what I want to say here but then I would be deleted and I really don't want that to happen. As for politicians listening, the listen, they just don't hear. Get the two straight. They have to hear you so they can change their minds if they are wrong.

In addition, I heard the democrats saying, "what do we need to change to get elected?"

They do need to change. They need to move towards the center and not to the left as they have done the last two elections.

Nothing! Stick with your principles and your ideals. Wait for the other side to screw up. If they don't, you're wrong. When they do, it's your victory day. Changing your opinion to match theirs will accomplish nothing, only make this country less of a democracy.

Problem is they do need to change. This election proves it. They have moved to far to the left and the people have recognized it. They need to move back towards the center to become viable once again. The Republican party needs to do the samething in certain areas too.

Yes, he's changed America... But in the polar opposite direction he intended!

Part of Osama's new tape:

"All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

bush would be a horrible congressman, good thing his family connections got his ass alot of jobs where he didnt have to answer to anyone alot

Then if we follow your logic, then why did he run for President where he has to answer to not only Congress, but the Judicial and to the People of the United States?

....BUT THAT'S DEMOCRACY! You are AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, you are to do what the voters ask, not what you want!

In addition, I heard the democrats saying, "what do we need to change to get elected?"

Nothing! Stick with your principles and your ideals. .

So which is it?

(You been around Kerry too much ya big flip-flopper)