U.S. Election

I thought it odd that we don't have an active thread on this topic. Seems like most of us are intelligent reasonable people and I'd like to hear your opinions.

What follows is "why I'm going to vote for Bush" and I'd very much like to hear "why I'm voting for Kerry" from someone else :smile:

At the outset of this election season I was pretty well undecided. I don't like what Bush has done in many respects. The violation of people's right to due-process, and his bungling of the case for war in Iraq foremost among them. However, the the debates have convinced me that he is the best choice.

The Iraq war is not actually my biggest issue, and in any case there is no material difference in position between the candidates. Kerry's "plan" is to do the same thing that Bush is already, except he thinks he can do a better job of it. However, you'll notice he never says how it will be better, it just magically will be because he is president.

The deciding difference between the candidates is there positions on social and economic issues. Kerry thinks he can "end the recession" and pay down the deficit Bush has created by "taxing the top 1%". Firstly, the recession is already over. I don't know if the Bush tax cuts helped or not, but the fact remains that the economy is steadily recovering. Kerry blames Bush for the recession, but offers no plausible mechanism to connect any of his actions with what has transpired. Secondly, the historical record shows that raising the maximum marginal tax rates (what Kerry proposes) can do nothing but lead to greater economic stagnation and recession. I believe that Kerry's policies will hurt the recovery significantly.

I'm not happy that Bush has run up the deficit, but people have to remember that the "surplus" was projected based on the economic conditions of the time. it was not money in the bank and most of it evaporated simply because of the recession. I don't believe that Kerry can bring the deficit under control without raising taxes on everyone, and further damaging the fragile economic recovery we are experiencing.

All that is based on my admittedly uneducated view of economics and is enough in itself for me to chose Bush over Kerry. However, I am no going to indulge in a little in my personal opinion of Kerry based on his debate performance.

1. Kerry has no sense of realism:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I'm paraphrasing, but in the second debate he said "I have a plan to eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil in 10 years" This statement is patently fantastic, if not deceitful. This might be possible if we stopped all production of plastics and banned automobiles. but I doubt it. I'm not going to get into the specifics of just how silly this statement is but trust my word as a physical scientist. It's not possible.

Bush alleged that Kerry's proposed spending would total 2.2 Trillion over 10 years. Kerry's response was "that's not the number". This subject came up in both the second and the third debates, yet Kerry never had a number to fire back. Why? it makes no sense not to counter the talking point in a concrete way. I can only conclude that he has no idea how much his proposals will cost.

Every time Kerry is asked "how will you pay for it?" he says "tax the top 1%" or some variation there of. I'm opposed to governmental wealth redistribution on sheer stubborn principle, but all that aside, I don't see how he's going to get enough money.

[/quote]
2. Kerry does not know or understand what his own "Plans" or issues are:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Getting back to his energy "plan" in the same debate where he promised "10 years to Mideast oil independence", he referred people to his website for more information. I was very curious so I went and this is what I found:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/

[/quote]
Nothing concrete or credible regarding his promise. There are good ideas there, but none that are not already being pursued by the Bush administration and independently at research universities around the world.
To top it off, the estimations for time-frames and market-share inroads are ridiculously optimistic. What really pisses me off is that he promised information; what I got was pure propaganda.

On stem cells: in the second debate Kerry tried to depict Bush as "waffling" because he allowed the existing lines of stem cells to be used while banning the creation of more. Again, I paraphrase but he said:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"So destroying some life is okay, but more is not? where do you draw the line?"

[/quote]
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. The preexisting cell lines do not require the destruction of an embryo. they are self propagating, and preexistent to the bush administration. Now, Kerry is not a scientist, and under ordinary circumstances I would by happy to cede his right to ignorance on this subject. The problem is, it's his pet issue. He is the one who made it a campaign issue, he is the one who brought it into this discussion. I cannot excuse basic ignorance of subject which is supposed to be an important part of his platform.

[/quote]
3. Kerry says whatever he thinks people want to hear without reference to his official platform.

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
A good example of this is his "energy plan" statement, but I do not need to rehash this.

Another good one is his position on the environment. Now, admittedly, Bush has a terrible environmental record, and to play off of this Kerry has tried to paint himself as an environmental advocate. However his pandering has gotten him into trouble here. In his energy plan he talks about raising the efficiency of automobiles and all sorts of laudable reforms, but in one of the debates (third or second I think) he states (paraphrase) "I will lower the cost of gasoline" now, if you have comprehensive strategy for environmental protection and improving efficiency the very last thing you should be doing is lowering the cost of gasoline. It's cheap gas that allows automakers and consumers to indulge in the utterly useless waste of resources represented by an SUV. He is also advocating further domestic "exploration" in his energy plan. Translation: drilling in Anwar (sp?). not an environmentally friendly thing to do.

This is just one of many examples where his individual platform planks conflict with each other, but I think this has gotten long enough.

[/quote]

why i am voting for neither candidate..

i have never been very good at choosing the lessor of two evils. the concept that we must do so only upsets me worse, because i know that in the end we will have an evil chosen.

since there is not a candidate to chose from that has any good points, i think i will abstain.

sorry i cannot be more A political about this, but evil is evil, the degree's separating them, should not be a consideration :sad:

First off Thanks for starting a Tread like this. And lets keep it nice plz...

Plain and simple im voting for kerry. Im not up on the current issues and such, and Ive only seem one debate; but it looked like to me Bush was hiding his own ass. EX: Bush said the air is cleaner than what it was before he began, no acutal nuber about the air quality. Kerry fired back a actual number (ammount of polution in the air or something like that) showing that the air quality was worse. So it seems to me like Bush is backing away from something.

Bush went into Iraq with the high hopes of finding WMDs, but did he find them....No. I know that a lot of people have argued this, but the point still remains, he went in for the wrong reason. Although ill give bush credit for capturing Sadam the mad man who if was still in power would probably have WMDs in about 5 years from now...Good job DUBUA. :biggrin:

And the most important reason I want a democrat in office: The Draft. Don't know if everyone knows but he has changed the rules: if your in college or school, you can still be forced to go to war. And no moving to Canada..... at least 4-6 months before the draft is activated (Canada will throw you back). I believe this to be a complete invasion of our rights (the whole new rules thing, not the actual draft, I believe in serving one's country)

And those would be the top reasons I want Kerry in office, or better yet ANYONE BUT BUSH 2004 ELECTION. :biggrin:

Considering at my age, I probably shouldn't know what politics are, but okay. I'll probably have the lesser post next to everyone else :\ ('Cause 'aye just don't know much 'bout it :biggrin: )

I will deffinetely be voting for Bush. Kerry hasn't really done a very good job of saying anything "extrodinary" that would change my mind. I was also fairly shocked about his proposal to "remove all these artillary peices from the armed forces", which was then followed up by a Democrate saying, "Chief of the armed forces? Armed with what?! Spit balls!?" He's got a good point.

I don't really see anything wrong with Bush. I don't nessasarily think he's the most "fantastic" or "revolutionary" president we ever had, but to me, he's "just another president". I don't see a problem with him. As far as the war with Iraq, I think Bush has been doing a good job with it. You have to remember that Bush has other things to keep track of than a war, so I'm not surprised if he has made any mistakes. The media just likes bouncing him because he's a republican.

I personally won't comment on the election, being a non American, aside
from I don't want George "Planet Destroying Religious Fanatic Low IQ
And Limited Vocabulary Retard" W Bush to win, for the sake of global
security and well being in terms of environment and social development
to win :/

I have a funny feeling he will though, no disrespect to Americans for
voting with stupidity and patriotism of course.. the UK public vote
entirely on their wages, their commercial goods and their well being,
entirely based around the self - which means Tony Thatcher, cough
Blair rather will be back in for another four/five years.

And if people remember my being assaulted by dirty collapsed society
created scumbags, I get my 'compensation' soon for the whole affair -
plans for the cash? Buy a gun, illegally or otherwise. First target, Blair.

Second target, Bush, if people wish me to do the deed :razz:

Im from Canada. Therefore I am not voting :biggrin: Then again, I dont like the choices.

I think though Wild Card, for yourself, and I - and pretty much
everyone else outside America - Bush out, whoever else in. As long as
that retard is kicked out on his arse I don't give 2 shiny shi-ite
clerics about who replaces him.

The man is hated around the world in a big way, and with good reason... He gives America a bad name :/

Yes that is very true Gwil. Unfortunate as it is.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black> posted by Gwil</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>I personally won't comment on the election, being a non American, aside from I don't want George "Planet Destroying Religious Fanatic Low IQ And Limited Vocabulary Retard" W Bush to win, for the sake of global security and well being in terms of environment and social development to win :/
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Really this is why I want Bush out and anyone else in.

And personally I think Bush might actually start a "Team America: World Police" himself.....

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center bgColor=black>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold">? quoting omegaslayer4777</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>posted by Gwil</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>I personally won't comment on the election, being a non American, aside from I don't want George "Planet Destroying Religious Fanatic Low IQ And Limited Vocabulary Retard" W Bush to win, for the sake of global security and well being in terms of environment and social development to win :/
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Really this is why I want Bush out and anyone else in.

And personally I think Bush might actually start a "Team America: World Police" himself.....

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>He already did

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Wild Card</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" bgColor=maroon>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>He already did

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Then They should be showing up at my house anytime now and take me in for downloading music for free off the internet.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center bgColor=black>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold">? quoting omegaslayer4777</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Wild Card</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" bgColor=maroon>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>He already did

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Then They should be showing up at my house anytime now and take me in for downloading music for free off the internet. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>They will be when they see that post.

Obviously, if you ignored the entire situation in Iraq and international relations, the canidates are simular.

But, Bush DID start that war, under false pretense, and without proper autherization. The very fact that he isn't being invesitigated is past me.

The one thing I can say in Kerry's defense is, you don't know what he'll do, I doubt he'd fight hard just to f**k us over worse then Bush. The other thing is, if Bush is there again, what's to stop him from ramming us again? I mean he can't run after that. Getting 200k a year either way, he doesn't have much to worry about.

Secondly, Bush flat out lies on larger issues the Kerry. He contradicts himself almost every time he speaks and denys anything he's ever said.

Yet, Kerry has lied as well, but when he does it, it COULD be misinformation.

I would have to say, Kerry is a better choice, simply because Bush is setting his personal morals above the law. Seeking out a constitutional amendment saying Gays can NEVER "marry", that would be an amendment that violates the constitution, you know, Equal Rights. Don't get me wrong here. I don't care to see a bunch of guys making out or something as such, but honestly, how would them getting married make a difference in that aspect. The point is, you can't tell them they can't, if you want to live that way, move to any dictator ran country, they have no problem telling people what to do with no just reason.

Overall, there actually are things Kerry claims that I agree with. It doesn't make a huge point saying he hasn't told us his plan, or that he says he can do a better job in Iraq, Because look at how bad Bush is doing right now? It could be worse, but, I doubt having Kerry there would be a reason.
And I don't know why, But I think international relations are important.
It took WWII for American's to get out of their bulls**t "We can do EVERYTHING ourselves" attitude. We shouldn't slip back into that mindset.

Although, completly out of all context, I don't think either man is evil, nor any human being. There are bad people, but the very word evil is misused too often. No one has every seen 'evil' in the normal sense of the word.

So, I suppose you could say I'm voting for Kerry.

While I don't follow US politics as closely as those here in Australia, I do have significant reason to worry about whats going to happen in the US election.

We've just had elections here in Australia and John Howard, the f**ktard that he is, has won again through a particularly vicious scare campaign, which every inbred, dole bludging wanker and geriatric f**ker has once again bought. The reason for this is compulsory voting in australia, as opposed to the much better system in the US, where you vote if you give a s**t. The reasons the US elections are significant for Australia are numerous:

-John Howard likes to lick GW's ass every chance he gets, often putting US goals before the security and well being of this country, his primary responsibility.

-If GW gets back in then chances are that Howards going to drag us off to another illegal US led war, started on lies but with the ultimate goal of spreading US imperialism.

-GW is a f**king scary retard, who is so corrupt that he acts in the best interests of big business rather than the people. See his policies on media ownership, find out which boards of major arms manufacturers his wife is on, see who all his campaign financers are.

-Howards already signed, or is about to sign a free trade agreement with the US. If what happened to canada is anything to go by, we're about to be royally f**ked up the arse. Also howard forgot to remove cultural product from the deal, meaning that most entertainment content on television will become american, and the australian acting/arts community will find itself out of a job, meaning there will no longer be an australian voice.

To be honest, if bush gets back in, I hope him and howard are both taken out, I don't care by who, but for the good of the free and just world it needs to be done.

First before I for get...

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Crono</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" bgColor=maroon>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>It took WWII for American's to get out of their bulls**t "We can do EVERYTHING ourselves" attitude. We shouldn't slip back into that mindset. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

What are you talking about? For all practical purposes the U.S. did not have a foreign policy until after World War Two. sure we fooled around in South America as "our back yard" but aside from that, and the brief foray into the world during WWI, America was completely isolationist. America had something like the fourteenth rated military in the world upon entry into WWII, and the 1st or 2nd at the end (I don't know whether the USSR was stronger or not.). It was only after that that we even had the power to intervene in international conflicts, let alone the political will to do so...

But enough history.

I think the Iraq war was the right thing to do. I don't see Bush as having been misleading. Definitely wrong, but not misleading. Firstly, Saddam should have been eliminated as soon as he used Sarin against Iran, and then his own people. Secondly, even if he had no WMDs as we thought, HE obviously thought he did or he wouldn't have impeded the UN inspectors. His simple disrespect for the deadlines layed out for him by the security counsel was all the justification for war that was needed in my eyes. In any case, given the proper equipment and a year or so to work on it, I'm certain I could synthesize Sarin or VX in my backyard, so you can't tell me inspections and sanctions would ever work. My reaction to the war was that it was about damn time we kicked his ass.

Now I never believed for a second that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but that is irrelevant. The point is that Nation States that behave in dangerous irrational ways cannot be allowed to exist. Not when it is so easy to wreak massive destruction with very few resources. The Soviet Union had enough nuclear arms to obliterate the known world -as does the US- but we could always count on them to behave rationally. 9/11 woke us up to the fact that there are now entities that do not play by those rules of self preservation. Iraq is simply an example of an irrational power that needed to be crushed. If you leave a violent lunatic loose in a crowd, even unarmed they will eventual steal a pen from someone and stab them with it... Such was the case with Iraq, and the administration thought that this lunatic was sitting on a stack of bombs. it's a good thing they were wrong.

The whole Gay marriage thing is just silly. I have no idea why he wants to ban it and I disagree entirely. My personal belief is that the only just laws are those that protect a citizen's rights. Only behaviors that endanger others individuals, violate their rights should be regulated. So for from my political viewpoint the government has ABSOLUTELY NO right to regulate who can marry whom. There are many things I disagree with Bush on. This is one of them, but personally, I'll take a ban which will most likely end up being temporary over a resumed economic recession.

Agent Smith said:
-Howards already signed, or is about to sign a free trade agreement with the US. If what happened to canada is anything to go by, we're about to be royally f**ked up the arse. Also howard forgot to remove cultural product from the deal, meaning that most entertainment content on television will become american, and the australian acting/arts community will find itself out of a job, meaning there will no longer be an australian voice.

In what way was Canada f**ked up the ass? I thought they did that themselves with 45% income tax. And what makes you think your fellow Aussies would rather watch American media than Aussie media? It's still a free market right?

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Agent Smith</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
-If GW gets back in then chances are that Howards going to drag us off to another illegal US led war, started on lies but with the ultimate goal of spreading US imperialism.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The whole US "imperialism" rant is the silliest thing I ever heard. If we wanted Iraq we'd stright up take it with none of this mucking about with the interum government etc. Our actions will benifit the whole world in the end.

Your're right though, this Howard guy does sound like a f**k :biggrin:

And just out of curiosity.. you have manditory votaing? As in it's a crime not to vote? Odd...

Yes there are large fines if you dont vote here in Aus

That sounds gay.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center bgColor=black>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold">? quoting Tracer Bullet</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Agent Smith</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
-If GW gets back in then chances are that Howards going to drag us off to another illegal US led war, started on lies but with the ultimate goal of spreading US imperialism.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The whole US "imperialism" rant is the silliest thing I ever heard. If we wanted Iraq we'd stright up take it with none of this mucking about with the interum government etc. Our actions will benifit the whole world in the end.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P :frown:
:sad: .

The reason the US is worrying with the whole interim government is because the US, like every other country in the world, relies on alliances with others, whether that be trade, political, whatever. The fact that the US went into Iraq with essentially no evidence (it was known before the war that Saddam had destroyed all WMD's shortly after the first Gulf War) except a bunch of lies (the major 3 being: there were WMD's, Iraq was involved in 9/11, Iraq had links to terrorism hence part of war on terror) seen blatantly when Bush and Blair came out of Camp David and told the world that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had issued a report stating that Iraq was 6 months away from producing nuclear weapons, which was an absolute load of bollocks. With most of the international community condemning the war, when the US got to Iraq and confirmed what they already knew, they had to try and fix the situation with the UN and the EU, as they'd seriously damaged international relations.

I found it quite interesting that at the time of the arguements for the war in Iraq, North Korea had broken all nuclear non proliferation deals with the US, had started producing weapons grade plutonium and testing missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload in front of the entire world. Yet the US didn't even contemplate the idea of invading North Korea. Dare I say that North Korea doesn't have any oil fields... :biggrin:

Also they didn't really think very far ahead when planning post invasion rebuilding. Initially the US government said the war would be over in 7 days, with all Iraqs people cheering america in the streets. The new government would be established a short time later. Well its more than a year later and still the war continues, with the interim government so far considered a failure by many, as its proved absolutely powerless to stop the fighting. Seems like Bush has bought into the whole idea of the invincible US war machine, capable of toppling dictators with a single blow. Well there are over a thousand US dead, a number that would be higher if not for advances in field medicine. Of course many of those saved from death have been horribly disfigured and damaged, many will be unable to lead normal lives. And the dead are quietly snuck into the country, so the media can't show the pictures and people don't get a wiff of Vietnam. Generally this war is a complete disaster that shows no signing of ending anytime soon.

Tracer Bullet said:
The whole US "imperialism" rant is the silliest thing I ever heard. If we wanted Iraq we'd stright up take it with none of this mucking about with the interum government etc. Our actions will benifit the whole world in the end.

i think that sentence should read, "Our actions will effect the whole world in the end".

at this juncture, i am not positive if that effect is gonna be good or bad overall.

<DIV>AgentSmith, as a fellow Aussie, I'd have to agree with you on many points. The reasons given to us for going to "war" in Iraq were based on shoddy evidence and even shoddier explanations. Howard's plan for the treatment of refugees is quite the bad one - you can detain people without dumping them behind barbed wire in the middle of a desert, in communal housing. The so-called "Free Trade" agreement (for those not in the know, this has NOTHING to do with removing taxes) could do with quite a bit of revision, the alternative being an even FURTHER increase in American-crap braindead TV shows. Don't get me wrong, there are some great shows from the USA, but our TVs are slowly filling up with mindless sitcoms.</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>However, the one thing that overrides this is economic management. Plenty of Latham's (the opposition's) policies are full of holes. $700m holes (please remember that in Aus, budgets are measured in mere billions). On top of that, I have a personal preference for the education and health policies under Howard, mainly because they tend to benefit me.</DIV>
<DIV>.</DIV>
<DIV>What we really need is a system of government where you can elect different people for each segment. First elect the treasury, get them to finalise the entire funds-allocation to each segment, then elect people into each segment. All of this is based around cash-management, please understand, so the legislative process should continue as current. (Segments include Health, Education, Defense etc.)</DIV>

Crono said:
Seeking out a constitutional amendment saying Gays can NEVER "marry", that would be an amendment that violates the constitution, you know, Equal Rights. Don't get me wrong here. I don't care to see a bunch of guys making out or something as such, but honestly, how would them getting married make a difference in that aspect. The point is, you can't tell them they can't, if you want to live that way, move to any dictator ran country, they have no problem telling people what to do with no just reason.

Maybe religion is an out dated thing, but mariage is something between a man and a woman.

Either way, the whole thing with George Bush is pertaining to the fact
he wishes to edit the constitution (supposedly a sacred document) just
to indulge his own fundamentalist whim, and pick up the more extreme
Christian vote.

That's wrong, no matter your views on sexuality. Physically doing
everything he can to stop, and surpress homosexuals is just downright
retarded :sad:

I don't think gay marriage will ever be legal in the US, or at least
not in the forseeable future, nor in the UK and a whole lot of other
places around the world, just because our moral fabric is based on
religion, and on science/the theory of reproduction etc. But that's
even more reason to say that Bush's vehement pursuit of what is
basically a fundamentalist, bigoted and vote grabbing policy is both a
waste of time, and a sad precedent for tolerance and equality.
Especially in a society where issues like this have racked, and rocked
the nation before.

And Tracer Bullet, yuck. It is very narrow minded and naive, let alone
arrogant to assume that U.S. interference benefits the whole world in
the end. It's like saying the British imperial days have contributed
toward world peace.

Western states meddling in other peoples affairs is more often than not
a recipe for social unrest, war, poverty and a whole list of other
things their good intentions tried to defeat. Sometimes it is best to
stay well away from what you do not understand, and so forth.

Gwil said:
Either way, the whole thing with George Bush is pertaining to the fact he wishes to edit the constitution (supposedly a sacred document) just to indulge his own fundamentalist whim, and pick up the more extreme Christian vote.

That's wrong, no matter your views on sexuality. Physically doing everything he can to stop, and surpress homosexuals is just downright retarded :sad:

And If Bush prevails at his "no gay marriage" then this would be the first time in american history that we would see a document actually restricting a minoity from doing something. Where do you draw the line? Whats next? Stopping black people from going to school? Its insane, and this is why Bush doesnt deserve to go into office, because Government shouldn't be religious based (hence Bush's aministration).

Im not really rooting for Kerry or anything, I dont agree with his invisable plans, I just want Bush out. Voting for a 3rd party canidate would only waste my vote for getting Bush out of office, so I might as well vote for Bush's real compitition...Kerry. So with this said no one can call me a moron for voting for Kerry's side, because truthfully, I just want Bush out of office.

omegaslayer4777 said:
And If Bush prevails at his "no gay marriage" then this would be the first time in american history that we would see a document actually restricting a minority from doing something.

i'd really rather you not get me started on this topic.. there are much more important things in these world issues than gay rights.. calling gays a minority is truly stretching the term to its utmost definition.. whats next? kleptomaniacs? they prolly have lower numbers.. how about people with downs??? they have been restricted from having children for years.. i would most definitely give people with downs more rights.. we have had documents for decades restricting the rights of minorities.. stop making it sound worse than it is. :sad:

it truly burns my ass when people think world impacting issues must include gay rights..

I had an idea a few weeks ago. It'd be nice if once a particular person is in office, they would not be able to disclose their religion.

I know that sounds odd, but, most people (just most, not all, so it isn't a generalization) voted for Bush, because A) They believed him (even now) and B) They're Christian.

Now, if you're reading that going "um ... what", let me explain.
Many people I've talked to whom said they voted for Bush claimed those were their biggest reasons, now I'm not sure if everyone is familiar with a little amendment which says "Separation of Church and State", this means neither can interfere with the other, ever.
Practically every time Bush speaks he says he's doing the things he's doing in part because he's Christian ... he makes a big deal out of his religion ...

What this leads to (to not very intelligent people = most of America, to be honest) "hey, he's Christian ... I'm Christian, I would make good decisions ... so he must as well." And I'm not kidding, there are people with this line of thought.

The only other people who REALLY support Bush are ones who benefited from his tax cut ... too bad you had to make 200 f**king thousand dollars a year to qualify.

Orph, I doubt Kerry will do anything close to bad as Bush and there's one simple reason why. It's obvious that the senate/congress supports Bush, I mean he's still in office with no charges against him. Now, that would mean, the don't want Kerry. The moment he would f**k up, he'd be gone or at least, media would take it out of context and thrash his name and image *cough*Clinton*cough*

The simple truth is, it's a bad idea to NOT accept someone because you fear they'll be worse. That's like the biggest bulls**t reason I've ever heard, and I know that's the reason why a lot of people are voting for Bush.

The simple fact is, I wouldn't have a problem with Bush if he did what he said he was going to do and for the reasons he gave. So far, he hasn't done that, in four f**king years.

But, I suppose you'll all push this off to be my opinion.

Oh, and GB, dude. Think about it. If you're going to segregate "marriage" to only straight people and your argument is "because it says so in the bible", number 1, you've got that amendment again. However, it WOULD be okay to say that IF marriage was a religious only affair. Meaning anyone who was married by a judge or in a shotgun chapel wouldn't have a marriage, they'd have a civil union or something as such. Then it would alright. But then homophobes and anal retentive people who want segregation to return in full flare will say "No, absolutely not, I refuse to share anything with them", which is completely unfair and ridiculous. It wouldn't be that bad just if the person leading the country didn't act that way.

... crono, i am not insinuating that you misunderstood my comment, but allow me to clarify once more.. i will not support either candidate.. period.

my comment was more general in nature, i feel people will vote for bush, because he is a known evil, kerry is a wildcard nomination.. everyone knows he is evil, but how much is still up for grabs.. most people will go with what they know, over the unknown..

i know my comments tend to make me seem "pro bush" but its unintentional i assure you.

if kerry wins, something i doubt whole heartedly, i am betting he leaves the US in much worse dire straights than our current fiscal/monetary deficit bush has created.

I never said you were Pro Bush. I know you're not voting this time around.

But, the way you state things twists everything, what you're saying is a fairly minor account. First off you're using the term "evil", which cannot be applied to any individual person.
You're also implying that, this person whom you've never seen as president yet has a better track record as senate then Bush as senate (from what I've read), is going to f**k up the ass harder then Bush.

I don't think so.

NO ONE would do even as bad of a job as Bush. I mean, s**t, if Kerry just did one thing he claims he will do, he'll leave us in better shape.

The type of logic you're using here is the same logic insecure women use with abusive boyfriends. You'll keep staying with this f**kbag who beats you because you're afraid you'll get with someone else who'll beat you even more.

i use the term evil as its meant to be used.. one person can be evil crono.. must i name names??

hell, once someone told me i was the most evil person they had ever met, when they heard my dim views on some people.. i knew they were either small minded, or had really small lives, but the term is used on individuals.

i am telling you, bush will win this election, because people prefer an evil they know, over one they don't.. i listen to the debates only irregularly, but all of them are the same, both candidates are not liked.. by ANYONE. this will be only the second election in my entire life where neither candidate is like very well.. sadly both had GW bush as one of the party members :sad:

That's because everyone misuses it. I didn't say it wasn't used, I said it shouldn't be used, because no one is "evil" by the definition of the word.

Crono said:
That's because everyone misuses it. I didn't say it wasn't used, I said it shouldn't be used, because no one is "evil" by the definition of the word.

i know i screw the pooch sometimes, but you might look up ther word first.. most of the definitions at webster.com fit both kerry and bush.. :sad:

Yes, trust a website.

What I was trying to say is: the way it is used today is slang. People just chose that word over 'bad' or 'malicious', so it is more accepted. Those words used to have slightly different meanings, now they're just slewed together to mean the same thing.

ok then, well... i think they are both evil.. not on par with manson, or hitler or their ilk, but evil none the less. bad just doesn't do it for me.. saying they are bad would be like me smashing my thumb and hollering repeatedly "Poop,Poop,POOP!"

But, isn't that what you do? :razz:

Crono said:
But, isn't that what you do? :razz:

you promised.. you promised to leave my diaper budget out of this

Orpheus said:

omegaslayer4777 said:
And If Bush prevails at his "no gay marriage" then this would be the first time in american history that we would see a document actually restricting a minority from doing something.

i'd really rather you not get me started on this topic.. there are much more important things in these world issues than gay rights.. calling gays a minority is truly stretching the term to its utmost definition.. whats next? kleptomaniacs? they prolly have lower numbers.. how about people with downs??? they have been restricted from having children for years.. i would most definitely give people with downs more rights.. we have had documents for decades restricting the rights of minorities.. stop making it sound worse than it is. :sad:

it truly burns my ass when people think world impacting issues must include gay rights..

Orph I understand you are on the complete side of the spectrum on this topic, but the point I was trying to make was that Bush is actually making a law that goes against a group of people (sorry I used minority, it was streaching it :biggrin: ). Im not necceicerely for Gay marriage, i'm more for Human rights, let people do what they want, and not let the government stop them from doing it. And as for decades of restricting minorities: Lets stop here then, dont restrict anyone anymore! This is my last comment on Gay Marrage, I know you are passonate about this topic, and I wont go any further.

It flames my ass too that people get worked up over menial topics such as gay marriage, same for Abortion. There are more topics that shadow these menial ones; such as the economy, (in which case I believe Bush has also failed at.... I mean trickle-down-econimics? Whole load of s*** to me personally) foreign affairs, enviornment (lets start drilling for oil up north).

no worries omega, i didn't mean to sound like i was attacking you..

my bad.

I think this may be the most civilized political "debate" EVER.

Unless you count the Vice Presidential debate.

Edwards: "I respect your GAY DAUGHTER."
StoneMan: "Thank You."

Orpheus said:
no worries omega, i didn't mean to sound like i was attacking you..

my bad.

I have this problem of never explaining myself in full, so its my fault.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Crono</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>Edwards: "I respect your GAY DAUGHTER."
StoneMan: "Thank You."</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

lol

"peeks head in, remembers previous threads on politics, religion, gay rights, etc etc etc........ponders whats been written.....retreats due to previous inflammations.....i just dont have the energy tonight"....

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

Dr Brasso said:
"peeks head in, remembers previous threads on politics, religion, gay rights, etc etc etc........ponders whats been written.....retreats due to previous inflammations.....i just dont have the energy tonight"....

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

/me waves

would maybe help if you peeked head in a bit earlier..

for what its worth doc, the last 3 or 4 debates you missed, wen really well.. i feel the pit is ready for us now :smile:

go get some rest ol' friend.

I dont think using the words "Old" and "rest" are any good Jon. Good job on motivating him :biggrin: But none the less, nice to see you Doc

SumhObo said:
<DIV>However, the one thing that overrides this is economic management. Plenty of Latham's (the opposition's) policies are full of holes. $700m holes (please remember that in Aus, budgets are measured in mere billions). On top of that, I have a personal preference for the education and health policies under Howard, mainly because they tend to benefit me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>

Well I agree with you in most area's there SumhObo, but when it comes to the bit about education policies and economic management I'd have to disagree. That $700m dollar black hole you talk about, the one that Costello found, has since been proven non existent. Costello actually got it wrong, and his own financial analysts, as well as other independent ones, have proven that there is nothing wrong with Labours policies. In anycase, I don't see how the Liberals spending over a billion dollars of tax payer money funding their own re-election campaign could be considered wise economic policy.

If you agree with Howards policies on education, the must be something wrong with you, either that or you are incredibly rich and actually go to the wealthy private schools that benefit from it. I'm at uni, and Howards policy of increasing places by 30% and allowing uni's to choose the fees is rediculous. Most classes at uni are already too big for the resources available, and the fee policy would mean that popular courses could cost a student up to $100,000. It's absolutely stupid.

I posted last night but then my connection lagged out so I said screw it and went to sleep, but my point was in response to one of Agent Smith's responses a while back about how North Korea has weaponry and the US didn't do crap about it. And one on the U.S. death toll.

My opinion on the matter would be that because Korea has powerful regional neighbors (i.e. China/Japan), whereas Iraq's most powerful neighbor is Israel, which couldn't do s**t to Iraq without the rest of the Arab world joining in to help Iraq, then the US would have to help Israel and bam, WWIII.

As for the death toll, roughly a quarter of those were from non-hostile situations: a guy from Oregon was electrocuted while swimming at one of Saddam's palaces, for example.

I'm probably missing some of your argument since I'm going off memory, so fire away, have at me, etc.

The way I look at it, for whatever it's worth...

I may disagree with George W. Bush on numerous points, and I don't particularly like him, but I don't believe he's a bad person. I do believe he means well in what he does, but that doesn't mean he can't have done things wrong - which I believe, in many cases, he has. For me it's more like saying "You know, nothing personal, but I'd like to give this other guy a shot."

However, another big point - we're not just voting for the Presidency, we're also voting for (potentially) a new Cabinet. Colin Powell I believe is a decent man who was put into some less than decent situations. Otherwise, these people definitely need to go in my book. Dick Cheney, while I respect his stance on same-sex marriage (but question his staunch allegiance to a President who is far the opposite, what with his daugher and all), is not someone I give the same benefit of the doubt. Condoleeza Rice makes public comments about how we don't need to explain our actions to anyone and she doesn't understand the concept of doing so (enough of this "global test" spin bulls**t - there's a difference between asking for permission and simply justifying your reasons to keep from looking like imperialistic bastards or something :razz: ). John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld have no place in positions of power like they've been given, Ashcroft especially.

I'm very much hoping, if Kerry is elected, that Wes Clark finds his way into the defense secretary position in the new cabinet. His experience would be invaluable in our current military situation - let's face it, love or hate the situation in Iraq, we have to finish the job one way or another. Clark would seem to be the guy to get the best results possible.

Again, though, that's only my take on things. I'm just waiting for Obama in `08 or `12. :smile: hehe...

Well said. It appears you're far more sympathetic then most people (Me) when speaking about Bush.

Crono said:
Well said.

ditto, lets not push it though :biggrin: .. i still think he is evil.. course, if i am the only one, again.. shrugs

The only way he's evil is that he looks like the cross between a gnome and an orangutan.