Kerry or Bush and why?

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Justin

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."[/url] 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,

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.

[EddieMcD]

::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]

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]

Originally Posted by EddieMcD

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.