Kerry or Bush and why? [Archive]

Kristina

31-03-2004, 20:15

Preface: Anyway, I haven't posted in a while. I typically only come out of posting retirement for political stuff and even now, I was hesitant. I'll blame Cory; he made me do it :) I don't want to instigate a war of ideologies and I realize that one post probably won't change anyone's mind. However, it *can* lead to healthy dialogue and as someone passionate about politics, I know that it's important to try to get people engaged. If you want to know more about what I think, you can always IM or email me. This is just a post about why I'm voting for John Kerry.

It's hard for me to think of even where to begin because having worked on the John Kerry campaign for the last 10 months; it's so ingrained into me about why John Kerry is the best candidate. It's beyond ABB (anyone but Bush), it's about voting for a man who has a vision to deal with the problems of today and prepare us for the future. Concerns about the environment, civil liberties, education, jobs, social security, etc. are not merely "sissy" concerns by those "tree-huggin' liberals" [When you're VP of the Bruin Democrats, you hear it all], they are important issues that people of our generation will inherit and issues that Kerry has a plan for. Bush has had more environmental rollbacks than other president in history along with the worst job creation record since Hoover, Ashcroft scares me and I can give you a 20 page paper on why you don't have to compromise defense for civil liberties, we're in a major deficit, ask your teacher what he/she thinks about "No Child Left Behind", the bottom 60% of American only got 14.7% of the last tax cut contrary to what Bush’s claim of the “vast majority of my tax cuts goes to the bottom half of the economic ladder”…the list goes on. Moreover, it may seem like America is on the top of the world, and we are, but we're also a declining hegemon (meaning, we're falling from #1). As any political science or history class can tell you, you need your allies to solidify your position. However, with our retreat from Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, ABM treaty, land mine treaty, comprehensive test ban treaty coupled with our war hasn’t been that great in our foreign relations department.

So it’s easy for us liberals to whine, as we’ve heard that we do far too often. We have a solution though; rather we have a man with a solution. He’s worked in the Senate foreign relations committee for over a decade and understands global issues. He also understands domestic issues from his work in the Senate. Having me explain them wouldn’t do them justice so if you really care, you can go to www.johnkerry.com and read up for them yourselves. As for waffling, all I can say is that President George W. Bush at one point, didn’t want the department for Homeland Security. Does this mean that he’s a waffler too? No, it means that as the climate changes, you have to be receptive to new ideas to fix the environment you live in. Have you never changed your mind? It’s easy to go after a man who’s been in the Senate for so long because he’s had to make hard decisions, but let’s also remember there’s a reason why he’s been there for so long and he’s gained a great deal of experience to lead our country from it.

All in all, this is a brief (ok, I know it’s long, but I could go on for MUCH longer) glimpse on why I’ve devoted so much time to Kerry’s campaign and why I’m proudly voting for him in November. Before I devote myself to a cause, I do my research and I highly recommend that everyone, especially those old enough to vote, do the same. If you’ve done your research, and you find that Bush is the better candidate for you, well, I can respect that much more than I can someone merely going off of a few soundbits on TV or blindly following their parents. So if you get something out of this post, I hope that this is it. Voting for John Kerry would be a nice byproduct, but I think the most important thing is to get involved in the political process. It’s a lot of fun, challenging, important and very rewarding.

And of course I had to attach my picture of John Kerry and I last summer at UCLA.

Ashley Weed

31-03-2004, 20:28

http://www.davidckelly.com/coolstuff/GWB_logo_350.gif

Looking forward to my first Presidential Election! :D

Andy A.

31-03-2004, 21:02

I'm going to probably insite a storm of disaprovel, but oh well.

I am not voting in the upcoming presidential election. I feel that none of the canidates have earned my vote. Therefore, I exercise my right to not vote.

What it comes down to is this: Voting for the lesser of two (3?) evils doesn't accomplish anything. When it comes to the big choices, the ones that really matter, they always make the same choice the other would make. Usally it is the wrong choice. Simply voting for the sake of earning some kind of civic brownie points seems wrong to me.

If none of the canidates are worthy of my vote, no one gets it.

-Andy A.

Joe Matt

31-03-2004, 21:09

Bush --- I'm retain my right not to have to explain why.
It's my first election, and I'll be votin Kerry, also, same thing that Clark said, I'm retaining my right not to have to explain.

Also guys, lets keep this civil. Thanks. :)

Jeff Rodriguez

31-03-2004, 21:34

I'm interested to know why 9 people have chosen Bush. Kristina made it clear why people like Kerry. Why should we like Bush?

I'm still debating between Kerry, and writing in Edwards.

Mike641128

31-03-2004, 21:51

Kerry, because almost all taxes collected shouldn't go to defense and leave education and healthcare in the distance, along with other programs need to internally keep this country sound.

Aaron Knight

31-03-2004, 22:02

I can not with any conscience or moral fiber vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Here's why:

He has racked up the largest debt _even with adjustion for inflation_ of any president in the history of this country.
He has passed a tax cut that disproportionately gave much more money back (proportional to income) than anyone else....
For all his claims about wanting better business practices post-ENRON, he has yet to come clean about his own questionable and illegal business practices in 1989-90 with his petroleum business, nor his executive cabinet's deep connections with ENRON itself.
In a time of two unfinished wars that he led us into, Bush has spent a disproportionate amount of his time on attempting a constitutional amendment that he claims is to "preserve the [christian] sanctity of marriage" - which would be the first amendment to the Constitution which would inhibit the rights of Americans (not to mention that would _change_ the definition of marriage, to that of the Christian right [what happened to freedom of religion?]......)
Bush is running on a platform of the "war president", that of a strong leader leading a secure nation. Now, the 9/11 hearings are revealing that he somewhat dropped the ball on security then; he established a redundant Dept. of Homeland Security rather than fix the problems between our domestic FBI and international CIA...... and has made a less rather than more secure nation and world in general due to his actions.

Bush can't run on the economy - sure, we may have bounced out of recession, but very few of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs lost in the recession have been recreated. The Trickle-down economic model doesn't work. Didn't work with Reagan heading into the elder Bush, and isn't working now.

He also will face heavy questioning when he runs on an education platform. You may remember the much-lauded No Child Left Behind act. However, you won't likely remember that Bush gutted the majority of the funding behind it, and only recently cut the standards back to a level that schools might possibly be able to meet with the aid he left in it.

To tell the truth, I voted for Kuchinich (sp?) in the Democratic primary. However, I am willing and will fall in line behind the Democratic front-runner Kerry. Nader just as four years ago I can not vote for, since his campaign primarily runs on "I'm neither (republican front-runner) nor (democratic front-runner)" every time. Not a compelling argument for me.

Kerry, I believe, has a strong chance and a strong vision for what this country can and will do to maintain its traditions and point us towards a future that is good not only for our citizens but for the rest of the world as well.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now :). I welcome criticisms of this (privately if you so desire) - as constructive criticism serves to better politically educate those on both sides.

JakeGallagher

31-03-2004, 22:41

Howard Dean.

"CAN WE DO IT?? HOOOOOOOOOYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!"

Nuff Said.

Crash852

01-04-2004, 00:55

Nader have good morals, but he will never win just because not enough people will vote for him. So, if i can vote, i would vote for Kerry.

Ryan Dognaux

01-04-2004, 01:35

http://www.davidckelly.com/coolstuff/GWB_logo_350.gif

That is, if I could vote...

I don't even really feel like explaining though, since it's 1:30 AM here and anything I type will make absolutely no sense at all, and probably will end up having this thread locked.

Andy Baker

01-04-2004, 09:11

I'll vote Bush.

I cannot sit here and say that I like the guy, and I wish that we had better candidates to choose from. But, here are my reasons:

1. I believe in a smaller government. I am not happy that Bush has approve the spending of too much money over the last 4 years, but I think that a Republican president would make an effort to keep the government smaller than a Democratic president. I definitely don't want a Democratic president with a Democratic congress... this combination scares me.

Although I understand we need to have governmental controls, I actually lean more toward Libertarian, believe it or not. Adam Smith and that whole "invisible hand" stuff - I like that.

2. I am against abortion. This is non-debatable with me.

3. I believe in a strong military. Our actions and efforts in Afganistan are stellar. Our presence in Iraq is needed, but I don't agree with how Bush went about things. However, people need to keep in mind that Iraq broke many UN resolutions and the UN did not have the guts to stand up to him. Also, keep in mind that Iraq is not even in the same ballpark as Vietnam with regard to American lives lost.

Before you criticize me for being a "uncaring conservative fool", think again. I give much money to charity. I serve on the board of directors at a local rehabilitation organization (not-for-profit). I spend countless hours giving my passion to another not-for-profit organization, FIRST. I often talk to my more left-leaning friends and ask them what they do for their community, and they have no reply.

These are my political thoughts. Do I agree with everything that the Bush administration does? no. Some of the things tick me off too. However, my political thoughts are more in line with Bush's compared to Kerry's.

Many of you are smarter than me and will challenge me to a debate about this. I won't play that game. You won't change my mind, most likely. Feel free to educate me, but I probably won't debate these issues. My beliefs are deep, religious, and will probably not change. I am the way I am... maybe it's the stubborn farmer in me.

While I have these beliefs, I also think that what makes America great is the freedom to have your own beliefs and not be persecuted by others for them. I'll respect your opinions if you respect mine.

Andy B.

Trinora

01-04-2004, 11:26

Kerry, even if he isn't liberal enough for my tastes.

Bush has not made government smaller, what with the introduction of the Department of Homeland 'Security'. However, he has a horrible record for creating new jobs, in fact, the worst since Hoover. Hoover. Depression Hoover. Stock Market Crashing Hoover.

It's not even that. The typical 'New England' Republican is a socially and economically conservative favoring smaller government. This is a perfect idea, and while I don't exactly agree, it is.. defensible. Bush is one of the Neo-Conservative, or Neo-Cons. These Neo-Cons are strongly religious war hawks who do not believe in cutting down spending- they believe in cutting down taxes for the rich, giving tax breaks to major corporations, and deficiet spending billions and billions of dollars. They also are incredibly Christian, and choose to force these beliefs on government.

I am pro-government, I am pro-America, I am pro-rights and pro-informed decisions, I am for having a man in office that may actually understand the plight of the common man and the horror of living pay check to pay check, I am pro-learning and pro-robotics, and that is why I am voting proudly for Kerry in my first presidential election.

Bush (http://flem.keenspace.com/d/20040317.html) or Kerry or Frickles Mudcat (http://www.boasas.com/?c=1) .

Warning: Sites may contain information not suitable for young or sensitive web surfers.

Jeff Rodriguez

01-04-2004, 11:46

Just an interesting tid-bit I noticed, almost everyone that has posted in this thread has been true to this map (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm).

I just thought it was interesting and am wondering if the same will happen this year.

Kit Gerhart

01-04-2004, 14:12

I am voting for Kerry for a number of reasons, among them:

1) Kerry will restore fiscal responsibility. Bill Gates didn't really need a multi-million dollar tax cut, but we, as a nation, do need schools, and many older people will need social security and medicare in the future, and we don't need these huge deficits. Bush touts his "No Child Left Behind" legislation, but guess what? He doesn't want to pay for it. State and local governments have to pay for it, and will need to raise their, generally "regressive," sales and property taxes to do so. There go any tax cuts the low- and middle-income people might have seen from the Bush tax cuts.

2) Kerry will help the US re-join the world community, rather than turning the US in a a "rogue state" in the eyes of much of the world as Bush has done. Kerry, being a diplomat rather than a cowboy, will be able to work with the UN, and, yes, Germany and France, to help put Iraq back together. He will also work to restore the trust of the world regarding treaties signed by the US, helping fix the damage of Bush's having abrogated about 30 years worth of treaties signed by previous presidents.

3) Kerry will restore civil liberties that have been taken away by Ashcroft.

4) Kerry will not use our most sacred national document, the US Constitution, to try to shore up a core constituency, like Bush is doing with his "marriage amendment" for the "Christian Right."

5) Kerry will restore environmental protections that the Bush administration has been chipping away at since they took office.

6) Kerry will not get us into ill-conceived wars as the obsessed Bush has done. As many will remember, during the campaign, and for his first 8 months in office, Bush was obsessed with "star wars" missile defense. Then, after the events of 9/11 demonstrated the REAL threats we face, he briefly got on track and went after the bin Laden organization in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he soon got sidetracked by his old obsession with Iraq. Now that we're in Iraq, we're stuck with putting it back together, but Kerry would be able to do a much better job than Bush at getting help from the rest of the world.

That's just a start of a case in favor of Kerry, and against Bush. I realize that many of my FIRST team mates and former team mates are fans of Bush. I don't hold that against them. I suspect, though, that they are as unlikely to convince me to vote for Bush as I am to convince them to vote for Kerry.

Also, as a proud liberal, I have the following beliefs that others may not hold:

1) A certain amount of "redistribution of wealth" is good, as with graduated tax brackets.

2) A certain amount of "socialism" is good, as with public schools, public highways, and even tax-funded health care and subsidized public transit.

3) Discrimination is bad, whether because of color, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. For some things, we need to go beyond "opinions of the majority."

JakeGallagher

01-04-2004, 15:14

The democrats have titled the tax-cuts Bush gave out as "Tax Cuts to the Wealthiest of America" or something of the sort. Do you remember how the economy was doing back when Bush gave out those cuts? Yes, it was horrible, but only because people were afraid to invest since the world wasn't in the greatest condition. After the tax cuts were given, the economy started to rebound, little by little. Why? Because with the extra money they got, big companies could afford to lower their prices and hire more people. This put a little more money into the stock market, and the trend is continuing to this day.
I'm not saying this to defend Bush at all, nor am I attacking Kerry. To tell you the truth, I don't give a crap about either of them, as to me they're both morons.
But, it just makes me so mad that democrats are trying to put the blame of the bad economy on one person who really had little control over the issue when it began.
Plus: the democrat's definition of a republican is: A rich, fat, white man who hasn't had to work for himself his entire life, so he is a politician as a hobby.
A democrat's definition of a democrat is: One of the "Good Ol' Boys" who puts a 40+ hour week and collects a modest paycheck at the end of the week.

I'm not rich or fat, but I'm more of a republican than anything else.*
John Kerry hasn't really worked in years. His wife probably has more money than Bill Gates. He wants to tax the richest people of the country, and leave everyone else to keep their own money? I really don't think that'll go over well at home.

*: I don't perfectly fit the republican mold.
I support choice. No one should be told what they have to do with their own body by the government.
I support some socialism, maybe even a little comminusm. If you don't think that working to help the community is a good thing, you shouldn't be here.
I support equal rights for everyone. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, asian, or martian to me. It doesn't matter if you like guys, girls, or martians. If you're here, you deserve the same rights that everyone else here gets. Just because you're not "normal" to someone else doesn't mean you're not a person.

Ryan Dognaux

01-04-2004, 15:35

I found this picture, and found it humorous.. not meant to be a bash or anything, just thought it looked funny :]

And reasons to vote for Bush.. hmm... Well, look what he was thrown. Only a few months after being voted into office 9/11 happens, and I personally think he's done the best job anyone could have done looking at the hand he was dealt. Go Bush! :D

opps12

01-04-2004, 17:35

I'm going to say one more thing which has changed my view on the bush administration more than anything i have ever read. Do yourself a favor and read this entire thing, please, if you can still vote bush after reading this, well.....i'm sorry for you

go to this link http://truthout.org/docs_03/091503A.shtml

do yourself a favor and read the entire thing

David Kelly

01-04-2004, 18:14

David Kelly

01-04-2004, 18:18

Aaron Knight

01-04-2004, 19:42

For those of you planning on driving to Atlanta, use this calculator to calculate how much money you will be saving without the $.50 gas tax hike proposed by John Kerry. :yikes:

Calculator (http://www.georgewbush.com/calculator/)

Whilst we're pulling one side's rhetoric and advertising, how about the other side's Rebuttal (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0330.html)?

I don't think either of the candidates' web pages are exactly likely to be rhetoric-free...

:)

Jensena

01-04-2004, 19:50

Bush --- I'm retain my right not to have to explain why.

bush for me too... Diddo

Aaron Knight

01-04-2004, 20:55

This is interesting: the actual posts in this thread have been overwhelmingly Bush, yet the votes seem to be more Kerry than Bush.......

Where are the rest of the opinions? :)

Pierson

01-04-2004, 21:12

This will be my first Presidential election. I have worked and received a paycheck since I was 15. I have watched too much of my money go to the government and I have not seen good things happen in my state (which is controlled by Democrats in the Legislature and the Governor’s Mansion.) Some people say “Tax Cuts for the Rich” look at what Bill and Melinda Gates have done with their Foundation, they have given $7 BILLION out since the inception of the foundation. Just think of what they can do with a lower tax rate. I am a firm believer in the individual. The government does not know the best things to do with my money. I do.

I will happily put my X in front of President Bush. Why? Let’s talk Terrorism. When the WTC was bombed the first time, did the President do anything about it? No, he (Clinton) sent a couple of missiles into an Aspirin factory in the Middle East. President Bush following the attacks on 9/11/01 laid out a decisive course of action and executed it. We liberated an oppressed people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is my belief that President Bush will keep the country safer and make it more prosperous than Kerry.

Could I go into character bashing here? Sure. Do I choose not to? Yes.

Would I like to see a smaller government? Yes. But do I see changes doing to the changing nature of the world. Yes. Do I see our government adapting? Yes. Is this the best place to live in the world? I would argue that.

In how many other countries can we have a discussion not only like this, but also be involved in the programs we like, and be free to do what we want?

If any of you want to argue the Patriot Act, please ask yourself first, “How have I been impacted by the Patriot Act?”

OK… I normally keep my political beliefs somewhat to myself… But I have spoken and will now go back to talking about robotics!

opps12

01-04-2004, 22:09

sorry, link is broken :confused:

sorry, the link isn't working, here's the google cache of the article

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QBx5aQ_-31QJ:www.truthout.org/docs_03/091503A.shtml+new+york+you%27ve+been+used+site:tru thout.org&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This is the article that has turned me most away from bush, and solidified my opinion to NOT vote for him, please read the whole thing and then if anybody can still decide to vote for bush, well then that is the people's right, and i can't argue that

Kit Gerhart

02-04-2004, 08:38

For those of you planning on driving to Atlanta, use this calculator to calculate how much money you will be saving without the $.50 gas tax hike proposed by John Kerry. :yikes:

Calculator (http://www.georgewbush.com/calculator/)

I'm riding the bus to Atlanta, but, out of curiosity, I checked out the Bush calculator. This is what I found:

1) My car, a VW Jetta TDI wagon was not listed. Maybe it gets too good of mileage?
2) You have to have a street address, not just a city and state to get a calculation, requiring that you look up an address at your destination, even to get an approximate calculation.

Using Yahoo Maps to get the distance, and a regular calculator, here is what an extra 50 cents a gallon would cost me if I drove:

506 miles/45mpg=11.24 gallons each way, or $5.62 more money if fuel went up 50c/gallon. That's $11.24 for the round trip. The 45mpg is what I get driving at around 75mph on the highway.

Or course, the reality of Kerry's gas tax proposal is that it was basically made up by the Bush campaign. Here is a summery which I found at http://infopunks.net/

"As we've noted before , Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon. Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76."

Rasta

02-04-2004, 09:45

We liberated an oppressed people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wouldn't say that. There have been so many casualties of these "oppressed" people. sure you could say that we liberated them but if you want to say that you would also have to say that we bombed these "opressed people" into the ground. These liberated opressed poeple were so greatful they even recently gave a parade to some of the coalition's fallen...by dragging their bodies through the streets.

If any of you want to argue the Patriot Act, please ask yourself first, “How have I been impacted by the Patriot Act?”

Way back in the 60's the directer of the FBI was Hoover, a known racist. Hoover got his hands on some info that made him salivate uncontrollably. It turns out that there was a "communist threat" posed by a civil rights leader. A communist writer was following this guy around while researching for a book that he was writing. You may know this leader as the Martin Luther King Jr. So hoover got himself permission to wire tap this guy and some time down the road the FBI "leaked" some humiliating statements about MLK. The Patriot act poses this same threat and more. Anyone can tap anyone that they want. It gives FBI agents the right to go anywhere, on duty, without showing a badge or anything. This includes public meetings. there has even been FBI agents in chilling at protests because of this act. I think Ashcroft wants to keep a close eye on liberals.

I found this picture, and found it humorous.. not meant to be a bash or anything, just thought it looked funny

www.bushorchimp.com

The democrats have titled the tax-cuts Bush gave out as "Tax Cuts to the Wealthiest of America" or something of the sort. Do you remember how the economy was doing back when Bush gave out those cuts? Yes, it was horrible, but only because people were afraid to invest since the world wasn't in the greatest condition. After the tax cuts were given, the economy started to rebound, little by little. Why? Because with the extra money they got, big companies could afford to lower their prices and hire more people. This put a little more money into the stock market, and the trend is continuing to this day

It has helped, but not very much. there is a trickle down effect for cuts to the wealthy. However there is also the exact reverse. Kerry want to roll back the cuts and give them to the poor. This means there will be more money for the masses. The masses will start purchasing more. you can see where this is going. it ends up with a boosted economy and more jobs. Cuts for the wealthy and cuts for the poor end up in the same thing. But why would bush give the cuts to the rich and not the poor? You can go ahead and decide who needs it more. If people aren't going to be getting paid for their overtime work, at least they can get some tax cuts. Bottom line...doen't mess with the working man. its just wrong.

The economy is poor in part to hog-wild defense spending. Bush's fault. though recession is natural in economics, bush went the wrong way.

I believe in a smaller government. I am not happy that Bush has approve the spending of too much money over the last 4 years, but I think that a Republican president would make an effort to keep the government smaller than a Democratic president. I definitely don't want a Democratic president with a Democratic congress... this combination scares me.

wouldn't a republican congress and white house scare you? it does me. and that is reality. Don't worry about a d/d combo. congress is republican. lets put a dem in the white house.

3. I believe in a strong military. Our actions and efforts in Afganistan are stellar. Our presence in Iraq is needed, but I don't agree with how Bush went about things. However, people need to keep in mind that Iraq broke many UN resolutions and the UN did not have the guts to stand up to him. Also, keep in mind that Iraq is not even in the same ballpark as Vietnam with regard to American lives lost.

By god! how strong of a military do you want! 87 bil! that was in one congressional bill alone. While there aren't as many deaths in Iraq as vietnam there has been more deaths in iraq than in any other conflict since vitnam.

2. I am against abortion. This is non-debatable with me.

Okay. i won''t debate. i am pro-choice. but if these beliefs are religously motivated how can you support the slaughter of innocent people in iraq? I will debate abortion with anyone who wants to be educated.

I don't like kerry. hes too much of a money man but the US cannot go another 4 years with bush in charge.

Ryan Dognaux

02-04-2004, 18:34

I wouldn't say that. There have been so many casualties of these "oppressed" people. sure you could say that we liberated them but if you want to say that you would also have to say that we bombed these "opressed people" into the ground. These liberated opressed poeple were so greatful they even recently gave a parade to some of the coalition's fallen...by dragging their bodies through the streets.

/rants

You can't believe everything you see on TV. The media chooses to report on horrific cases that just make us look bad in Iraq. Of course there are going to be casualties, how couldn't there be considering what we're trying to do over there? But in reality, there are so many Iraqi's that are grateful for what the U.S. has done. The media never seems to report on any of the good things we do in Iraq... and don't dare say "that's because there aren't any", because you are wrong. :mad:

/ends rant

Aaron Knight

02-04-2004, 23:15

/rants

You can't believe everything you see on TV. The media chooses to report on horrific cases that just make us look bad in Iraq. Of course there are going to be casualties, how couldn't there be considering what we're trying to do over there? But in reality, there are so many Iraqi's that are grateful for what the U.S. has done. The media never seems to report on any of the good things we do in Iraq... and don't dare say "that's because there aren't any", because you are wrong. :mad:

/ends rant

There are many Iraqis (note the lack of apostrophe) out there that are gracious for our removal of Saddam Hussein. However, they also have the right to shape their own destiny - they want us out of there. We are NOT the police force of the world, and we shouldn't force our ways on them. What works here may not work there - they are a very different culture from our own and installing a US-centered government is sure to fail.

There are good things that we've done in Iraq, as well as some atrocities (sp?).

I will say, I support our troops. That's why I think we should bring them home.

Ryan Dognaux

03-04-2004, 00:06

We are NOT the police force of the world

So you're telling me we should just pull all of our troops out of Iraq??... If we want another dictator like Saddam to come to power, then yes, but obviously that's not a good idea.

And please excuse my grammar mishap :ahh:

Kristina

03-04-2004, 01:03

So you're telling me we should just pull all of our troops out of Iraq??... If we want another dictator like Saddam to come to power, then yes, but obviously that's not a good idea.

And please excuse my grammar mishap :ahh:

Well to somewhat pull this thread back on topic, the reason why I'm voting for Kerry is because he has a plan for Iraq which is much more comprehensive than Bush's plan. I think the only person who wanted to completely pull troops out of Iraq were Kucinich and Sharpton (and maybe Moseley-Braun...it's been a while so I forget things). Here's part of Kerry's plan (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html):

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops. This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.

I agree that we are not the policemen of the world but that doesn't mean I'm an isolationist either. There is a medium. That's to be a leader and pull in other countries to help us (and by other countries, I don't just mean Britain).

I DO believe in international institutions and I DO believe in having long term plans. This is why I find the Democratic party's ideals aligning with my vision. I think we look beyond the immediate and try to fix long term goals, which may not be popular, because we might have to pay the costs now for problems. However, addressing issues as they arise instead of simply dealing with them when they become huge is important because just remember who will be inheriting this world. If the US has problems in the future that requires our allies, future generations will have to deal with the countries we alienate. Future generations will have to deal with terrorism that stems from countries we angered in our unilateral actions. Future generations will have to deal with the environmental problems we let grow as we focused on other issues. Future generations will have to deal with the collapse of social security. Future generations will have to deal with the collapse of public education if we try to delay the problems with vouchers. That is unless we deal with them now. Students procrastinate, our government should not.

I tried to sit out of this thread for a few days because I know when I'm passionate about a subject, I can get long winded, but I had to address some issues. Also, Kerry delivered the speech I quoted above at UCLA and I got to deliver the speech to him and his teleprompter guy...then sit in the 2nd row. It was very cool and I had to brag. :)

D.J. Fluck

03-04-2004, 02:13

There are many Iraqis (note the lack of apostrophe) out there that are gracious for our removal of Saddam Hussein. However, they also have the right to shape their own destiny - they want us out of there. We are NOT the police force of the world, and we shouldn't force our ways on them. What works here may not work there - they are a very different culture from our own and installing a US-centered government is sure to fail.

There are good things that we've done in Iraq, as well as some atrocities (sp?).

I will say, I support our troops. That's why I think we should bring them home.

I've been quiet and I intend to stay quiet, but I have to say this..

The last time forces overtook a country and let them recover on their own it led to the rise of a man that was mostly responsible for the deaths of nearly 10 million people...(Hitler). After that, the country was held under control of many different countries for many years...if the major countries would have followed through in the first place and helped with the recovery, Hitler would most likely never have never come to power...

Even though I agree that something needed to be done in Iraq, many mistakes were made. Since the United Nations is a big joke you really can't rely on them at all. We're here in Iraq now, and even though they don't like it and many Americans don't like it, there really isn't much you can do except play this out and guide them...

This whole Iraq thing is similar to a teenager vs the parent. The coalition forces are the parents and the Iraqi people are the teenagers. The teenager is at the age where they want to be let go from the parents and be free, but they are still developing into an adult...they are almost there, but not quite. Many positive steps in the right direction but since a lot of the media is biased towards the left all you, the people see is the violence and deaths (even though you can't disregard that..).

I don't really consider myself a fan of the Bush Administration, but you'd never see me voting for John Kerry. Honestly, I'm surprised Kerry even has set positions on issues because they flip flop so much.....he's all talk and a walking contradiction (term supplied by Ryan Dognaux :p). Originally he supported the war on Iraq and when he noticed the Howard Dean uprising and his opposition to the war he switched it to he didn't support it because apparently thats what the voters wanted to hear...now I'm not even sure what his position is. Also I saw on NBC news the other night that Mr Kerry sent a letter showing his support for Operation Desert Storm...but 2 weeks later he sent a letter out showing his opposition for the war...I mean come on people why would you want this guy to lead your country?

I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but his campaign people really need to work on the way he appears in public. There is only so much you can do to a boring and dull person to make them seem exciting...and I think they went beyond his limit there... I wonder if he has the same people that ran Al Gore's campaign or the people that made Bob Dole appear to be this grouchy old man during his campaign in 96...

I consider myself to be a moderate republican and I'm not an uber Bush Admin supporter, but he has made great progress in protecting this country. Over the last year or so I have done much research into the Department of Homeland Security, and to correct the earlier poster who said something to the extent of Bush made the government larger with the DHS....DHS isn't really much of a new department. The DHS was created to have better communication between organizations such as INS, Secret Service, the Coast Guard, ATF and many others. Basically they took several organizations that already exist and told them all to report to one guy. Yeah so someone got a new office and there is another chair filled at cabinet meetings, but nothing new was actually created. It was just reorganized.

George Bush and his administration are no saints...duh...none of these DC boys & girls are..but the whole of the other party challenging the current office holder in a election is to convince the voting public that they can do a better job then the current person. Has John Kerry convinced me? Nope and I seriously doubt he ever will...

10intheCrunch

03-04-2004, 02:41

The comparison to Hitler is unhelpful, DJ. The situations revolving around Germany is *completely* different than the one around Iraq, mostly because WWI was a purely economic/landgrab/colonial war, not to mention the specific circumstances that led up to the creation of a German state at all (I'll bore you with more details if you really want my explanation behind it, just ask). To suggest that pulling out of Iraq would incite a new Hitler to rise (subtlely as you did) is just plain wrong.

The UN does not have to be a joke, and is considerably because the US disregards them while urging other countries to follow their directives, and other similar international institutions fail for the same reasons. Take a look at the Kyoto Treaty, the CTBT, nuclear proliferation. Lead by example, and that doesn't mean acting on faulty (at whatever level) intelligence that has no actual ground information network.

To Ryan above, it may be true that the media portrays the violence too much, but consider the violence they don't portray at all: that towards Iraqis. Approximately 10000 Iraqis have died since "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began. I am dissapointed in all the Democratic candidates for missing that (save Kucinich, you go man).

Peace is a process. Knee jerk reactions to perceived threats, leaving thousands and thousands dead and more injured, Iraqi and American alike, are not going to make the world safer or more peaceful. In fact, attacking Middle Eastern countries will only create a hotbed of terrorist recruitment. Do you think they really care what the debate over here is?

What is really needed is for everyone to calm down and first try to understand why these things happen. Why did Osama break off his friendship with the US? Permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, considered holy land. Why do many terrorist organizations form, and why do they hate us so much? I don't know all the answers there, but I'll bet you that US foreign economic policy is not helping in the matter. If we can start tracing the reasons back, we can understand why we hate each other so much, and that is the first step to dissolving that hate.

I realize I rambled from what my original point was, and from what the topic here is, but hopefully I didn't make any overly stupid comments. I believe we can have a better world, but Bush isn't really interested in trying. I want to vote Green, but if California is tight in November, my vote is unfortunately going to have to go to the lesser of two evils.

Kit Gerhart

03-04-2004, 09:11

I've been quiet and I intend to stay quiet, but I have to say this..

The last time forces overtook a country and let them recover on their own it led to the rise of a man that was mostly responsible for the deaths of nearly 10 million people...(Hitler). After that, the country was held under control of many different countries for many years...if the major countries would have followed through in the first place and helped with the recovery, Hitler would most likely never have never come to power...
The main terms of the Versailles Treaty consisted of transferring a number of German colonies and territories to other countries, and:

(1) occupation and special status for the Saar under French control;

(2) demilitarization and a fifteen-year occupation of the Rhineland;

(3) German reparations of £6,600 million;

(4) a ban on the union of Germany and Austria;

(5) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war;

(6) provision for the trial of the former Kaiser and other war leaders;

(7) limitation of Germany's army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies, no aircraft and no airships;

(8) the limitation of the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with no submarines;

Basically, it was an extreme case of the implementation of what are now called "sanctions" that probably led to the rise of Hitler. Just the forcing of huge, for the time, "reparations" on a bankrupt and war ravaged country was enough to insure disaster. Then there was the attempt to demilitarize Germany, which worked for a while, but obviously not for long.

Sorry about this post being a little off-topic. I won't let it happen again.

MikeDubreuil

03-04-2004, 11:12

Kerry.

I'm suprised that there's really no posts about jobs. Bush has watched as companies have begun shipping jobs overseas. Not to mention sat idley while numerous layoffs occured in the tech sector.

I was watching the nightly news yesterday and they talked about the jobs coming back. Something like 308,000 jobs were fulfilled last month. What they failed to elaborate on was the other number they reported: the unemployment rate; which increased. Just great guys, it's wonderful we have created more jobs, but it doesn't really matter if more people are losing them than having them created.

D.J. Fluck

03-04-2004, 11:23

I'm suprised that there's really no posts about jobs. Bush has watched as companies have begun shipping jobs overseas. Not to mention sat idley while numerous layoffs occured in the tech sector.

Even though there have been a lot jobs moved overseas during this administration, its nothing new. That has been going on since the Carter Administration when businesses first started figuring out that they can have foreigners make their products for 10 cents an hour over paying an american worker 20 dollars an hour..yeah I know it really sucks.

Madison

03-04-2004, 11:33

I am not surprised that CD seems evenly split on this issue, I think, but I am a bit surprised by the candidate that's currently in the lead. It's not what I would have expected. I think anyone who knows me remotely well knows who I'm going to vote for.

More important, to me, however, is the discussion about a gas tax. Even if it is something that's practically ancient history -- what's wrong with it? I mean, really, I'd be happy if we made gas $10/gallon or something. Maybe people would reconsider using their cars for everything and start taking public transportation. Where none exists, maybe they'll start demanding it. Imagine that.

Phyz121

04-04-2004, 00:31

I registered to vote the other day. I'll turn 18 on October 18th, but it isn't 30 days before the election (as is required), so they got me all signed up (as under age, it'll get switched to active voter on my birthday)so I can vote in November. I come from a very political family, so I've been following local, state and national politics and races since I was little.

Anyway, after years of watching and learning, I'm happy that I can finally give my input (in the form of a vote, every one counts). My choice is Kerry, and I hope he picks Edwards or Clark as VP. So...yeah...Yay for being (almost) 18!!!

Take care,
--Phyz :)

opps12

04-04-2004, 00:41

Ryan F.

04-04-2004, 01:04

Bush for me...if I could vote :rolleyes: .

I'm not going to go into a great deal of explanation because....I'm sick of debating this with my friends..etc. So basically..I agree with conservative principles, and bush is a president who has actually done something. Everyone likes to bash him for going to war in Iraq...but they forget to mention all the atrocities Saddam commited. Yeah...I could spout about this for a long time..but I'll shut up now.

And another thing...from an earlier post...I'm from Iowa....so I'm not conforming to the map.

Kit Gerhart

04-04-2004, 08:12

I love the point of public transportation, we americans love our cars too much, and we have to stop complaining about gas prices, in europe they pay three times as much, and isn't it surprising that public transportation there is more common? I think not.
I am a car nut from Indiana. I have three cars, while I only need one, but, I "love" public transportation. A week ago today I returned from New York City, home of one of the few good urban transit systems in the US. It was great. You could get from our hotel to the site of the NYC regional in 10 minutes or so. You could get from the regional site to Times Square in maybe 15 minutes. It's efficient. You don't have to find a place to park a car, and you don't have to deal with traffic.

As far as Europe having public transportation because they have high gas prices, it is kind of the other way around. They have high gas taxes, and thus high gas prices, in part, to help subsidize public transit. The end result is, in many ways, a good thing. There are good alternatives to driving in all major cities, and there are good alternatives to driving between cities. It even makes driving more pleasant, because there is less traffic than there would be without good public transit.

I like cars, and I like driving, but I don't like driving in larges cities, and I don't like driving anywhere that you are stopped or creeping along in traffic most of the time. Good public transit is GOOD for car nuts.

ChiragS

08-04-2004, 19:41

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2048

Kerry all the way.

Astronouth7303

08-04-2004, 19:57

Bush will go to Iraq AND the moon. Kerry will try to fight the natural laws of free enteprise. Nader wants to just change the whole thing.

In any case, we're screwed.

Aaron Knight

09-04-2004, 10:15

Bush will go to Iraq AND the moon. Kerry will try to fight the natural laws of free enteprise. Nader wants to just change the whole thing.

Okay, I'll bite.

Bush wants to go to the moon......sure he does, but he wants to gut the funding for NASA while he's at it to pay for the former (Iraq) in your statement....

Most of Kerry's plan is reinstating Clinton era fiscal policies and trying to re-balance our budget, or close the gap some at least.

One other thing to note is to the people who think Bush isn't responsible at least in part for the economy: Why then is he supporting companies that are outsourcing decent pay jobs (service sector as well as manufacturing jobs) to other nations, causing the loss of many good jobs here?

Food for thought.

Adam Y.

09-04-2004, 21:17

They also are incredibly Christian, and choose to force these beliefs on government.
Yeah but the same could be said for the liberals also. The liberals are probably more blatant about about it.
I'm suprised that there's really no posts about jobs. Bush has watched as companies have begun shipping jobs overseas. Not to mention sat idley while numerous layoffs occured in the tech sector.
(sarcasm) I can fix that. Get rid of minimum wage, safety regulations, and almost every single government control on bussinesses. That will stop the shipping of jobs overseas.(end sarcasm) Note: No way am I advocating that though the above is the reason why companies ship jobs overseas. Probably tougher trade relations would fix the problem. Also trying to get better job standards in other countries would make it less profitable to ship jobs overseas. Though in someway forcing companies to stay here would be a disaster. Bush has had more environmental rollbacks than other president in history ,
And yet wants to spend 1.2 billion dollars on hydrogen fuel.
Something like 308,000 jobs were fulfilled last month. What they failed to elaborate on was the other number they reported: the unemployment rate; which increased. Just great guys, it's wonderful we have created more jobs, but it doesn't really matter if more people are losing them than having them created.
No a rise in unemployment does not neccesairly mean more people lost jobs. According to my economics teacher the unemployment rate only looks at people looking for jobs. It does count people not looking for one. The rise in the unemployment rate may mean more people reentered the workforce which in fact is a good sign. I know it is really confusing and I hated that class.

KarnSG

09-04-2004, 22:19

I an for Kerry mostly caused I watched the animations on this website.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/animation.html

Richomundo

25-06-2004, 22:42

sorry, the link isn't working, here's the google cache of the article

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QBx5aQ_-31QJ:www.truthout.org/docs_03/091503A.shtml+new+york+you%27ve+been+used+site:tru thout.org&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This is the article that has turned me most away from bush, and solidified my opinion to NOT vote for him, please read the whole thing and then if anybody can still decide to vote for bush, well then that is the people's right, and i can't argue that

If one article can change your mindset, i advise you to learn more and read more, do you believe everything you read? of course not. To make an educated vote would mean to read articles coming from both sides. Also did it occur to you that the article is an editorial? That means they can write whatever.

Richomundo

25-06-2004, 22:43

I an for Kerry mostly caused I watched the animations on this website.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/animation.html

Are you voting this year? because if you are voting for Kerry based on website animations i advise you to understand your candidate from more than just a few animations.

Richomundo

25-06-2004, 22:45

I am a car nut from Indiana. I have three cars, while I only need one, but, I "love" public transportation. A week ago today I returned from New York City, home of one of the few good urban transit systems in the US. It was great. You could get from our hotel to the site of the NYC regional in 10 minutes or so. You could get from the regional site to Times Square in maybe 15 minutes. It's efficient. You don't have to find a place to park a car, and you don't have to deal with traffic.

As far as Europe having public transportation because they have high gas prices, it is kind of the other way around. They have high gas taxes, and thus high gas prices, in part, to help subsidize public transit. The end result is, in many ways, a good thing. There are good alternatives to driving in all major cities, and there are good alternatives to driving between cities. It even makes driving more pleasant, because there is less traffic than there would be without good public transit.

I like cars, and I like driving, but I don't like driving in larges cities, and I don't like driving anywhere that you are stopped or creeping along in traffic most of the time. Good public transit is GOOD for car nuts.

agreed. i like speeding too!

Yan Wang

25-06-2004, 23:02

MOEmaniac

25-06-2004, 23:18

simply put.... Bush said "strategury"

Joshua May

25-06-2004, 23:34

I'm crossing my fingers that the votes in this poll will be representative of this year's Presidential election.

But here's my motto for this year... "Let's not pull another Florida."

Even though I can't vote, I'll motivate all my 18 and older friends to get off their behinds and get to a poll.

Even my conservative friends who are of age to vote are going for Kerry thanks to their many political debates with me. :D

BTW, I'm going for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Mike Ciance

25-06-2004, 23:39

As Jay Lenno once said, this election we have a choice between a guy who's had second thoughts, and a guy who's never had a first thought. :D

Joshua May

25-06-2004, 23:40

As Jay Lenno once said, this election we have a choice between a guy who's had second thoughts, and a guy who's never had a first thought. :D

Oh that's funny, and its so true!

Ryan Dognaux

26-06-2004, 01:14

I'm crossing my fingers that the votes in this poll will be representative of this year's Presidential election.

Doubtful. It seems to me that there are quite a few more posters from the Eastern and North-Eastern part of America, which typically tends to side towards the democrats... no, I think this election will be another close one.

NotQuiteFree

26-06-2004, 02:50

Politics, even though I can't vote, are still one of my favorite things to discuss. For example, when Bush attacked Kerry's voting history, he claimed that Kerry had voted down bills that would have given our troops better body armor. Fortunately, most Americans understand the legislative voting procedeure. For those who don't, however, let me give you a crash-course. When a bill comes into the Senate, it is announced and voted on in one of three ways. A flaw in this system is that either the entire bill is passed, or the entire bill heads back to committee. The bills that Kerry voted down might have been for armor, but attached to the end of that bill may have been something like, "...Oh, yeah, and give Haliburton A TRILLION DOLLARS!!" Which, morally, Kerry couldn't vote for. So, he was stuck between a rock and a hard spot. Furthermore, if the bill was voted down, that means that Kerry was not the only person to vote against it, but he voted along with the majority of senators. So, does that mean that the Senate wants to see our troops die? Of course not; the mere idea is proposterous.

Another thing is Bush's national defence policy. You know, the one about "Preemptive Strikes". This idea rocks me to my core. To me, there is just something so wrong about attacking somebody who has not attacked you. For the effort we have exerted, and all the money we've spent, we are so far behind in Iraq, I just cannot believe it. Bush says we hand over control in...let's see...5 days. I do not believe this is going to happen. Like Kerry, Bush is now between "Iraq and a hard spot". By the way, the hard spot is the rest of the world. Daddy must be so proud.

Needless to say, I suppose: I'd vote for Kerry.

P.S. Michael Moore is the man.
P.S.S. Everyone needs to watch "Bowling for Columbine" and Farenheit 9/11.

Lisa Perez

26-06-2004, 09:26

Wow. I came across this thread late. Anywho, although I'm not of age, I'd say Kerry all the way. (No explanation because all my arguments have been covered by Kerry supporters in the last few pages and I don't want to be redundant)

Joshua May

26-06-2004, 09:49

Doubtful. It seems to me that there are quite a few more posters from the Eastern and North-Eastern part of America, which typically tends to side towards the democrats... no, I think this election will be another close one.

Sadly, the vote will most likely be split. I actually saw a poll a couple weaks ago about whether or not there was a divide in the country, 50% said yes and 50% said no, ironic, eh?

Ryan M.

26-06-2004, 10:08

I have to say Bush...

Of course, I can't vote.

Alex Pelan

26-06-2004, 16:58

I would vote Bush...If I was old enough. My first general election, not even presidential, will be 2008, and who knows what the world situation would be like then, so I'm not speculating. Basically, see Baker's post, as I agree with everything he says there.

Sam Oldak

26-06-2004, 21:02

I think we at Chief Delphi should have our own, real vote. Each team gets one(1) electoral vote, decided by the majority on that team. I think this would be a great idea for a project.

Pierson

26-06-2004, 22:10

I think we at Chief Delphi should have our own, real vote. Each team gets one(1) electoral vote, decided by the majority on that team. I think this would be a great idea for a project.

Good luck changing the Constitution!

I just can’t bring myself to vote for a guy who used Botox... Sorry…

Joshua May

26-06-2004, 22:11

I have not being able to vote, had I only been born 7 months earlier. :(

Really I would prefer if Edwards had the nomination, but two terms of Kerry and then two with Edwards will suffice. :D

Andy A.

26-06-2004, 23:11

I think we at Chief Delphi should have our own, real vote. Each team gets one(1) electoral vote, decided by the majority on that team. I think this would be a great idea for a project.

I can't speak for other teams, but for my part, the thought of my team all managing to agree to vote for the same guy?

Sheesh.

We have enough trouble agreeing on what to build in January. Heck, sometimes that takes till Feburary to figure out.

-Andy A.

Joshua May

26-06-2004, 23:24

I can't speak for other teams, but for my part, the thought of my team all managing to agree to vote for the same guy?

Sheesh.

We have enough trouble agreeing on what to build in January. Heck, sometimes that takes till Feburary to figure out.

-Andy A.

Well, the only people on my team I can think of that would REALLY care about an election are myself, my sister and Matt (RudimtaryPeni). I know my sister and go for Kerry, Matt'd probably go for Nader, but he can easily be swayed for Kerry, since Kerry isn't Bush. There, one electoral vote for Kerry.

Jeff Waegelin

28-06-2004, 09:34

The trend in this poll so far is interesting. Anyone care to offer a good explanation for why Kerry has a large margin here? (*cough*Kristina*cough*)

Anyways, as much as I'd like to see that happen in the real election, I'm betting the actual margin, regardless of who wins, will be within 5 percentage points. The electorate is so sharply divided that I think it will be that close. Anyone else want to make a bet on this? I've already wagered some baked goods on this with a team member, and I'm up for other offers.

JoeXIII'007

28-06-2004, 09:59

Anyways, as much as I'd like to see that happen in the real election, I'm betting the actual margin, regardless of who wins, will be within 5 percentage points. The electorate is so sharply divided that I think it will be that close. Anyone else want to make a bet on this? I've already wagered some baked goods on this with a team member, and I'm up for other offers.

5 percentage points?
5 percentage points? I really don't think that it will even be that close. How about a good 15%? I say this because 'W' has dug himself a huge hole that soon enough he won't be able to get his self out of it. Farenheight 911, the beheadings in Iraq and the continued chaos there (not to mention Afghanistan), an economy that surely is getting stronger but at the expense of so many middle class jobs, making so many poor. I can't help but feel that this will be an easy victory for Kerry. :cool:

Lisa Perez

28-06-2004, 10:08

<knocking on wood> LOL </knocking on wood>

If 573 were to do the electoral thing - I can see Bush winning. I'm pretty much the only liberal on the team.

Oh yeah, and about the poll. I think you might have to consider us youngins who voted there who won't be able to vote in the November elections :(

Anyone else going to Inauguration?

Jeff Waegelin

28-06-2004, 10:18

5 percentage points?
5 percentage points? I really don't think that it will even be that close. How about a good 15%? I say this because 'W' has dug himself a huge hole that soon enough he won't be able to get his self out of it. Farenheight 911, the beheadings in Iraq and the continued chaos there (not to mention Afghanistan), an economy that surely is getting stronger but at the expense of so many middle class jobs, making so many poor. I can't help but feel that this will be an easy victory for Kerry. :cool:

While that may affect the election, you have to keep one thing in mind. Around 80 to 85 percent of the voting population has already decided who they'll vote for, and will not change their minds. Of those people, it's about evenly split between Democrat and Republican. Only 15 to 20 percent (someone correct me if they have the actual number) of voters are independent, and it's that small segment that Bush and Kerry both target in their campaigns. So, in order for Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) to win by over 15%, he would have to swing nearly every single independent voter. It's just not gonna happen. Thus, I stand by my prediction... the final vote will be within 5 percentage points. The country is just that divided, right now.

Also, you can say what you may about Bush, Iraq, Fahrenheit 9/11, or the economy, but nothing is ever as persuasive to others as it seems to someone who believes in it. I'd venture from your posting that you're part of the 85% or so who've already decided, and are a Democrat, at that. What may seem self-evident to you as a liberal will seem less so to an undecided voter, and flat-out wrong to a conservative. While I, too, agree with you in principle, one must bow to reality. Politics can be very polarizing, and it's easy to see what you believe as the only way to go.

MattK

28-06-2004, 10:41

QUOTE=Ryan Dognaux I found this picture, and found it humorous.. not meant to be a bash or anything, just thought it looked funny :]

I found some funny pictures too!

http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic41.jpg
http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic68.jpg

MattK

28-06-2004, 10:52

This is why I am pro kerry

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

-Ran for congress and lost.

-Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

-Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

-Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

-With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

-Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

-Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

-Attacked and took over two countries.

-Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

-Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

-Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

-Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

-First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

-First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

-First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

-After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

-Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

-In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

-Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

-Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

-Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

-Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

-Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

-Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

-Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

-Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

-Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

-Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

-My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

-Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

-Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

-Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

-Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

-Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

-First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

-First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

-Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

-Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

-Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

-Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

-First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

-All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

-My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

-Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

-First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

-First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

-First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

-Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

-With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

-Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

-First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

-Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

-Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

-Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

-Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

-In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

-Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

-In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

-Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

-Records and References:

-At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

-AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

-Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

-All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

-All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

-All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

-Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

-For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

If you would like to download the entire thing you can here (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html)

Adam Y.

28-06-2004, 11:34

-First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
Anyone with a basic understanding of history knows this isn't true. I can think of one president that entered his career with a criminal record right of the bat and another that practiced in activities that weren't illegal back then but is today. Hey this can be a good question for First Jeprody.

MattK

28-06-2004, 12:05

Anyone with a basic understanding of history knows this isn't true. I can think of one president that entered his career with a criminal record right of the bat and another that practiced in activities that weren't illegal back then but is today. Hey this can be a good question for First Jeprody.
Nancy Pelosi asked the ACLU if there were any violations of civil liberties under the patriot act. They couldn't find any.
I don't think this is true either from a historical stand point. I have to check my facts.

Could you please post a link the the Nancy Pelosi/ACLU thing. I am interested.

Adam Y.

28-06-2004, 12:12

Could you please post a link the the Nancy Pelosi/ACLU thing. I am interested.
Never mind. I heard it on some news broadcast. Im probably not going to find a link.-Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
Nope definately not true. I can come up with a bunch of events where other Presidnets violated the freedoms of lots of individuals.

Billfred

28-06-2004, 12:19

The trend in this poll so far is interesting. Anyone care to offer a good explanation for why Kerry has a large margin here? (*cough*Kristina*cough*)

Well, when I worked at Sonic, I chatted once with the owner of the restaurant, this guy in his sixties or seventies (and still not afraid to sling a few burgers). He told me something that makes perfect sense when I realize the general age distribution of this site:

If you're twenty and conservative, you don't have a heart. If you're thirty and liberal, you don't have a brain.

While I take issue with the second half of that, it does seem to explain the whole thing.

Joshua May

28-06-2004, 12:52

This is why I am pro kerry

George W. Bush Resume

...

Yeah, I've seen that before.

You know it's sad when 1/2 of your own country hates you, and then a vast majority of the world population hates you even more.

You also know it's really bad when Britain and France hate you more than they hate each other.

MattK

28-06-2004, 14:41

I can come up with a bunch of events where other Presidnets violated the freedoms of lots of individuals.

It never said "The only president" it said "Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history."

Pierson

28-06-2004, 18:35

You also know it's really bad when Britain and France hate you more than they hate each other.

I just spent the last two weeks in England and France... They don't hate us... They rather like us. We bring beaucoup (using a little French lingo there :D ) dinero into both of those countries through trade and travel.

While our politics may differ, they care much more about their football (http://www.euro2004.com/) then political ideals.

Pierson

28-06-2004, 18:42

It never said "The only president" it said "Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history."

No... you never said it... hmm... maybe I should go find/create one of these for Mr. Clinton

"Spent the most undeclared vacation days of any US President (with Monica Lewinsky frolicking underneath the desk in the Oval Office)”

Joshua May

28-06-2004, 18:53

I just spent the last two weeks in England and France... They don't hate us... They rather like us. We bring beaucoup (using a little French lingo there :D ) dinero into both of those countries through trade and travel.

While our politics may differ, they care much more about their football (http://www.euro2004.com/) then political ideals.

Allright, they hate Bush more than each other.

MattK

28-06-2004, 19:00

When Clinton lied noone died.

No... you never said it... hmm... maybe I should go find/create one of these for Mr. Clinton

"Spent the most undeclared vacation days of any US President (with Monica Lewinsky frolicking underneath the desk in the Oval Office)”

Pierson

28-06-2004, 19:06

Allright, they hate Bush more than each other.

Please tell me Sir, how do you know this? Is it from the media? If so, who is your reliable non-biased source? Have you traveled and spoken with Britons and the French?

The media, if that is your source will not cover those who support the government (unless of course those in power are Democrats). The BBC is quite good at playing it straight down the middle. They take a historical look at the events which are happening.

Being immersed in the culture gives a welcome reprise to the media onslaught. THEY (the Britons and the French) COULD CARE LESS ABOUT POLITICS! What they really don't like is the VAT (Value Added Tax) and the London Congestion Charge (5 pounds which is roughly $10 a day to drive into downtown London) and if you don’t pay it each day, they send you a ticket in the mail for between 40 pounds and 125 pounds ($80 - $250)

So Sir, before you go around making random pronouncements, immerse yourself in their culture. Explore and learn. That is of course what FIRST is all about!

Pierson

28-06-2004, 19:09

When Clinton lied noone died.

Does the term Asprin Factory mean anything to you? What about Bosnia? Did he lie? and/or did the media just do a fantastic coverup job for him?

and let's try to bring this back on topic...

Kerry or Bush and why?

MattK

28-06-2004, 19:15

This is on topic, I showed why I was not voting for bush (the resume) and you were picking it apart. I find it funny that noone has been able to dis-prove anything on that list.

Noone tried to impeach Clinton over the Asprin factory. The Right found something that the public would jump on and they sank their teeth right in. I forget who it was but there was some right-winger who was going after Clinton about his affair... when at the same time he had a woman on the side.
Feel free to look it up

But Yes- Kerry is my man

Does the term Asprin Factory mean anything to you? What about Bosnia? Did he lie? and/or did the media just do a fantastic coverup job for him?

and let's try to bring this back on topic...

Kerry or Bush and why?

Kristina

28-06-2004, 19:20

This is what happens when I'm in Washington DC and/or deprived from my political science classes...I analyze political threads on CD:

The trend in this poll so far is interesting. Anyone care to offer a good explanation for why Kerry has a large margin here? (*cough*Kristina*cough*)

Like people have been saying, I definitely think that the age demographic factors in SIGNIFCANTLY.

Some other things that may possibly explain the numbers...

Geographic Bias See Exhibit A: Map of FIRST teams (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29199&highlight=map) There definitely seems to be more teams from liberal leaning areas such as the NE region and California. The whole central area (Montana, Idaho, Utah) and Southern area (Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky) are regions that lean heavily Republican yet have very little FIRST representation and hence, not much posting on these boards.

Urban/Rural Bias Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing FIRST teams come from more urban/suburban areas than rural. I know there are rural teams, but just not as likely as in other areas. So if there are teams, say, from the South or Midwest (red leaning areas), they tend to be in closer proximity to major cities. Well, cities tend to be more liberal so that could possibly play a part.

Education Level Before I get negative rep, let me say flat out that I don't necessarily think Republicans are not smart people. That being said, college graduates and people with higher levels of education usually lean more liberal than conservative. This isn't based on my experience but rather what has been said in almost every political science class I've had. Seeing as how many FIRSTers are in college or are on the college path, I could see how this factors in.

I just spent the last two weeks in England and France... They don't hate us... They rather like us. We bring beaucoup (using a little French lingo there :D ) dinero into both of those countries through trade and travel.

While our politics may differ, they care much more about their football (http://www.euro2004.com/) then political ideals.

I'm not even sure if you're joking or not...then again I never really understood USC Trojan humor (kidding!). From my own experience, this was probably half right. While we tend to have good relations with England (they were our ally), I didn't see quite as warm reception in other European nations. I personally saw "Go Home America" posters in France and when the French people come to UCLA, they buy so many John Kerry buttons from us. I have a lot of family in France too and they all love Kerry. I have friends studying in Italy this summer and they say there's so much anti-Bush graffiti and I know there was a huge protest when Bush came to speak in Ireland. I thought it was interesting that he was the first American president in a while that's been so disliked by the Irish because most Presidents go there for popularity boosts like Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. I'm not saying that you have to be worldwide popular to be a good President of the United States (though I certainly think it can help) but I certainly wouldn't say that most of Europe likes us either.

Marc P.

29-06-2004, 00:52

I'll preface by saying I usually stay away from political discussion, if not for fear of getting criticized, for the fear of knowing that there is no single right answer to any given political question. So before this thread gets locked for turning into a flame war, I'll post my thoughts.

I'm planning on voting for Kerry.

My cousin signed up with the US Marine Corps last year. Early this year he was sent on his tour of duty in Afghanistan. I just heard not too long ago that he was pulled to Iraq. I'll tell you it sucks listening to the radio or reading a newspaper, hearing about casualties over there, hoping to whatever religious entity that I don't hear or see his name.

I don't know much more about Kerry than I read online, on forums like this, or the various slanted news sites. But since Bush is the current president, I hear about what he's up much more than Kerry. I can understand retaliation for 9/11, but where did the focus for that go? Last I heard Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Now he's hiding in some cave, while we have Saddam in custody. Did I miss a confirmed connection somewhere? I remember watching Bush address the nation when he first declared we were at war with Iraq, and I remember mention of weapons of mass destruction, and a connection to Al Quieda. The only things I've seen/heard/read since then indicate none of it was true, despite "very convincing evidence" prior to the war. Now my cousin is over there as a result of some lies.

Going into the voting booth, I see two choices. On the one hand, there's a man who has already lied to me, and the American public. On the other, there's a man who has the potential to lie to me, and the American public. In my eyes, the one who has already lied has already betrayed my trust, and is therefore unworthy of my vote. I could vote Nader, but in the two party system, that's as good as not voting at all. Therefore, the only logical candidate is the one who's yet to lie to me. Should he lie in office, I'll vote against him next term.

It's very rare in my life that my logical side and personal/emotional side agree on something. In this particular instance, I've read positives and negatives on both Bush and Kerry, moreso on the negative side for Bush, in addition to my personal feelings. That means there's only one way I can vote, unless Kerry does something in the next few months to disuade my trust towards the unknown candidate.

Adam Y.

29-06-2004, 12:07

I don't know much more about Kerry than I read online, on forums like this, or the various slanted news sites. But since Bush is the current president, I hear about what he's up much more than Kerry. I can understand retaliation for 9/11, but where did the focus for that go? Last I heard Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Now he's hiding in some cave, while we have Saddam in custody. Did I miss a confirmed connection somewhere? I remember watching Bush address the nation when he first declared we were at war with Iraq, and I remember mention of weapons of mass destruction, and a connection to Al Quieda. The only things I've seen/heard/read since then indicate none of it was true, despite "very convincing evidence" prior to the war. Now my cousin is over there as a result of some lies.
Actually US troops were attacked with Sarin gas recently with one of those roadside bombs. In fact it's got to be mentioned somewhere here.It never said "The only president" it said "Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history."
That's a matter of opinion. He isn't the worst. Trust me on that one. There is one president that ended up ignoring the supreme court to do the equivalent of stealing land.

Andy Baker

29-06-2004, 12:44

This is on topic, I showed why I was not voting for bush (the resume) and you were picking it apart. I find it funny that noone has been able to dis-prove anything on that list.

The internet is an amazing thing. I just spent about 2 minutes doing a search on "George Bush Resume Rebuttal", and got this: GW Resume Rebuttal, by Curt King (http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com/resume.pdf)

Mr. King has done much research on rebuking the "George Bush Resume". Before you think that the "resume" is gospel, read Mr. King's counter-point.

Andy B.

David Kelly

29-06-2004, 13:18

The internet is an amazing thing. I just spent about 2 minutes doing a search on "George Bush Resume Rebuttal", and got this: GW Resume Rebuttal, by Curt King (http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com/resume.pdf)

Mr. King has done much research on rebuking the "George Bush Resume". Before you think that the "resume" is gospel, read Mr. King's counter-point.

Andy B.

Nice work Andy. Once again, this comes to prove that some people only want to hurt the President and his reputation for purely political reasons. And as a result, hurts the rest of America.

Jeff Waegelin

29-06-2004, 13:41

Nice work Andy. Once again, this comes to prove that some people only want to hurt the President and his reputation for purely political reasons. And as a result, hurts the rest of America.

Unfortunately, that's just politics for you. Like it or not, attacking your opposition is a common tactic, no matter which party you support. It might seem like Bush is getting more than his fair share of attacks, but, that's what happens in an election year. The party not in power will always try to do whatever they can to get in power, regardless of who the incumbent may be. Even Bush himself is not immune; his own campaign has made numerous attacks against John Kerry... so it's not like it's totally one-sided.

One must also be careful not to confuse attacking a political candidate with attacking America. Yes, George W. Bush is our president. But is running a campaign ad, or posting an editorial that hurts him, somehow, hurting America? No, it is simply a political tactic. Not one I particularly admire, and one I think we would be better off avoiding, but that is the dynamic of American politics today. People make attacks against candidates. Unless you know of a good way to stop this, it's something you just have to accept.

Bill Gold

29-06-2004, 14:01

Nice work Andy. Once again, this comes to prove that some people only want to hurt the President and his reputation for purely political reasons. And as a result, hurts the rest of America.
The same could be said about many attacks on Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clinton, or other prominent democrats. Republicans like Bush don’t receive more than they dish out. It’s about even between the political parties.

I agree with what Jeff said about an attack on a political standpoint not necessarily being something that hurts America. To think that politics or life in general is a happy place where opponents get along and can see reason is wishful thinking most of the time.

I’m an outspoken democrat, and I don’t appreciate this chain-email being brought up in a pseudo-political debate. It’s something that’s funny to chuckle at while realizing that the author has no sources to back up the accusations, but it’s not something you would use when trying to make any kind of valid argument. An intelligent person could argue in favor of a few of those points, despite the information in the rebuttal linked by Andy. I would like to call on the two members in this thread (one liberal and one conservative) who brought up this “resume” and have been attempting to debate its factuality to start a more thoughtful and factually verifiable debate in this thread, or take it to PM/IM’s. I’m more than willing to talk about my opinions with anyone who would like to IM me (my screen name while I’m in Washington D.C. is “bi24ll Laptop” without the quotation marks), but I think I’ll be staying out of this thread for the foreseeable future.

Joe Matt

29-06-2004, 14:03

akaria

29-06-2004, 14:21

Personaly, if i could vote, i would vote for Kerry.
Bush has sone too much to the environment, and the health of the american public, to just let it slip by.

* he took away all limits on CO2 emissions

* he is allowing 7 times as much mercury in to the environment
-----mercury is a known nerve toxin and cause of birthdefects
-----Bush classified mercury, a nerve toxin, in to the same 'benign' catagory as greenhouse gasses knowing this

* he is releasing land for sale that was previously banned on the account that it was too toxic

* his chief of staff has continually been in contact with ultra conservative lobbying groups (highly funded by oil companies) to help downplay the findings of the EPA on the oil companies' impact on the environment

* he modifies the EPA reports to the point that the EPA will not release them because they are so untrue

* he helps to let the oil companies mine national parks that would take hundreds of years to grow back and would only provide acouple hours worth of oil( but the oil company mining would none the less get several million out of the deal

I did all of this reasearch myself, it was not taken off of some website with a list of wrongs. Below are my resourses(mostly news papers and all credible as to truthfullness, i did a paper for my AP Environmental class so they had to be :p ) look at them for more info :)

Bibliography
Pollutants, Health Risks Rise in Iraq Region. 22, May
2004.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115244_warpollute01.shtml
The Environmental Impacts of War. 20, May 2004.
http://www.islandpress.org/eco-compass/war/
This website had lots of factual information on the
impacts of war on the environment. It also had
in-depth information about the intricacies of war and
how each aspect involved the environment.
Earth Crash. 20, May 2004.
http://eces.org/archive/ec/population/military.shtml
Environmental Impacts of War. 20, May 2004,
http://www.ems.org/war/risks.html
Bush Plan to Drill Rocky Mountain Front Would Yield
Less Than One Week's Gas Supply. 26 May, 2004.
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org
Bush covers up climate research. September 21, 2003.
24,May 2004.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html
This article covered the EPA reports that Bush’s
administration modified and the emails that went back
and forth between the chief of staff at the White
House Council on Environmental Quality and a director
of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Cheney Seeking Supreme Court Review of Energy Panel
Case. September 17, 2003. 20, May 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A21544-2003Sep16¬Found=true

EPA lifts ban on selling PCB sites. 23, May 2004.
http://www.usatoday.com/newe/washington/2003-09-01-epa-usat
_x.htm
EPA Backs Away From Issue of Auto Emissions. 20, May
2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61598-2003Aug28¬Found=true
This article details why the EPA is not putting any
restrictions on auto emissions.
Bush Broadens abortion gag rule. 20, May 2004.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6651675.htm?1c

Andy Baker

29-06-2004, 16:08

Nice work Andy. Once again, this comes to prove that some people only want to hurt the President and his reputation for purely political reasons. And as a result, hurts the rest of America.

This is politics. The Republicans did it to Clinton and many talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) made much money as Clinton-bashers.

OK... now for some preaching from Uncle Andy:

This is a good thread. Let's keep it that way. It is healthy to debate these issues, but we all need to keep the debate "above the belt". I probably should not have posted a thread to an outside source, but I only did that because I already stated my position waaay back in this thread.

Personally, I wish that we would not simply debate the Iraq issue here. I am more interested in "what makes people tick" and "why" they lean right or left. I lean right because of my upbringing, family history and background, and my life-long desire to be self-dependant and self-reliant. If I want to give to a charity (which I do), I want it to be a organization of my choice, not the government's. Do I believe in hand-outs? yes. But, I want to decide on where to hand out my money.

It is great to see people writing what they believe in, with conviction. I am all for that. For example, the previous post by Erica Young is a wonderful post about her convictions with protecting the environment. That is outstanding.

For the rest of you (and I) - just be careful to show some respect for each other. I am smart enough to know that I simply do not know all of the answers, and have no knowledge of "ultimate truth" - and neither do any of you. Figure out "what makes you tick" and defend your priciples... but also respect your fellow CD poster.

You are now free to go back to this political debate.

:)

Andy B.

MattK

29-06-2004, 16:31

My Last Post (I think) on This Thread

This Is Why I Want Kerry over Bush

-9/11
In my opinion after the 9/11 attacks the whole world was in shock, and they all felt bad for us and most were willing to give us aid. The Bush administration was in a position to do so many things that would change the world for the better. We could have worked better to find the people who attacked us, we could have increased positive relations with other countries governments (who had shied away from us in the past) and we could have had the vast majority of the world’s population on our side.

The Bush admin. dropped the ball- they not only made the entire world hate the United States Government but they made their own people hate them.

-The Evil Doers
To this day we have not found and brought to justice the two people / groups that actualy attacked us. Those being Osama Bin Laden and The Anthrax Killer

-Gay Marriage
I personally am not gay, but I have strong opinions on gay marriage. I think that adding a amendment to the constitution to ban same sex marriages is completely wrong. Marriage is a bond between 2 people in love. You would think this administration would understand this- Dick Cheny's own daughter is a lesbian.

-Iraq
We had no business going into Iraq. They were not a clear and present danger to the United States- Bush has set a horrible precedent. Please lets finish the job in Afganistan before we start a war with a country that is not a real threat.

-Patriot Act
This thing would be great if it was used to catch "terrorists". The problem is its not being used to do that. Can someone say "1984"

-Unprofessionally Run White House
I have never seen a president ever smirk when he talks about killing other humans. (If you watched his State Of The Union Address he smirk and gave a small chuckle when he said like "we have caught these many terrorist and these many others have been taken care of". I am paraphrasing that.

Those are my thoughts and I hope I have made clear why I want Kerry.

Adam Y.

29-06-2004, 17:29

This is on topic, I showed why I was not voting for bush (the resume) and you were picking it apart. I find it funny that noone has been able to dis-prove anything on that list.
All right. George Washington was the first president to enter office with a criminal record. This is a major duh. Andrew Jackson pistol dueled with other people which is something most people usually frown upon. Not only that but he was the only president in the history of the United States to ignore the Supreme Court just to take land away from the Indians. Probably one the worst cases of taking away someones fredoms. Roosevelt and the Japense interment camps.Patriot Act
I know this may sound really stupid but... Can anyone tell me any abuse because of the Patriot act? Everyone always complains about it yet no one has cited one occurance in which it's happened.

Andy A.

29-06-2004, 18:19

I know this may sound really stupid but... Can anyone tell me any abuse because of the Patriot act? Everyone always complains about it yet no one has cited one occurance in which it's happened.

There are many examples of the powers granted by the Patriot act being used and infringing in ways that previously would have been considered illegal. Moores latest movie touches briefly on this, and has a few cases as examples. Some further research would be easy enough on your part, if this interests you.

What worrys me are not the cases of infringement that we know about. It's the ones we don't. That is after all what the Patriot act allows for, violation of the 4th amendment with out any notice or record (among other things). In the good old days, back when that fourth item down on the bill of rights still had some meaning, a law enforcement agency would have to get a court to agree that someone's home needed to be searched or their phones tapped. These days, my library record could be searched, my phones tapped, my email scanned, my house searched, and all with out me ever knowing. I could be held in detention with out being charged or having legal counsel. And why? Well, Alvarenga (my last name) kinda sounds arabic to some (why I will never know).

Seriously, that could be all the justification it would take. The Patriot act allows for gross violation of your civil rights with out anyone’s knowledge for little or no reason. Is it always abused? No, probably not. But it has, it is, and will be abused. Furthermore, I haven’t heard of one case were a terrorist was arrested because of information that could have only be gathered because of the Patriot act.

Even the name annoys me. 'Call it the Patriot act and no one will be able to vote against it. How can you vote against something so patriotic sounding? Besides, if he does, that will just sound great in next years campaign against him!'

And people call me cynical.

-Andy A.

dez250

29-06-2004, 22:01

ok after multiple people asked me what i had said and that they would like to read what i had to say, i am deciding to repost it here. please do not get made at me or freak at me (in the chit chat forum) for reposting this, multiple poeple asked for it and i am just reposting it.

Please everyone take a minuet to read this post and try to understand what i am hoping can occur.

I try to stay away from political topics and forums as much as i can. It hits home with many people who are involved with the discussions of the topics that are brought up, whether it be Bush with sending more "soldiers" into foreign countries for many reasons, or it be an issue of religion, personal views or ideas any of the candidates may have that sway you to vote or not vote for them. Thus this is why i am making this post here. After watching this thread be brought back to life over the past 4 days, i am going to ask for everyone to step back for a minuet. Take a step back, gather all your thoughts that you have about this and other issues with the all the recent political occurances, write up a post and then after you re-read it and make sure that is what you want up, then post it. It seems many of the past posts have been spur of the moment posts in response to what someone else said and then later on the poster wishes he hadnt posted it because it wasnt fully thought out. So please get all your thoughts organized and then post it here...

Thanks for taking your time to read this and hopefully you will understand what i am trying to convay.

Yan Wang

29-06-2004, 23:01

I know this may sound really stupid but... Can anyone tell me any abuse because of the Patriot act? Everyone always complains about it yet no one has cited one occurance in which it's happened.

I went to the first Canadian Regional in 2002. The border guy told me to renew my green card as it was a couple weeks outta date. OK. So when I get back I go to Syracuse's INS office and I fill out the paperwork and whatnot. Last year, I lacked a green card and before going to Canada and the Naval Academy in Annapolis for those regionals, I had to go back to Syracuse, fill out more paperwork, and then get a stamp in my passport saying my real green card was being renewed. Then this year, I, of course, had to get that stamp AGAIN before going to the Canadian Regional. And now, roughly 40 days before leaving for a trip to China, I must go again to Syracuse tomorrow to get that freakin' stamp. IT'S BEEN TWO AND A HALF YEARS. In the words of one wiser than me, THROW ME A FRICKIN BONE! Maybe it's not the Patriot Act, but you should understand what I mean - everything has gotten so much more inefficient than it needs to in the name of security. And I don't feel any less or more secure right now than before 9/11. And if that's the case, why should I approve of government legislation that allows for the violation of people's rights (regardless of which ones I don't have or have)?

Bill Gold

29-06-2004, 23:47

Following Andy’s lead, here’s my background and here are my beliefs.

I grew up in a household where my parents co-owned (and still do) a law firm that specializes in consumer bankruptcy law. They represent debtors who have fallen behind on car payments, house/apartment payments, have overdue taxes, and many other forms of debt. Every since I began to reason my parents have told me about some of the clients they represent (not the names, just the unfortunate circumstances they have to deal with). Thanks to these stories I’ve felt extremely empathetic and sympathetic towards people who aren’t as fortunate as I have been. It’s always gut wrenching to hear about their latest client who has the screws tightened on them by one creditor or another, especially when it’s a case of predatory lending on the creditor’s part. I am a firm believer in both second chances, and of doing whatever I can to make homeless peoples’ day a little better. Those who know me know that I buy meals for homeless people I see, or even give them $10-20 if I don’t have the time to buy them food. I don’t care if they buy alcohol or drugs with the cash. Whatever gets them through another day, and makes them temporarily feel better than they normally do.

I have no religious affiliation, and believe that I have no right to tell someone else what they should or shouldn’t do with their own body. That’s some of my reasoning for being pro-choice.

Like Andy I strive to be self-reliant. I have major issues with asking other people to do me favors, as a few on these boards can attest to. I don’t use or own credit cards. I’ve heard too many horror stories from my parents about them, but in addition to those I just don’t believe in credit. It makes my life a little tougher, but I’m glad I don’t pay APR.

I’ve got to get to bed soon, but I’ll post this now so that Andy doesn’t think I’m standing him up :P. I’ll post again or edit this one with more information later.

Andy Baker

29-06-2004, 23:59

I’ve got to get to bed soon, but I’ll post this now so that Andy doesn’t think I’m standing him up :P. I’ll post again or edit this one with more information later.

Thanks, Bill.

As you can see from what Bill writes and what I write, we are somewhat opposite in our politcal affiliations. However, at the same time, we are friends. We AIM each other often and we actually care about what each other are doing. I know that sounds amazing, how a liberal and a right-winger can be friends, but it is true.

What is the old line from Oklahoma (it's a musical, for you culture-deprived people)....?

"Oh, the farmer and the cowhand can be friends, la la la..."

Andy B.

MattK

30-06-2004, 09:13

Mr. Andy Baker That’s great to point out. I lean pretty far to the left yet I have many friends that have the exact opposite view. I think the core of politics is a lot like the core of FIRST- it all comes down to people, and I think this is important to remember.

Joshua May

30-06-2004, 10:52

I have to agree with the posts of Andy Baker and MattK. I myself have many friends who are conservative, but I'm not going to leave them just because of their political affiliation. In fact, it makes it even more interesting because we will have the occasional political debate which really just adds onto the friendship.

tiffany34990

30-06-2004, 11:13

haa haa-- a lovely poll on this subject matter-- if i could vote and i wish i could but i can't-- but to those who are voting-- good luck with choosing u'r vote-- just make sure that u do go out and vote

enjoy!!

(hopefully this time florida will get it right now ;) wasn't my fault last time)

Justin

30-06-2004, 11:45

I'm going to divide this post into two pieces. First off I have to reply to Mr. Andy Baker. I can see that he is a conservative. However I think we should all question whether Bush is a conservative in the true what republicans are supposed to stand for sense, which seems to be the view Mr. Baker shares. What have republicans typically stood for? Small government, less government intervention in peoples lives, and fiscal conservativeness.

Okay 1) Small Government - Mr. Baker says that he is for small government and so he will vote for President Bush. However President Bush's administration and congress is responsible for creating the largest government bureaucracy EVER, the Homeland Security Department.

2) Less government intervention in people's lives - The patriot act. Here is a law that allows the government to look into the lives of average Americans, you or eye, in ways we never dreamed would be possible. They can wiretap my internet connection and phone, search my home (without my knowledge), and obtain a list of the library books I read. All of this mind you can be done without and judicial oversight through a http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13246&c=206 ("National Security Letter." Essentially the FBI drafts up one of these letters and away they go.

3) Fiscally Conservative - The national deficit has skyrocketed under Bush. When Clinton left office the government was projecting surpluses!! Now we are looking at the largest federal deficit in American history. Even the GAO is raising red flags. So much more fiscal conservatives.

I would suggest that the republican part has abandoned their traditional platform and morphed into something new and frankly alarming. Deficit spending is good, spying on Americans is good, and more bureaucracy is good. These doesn't sound like the type of republicans that Mr. Baker seems to be longing form.

Justin

30-06-2004, 11:46

Now for why I think that John Kerry is the best, most “FIRST Friendly” candidate. From the outset of his candidacy John Kerry has made his views on the importance of science and technology in driving American forward very clear. Just recently he was endorsed by 48 past winners of the Nobel Prize. Many here are interested in perusing a career in science perhaps even the medical or biotechnology fields. If George Bush stays president the few remaining stem cell lines in this country might not be of any use at all by the time you arrive on the job. John Kerry has endorsed stem cell research and recognizes it for what it is one of new frontiers of sciences which American should be at the forefront of. In addition his call for energy independence will also serve as a catalyst for hundreds of thousands of new jobs. America has a great history of engineering our way out of products and the energy crisis that we face in this country should be no different. In addition American cannot continue to be the leader in science and technology with out a work force that is also the best on the planet and John Kerry’s plans on education and getting more people to college are equally bold and aggressive. We need a president who is willing to challenge the status quo, not be content with it. I firmly believe that John Kerry is that president.

I consider myself a democrat because I find it unacceptable that we are the richest most prosperous nation in the world but still have a sub-par education system, 1000s of children who do not get the chance at college, and hundreds of thousands of people who starve in the streets at night…in the richest most powerful country on the planet this is unacceptable. We have the means and frankly the obligation to help lift people up if you are well off and prosperous that’s great and you earned it but it is wrong for you to earn it on the backs of those who are not as fortunate.

Andy Baker

30-06-2004, 12:07

JoeXIII'007

30-06-2004, 14:18

Now for why I think that John Kerry is the best, most "FIRST Friendly" candidate. From the outset of his candidacy John Kerry has made his views on the importance of science and technology in driving American forward very clear.

I so agree. Yesterday he spoke somewhere about the decrease of interest in Math and Science (probably including technology), how it decreases from lets say grade 4 to grade 8 between men and women, and apparently he has a strategy to spark that interest back up. Unfortunately, he didn't mention FIRST, he did mention small programs though. Anyone interested in telling him about us? I'm thinking about it. Maybe we can get an endorsement from him. :cool:

Joe Matt

30-06-2004, 16:36

Justin,

You hit the nail on the head. I am not happy with Bush and the above things that you have pointed out. What ever happened to worrying about our deficit? sheesh! You forgot to mention the prescription drug bill that gives cheaper drugs to even the wealthy seasoned citizens.

The big question is "what would Gore have done?" My guess is that the economy would have been even worse, since Bush gave it a kick start with our tax credits for families (my liberal brother called it a bribe for Bush's vote - heh).

I am in a quandry about who to vote for. Most likely, I will vote for Bush, but I would like to have a new candidate. Last time I felt this way, it was 1992 and our choices were Bush, Clinton, and Perot. I voted for Perot. Heck, he got 20% in Indiana that year.

Andy B.

Vote Nader. Just as long as it isn't Bush. I really liked McCain a lot and thought he could be the next great leader, but look who we got instead.

Thanks, Bill.

As you can see from what Bill writes and what I write, we are somewhat opposite in our politcal affiliations. However, at the same time, we are friends. We AIM each other often and we actually care about what each other are doing. I know that sounds amazing, how a liberal and a right-winger can be friends, but it is true.

What is the old line from Oklahoma (it's a musical, for you culture-deprived people)....?

"Oh, the farmer and the cowhand can be friends, la la la..."

Andy B.
I think it's a common misconception that liberals and conservatives can't get along. Mr. Ivey is uber conservative, and I'm uber liberal. We are great friends. Also, if there is anything I said here to make you think that I can't be friends with conservatives, I'm sorry Andy. I seperate politics and friendship. I can see someone's personality and be friends with them, even if I can't see how they can support planks a, b, & c.

Aaron Knight

30-06-2004, 17:07

Vote Nader. Just as long as it isn't Bush. I really liked McCain a lot and thought he could be the next great leader, but look who we got instead.

In many states, it may be difficult to vote Nader. I read recently that he did not receive the Green Party's support, so will only appear on 7 states' Reform Party ballots. (Someone please correct me if I am mistaken)

MattK

30-06-2004, 17:25

In many states, it may be difficult to vote Nader. I read recently that he did not receive the Green Party's support, so will only appear on 7 states' Reform Party ballots. (Someone please correct me if I am mistaken)

Just write him in

David Kelly

30-06-2004, 19:19

Just write him in

Nader failed to gain the 30,000 signatures for his petition to make the Indiana ballot so I wont be seeing his name when I vote in November. :]

MattK

30-06-2004, 22:40

Nader failed to gain the 30,000 signatures for his petition to make the Indiana ballot so I wont be seeing his name when I vote in November. :]

I do not see why you can not just write in the name "Ralph Nadar" or "Mickey Mouse" or "Dean Kamen" or "Steve Jobs" or "David Kelly". You can write in any name you want

Yan Wang

30-06-2004, 22:45

I do not see why you can not just write in the name "Ralph Nadar" or "Mickey Mouse" or "Dean Kamen" or "Steve Jobs" or "David Kelly". You can write in any name you want

WRITE "DAVE BARRY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joshua May

01-07-2004, 11:07

WRITE "DAVE BARRY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, if anyone, write in Dave Barry! That man is funny.

Aaron Knight

01-07-2004, 11:23

WRITE "DAVE BARRY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like his flat rate tax proposal :)

Jack Jones

22-08-2004, 17:51

Bush

1. There is nothing wrong with our economy – except in the eyes of those who traditionally add nothing to it.

2. Right now there are an estimated 5,000 insurgents who've crawled out from under their rocks and are raising hell in Iraq. I wonder where they'd be raising hell were it not for GWB. I am sure that, unless we adopt the French-ativities, they will run out of bad guys way before we run out of bullets.

3. UBL is either dead or hiding in a cave, as are tens of thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, Afghan women are allowed an education. Afghans are about to vote. Libya has admitted to their WMD’s. Iran is blowing smoke. Etc. and ect.

4. Eleven years (1776 - 1787) passed between our Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Constitution. Today, we have Kerry-ites complaining about some kind of quagmire.

5. Kerry’s mentor/fellow_Taxsachusetts_Senator/supporter, who drove his secretary off a Chappaquidick bridge and (opinion) left her there to drown while his toadies planned the cover-up (/opinion), has the gall to question the President’s character.

6. When the Vietnam vets returned, they were spit upon by the ignorant at the airports and by Kerry in the Senate.

7. I was in high school when JFK got us into Vietnam. I was in a barracks in Gulfport, Mississippi when LBJ appeared on TV and bailed on us. I was in my living room last month as Kerry “appeared for duty”, but ran away from his record in the Senate. So, I’ve seen the Democrats show up, and then I’ve seen them run away.

8. Who would Osama vote for?

Adam Y.

22-08-2004, 19:06

2) Less government intervention in people's lives - The patriot act. Here is a law that allows the government to look into the lives of average Americans, you or eye, in ways we never dreamed would be possible. They can wiretap my internet connection and phone, search my home (without my knowledge), and obtain a list of the library books I read. All of this mind you can be done without and judicial oversight through a "National Security Letter." Essentially the FBI drafts up one of these letters and away they go.
That I don't mind since there are books out there that actually contain plans for really really really nasty weapons.went to the first Canadian Regional in 2002. The border guy told me to renew my green card as it was a couple weeks outta date. OK. So when I get back I go to Syracuse's INS office and I fill out the paperwork and whatnot. Last year, I lacked a green card and before going to Canada and the Naval Academy in Annapolis for those regionals, I had to go back to Syracuse, fill out more paperwork, and then get a stamp in my passport saying my real green card was being renewed. Then this year, I, of course, had to get that[QUOTE] stamp AGAIN before going to the Canadian Regional. And now, roughly 40 days before leaving for a trip to China, I must go again to Syracuse tomorrow to get that freakin' stamp. IT'S BEEN TWO AND A HALF YEARS. In the words of one wiser than me, THROW ME A FRICKIN BONE! Maybe it's not the Patriot Act, but you should understand what I mean - everything has gotten so much more inefficient than it needs to in the name of security. And I don't feel any less or more secure right now than before 9/11. And if that's the case, why should I approve of government legislation that allows for the violation of people's rights (regardless of which ones I don't have or have)?
Actually that's just beuracracy.If George Bush stays president the few remaining stem cell lines in this country might not be of any use at all by the time you arrive on the job.
This is leaning towards the spin side. George Bush just banned government funding for stem cell research. Anyone could develop the new stem cell lines if they wanted too.In addition his call for energy independence will also serve as a catalyst for hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
Ummm.... George Bush did the same thing with hydrogen fuel. There was an awful lot of funding of research under his adminestration.

Eugenia Gabrielov

22-08-2004, 20:00

As an individual who is too young to vote, and also not horridly experienced with politics and whatnot, I'm afraid at this point in the thread after hearing arguments I'm not feeling comfortable stating too many because I feel they will result in mere rebuttals without much consequence.

The only consideration I'd like to state is a support on the "Republicanism that individuals such as Mr. Baker don't support", as well as upbringing and why I believe how I do.

I was brought up essentially European standard left, due to living in Italy for the 2 main early educational years of my life, and many of my friends currently reside in Europe. My chief concern is the name that America has made for itself, related or unrelated to the Bush / Kerry administrations.

I support whichever candidate has the gumption to look at America from an objective eye and understand that the rest of the world does NOT see us as heroes on the forefront of technology and progressivism. An individual could place themselves on the republican ballot and have more liberal values than the democrat ballot.

Many individuals I know can be quoted to say that American school systems are despicable. My friend Elizabeth and her husband moved back to Ireland with her husband after having children for fear of bringing them up in American school systems. Elizabeth and her husband are also very conservative as far as some views go (pro-life, anti stem-cell research due to cloning issue, anti homosexuality, among other things).

Am I ignorant for honestly not caring where your budget lies? Everyone is too busy worrying about their own credit, deficit, appearance and upbringing to consider the same factors for those who may not even have the opportunity to vote because they can't afford transporation to the nearest legal office. If I supported George W Bush's policies, I would vote for him whether or not he was conservative or liberal. At the given moment I don't, and that's enough information.

I don't mean to anger anyone, but to me politics are about personal beliefs, and it's painful to see any minority on these forums, whether conservative or liberal, be bashed just because of differing opinions.

Thank you for reading.
Eugenia

Joshua May

22-08-2004, 20:26

1. There is nothing wrong with our economy – except in the eyes of those who traditionally add nothing to it.

Massive debt, many areas ravaged by unemployment, sounds like economic problems to me.

2. Right now there are an estimated 5,000 insurgents who've crawled out from under their rocks and are raising hell in Iraq. I wonder where they'd be raising hell were it not for GWB. I am sure that, unless we adopt the French-ativities, they will run out of bad guys way before we run out of bullets.

If not for Bush's invasion, they'd be living in Iraq, not shooting at Americans, who wouldn't be there. A vast majority are only "raising hell" because of the occupation. We're already low on bullets, and you will never run out of "bad guys". Terrorism is a tactic and an idea, and cannot be overtly destroyed, especially not by force.

4. Eleven years (1776 - 1787) passed between our Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Constitution. Today, we have Kerry-ites complaining about some kind of quagmire.

That was also before the Industrial and Information Revolutions. Things move much faster now. I know that things can't be done overnight, but you also have to understand that American's fought their own revolution. Were an Islamic country to invade America to relieve us of the Bush Regime, I'm sure there would be a mass insurgency and there would be a quagmire. You have to look at the times and the culture before relating things.

5. Kerry’s mentor/fellow_Taxsachusetts_Senator/supporter, who drove his secretary off a Chappaquidick bridge and (opinion) left her there to drown while his toadies planned the cover-up (/opinion), has the gall to gall to question the President’s character.

Yes, Teddy Kennedy has made grave mistakes in his past, as have Bush and his "toadies."

6. When the Vietnam vets returned, they were spit upon by the ignorant at the airports and by Kerry in the Senate.

Kerry did his duty to his country by reporting atrocities that happened during Vietnam. It is not his fault if people took his testimony ignorantly, but he was in fact supported by many, many vets against the war. Because he favors peace over war certainly does not make him a bad person, in fact, it makes him better that many.

7. I was in high school when JFK got us into Vietnam. I was in a barracks in Gulfport, Mississippi when LBJ appeared on TV and bailed on us. I was in my living room last month as Kerry “appeared for duty”, but ran away from his record in the Senate. So, I’ve seen the Democrats show up, and then I’ve seen them run away.

What parts of his record are you referring to?

8. Who would Osama vote for?

Osama hates all Americans. He wants all of America to leave the Middle East. I believe you are under the assumption that Osama would vote for Kerry, and even if so, does that make Kerry a bad man? Does that make Kerry unfit for the presidency?

EddieMcD

22-08-2004, 21:42

::enters thread::

Let me start by saying I have not read much in this thread beyond a couple replys. Let me also say that this will be my first election in which I can vote (insert obligatory "w00t!" here). And I had my decision nailed down between Bush and (what was most likely to be) Kerry the moment I turned 18 last October. Answer's simple: neither. I'll be voting for an Independent (although not sure which).

Gotta get to my reaons here. Reasons I'm not voting for Bush: Patriot Act (which so viloates the 4th ammendment), invading Iraq (say, where are those weapons of mass destruction?), destroying the budget (whatever happenend to that surplus?), the anti-gay wedding ammendment fiasco (I don't agree with that style of living, but they shouldn't be punished for living in the way they choose), and him destroying the space program (everybody who's taken basic science knows that you can't build a self-sustaining moon base. Now a self-sustaining Mars base...). My main beef with Kerry is that he's switched his position so many times. There are other things (including increasing gas prices, and the fact that other than his campaign, he hasn't been doing much of anything lately), but I won't go into too much detail. Essentially, Kerry is evil, just not as much.

Now, given only those two choices, I'd take Kerry, only because he is that lesser of two evils. My point in this argument though is that is not the case. I can vote independent. Granted, Kerry will most likely win Rhode Island (we haven't voted Republican since Carter). And let's face it, one vote means nothing. It's the voice behind that vote that counts. That's the whole point of this thread. I'd suggest using it a lot if you want any actual change.

Summing up: Independents are always an option, all polititians are evil, and VOTE no matter what.

Keep flying,
-Eddie

::exits thread::

Matt Attallah

22-08-2004, 22:47

I will be taking part in my first election being able to vote.

I shall be voting for Bush. I agree with what he has done thus far and do not blame him for the way the economy is. If you watch - when Clinton got out the economy was starting to go down...

Bush will have my vote. Also - I am arab-american and I do stand by Bush 100% for what he has done in Iraq. Saddam and his sons where evil men.

Ryan Dognaux

22-08-2004, 23:25

him destroying the space program (everybody who's taken basic science knows that you can't build a self-sustaining moon base)

Sorry Eddie but I think that's definately beyond "basic science."

The Columbia tragedy has hindered the space program more than anything during Bush's presidency. Notice the world hindered - the space program is not "destroyed" nor do I think it will be for quite some time.

:]

Jack Jones

23-08-2004, 08:30

Massive debt, many areas ravaged by unemployment, sounds like economic problems to me.?

The National debt under Clinton rose from ~32T dollars to ~58T dollars, almost doubled. The deficit spending did end in his final year or so, but that contributed to a spike of 4T under Bush because essential spending had been gutted. The aftermath of nine-eleven accounts for much of the rest.

The U.S. unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent, lower than the average during the 1990s. Growth is a robust 4 percent; inflation is low (partly because trade depresses prices). The Manufacturing Index is at its highest level since 1983.

Kerry claims he’ll reward corporations who keep jobs here, or return them from overseas. His family should get in line first for that bonus; H.J. Heinz Co. operates 22 factories in the United States and 57 in foreign countries.

Research estimates are that outsourced jobs will rise to 600,000 by 2005 -- out of a total of 140 million. Most all of those jobs are the ones that Americans find “dead end”. The companies save money, which they use to create more of the kinds of jobs that Americans will lower themselves to work.

Back to deficit spending: If the Democrats get their European style national health care, then you ain’t seen nothing yet! And, as educated persons with the high-end jobs, they won’t care much to stand in line behind the crack heads. The Republicanism of tort reform is the only logical solution (sorry Jeffery Figer, etal) to our health care dilemma. My wife has worked at a hospital for over 30 years, and has never seen them turn anyone away. No, they don’t have right to get in first-come-first served, but they do get in.

As for the rest: If someone thinks we can negotiate with terrorists, then they can do so at their front door. If they think the Europeans will assist us without exacting way more than a pound of economic flesh, then they have no sense of history. If they think the Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, and Afghans who poured over the borders to disrupt the democratization of Iraq would otherwise be asleep in their comfy little beds, then I remind them of the 19 who were in sleeper cells until they day they went to Paradise.

Osama hates all Americans. He wants all of America to leave the Middle East. I believe you are under the assumption that Osama would vote for Kerry, and even if so, does that make Kerry a bad man? Does that make Kerry unfit for the presidency.

On the contrary, I believe that Osama would vote for Bush - because Osama wants a fight. I believe he should get that fight, because his ultimate goal is not for us to leave the Middle East, but to leave the planet.

We could leave the Middle East - sit back and watch them tear themselves to pieces - where Osama goes, Muslims die. Then, with but one tribe left standing, we could settle it for once and for all. But that would mean the death of Islam, or the death all the other faiths. I'd rather see us attack the cancer than erradicate the afflicted.

Joe Matt

23-08-2004, 14:54

20 Reasons Why Bush Is Bad:

By 'Rock Against Bush' Alblum...

1.) He refused to buy adequate body armor for our troops in Iraq. A study done by a defense consultant reveals that approximately 25% of casualties could have been prevented with better armor.

2.) Responsible for the highest US trade deficit EVER: $43.1 billion dollars.

3.) Bush Jr. gave his campaign contributors and strongest supporters $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel, Kellogg, Brown & Root, etc. Numerous scandals have been uncovered regarding these "friendly" contractors who are ripping off US tax-payers by overcharging for their services.

4.) Bush campaign shirts were made in Burma under sweatshop conditions. Interestingly enough, in 2003 Bush Jr. signed legislation banning products from Burma effective September 1st, 2003.

5.) He approved the sale of $20 million dollars worth of shackles, electro-shock technology, and other torture devices to countries that have been CONDEMNED FOR TORTURE.

6.) College tuition has increased 28% during the Bush Jr. administration.

7.) The Bush Jr. administration was told by over 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, that they are "Deliberately and systematically distorting facts- in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research, and nuclear weaponry at home and aborad."

8.) He proposed a budget that would slash 40% of the funding for after-school programs. No child left behnind? THis decrease would cut off about 475,000 children.

9.) Bush Jr. authorized the use of cluster bombs and "Daisy Cutters" (the world's biggest non-nuclear bomb) in populated areas of Iraq. These have contributed to the deaths of OVER 10,000 innocent civilians, more than three times the number of casualties suffered in the tragic 9/11 attacks.
NOTE: No Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

10.) Richard Clarke (Chief Anti-Terrorism Advisor) and Paul O'Neilll (US Treasury Secretary) both testified that Bush Jr. was intent on invading Iraq within the first few days of his Presidency. Clarke claims that Bush Jr. ignored his warnings about an imminent al Qaeda attack. On September 12th, Bush Jr. instructed his staff to find a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, and despite no connection ever being discovered (and against CIA's recomendation), he still chose to invade Iraq.
NOTE: This has been confirmed by the 9/11 Commission.

11.) Although he still claims that fighting terrorism is his main priority, Bush Jr. slashed the FBI's requested counterterrorism budget by two-thirds.

12.) Bush Jr. has made it clear that in his next term he plans to appoint Supremem Court Judges who are against a woman's right to choose, and would effectively outlaw abortion on a NATIONAL level.

13.) Bush Jr. still has yet to attend a soldier's funeral and continues to steer the American public away from knowing about the casualties. He has done even less to acknowledge the over 18,000 troops that have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

14.) His administration illegally produced fake pro-Bush "news" spots for the Department of Health and Human Services. They went as far as to include phony journalists who praise Dubya's controversial Medicare Bill and they added a fake crowd to cheer the whole thing on.

15.) In an effort to give the appearane that Bush Jr. was creating more jobs, his administration tried to reclassify fast food emplyment as manufacturing jobs. These minimum wage jobs are nothing like real manufacturing jobs that provide benefits and pay $15/hour.

16.) His administration proposed the highest penalties in the world for indecent violations on our public airwaves. Up to $500,000 for saying something the FCC (which the public dosn't elect to office) deems offensive.

17.) He is a religious fanatic that belives in the apocalypes and that ONLY Evangelical Christians are eligible for the afterlife. Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone that isn't in the Bush's flock are all doomed to Hell.

18.) The Treasury Department under the Bush Jr. assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as they did to track the financial resources of both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

19.) Right before Christmas Bush Jr. cut overtime pay for over 644,000 employees who work over 40 ours a week.

20.) Against Colin Powell's advice, Bush Jr. chose not to recognize Afghanistan's statehood, therefor making it's people not protected by International Law and vulnerable to human rights abuses and torture. Up until that decision by Bush Jr., the US Military could boast a proud history of upholding the humane laws of the Geneva Convention.

Spread the news....

Joshua May

23-08-2004, 16:31

10.) Richard Clarke (Chief Anti-Terrorism Advisor) and Paul O'Neilll (US Treasury Secretary) both testified that Bush Jr. was intent on invading Iraq within the first few days of his Presidency...
NOTE: This has been confirmed by the 9/11 Commission.

Just to add to this point, a "thinktank" was formed before Bush went into office with the goals of creating plans and strategies to invade Iraq. This thinktank included Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Bush and his administration was intent on invading Iraq well before 9/11, and used 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse.

Jack Jones

24-08-2004, 02:22

20 Reasons Why Bush Is Bad:

By 'Rock Against Bush' Alblum...

Your distinguished panel of experts. (http://www.nofx.org/)

Wow, 20 reasons.
I thought they had it covered with "Idiot Son of an (expletive deleted)"

Jack Jones

24-08-2004, 03:04

Just to add to this point, a "thinktank" was formed before Bush went into office with the goals of creating plans and strategies to invade Iraq. This thinktank included Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Bush and his administration was intent on invading Iraq well before 9/11, and used 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse.

Think tanks don't make plans, they entertain contingencies. Nice conspiracy theory though. OMG, maybe they'll get hold of this thread and entertain the thought that FIRST has become subversive.

Joe Matt

24-08-2004, 13:57

Your distinguished panel of experts. (http://www.nofx.org/)

Wow, 20 reasons.
I thought they had it covered with "Idiot Son of an (expletive deleted)"
Well, I only have the second alblum, so it's 20. There is a whole 40 more on the first one.

Matt Attallah

24-08-2004, 14:21

Hey now - this is getting a little ugly here...

Lets get this back on track ASAP before it's locked...

:)

RudimentaryPeni

24-08-2004, 14:34

Neither Kerry nor Bush, Ralph Nadar is the real ticket this year. He is not greedy, he cares about what happens to not only this country, but what happens to the whole world. Not just the people in the world, but the physical world itself. He is going to enforce such laws that will limit large corporations that pollute the environment and that will limit the green house effect that has plagued the world, and it's only getting worse. Find all of his views at Vote Nadar (http://www.votenader.org)

Ryan Dognaux

24-08-2004, 16:09

Well, I only have the second alblum, so it's 20. There is a whole 40 more on the first one.

I find is hillarious that people base their views around a punk rock band, and a bad one at that.

Joshua May

24-08-2004, 16:15

I find is hillarious that people base their views around a punk rock band, and a bad one at that.

Actually, there are many bands, including Bruce Springstein and the Dixie Chicks. And I really don't think that JosephM's political views are centralized around his musical tastes, but maybe it is the other way around.

Ryan Dognaux

24-08-2004, 16:25

Actually, there are many bands, including Bruce Springstein and the Dixie Chicks. And I really don't think that JosephM's political views are centralized around his musical tastes, but maybe it is the other way around.

I wasn't specifying Joseph. I was more surprised that NOFX bashes so much, and you know there are people out there basing their views entirely around their music.

Whatever happened to that good ole' Rock N' Roll? :]

Eugenia Gabrielov

24-08-2004, 17:43

In light of what is said, whatever happened to good ol' be civil when you talk to other people on Chief?

This whole "ugh! he's basing his political views on a punk band!" thing is a waste. The guy can post what he want, and as far as I could tell, he didn't sit there intending to insult anyone.

As Matt said very eloquently, maybe get it back on track...

Edit: Just to clarify, this post wasn't directed at insulting Ryan, which he seemed to gain the misconception of. I apologize for using his post as an example. This is general disgust of the whole fact that one little unique idea can throw everyone off about discussing rock bands instead of politics. Thank you.

Joe Matt

24-08-2004, 17:47

The Story of The 20 & Me
by Joseph Matt

It all started two weeks ago when my friend and I were shopping around for CDs. We looked and round and he showed me the Rock Against Bush alblum. I thought it was hilarious, and we listened to it on the way home. It was a good CD with bands like Green Day and Flogging Molly.

I latter decided to buy the CD on my own and found the 20 list, so I decided to share it with you guys here. The 20 list was just in the booklet, I didn't know it was aphiliated with a bad already (NOFX) and I've never heard (both name and music) of theme before.

I bought the CD because of my views and like it. It's foolish when a CD with a 20 list forms your platform. It's how you are raised and your experences that form who you are.

Anyway, that's my .20 on that issue.

Meredith Rice

24-08-2004, 20:45

Incubus - Make Yourself

(how's that for on track ;) )

Brandon Martus

24-08-2004, 23:00

As much as I dislike this thread, I figured I would supply the 40 other reasons..

http://www.pubarso.com/misc/rockagainstbush/scan0004.jpg
http://www.pubarso.com/misc/rockagainstbush/scan0007.jpg

Joe Matt

25-08-2004, 13:39

As much as I dislike this thread, I figured I would supply the 40 other reasons..

http://www.pubarso.com/misc/rockagainstbush/scan0004.jpg
http://www.pubarso.com/misc/rockagainstbush/scan0007.jpg
Thanks for the links Brandon. Like #13.

Adam Y.

25-08-2004, 22:01

He is going to enforce such laws that will limit large corporations that pollute the environment and that will limit the green house effect that has plagued the world, and it's only getting worse. Find all of his views at Vote Nadar
Global warming is such an interesting topic to discuss. I've read two completely contradicting things about whats going to happen because of global warming. It's either going to get really cold or really hot. 17.) He is a religious fanatic that belives in the apocalypes and that ONLY Evangelical Christians are eligible for the afterlife. Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone that isn't in the Bush's flock are all doomed to Hell.
Hehehehheheh.... This is both very scary and both very funny. Im not even sure how they managed to find evidence of that.and him destroying the space program (everybody who's taken basic science knows that you can't build a self-sustaining moon base. Now a self-sustaining Mars base...).
It's possible. Im not really sure why it wouldn't be from a scientific standpoint. Almost 10 pages of posts and all that's been said can be summed up in this song:
Kerry and Bush Singing. (http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp)Originally Posted by Brandon Martus
As much as I dislike this thread, I figured I would supply the 40 other reasons..

http://www.pubarso.com/misc/rockaga...sh/scan0004.jpg
http://www.pubarso.com/misc/rockaga...sh/scan0007.jpg
Again with the first president to enter with a criminal record deal. That's not right!!! Everyone knows Andrew Jackson was an avid pistol dueler and Washinton was wanted for treason. The tax issue is really a funky issu. I read an article in scientific america that says the income taxes do fufil their original purpose. The only problem is that state taxes are so regressive that it cances out the effect of the income taxes.