If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Yes I know that many of us are either under the legal voting age in the United States or don't even live in the United Sates, but I wanted to conduct an informal survey just the same.

So the obvious question is if the election were held tomorrow (and you could vote in it) who would you vote for and why? Or why wouldn't you vote for the other person? If you really want to you can try to persuade others to vote for your choice by telling them why they should vote for one person and not the other.

One quick thing before I give my reasoning and my candidate this is not a post for Bush or Kerry bashing. Right now those two are doing an excellent job on their own and neither of them need the help of some anime fans. So if you give your reasoning on why you wouldn't vote for the other guy, be mature about it.

Obviously right now I'd still vote for Kerry-mostly because he's not Bush. He's been much more honest in the long run than Bush has so I'd give him a chance. Because everyone deserves a chance and Bush already got his.

The reason I wouldn't vote for Bush is because he's basically taken my husband away from me for a period of time. Because of him many children have lost parents either temporarily or [b][i]permanently[/i][/b] also many parents have lost children, and for what? So we can protect a country that doesn't want us there anymore?

His No child left behind act would be a joke if it wasn't so damn unfunny and don't even get me started on the tax cuts which only help people making over $90K a year (definitely not me) or his Partial Birth Abortion Ban law. (Which coincidentally in wording can ban abortion on a woman who has only been pregnant for six weeks.)

Well, now I've spoke my piece, I welcome everyone else to do the same.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Do I really need to reply to this, or can we just assume that my opinions are pretty much the same they've been in every single Bush V. Kerry that we seem to have every month?

BTW, CHW, if you consider your husband serving the military in the way he agreed to "taking him away", then you really don't know the first thing about military service.[/color][/size][/font]

[Corey]

[size=1]Chibi, your husband, like every other person [i][b]JOINED[/b][/i] whatever branch he's serving in. If Gore would have been president and he had gone to war/aided in cleanup efforts, your husband probably would have been going then too.

A lot of the Iraqis do want us there. And I absolutely do not approve of leaving them in this still semi-broken state of affairs.
I do agree with you on the Partial Birth Abortion and tax issues, but I'm sorry to say I belive your other arguments are flawed.

I'm not much for judging candidates on any of their campainging or their mudslinging commercials. I've always been for the democrats because of their being more liberal. Republicans are a little uptight for me.

The one thing about Bush is he allowed the Homeland Security acts to be implemented. They undermind basic rights outlined by the constitution in the guise of national safety. It is wrong.
I also have a personal thing abot people unable to speak properly in public whose job it is to publically speak, but that's personal.

By the way Chibi, Nader lost his parties nomination. He's not running.[/size]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, quick off the topic question. Can everyone else please leave my husband out of their posts? Yes I know he joined willingly. So did my neighbor's son-in-law who's over there for 18 months because he's with teh National Guard and his unit keeps getting shot at on a regular basis. I was just siting an example I know I can't really controll what people type, but can I just ask for that?

On topic, I forgot that Nadar didn't get the support or whatever, I thought it was just like every other independant party candidate, you won't hear about the person until November then they dissapear into the woodwork for another four years. Kind of like Perot.

I don't really have a certain party that I like I just go by who seems like they'd mess up less and since I've seen Bush in action I think I'd rather have Kerry. Heck in the next election I might vote for McCain. He actually seems like he has a brain even if he is republican.

Did anyone catch Cheney's speech at the RNC a few nights ago where he ragged on Kerry's military career? Maybe someone should remind the guy who his running mate is.[/color]

[Toneh]

Although we don't live in the same country i share you opinion 100% ChibiHorsewoman, bush had his chance and imo the next one may come and give it a shot.Also the other things what you say are true about the fathers who wouldn't be returning home , ...

although i'm not sure if i'm able to discuss this properatly by lack of information of certain things... :confused:

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Okay, quick off the topic question. Can everyone else please leave my husband out of their posts?[/color][/quote]

[color=crimson]Er, nothing personal but you sort of brought that upon yourself..
---

I'd vote for Badnarik. He's the Libertarian party's candidate. How did I come to this decision? Well, I looked at all of the candidates positions on a myriad of issues[as many as they had talked about] and found this man's opinions to be quite similar to my own. Simple as that. He will, of course, not be elected. Heh.

Uh, on an offnote I find the sudden relevance of past military service to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I don't really care if someone served in Vietnam or the number of medals they got. Your military record shouldn't be THAT big of an issue- yes, I can see how it would be relevant if you were in a command position, but this is simply being blown way out of proportion.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Okay, quick off the topic question. Can everyone else please leave my husband out of their posts?[/color][/quote]
Huh?

Who started the thread? I'm hazy right now, and somewhat mildly depressed, so I'm not thinking clearly...*goes to check*

[quote name='CHW][color=#9400d3]The reason I wouldn't vote for Bush is because he's basically taken my husband away from me for a period of time.[/color'][color=black][/quote][/color]

Now...ah. Er. Hrm. Didn't you...didn't you bring up your husband to begin with? Am I missing something here? Did some post escape me? Was there a post before the initial post (yours) in this thread? *scratches head*

Anyway...I'm more or less Democrat in this election. I saw Clinton and John Kerry speak on The Daily Show a while back and I was rather impressed, especially Kerry. He has a much clearer focus these days, and seems much more determined than when he originally declared his candidacy. Also, I can't see where people were basing "He's not charismatic" on...perhaps it's just me, but Kerry knew how to tell a joke, and entertain the audience.

[Corey]

[size=1]It's probably because when the light hits him right he looks like a walking corpse, Siren.
There's another topic. Neither of our candidates are especially attractive, and neither are their kids (the Bush daughters look like female carbon copys of their dad), but there has been a lot of focus on that.
The anti-Kerry ads always make him look gaunt and sickly, not that that's hard.
The anti-Bush ads always make him look kinda like a monkey, not that that's hard.
But there is still focus on it not matter how much people don't realize it.[/size]

[Queen Asuka]

[color=hotpink][size=1]I'm voting for Bush. No, he's not perfect, no one is, but this country needs a leader, not a friend. Kerry just irritates me.[/color][/size]

[Dagger]

I'd vote for Kerry as the lesser of two (well, three) evils. I don't like the man very much, but I like Bush and Nader even less. John Edwards isn't so bad.

Haha, Alex, I was also fairly impressed by Kerry's performance on The Daily Show. If nothing else, he proved that he a) has a sense of humor and b) isn't a total block of wood.

~Dagger~

[Guest Midnight Rush]

[QUOTE=Senator Zell Miller]

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism ? it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

[/QUOTE]

My views in a nutshell. You can guess my poll pick.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]If I was an American and I was eligible to vote by November I'd go for Kerry/Edwards. I'm normally a Conservative when it comes to politics and normally I would support the Republican Party but to be honest I trust Bush and his cabinet about as far as I can throw them.

For me the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction issue has been dubious at best, if they were there and they had been found Bush I'd give credit where credit is due but it's been over 400 days and we've seen nothing. Also I find it more than amusing that Bush decides that fighters captures in the war in Afghanistan don't qualify for rights under the Geneva conventions.

Though in saying that the political parties in Ireland are nothing to write home about considering we didn't know whether we supported or we against the Iraq War. Finally after the major combat was over we found out we were against it, that was after we allow American planes to refuel at Shannon.[/SIZE]

[Semjaza]

At this point, for me, it's not really who is better... but who do I like a slight bit more. I don't love Kerry. I don't love Bush. I might as well just make a check list and see who has the least amount of things I disagree with. At this point, it'd be Kerry.

For me, there's a lot of things going on right now that I just don't agree with. Firstly, stem cell research. A good portion of people close to me are diabetic and this is something I think should continue. I don't want to get into it, because I don't really care what others think of the issue.

Secondly is gay rights and women's rights. Obviously neither are very strong right now and aren't likely to improve.

Thirdly, Halliburton. The whole situation with Cheny and everyone involved in that is absolutely ridiculous. Someone benefitting financially from this war and happens to be the Vice President? Wow, what a coincidence.

Fourthly, Clear Channel and the RIAA. They are a monopoly verging on (and possibly surpassing) Microsoft. They won't be touched as they backed Bush. My love of music and the importance of radio obviously make this an issue for me.

Fiftly, the nomination of Christian judges to federal courts. Religion is a personal thing. I am concerned this will be used to apply Christian/Biblical ideas to our rights and freedoms, which is a massive problem. I have an issue with this whole Christian slant the government has taken lately... The Defense of Marriage Act, for one. All of it goes against what this country was made for.

Sixthly, the Patriot Act. If you know what this makes possible, I don't know how anyone could support it. The name is obviously just there to make people think it's "good" and keep it from being easily attacked.

Seventhly, the draft:

[quote]
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: [url]http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html[/url] to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

[url]http://www.informationclearinghouse...article5146.htm[/url]

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.[/quote]

No freaking thanks.

Then you have a war I don't personally agree with... the whole 9/11 debacle and supressing of the families involved... information on the attacks that has been suspiciously kept under wraps... the poorly planned 9/11 commission... how much money has actually gone into the war... social security issues... Bush's backtracking on whether or not this war on "terror" can even be won... the whole lame "axis of evil" ideal... etc etc etc.

Now will these things actually be better under Kerry? I'd like to be optimistic, but who really knows. All I know is that I don't like the way things are currently heading and if the same guy sticks around, obviously none of that will change.

In any case, whomever you like... just make sure you vote.

[Guest Midnight Rush]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]

For me, there's a lot of things going on right now that I just don't agree with. Firstly, stem cell research. A good portion of people close to me are diabetic and this is something I think should continue. I don't want to get into it, because I don't really care what others think of the issue.

Secondly is gay rights and women's rights. Obviously neither are very strong right now and aren't likely to improve.

Thirdly, Halliburton. The whole situation with Cheny and everyone involved in that is absolutely ridiculous. Someone benefitting financially from this war and happens to be the Vice President? Wow, what a coincidence.


Fiftly, the nomination of Christian judges to federal courts. Religion is a personal thing. I am concerned this will be used to apply Christian/Biblical ideas to our rights and freedoms, which is a massive problem. I have an issue with this whole Christian slant the government has taken lately... The Defense of Marriage Act, for one. All of it goes against what this country was made for.

Sixthly, the Patriot Act. If you know what this makes possible, I don't know how anyone could support it. The name is obviously just there to make people think it's "good" and keep it from being easily attacked.

Now will these things actually be better under Kerry? I'd like to be optimistic, but who really knows. All I know is that I don't like the way things are currently heading and if the same guy sticks around, obviously none of that will change.

In any case, whomever you like... just make sure you vote.[/QUOTE]

I edited out some of your post because I only will address these points. If you feel that the pieces I edited out are of relevence to the onse that remain, please inform me and I will edit my response accordingly.

1. Stem Cell Research.

This is a great thing. It could help a lot of people, solve a lot of nasty medical problems, and all of that. The results it could have are excellent. The jury in my mind is out on this one, because I'm not sure the end justifies the means. On this point we don't disagree, just that I'm more cautious about it.

2a. Gay Rights.

Its insulting to true minorities like African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, ect. to even use these terms. Sexual preference is not in the sphere of civil rights, nor should it be infringed upon. I in no way support killing/discriminating against gays. However, they cannot be allowed into the institution of marriage. To let them in would be like letting a woman become a member of Augusta National Golf Course.

Unforgiveable. (Women are my favorite people, but some things aren't for you. Sorry to all the hotties round the world.)

2b. My concern is for the rights of the unborn. They live inside the women to be sure, but they are seperate entities. We have progressed a long way since Encomienda. Lets not go back that direction.

3. Haliburton.

Cheney did not decide to go to war. He has done nothing illegal. Bush did not profit from the war. The liberal news media is jealous, just as they were with Dick Grasso (God Bless him! Damn Spitzer!). Cheney is a genius of business, called by some a visionary. People are just jealous. They need to get over it.

5. Christian Judges.

Do you think nominating Muslim Judges will prevent Muslim spin on things?

Jewish?
Buddhist?
Athiest?
Secularist?
Confucianist?
The list goes on. By making that statement, you define yourself as a bigot. And yet people like you call rational thinkers bigots all the time. You don't like a Christian influence on law? We sure don't have one... unless you count three documents of low importance:

A. The Constitution of the United States... this really didn't affect the US, did it?

B. Bill of Rights... it was drafted by Christian men, reviewed by Christian men, and passed into law by Christian men. But we're safe, because it doesn't effect us.

C. Declaration of Independence... only the founding document of our nation... has nothing to do with you and me I'm sure...

My point is, like it or not, Christian or not, it was and is Christians who protect your rights to be a bigot. Christian men fought and defeated the British. Christian men drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Christian men wrote the bill of rights giving freedom of religion to ALL people of ALL faiths. If an Islamic man had wrote that document, all non Muslims would be illegal, I guarantee it.

You need to actually have a rational perception of the founding, growing, and current state of the United States. Without the affect and effect of Christian Statesmen on this nation, both past and present, we wouldn't have our freedoms.

The Defense of Marriage act ensures stability for our next generations. It protects the foundamental building block of society, the Family, and if you're too blinded by intellectual liberals with their heads so far in the clouds that they see voting for something and not voting for it to be a perfectly acceptable way of doing things to see that, I pity you.

Christian Conservatives gave people the right to be stupid. Gave them the right to be idiots. Gave them the right to stand up and call Chrisitian Conservatives "evil" and "misguided".

I advise you to rethink your postion on that. I am not asking you to support Christianity, but am asking you to at least not discriminate against Christians. It disgusts me that I am called a bigot and intolerant, and yet my Muslim friends, with their "kill the infidels" Koran, aren't. One of my best friends is Muslim, and I don't have a problem with it.

All the liberal sons of bitches who preach tolerance had better take some of their own medicine, and quickly.

6. Patriot Act.

[URL=http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html]Patriot Act Text[/URL]

Click above to read the Patriot Act. Read it. I don't think you have, but maybe, excuse me if I'm wrong.

A. It clearly states the Arab/Muslims are not to be discriminated against

B. Allows the war on terror to be fought effectively. You can't fight today's war with yesterdays rules.

C. Finally requires border protection.

D. Clearly defines limitations on law engorcement to ensure domestic tranquility, while at the same time protect the individual.

Bottom line- The Patriot Act is an enabler for the protection of the United States. Thus Patriots love it. Me an Tom Brady'd have voted for it anyday. Cite 1 thing, even 1 thing in that document that is in violation of civil rights. I dare you.

[Bio]

[font=Trebuchet MS][b]The More Off-Topic Part[/b][/font]

[quote] 2a. Gay Rights.

Its insulting to true minorities like African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, ect. to even use these terms. Sexual preference is not in the sphere of civil rights, nor should it be infringed upon. I in no way support killing/discriminating against gays. However, they cannot be allowed into the institution of marriage. To let them in would be like letting a woman become a member of Augusta National Golf Course.

Unforgiveable. (Women are my favorite people, but some things aren't for you. Sorry to all the hotties round the world.)[/quote] [font=Trebuchet MS][i]True [/i]minorities? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The racial Civil Rights Movement is [i]over [/i]last time I checked. All races are equal in America, and that is indesputable.

Why can't Gays be married? Because a woman can't join a golf course? You call Gay Marrage [i]unforgivable.[/i] How so? You're obviously religiously influenced, but that's exactly it. Religion and Law don't belong together.

Not only that, but the last comment was rather sexist even though you said it wasn't.[/font]

[quote]My point is, like it or not, Christian or not, it was and is Christians who protect your rights to be a bigot. Christian men fought and defeated the British. Christian men drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Christian men wrote the bill of rights giving freedom of religion to ALL people of ALL faiths. If an Islamic man had wrote that document, all non Muslims would be illegal, I guarantee it.
[/quote] [font=Trebuchet MS]
I have no comment to this other than:

What in the hell?

That's so blatantly moronic it [i]is funny. [/i]That was quite possibly the most religiously intolerant paragraph I've ever read. [i]If an Islamic man wrote the document, all other faiths would be illegal? [/i]Are you serious? Christians have been just as intolerant as other faiths. Remember the Holocaust? Hitler. Christian. Let's look at the KKK. And then the vairous prosocution of Jews throughout the rest of history.

Serously, there are more examples of Christianity being bigoted that I can think of off the top of my head than Muslim. What you basically said was that Islam is an inferior, angsty religion. And that is without a doubt, wrong.

So what you're saying is, non-Christians should be thankful Christians have been so kind? MY, I wasn't aware that the Constitution was actually that swayed by Christianity. Thats because it really isn't. I'm relatively sure a few people who signed said important documents were Athiest anyway, poking more holes through your point (or lack thereof).[/font]

[quote]You need to actually have a rational perception of the founding, growing, and current state of the United States. Without the affect and effect of Christian Statesmen on this nation, both past and present, we wouldn't have our freedoms.

The Defense of Marriage act ensures stability for our next generations. It protects the foundamental building block of society, the Family, and if you're too blinded by intellectual liberals with their heads so far in the clouds that they see voting for something and not voting for it to be a perfectly acceptable way of doing things to see that, I pity you.[/quote] [font=Trebuchet MS]Hint: We're not all mental inferiors.

Yes, Christians signed the Declaration of independance. What you're still saying is that [i]everyone should be [/i]damn [i]grateful.

[/i]Look, I have no idea what your saying about gay marriage. How could it possibly destroy the family? Everyone keeps saying that it will, but [i]how? [/i]

[b]The More On-Topic Part

[/b]I dislike them both, and don't know much about Nater. I don't think I'd vote right now if I could, because none of the candidates appeal to me. Voting without thinking is worse than not voting at all, in my opinion.

I don't particularly like the way Bush is steering things. He's very swayed by his religion, which is obvious. A man who is as devout as him should not be the leader of a free country. He's introducing many laws with Christian themes: The Defense of Marriage Act, and the one that has to do with Abortion.

Kerry is slightly better, but not by much. I simply have [i]no idea [/i]what he wants to do with the country. Some of the minor things he agrees with and/or plans on inroducing I agree with, but I'm too in the dark to really say anything about him without saying something that's probably false.[/font]

[Semjaza]

To think the Vice President had nothing to do with this war is completely asinine. Get over what? The fact that Halliburton got a contract on this thanks to Cheney's position? The fact that Halliburton has been shown to have done a terrible job thus far? The fact that Cheney will have around $20 million to support himself when all is said and done? The fact that people are willing to accept that as coincidental and call it "good business" is extremely naive and short sighted. This isn't some "conspiricy theory". He benefits directly from this war, as do many other people who seem so keen on pushing it. If anyone thinks anyone in charge of such big matters is only thinking of the little guys out there, I think they're deluding themselves.

Presidents run with VPs. Cheney is Bush's VP. Get rid of Bush and you get rid of Cheney. Believe it or not, VPs aren't as "useless" as so many people want to think they are.

As for the whole Christian Judge thing, I think you don't know enough about the whole situation to say much of value that would affect my decision. It's pretty obvious from your comments and what exactly is implied from these nominations that you don't understand the serverity of this or its potential ramifications in the future.

You also don't seem to understand that despite the religions of those that founded this country, it was not a country based on religious decisions and Biblical ideals. They might as well stayed in Puriticanical colonies if that was the case. It's amazing there hasn't been Supreme Court retirement over it.

The Defense of Marriage act is absolutely frightening as far as I'm concerned. If you want to buy the line that it somehow solidifies things, be my guest. Disagreements with you doesn't make me a "bigot" and I don't owe anyone jack because of their religious beliefs 200 years ago. I don't have some inate problem with Christians or any other religious group. You'd be a bigot under your definition.

You can buy into the whole Patriot Act along with it (HINT: It directly removes many of your rights if they so desire it to). I suggest [I]you [/I]read it and not just list the points that people want you to know about.

You want a list? One thing? How about several?

* no accountability for the FBI
* sneak & peek searches of people's homes and offices
* easy FBI access to sensitive business records
* the designation of political protesters as "terrorists"
* gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them
* surveillance of computer "trespassers" without a court order
* secret investigations with no public information about how they are being conducted
* monitoring of email and web surfing with limited judicial involvement
* expansive "roving" wiretap authority
* the FBI's ability to do an end-run around standard criminal procedures

If you want to think all that's involved is a "war on terror" and other such nonsense, go ahead. I'm not willing to be that disassociated with it. Let's all ignore all the politicians and such who believe it strips us of rights and does little to actually fight terrorism. In addition the name of it is just insulting to begin with. The idea of an act labelled "Patriot" is misleading because anyone that disagrees with is pretty much automatically labeled as "un-patriotic". Not to mention the fact that it was pretty much pushed through without allowing anyone who would have voted for it to completely read it. It's a bunch of crap. It completely kills the Fouth Ammendment. I'm not willing to give that up for this. The terrorists already won if that's the case, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps the intentions are good, but it's full of consitutional infringements. The definition of terrorism within it is so broad that it can be applied to almost any crime and is far beyond what most would accept as "terrorism". It also more or less creates a political secret police. If you think the founding fathers of this country (and their apparently all important Christian background that should affect all decisions thereafter) would agree to this, I don't think you know much about history.

[quote]Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."[/quote]

It basically amounts to "anyone we disagree with or don't like".

Anyway, I'm done with this thread before someone picks out one small sentence they can run with, pick apart and consequently misinterpret as always happens in these types of threads.

[Guest Midnight Rush]

I'm, going to spam in response, sorry mods:


LMAO.

Sorry bud, your a lost cause. Maybe some of my charity donations will benefit you in the poorhouse someday. Who knows...

"Go your own way" Plays....


I'm done with this topic as well. Very boring.

[Semjaza]

Thanks for the intelligent and well thought out response, jackass. I'm not liking your thinly veiled insults in both of your posts. I give you the answer you ask for and this is the repsonse? You got your one point of the Patriot Act that messes with our rights and your response is '"LMAO". Are you even old enough to vote? Sure doesn't seem like it.

Good luck with your current mindset of believing everything anyone in charge tells you. Never question authority. Take it up the *** if need be. I'm sure you'll get rather far. Then when I'm getting [I]your [/I]charitable donations (christ, talk about being full of yourself) in the poorhouse, I can point and laugh at you laying face down in the gutter.

People here think DeathBug is bad? At least he has the decency to intelligently refute things he disagrees with. I respect him for it. The fact that you couldn't even manage that is really insulting and immature.

[Guest Alchemist]

[quote name='Queen Asuka][color=hotpink][size=1]I'm voting for Bush. No, he's not perfect, no one is, but this country needs a leader, not a friend. Kerry just irritates me.[/color'][/size][/quote]

My thoughts exactly. I will be voting for Bush.

The only reason I would vote for Kerry is if I got to tap Edwards' daughter. Damn she is fine. :cool:

[Lynn Luck]

[COLOR=Blue]Kerry! I don't trust Bush one bit. That,and he has done some VERY stupid things in the past. Do we want him to do anymore stupidity that'll end innocent people's lives? HELL NO!! I'm with Kerry all the way!! To bad I'm only 12...... -_-[/COLOR]
[COLOR=YellowGreen]P.S.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=YellowGreen]I hope you're husband comes home safely. I don't like it when people die...[/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkRed]EDIT:Ok,I changed my mind. I have no idea who I really want for president. I thought it out a bit. Both of them have their pros and cons. So, I guess I just have to wait 'till Noveber to find out who the hell wins...[/COLOR]

[Guest bigspike]

undecided. bush got us in a war when we coulda just blown them to hell, and i think kerry and edwards go out with each other

[Guest Alchemist]

[QUOTE=Lynn Luck][COLOR=Blue]Kerry! I don't trust Bush one bit. That,and he has done some VERY stupid things in the past. Do we want him to do anymore stupidity that'll end innocent people's lives? HELL NO!! :flaming: I'm with Kerry all the way!! To bad I'm only 12......-_-[/COLOR]
[COLOR=YellowGreen]P.S.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=YellowGreen]I hope you're husband comes home safely. I don't like it when people die...:bawl:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

it is hard to take your post even remotely serisouly with all those goddamn smiles in your signature. And you're only 12. Unless you are some super smart kid, you are doing what every 12 year old does: spitting out your parents politcal preferences.

[Orb]

I'd vote for Bush. Some people are mad because of the war and all the effects of it but they really needed our help there. Americans should stop being so freakin selfish. I also agree with the gay marriage thing and other things of that sort. Also I just like Bush better as a person. Sure he always gets made fun of for being dumb but who cares? (It is funny though). But seriously I think he needs to try harder on his campaign thing because Kerry does have better commercials and Bush barely even tries.

And Kerry well he is just so ugly and annoying really.

[QUOTE]and i think kerry and edwards go out with each other [/QUOTE]

me too lol. have u seen them!?

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] Right, Alchemist, and you're doing what every 'old and mature' member of OB does. Beat others down for being young.

And using the reason 'Kerry irritates me' isn't exactly what I'd call the greatest point raised in the universe. And obviously, if I were able to vote I'd be voting for Kerry no doubt in mind.

Yeah, Bush caught Sadam and I'm thankful for that, but I guess it sort of comes short when inoocent people have been tortured and killed, when prisoners have been violated in prison, and when his views cross so strongly with mine.[/color]

[i]2a. Gay Rights.

Its insulting to true minorities like African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, ect. to even use these terms. Sexual preference is not in the sphere of civil rights, nor should it be infringed upon. I in no way support killing/discriminating against gays. However, they cannot be allowed into the institution of marriage. To let them in would be like letting a woman become a member of Augusta National Golf Course.

Unforgiveable. (Women are my favorite people, but some things aren't for you. Sorry to all the hotties round the world.)[/i]

[color=firebrick]Right. After reading that and being a women and an Asian-American, I must say...

What. The. Hell. Was. That.

Why should YOUR idea of marriage affect thousands of people in America who are fighting for a right to marry? It's not like the US is going to freaking blow up because gays start marrying. In fact, gays HAVE started to marry? Let's review the negative affects of gay marriage on the US: Oh yeah, there is none.

Oh, wait. I left this out: It pisses off people who think it's 'wrong'. Woah. The world's going to end.

All I can get from that post is that you're an ignorant and sexist man. Congradulations, really.[/color]

[i]5. Christian Judges.

Do you think nominating Muslim Judges will prevent Muslim spin on things?

Jewish?
Buddhist?
Athiest?
Secularist?
Confucianist?
The list goes on. By making that statement, you define yourself as a bigot. And yet people like you call rational thinkers bigots all the time. You don't like a Christian influence on law? We sure don't have one... [/i]

[color=firebrick]You obviously 1) Are extremely ignorant or 2) Know what Semjaza's talking about but you made up some sort of cracked up defense. [/color]

[i]My point is, like it or not, Christian or not, it was and is Christians who protect your rights to be a bigot. Christian men fought and defeated the British. Christian men drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Christian men wrote the bill of rights giving freedom of religion to ALL people of ALL faiths. If an Islamic man had wrote that document, all non Muslims would be illegal, I guarantee it.[/i]

[color=firebrick]Christian men lynched black people. Christian men harassed Jewish people. Christian men made up the KKK. Christian men did this because it was the right thing to do. I mean, how could they ever love a Jew? A man with a different skin color? Obviously, white supremacy was just so holy. Christian men raped women in different countries to entertain themselves when at war. But no one cares because all of that happened a long time ago, right?

So go ahead. Claim your intelligent superiority. You say you pity us.

That's very Christian of you.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Undefeated]2a. Gay Rights.

Its insulting to true minorities like African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, ect. to even use these terms. Sexual preference is not in the sphere of civil rights, nor should it be infringed upon. I in no way support killing/discriminating against gays. However, they cannot be allowed into the institution of marriage. To let them in would be like letting a woman become a member of Augusta National Golf Course.

Unforgiveable. (Women are my favorite people, but some things aren't for you. Sorry to all the hotties round the world.).[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]My gut reaction is to say 'Wow, you're a closeminded imbecillic jackass' and leave it at that, but I'm trying to curb my tongue so I can be a good example to my daughter.

How are gay rights insulting to true minorities? Your comments make no sense. You say that you're not against gays in general, but you don't believe that they should be allowed to have the same rights that you enjoy. What kind of logic is that?

Then you turn around and equate gay marriage and marriage in general to allowing women to join a golf course. And you say that you don't believe that women should be allowed to join that golf club because it's been a good old boys club for X ammount of years and they're not worthy of joining. You'll forgive me if I can't respect any of your opinions. Epsicially since you don't feel that women should be allowed to have any civil rights along with gays. [/color]


[QUOTE=Undefeated]2b.

My concern is for the rights of the unborn. They live inside the women to be sure, but they are seperate entities. We have progressed a long way since Encomienda. Lets not go back that direction.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]In my opinion a fetus is a group of cells up to the end of the first trimester, which is when most abortions will take place. My reasoning for this is that in the first 3 months the woman is not completely aware of the fact that she is pregnant and most miscarriages occure in the first three months of pregnancy.

Growing inside the woman up to the fifth month the fetus is completely dependant on the mother for life. If it was born prior to the middle of teh second trimester it would be nearly impossible for the infant to survive on it's own. You do know that right?

I think abortion should be allowed to remain legal because if it wasn't you'd still have women doing it, but the conditions would be considerably more dangerous and the mother's life would be at risk. I don't exactly agree with abortion (maybe because I'm theproduct of a teenage pregnancy), but I would never tell another woman what she should or shouldn't do with her body. It shouldn't be up to the government but to the woman and her doctor what she does with her body.

I'm trying my best not to make sarcastic comments about your beliefs, but seriously you know you would never be in this situation. So maybe you should just stay out of that topic until you get a uterus.[/color]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']People here think DeathBug is bad? At least he has the decency to intelligently refute things he disagrees with. I respect him for it. The fact that you couldn't even manage that is really insulting and immature.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] I'm going to go ahead and agree with Semjaza about Deathbug. At least he stands by his desicions and is mature enough to respect other people's beliefs. I've never seen him make assine comments towards peole jusy because he doesn't agree with them. Hell if he ever really ran for president I'd vote for him. He'd probably make a fairly decent politician.[/color]