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

[James]

[QUOTE=maladjusted]
[color=firebrick]I know foreign policy is important and I certainly know that the outside world is important. And for the umpteenth time, I am NOT [i]blaming[/i] George Bush for our bad economy. So to the point across, I'm not blaming the bad economy on ANYONE. What I'm angry about is that I believe he's spending way too much time on Iraq and isn't really helping the economy. I don't know what the president does to make the economy better, but I'm guessing that he could spent some more time on it. [/color][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I was just responding to the fact that you said that you weren't considering those things as being important in your own estimation of the president's service. So I was attempting to underline why those things are important to the life of US citizens.

Secondly, I never said that you blamed Bush for the economy. If you take a look at my post again, you'll find that I said "people in general". A [i]lot[/i] of people draw that direct link, which I see as being erroneous. That was really my more general comment to the thread itself.

In terms of spending more time on it, well...I can only assure you that the president is on call 24 hours a day. He spends pretty much all of his time working. That is, when he's not sleeping. ~_^

I think you'll find that it's not so much a question of time, it's more a question of policy. But even then, I wouldn't say that Bush isn't spending time on the economy. He's only spending as much time on it as any other national leader. I mean, he [i]does[/i] have specific policies in place and he (as well as the treasury secretary) have outlined what those policies are designed to do.

It can be debated as to whether or not the policies are working, and I'm sure there's plenty of positive and negative evidence. But I don't know of any qualified economists on OtakuBoards. All I can tell you is that I'm aware of various economic statistics over the past few months, some of which are good, some of which are bad. *shrug*

[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=The Pro]You know what the US is like? its like that guy at the bar, who walsk around, always saying "HEY IM THE GREATEST ****** HERE, AND THERES NOTHING! YOU CAN DO ABOUT! MUHAHHAHA" and eventually wouldnt you just shoot him?
America is the ONLY country that goes around saying there the greatest country on earth on a daily basis. You even notice that? your like a country of narcisists.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Amazingly enough I am an American and I'm pretty disgusted with the way my country seems to think we're the police of the world.

However, I really can't stand how some people seem to think that all Americans have these huge egos and that everyone in America really wanted this war in Iraq and how we all support Bush and this stupid war. Hey, you don't see me assuming you're an idiot for not being able to spell narcissists, do you?

Okay, now that I've gone off topic, let me go back on by talking about Bush's Anti-Abortion laws.

First off is the [b]Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.[/b] Now it sounds like it's a ban on killing the infant when it's about to be born, right? Wrong. as written this act can actually ban abortions performed as early as 13 weeks into a pregnancy. It also outlaws methods of abortion used in 90% of all second trimester abortions. This law includes no exceptions for the woman's health, which I find rather scary because now suddenly a group of cells incapable of living on it's own is more important than that of the mother.


Next is the [b]Unborn Victims of Violence Act[/b]-Cunningly dubbed by Abortion opponents as "Laci and Connor's Bill" (after Laci Perterson who was murdered while she was 8 months pregnant with her son). This law says that if a woman is the victim of a violent crime hile she's pregnant the criminal should be held accountable for two murders: the mother's and the unborn child's. The problem is that there is no distinction in the bill's language between a nine-month-old fetus and a six week old embryo. So basically by granting the fetus legal status and abortion suddenly becomes grounds for a murder charge.

So the Bush administration is trying to over turn the 30 year old Roe Vs Wade ruling which made abortion legal back in the 70's.

Now, I would never get an abortion myself. but I don't think it should be up to the government to be every man and woman's watch dog on what they do with their bodies. A friend of mine had an abortion two years ago due to circumstances I'd rather not get into. It was a necessary decision for her to make. I just hope that if it happens to another woman in say four years it won't suddenly be illegal[/color]

[Lynn Luck]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Amazingly enough I am an American and I'm pretty disgusted with the way my country seems to think we're the police of the world.[/color][/quote]
[COLOR=Green]Same here. I'm sick of Americans always calling Ameica "The greatest country" and so on,and I'm American. I know it's their own opinion and all, but it get's annoying after a while. Beside, America's not that great anyway.....I'm moving to Canada when I grow up.[/COLOR]

[James]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Amazingly enough I am an American and I'm pretty disgusted with the way my country seems to think we're the police of the world.

[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]When you are the only superpower left, you [i]are[/i] the police of the world. So it's not just a matter of who thinks it, it's a matter of what the reality is.

And let me tell you, it's a whole lot nicer to have America as the global police than China or Russia.[/color]

[Zeta]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]When you are the only superpower left, you [i]are[/i] the police of the world. So it's not just a matter of who thinks it, it's a matter of what the reality is.

And let me tell you, it's a whole lot nicer to have America as the global police than China or Russia.[/color][/QUOTE]


Just want to agree with James here. He is right. With the US being the only superpower, we are the police of the world, because we are the only ones who can do it. If Britain was still the strongest power, they would be the "police force", just like they were when they ruled quite a big swath of the world.

Taking Economics this year, my views on the President and the role of the economy has changed. I was always under the impression that it was the President that controlled the economy. But in reality, it is really the people that do. The government was made to have little or no interference with the economy. Though of course there will be times when it is needed to regulate certain matters and such. Sorry about that straying there, I just felt I should say what taking an economics class for a few weeks opened my eyes and made me realize I don't know all that much about this country's workings.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='James][color=#707875]When you are the only superpower left, you [i]are[/i'] the police of the world. So it's not just a matter of who thinks it, it's a matter of what the reality is.[/color][/quote]


[color=darkviolet]I'll give you that one James, but you'd think that even if the US is the only superpower left in the world we wouldn't constantly go around saying 'Hey look at me! I'm the biggest toughest country in the world! You have to do what I say.' It's not so much as being the police of the world as it is the fact that Bush and company think that everyone should be like America. That's why so many people hate us right now. It's not fun being unpopular.[/color]

[James]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet'] It's not so much as being the police of the world as it is the fact that Bush and company think that everyone should be like America. [/color][/quote]

[color=#707875]Let's avoid talking in vague, general terms and start getting down to specifics.

How do you figure that Bush and company think that everyone should be like America?

As I haven't seen the American army forcing Afghans to wear baseball hats, I assume you're talking about spreading democracy.

If that's what you're referring to, I'd take issue on two levels. On one hand, this point of view assumes that democracy is exclusive to the United States. Well, it isn't. Democracy isn't necessarily a cultural value, it's a political structure. Take a look at Japan for example; Japan's culture couldn't be any different from America. And yet here you have a country where democracy has flourished. The same can be said for plenty of other countries.

Secondly, that point of view may assume that people don't want democracy. If you take a look at various countries in the middle east (most noteably Iran), you can see that there's a strong push for democracy there. In fact, Iran is on the verge of civil war because of that issue. It's not because some want democracy and some don't, it's because [i]everyone[/i] wants it but the Government won't provide it.

If my assumption of your meaning is incorrect, I welcome you to provide some specific detail. I'd be happy to discuss those details with you. ^_^[/color]

[Guest Midnight Rush]

Japan, the USA, Great Britain, ect. are not democracies. That word is used incorrectly almost every time it escapes someone's mouth. Democracy is a system of government underwhich all people decide on all issues. There is no leader per se, only the strong willed and popular accomplish anything.

History tells us that democracy is crap. So does common sense.

That is why Federal Republics and Constitutional Monarchies are the governments of the world's best.

[Zeta]

de·moc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "Democracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

[b] 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.[/b]
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Which is exactly what the United States is. So I think it fair to call the United States a democracy. Taken off of dictionary.com.

[Guest Mana]

I would vote for Bush because he has a better campaign, and he is a better president. Kerry is no good for president, he can't even talk about good topics. Bush knows a good future for America, and plans to see through with it, Kerry doesn't. And let's face it, Nader's no good, and he'll never get elected. He just want's some limelight.

[James]

[QUOTE=Midnight Rush]Japan, the USA, Great Britain, ect. are not democracies. That word is used incorrectly almost every time it escapes someone's mouth. Democracy is a system of government underwhich all people decide on all issues. There is no leader per se, only the strong willed and popular accomplish anything.

History tells us that democracy is crap. So does common sense.

That is why Federal Republics and Constitutional Monarchies are the governments of the world's best.[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]As Zeta pointed out, you're incorrect.

Britain, Japan and the USA are pluralist democracies. Britain and Japan are not Republics though (nor is Australia). But that doesn't mean that they aren't democratic or that they don't have a democratic system.

What you're describing is more of a laissez faire style of government. But again, "democracy" has a particular meaning, as mentioned above. That's the meaning I'm applying to the term.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to Chibihorseman's response to my earlier comments.[/color]

[Guest SkylarkHangtime]

I would vote Nader, but I can't since he is not on the pole in my state. Also, nobody but a person from the Democratic or Republican parties can win in the U.S. I am saddened by the fact that it is a two party system only. I see that Nader can't win in a hundred years because of his more Liberal opinions making him an independent. My views are so far to the left that I am not even going to try in explain. Well, maybe a couple, one: I support all marriages(gay, and even those between a man and a horse if the both want to) and Two: I don't think that terrorism should be a big deal in the U.S.A., because I think they are just trying to make us afraid so they can have any foreign policy they want. I could go on with my opinions(some of which might have already be stated, I have not read [B]all[/B] the post yet) but I have neither the time nor the will to do so.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Neuvoxraiha][COLOR=MediumTurquoise]Being on Honor role is nothing but an ability to process busywork given by teachers. I know. I was a 4.17 GPA in high school. Being an Honor roll student in junior high/middle school means jack. Science also, has very little to do with politics, so I don't see a point in bringing that up either.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

That's harsh Raiha. I'll just have to tell my friend Katie, that her Political [b]Science[/b] major.. well.. isn't.

As for my vote. I'm going to vote Bush. I'm pretty conservative when it comes for most things, and despite my personal unhappiness with the war, I realize the fact that we need to stand up to terrorism eventually. I just don't like the way Kerry votes both ways on several issues. He claims he is against abortion, then votes for it? Bush, although partisan, doesn't seem partisan enough to vote against his heart.

"My name is John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty"... wait, he missed 118 of 132 senate votes this year....

Hell, even Kerry believed the intelligence concerning Sadaam and WMDs... I don't think he's a capable leader... Bush has the experience.

A few issues I just can't support:
-Abortion

Wait... that was one issue! That's right.. I can't stand abortion. This isn't an abortion thread, but it should just be noted as a CENTRAL ethical issue in our society. Bush hasn't done enough to stop abortion, IMO, but Kerry will do nothing.

As for the problem with religion belonging in Gov't and Law... it's almost impossible to demand that someone remove a predominant ethical attribute of themselves in anything they do. All moral decisions are determined and decided by an ethically-driven choice, to remove a religion from such choices would be like demanding myself from removing your founding moral perspective from your choices. The point Midnight was trying to make is that even atheists use a sort of moral foundation, it's flexibility is irrelevant except for the determining ability to choose something over another. If my religion says what is right and what is wrong, how is this any different than your relative perspective determining what is right and what is wrong. George Bush isn't making people turn christian, he isn't making Christian laws, he's just making laws and electing people who he share the hsame moral structre as himself. This is as legitimate as a scientologist electing a scientologist...

[Guest SkylarkHangtime]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]
He claims he is against abortion, then votes for it?
A few issues I just can't support:
-Abortion
[/QUOTE]

For one, he might be against abortion but is for a women's right to do what she wants/needs. Your entitled to your opinion but a women should be entitled to her rights, your opinion stops her from being able to do that.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='SkylarkHangtime']For one, he might be against abortion but is for a women's right to do what she wants/needs. Your entitled to your opinion but a women should be entitled to her rights, your opinion stops her from being able to do that.[/quote]

Please.. let's save the A-Bomb for a dedicated thread... I'm opposed to abortion just like I'm opposed to murder. Murder is a personal choice, a choice to kill another person. Who am I to tell a murderer not to murder some random person that I might never meet? Isn't that the point of a law, or society? The gov't tells us what to do .. or tries to , because that seems to be the primary responsobility of the government.

I don't see any distinction between abortion and murder.. that's my perspective, so I think it should be illegal, just like murder. I figured this would happen though... with all the issues, it's difficult not to pinpoint a certain one.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]A few issues I just can't support:
-Abortion

Wait... that was one issue! That's right.. I can't stand abortion. Bush hasn't done enough to stop abortion, IMO, but Kerry will do nothing.

[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]I know this isn't a topic on abortion, but I think Bush has done more than enough to prohibit teenagers and pre-teens on learning about safe sex and to prohibit women from getting abortions right now (ie in health class discussion on condom usage is limited to discussion on the failure rates) . I think he's done more than his fair share to prohibit a woman's choice to what her options are as far as her reproductive rights as well. (read a few of my posts)

I hope if Kerry is elected he'll fix up the wording of a few laws Bush passed, maybe even over turn the FDA's descion on not allowing the morning after pill without a dr's perscription and that stupid law that says that pharmasists can refuse to fill a woman's birth control perscription based on their beliefs.[/color]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Anyway, I'm looking forward to Chibihorseman's response to my earlier comments.[/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Sorry 'bout that James. I've been a bit preoccupied.

Pretty much aside from the whole democracy thing that he keeps trying to enforce in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be working all that well. I'm not sure how well this will come out. Bush seems to want every country to have America's way of democracy instead of an individual way of democracy. He pretty much expects Iraq and the rest of the world to become american carbon copuies. I don't think that came out very well. sorry.[/color]

[Zeta]

I don't think so. If you look at it, depening on how you look at it that is, you will see that it is not an [i]American[/i] democracy per se. The American democracy is just built off of pre-existing examples of democracy in the Ancient Greek, and I think Roman(not too sure about this one, can someone confirm this? Im pretty sure early Rome was a democracy). All he is doing is taking the ideas of democracy from where we learned, and trying to pass them on so others may benefit. I think he expects them to just have a democracy as their government. And with the United States being the most powerful democracy out there, he just uses us as an example. Just as we used the ancient Greeks as an inspiration in a way.

[James]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Sorry 'bout that James. I've been a bit preoccupied.

Pretty much aside from the whole democracy thing that he keeps trying to enforce in Iraq, which doesn't seem to be working all that well. I'm not sure how well this will come out. Bush seems to want every country to have America's way of democracy instead of an individual way of democracy. He pretty much expects Iraq and the rest of the world to become american carbon copuies. I don't think that came out very well. sorry.[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]But see, I think that this is a misunderstanding of Bush's policy. It's like you're putting words in Bush's mouth, you know?

How do you know that Bush wants "American style democracies"?

I guarantee you, right now, that Iraq's democracy won't be like America's. There are a variety of structural and historical reasons for that. But fundamentally, it will operate differently, though it will still be a democracy.

Bush only wants [i]democracy[/i], as a vehicle for opportunity and freedom. That's his point of view. It can be debated whether or not his actions can bring that about, but that, in a nutshell, is what [i]he[/i] actually thinks/wants. I don't think there's any evidence of him trying to foist American-style democracy on other countries.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] I think he's done more than his fair share to prohibit a woman's choice to what her options are as far as her reproductive rights as well. (read a few of my posts)

I hope if Kerry is elected he'll fix up the wording of a few laws Bush passed, maybe even over turn the FDA's descion on not allowing the morning after pill without a dr's perscription and that stupid law that says that pharmasists can refuse to fill a woman's birth control perscription based on their beliefs.[/color]
[/QUOTE]


Not enough, in my opinion. I understand that the war to make abortion illegal is one of attrition, but it's hard to rest until the finality of making that practice illegal occurs. As far as FDA regulations, they aren't necessarily meant to restrict birth control, as much as controlling a potentially dangerous substance. Birth control pills should be handled very carefully, the reprocussions on hormone levels alone should be enough to require doctor perscription. I would be interested in seeing the "belief" dictated law

[Japan]

[COLOR=Navy]I read all of this thread thoroughly and carefully and I think that it is my turn to say something.

I am voting for Bush. As simple as that. For one, I don't want a president like Kerry that is always changing his mind. Having a president like that can only bring trouble. You never know. He may say one thing, but go behind your back and do another.

Also, from what I last heard, Kerry wants to cut down the funding for the military. He wants to make the military smaller. Do you really think that's a good idea? My father is in the military, and I can already see the numbers of the military lowering in size. The Air Force is not taking in any more eligible people. Lowering the funding and the military itself is not a good idea. When you lower the military's size, it makes the country more prone to attack. It also gets people without jobs.

I am for the ban on abortion. Abortion means murder really. If you have sex and get a baby, then you should deal with that baby of yours, and not hurt it in any way. My father is also a nurse, and from reading his magzines about birth control and such. Those pills can be dangerous. I think that having the birth control pills as prescriptions only is a good idea. Those birth control pills are not to be taken into consideration lightly.

About the current war in Iraq. It is a good thing, in my opinion, that we went to war against the terrorists. We had to go against them sometime in future right? I am glad that we got right to work to look for Bin Laden and Saddam after 9/11. You don't expect America to allow to get walked all over by terrorists do you? I respect Bush's choice for the war in Iraq. I don't like war either. I am also very sad for those that died. Though, I try to remember what this one teacher from school said. He is in the National Guard by the way. This is what he said. I believe in it 100%.

[QUOTE]War is bad. Seeing your best friend get blown up in front of you is bad. But.... if we left now, there would be a whole lot more bloodshed.[/QUOTE]

He is still in Iraq now.

I want to vote for Bush because I like how he is running things for the most part. I don't believe that Kerry will do as good a job as Bush next term...if any.[/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] Birth control pills should be handled very carefully, the reprocussions on hormone levels alone should be enough to require doctor perscription. I would be interested in seeing the "belief" dictated law[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Birth Control pills are perscription drugs. That's why you go to a gynocologist to 1.) get a pap smear and then get a trial perscription of the pills. then 2.) get follow up check ups and see how you are reacting to the perscription. So there you have it, birth control pills are given out by perscription only. That's why I'm pregnant. I didn't get my perscription refilled on time because I was 2 minutes late for my appointment with my gynocologist.

As for the belief system there have been a few cases where pharmasists have refused to fill a woman's birth control perscription based on their religious beliefs. Because many religions (including catholicism) reguard birth control as against religious law. Ironicly these are the same people who are opposed to abortions as welll.[/color]

[Guest SkylarkHangtime]

[QUOTE=Japan_86][COLOR=Navy]

For one, I don't want a president like Kerry that is always changing his mind.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Kerry may "flip-flop" but you have to realize so has Bush. Also, Kerry doesn't want to cut the military budget, he might want to spread it more towards "national security"(which is BS in the first place). Although if he did want to cut military spending drastically I would not support that in the least.

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] I swear I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just curious about what Kerry has changed his mind on so often on. I've only heard one example so far...I'm really just wondering lol. :)

As for the abortion issue I'm totally against banning it. What I think would be good is if a woman has about eigth weeks or so to make a decision but after that shouldn't be a able. I'm actually just guessing here with the time frame because I don't exactly know when the cell starts to...actually grow into a fetus and stuff. I do believe there is a difference between abortioning a 8-month baby and abortioning a two week old baby. If two weeks even makes a fetus.

On the war in Iraq...when the issue of going to war came up I was undecided. Almost perfectly in the middle. I saw reason to go and saw reason not to go. Now that we have gone, it's awesome that we've gotten Sadam BUT I don't like how George Bush is handling things in Iraq. Was he really prepared for Iraq's reconstruction at all?

And I just hate the idea of war. I knew a guy at school who's father went to war and he just totally...was just flipped out and scared the whole time his father was gone. And even worse we went in without any allies and we DID NOT find any weapons of mass destruction. I know that we can't let terrorists walk all over us but I don't think Bush did everything possible to help the problem without going to war.

And that whole 'there's a lot of oil in the Alaska Wilderness Reserve' thing. It made me hate Bush more.[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]America is the only country where a significant portion of the population supports Bush. (You can't say the States doesn't affect the whole world a great deal and that no one else knows anything about what's going on in it.) They're also the only country that relies pretty much entirely on American media.

CNN spent two weeks or more bashing Kerry non-stop for his post-Vietnam anti-war sentiments. Then, when it was revealed that Bush skipped out on a sizable portion of his "duty", a certain gentleman I don't remember the name of said something to the degree of, "I'm tired of fussing over 35 years ago. Let's talk about [i]now[/i]." Depite the vagueness (I'm not very familliar with the crew of CNN) of that last sentence, which some one will surely make a fuss about, there's a point in there.

CNN has a musical few seconds of screen featuring a logo with the American colours for a section of coverage dedicated to terrorism alone.

I doubt Kerry's going to be elected.

Just saying...[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Dagger]

I guess my main beef with the war in Iraq is that I don't understand what it has to do with the war on terrorism. I mean, I'll cheer as loudly as anyone else for Saddam being knocked out of the picture--but if, in the end, our reasons for invading turn out to have been purely humanitarian, I'd have a hard time not viewing it has a huge waste of time, lives and money. There are other dictators currently in power who have done absolutely horrible things to their people and deserve to die a slow, painful death. There are countries with weapons which they really shouldn't possess, and apparently Iraq did not number among them.

We've been told from the start that the war on terrorism would not be a "traditional" war, that it would involve unorthodox tactical manuvers and could not possibly be compared to a simple clash of countries. So... what gives? Our forces could be rooting out terrorist cells all over the world, and instead they're indefinitely bogged down in Iraq.

I live fifteen minutes outside of the nation's capital, and the terror alert level (or whatever it's called nowadays) seems to change frequently with little or no explanation of why. Police are being pulled off the streets to protect important buildings from potential terrorist attacks; meanwhile, no one seems to care about the homicides which occur almost daily in poorer areas of the city--a shocking number of young schoolchildren have been shot during the past year, and these tragic deaths rarely get any press.

Politicians keep saying that America is safer. Well, I sure as hell don't feel any safer. The terror alerts we get here in DC are so general that all they end up doing is making people paranoid--if I learned that some group was planning to attack a bridge, I'd stay away from bridges. If they aren't going to offer us that kind of specificity, then I'd rather not be told anything at all. Knowing an attack may occur is totally useless if the information doesn't come with some helpful details.

The government bumps up the alert level to orange (the second most dangerous, next to red) and then turns right around to spout some garbage about the Iraq war having ensured America's safety. I'm sick of this cycle, and I hate conflicting messages. And just when I started to seriously think about re-considering the Bush team, Cheney made a speech implying that there would definitely be another attack along the lines of 9/11 if Kerry was elected. I was disgusted and disappointed--yet very unsurprised.

~Dagger~