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

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I was re-reading a magazine from September 2000 (Marie Claire if you really wanted to know) which had an article on the candidates who were running that year Bush and Gore. At that time the country had a record surplus of $211 billion dollars and the unemployment rate was down to 4% the lowest since I believe the 1950's.

However throughout his whole campaign Bush was repeatedly saying that the Clinton administration hadn't done enough for America and how he'd do much better. Okay, when is that happening?

Unemployment is almost as high as it was during the depression era and we're back to another deficite instead of a surplus. Yes, I will admit that Bush has created something like 144,000 or so new jobs, but that's not enough to keep up with this countries population growth. When is he going to do much better?

Another thing I'd like to point out is the fact that come Moday, the 13th of September the ban on automatic weapons and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets will be lifted. Bush does have the power to do something about keeping the ban in tact (which is the same ban that Clinton signed back in 1996) but he won't do it because the NRA promised to endorse him and get their people to vote for him come election day if he doesn't extend the ban. With that in mind Bush has decided that votes for him are more important than the American people's safety, which he is responsible for since he is the current president.

Another problem that I have with Bush is that although he has done something about putting trigger locks on guns, he won't make it a law that all guns should be equipped with child safety locks. Also he thinks that a quick background check is all that's necessary for a person who wants to buy a gun. Never mind that they aren't nearly as evasive as the longer background checks where you can find out if the person wanting to purchase the gun has a violent history. No, they shouldn't have to wait to own a gun as long as they have the money because the person spending money on a gun is helping the economy. Possibly even more than a single woman who wants to buy birthcontrol.

I have no problem with people owning guns, heck I know how to use a gun and I've grown up around them all my life. The thing is that with an automatic the only people who would want to buy one of thoseor need to buy one of those is a person who was going to commit some criminal act. I don't think you need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. Also incase you aren't aware of this fact, an automatic weapon is cheaper than a regular gun.

And before anyone brings it up, I am well aware of the 2nd ammendment to the constitution granting americans the right to bare arms. I believe that was for a regulated militia, not Joe Blockhead who is about to shoot his wife because she left him when he beat her.[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]

Unemployment is almost as high as it was during the depression era and we're back to another deficite instead of a surplus. Yes, I will admit that Bush has created something like 144,000 or so new jobs, but that's not enough to keep up with this countries population growth. When is he going to do much better?

[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Again, like we've mentioned before, the president can't just "create jobs". More jobs become available for a variety of reasons. Fundamentally, a company is going to hire more people if it is experiencing success in the market. If a company's sales rise and if its profits go up, it is then in a position to hire more people because a) it physically needs more staff to support a growing business and b) it needs new staff to provide support for new products and services that are made available.

A good example of these dynamics would be the Japanese video game industry.

That industry has been in a slump for the last year or two, which has resulted in job losses. Are you going to blame the Japanese Prime Minister for those job losses? No. Jobs are lost because consumers are not purchasing new video game products in high enough numbers. Companies have no choice but to cut costs (read: staff) during these periods. The only thing that a national leader can really do is raise the minimum wage or something like that, to give people more money to spend. But that alone isn't going to represent a broad solution.

I'm so tired of hearing that "so and so created this many jobs and this guy lost them". The president, or any national leader, is not directly responsible for job growth or decline. There are many factors that come into play -- most of them are outside the control of the Government itself. The Government can only provide a framework within which companies can operate. The Bush administration has provided a slightly more favorable environment for business, but obviously that's had a minimal impact.

That isn't Bush's fault though. It's a result of everything from development costs to outsourcing to consumer spending.

Also...I'm surprised that you just [i]totally dropped[/i] our conversation about foreign policy. You've totally changed course and ignored my last response. Are you conceding to my point of view, or do you still disagree? It'd be nice to know what happened to that line of discussion.[/color]

[Guest SkylarkHangtime]

The economy can be hurt by Bush, seeing Congress is controled by repuplicans the taxes that he pushes would go through. Also, if the government is in debt the economy will not be as strong as it could be. Though, I do agree with James that direct effect on the economy is not in the hands of a National Leader.

[Guest Garelock]

I'm voting for Kerry and since I'm 18, yes, I do hope Kerry becomes our next President.

Want to know why?

Well, like the Senator said in the debate, Bush can't talk about sending mixed messages. I mean, how the hell do you tell one country that you can't have weapons of mass destruction when we've got more bombs than Russia?! I mean, that's like the Japanese telling Australia to not have rice; it's hypocritic to the extreme. Bush can't criticize Saddam, I mean, under Bush's leadership more than a thousand, innocent people have been killed. America in general doesn't have much room to talk about how Saddam or how Osama kill their own people. Anyone remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We killed more than 100 thousand people and completely obliterated two cities and all because one military harbor was destroyed. Hmm...any part of that sound barbaric to you?

We're always complaining about 9/11 and how it was so tragic...BIG DEAL! What we call 9/11 is like everyday life to the Iraqis, Israeli and so many other people who have to go through that crap for the rest of their lives. Why SHOULDN'T America suffer sometimes? Hell, we've done more injustice around the world than any other country so in a sense we deserve it. 9/11 was a wake up call to America to show everyone that no matter how big and bad you think you are even some guys with no guns can take down some landmarks in your country.

I'm not blaming Bush entirely for 9/11 though he did play a role. If he quit letting everyone and their grandma into America then that woudn't have happened to begin with. I mean, the terrorists didn't SNEAK into this country, WE LET THEM IN! They got American jobs, used American money and stayed in America! Something is wrong with that picture people! Not only do I blame Bush, I blame that sorry excuse for US immigrations service as well for this! If they had done their job then 9/11 would've never occured...

Bush has done some pretty stupid things too. Like putting us in over 100 billion dollars worth of debt. Who the hell do you think is going to be paying that off? Even Bush's analyzers say that my great grandchildren won't even be able to pay off that debt. And if that's not enough, America was already 7 trillion dollars in debt before the two wars even begun! And that idiot decides to spend MORE MONEY! If you already in debt as it is are you going to spend more money?! Hell no! And then the stock market and job market went to hell thanks to those Al Queda jerks and then, Bush goes and spends more money when America was in no shape for that to happen.

I don't think America is being selfish when America takes care of America. It doesn't make sense to help other countries when America needs things too. I always see these crap things on TV like "Feed the children in India" or "Feed the hungry children." Look, the fact is, I don't have to go overseas or to another country and find a hungry person I CAN GO DOWN THE STREET AND FIND A HUNGRY PERSON! Why the hell am I paying taxes to feed somebody who's name I probably can't even pronounce?! If Bush wants to help the needy people so badly then he needs to start at home before we worry about what everyone else needs. He's always talking about helping the children in Iraq get a good education, dude, I know plenty of people who are illiterate right here in America. I'v seen school books that are older than me, I've seen school buses that look like they came off a used car lot, I've seen school lunches that the homeless wouldn't even eat and I've seen school campuses that look like a homeless shelter and even some of the shelters look better!

Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq was because he claims Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Who the hell would you trust with weapons liike that? Saddam or America? Now, lets look at Iraq under Saddam's leadership. Yes, he killed alot of people, yes, he has bombed people before but the fact is he still doesn't compare to America. We've done more bomb destruction than what any other country could ever account for. I'd trust Saddam over America when it comes to bombing because as the US has proven time and time again, you screw with us and you can kiss your country goodbye. Just think, Japan, Vietnam that was almost completely obliterated though we really lose to them, parts of China, France, Afghanistan and Iraq. Who the hell haven't we bombed yet? We even bombed Russia before! And we got room to talk about Saddam? That's hypocritic and I'll say it to anyone's face who has a problem with it!

Bush talks about gay people and gay marriages. Dude, marriage isn't something that's sacred. I'm a pastor's son and I'm saying that. Like Chris Rock said on the Oprah show, "Marriage isn't something that's sacred in America. Not when you got shows like Who wants to Marry a midget? Who wants to marry a millionaire? Who wants to marry my dad?", Where is the sacredness? Simple...THERE IS NONE! So why the hell should Bush care? No, what he should care about is America and not the fact that a guy and a guy might like each or a girl and a girl might like each other; that's their business, not his.

He keeps talking about abortion and crap which is, in a way, I think it's wrong too. The fact is though, until people start speaking out against this war and how thousands of American and Iraqi lives are taken everyday, I don't want to hear crap about that. You speak out against the war and how it kills people THEN YOU COME tell me about abortions. Until then, I don't want to hear anything about that...

Bush keep on talking about how we shouldn't care about how we look in the world when he thinks "we're doing the right thing and we're upholding our morals." Dude, even the country that helped America get its independence, France, hates us now. Now, that's just a damn shame, France is responsible for America even existing, without them we'd still be under British rule.

Now, people ask me why I'm voting for Kerry. Well, check the above reasons, I don't care how much of a Bush fan you are you can't disagree with all the reasons because most of them are known facts. Some of them are facts that not even Bush denied.


Signed,

An angry black dude...

[samus413]

what most people don't understand about the U.S. is that they act like every other country is there business because it is.

if you were to consider that most of the stuff in the U.S. are imports you'd see how easily a war amongst two contries can directly affect us. if china and japan (I just picked two I see alot on stuff I buy) were to go to war and one defeated the other, we would loss a lot of stuff, alot of good anime from japan, I just picked up a picture frame in my house and it said made in china,so there goes that to. Easy to see why we should interven and try and stop it.

To that extent I agree with bushes want to go to war and stop them, not blow up just stop, we need the oil, it would almost stop all activity in the U.S. if that happened. with such a scarcity of gasolin I'd have to walk to school, especialy under the circumstances.

Hey, I'm actualy starting to like Bush, but I'd still pick Kerry.

[Beorhun]

If I could vote, which I can't yet, I would vote Kerry. Still, my mind is often puzzled by what would happen if Bush won the election. Would, by the end of the four years, the U.S. be so screwed up it would mark the death of the Neo-Conservatives? I think that whatever party wins the election is screwed because Bush has done so much wrong to this country that no one could ever fix it in a mere four years, and if Kerry wins, the conservatives are going to use that to try to destroy the Liberals in 2008. People, we're just starting this recession that Bush has caused, and it is literally and practically impossible to fix a mistake that bad in four years.

Still, Kerry would do a lot of things right, I would guess. He would change the way we're fighting in that pothole called Iraq, hopefully turning the tide in our favor. He would start focusing on actual terrorists, and not go on a personal vendetta against one who had no connections to terrorism. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein didn't need to get kicked out of office or that he wasn't an evil man, but there are so many more people on the list that need to be taken care of before Saddam. Look at the facts, when Pakistan began selling off Nuclear weapons, out of 19 countries, Iraq was the only one to[I] turn them down. [/I] Did we need to go to Iraq? No.

Sorry, I got off the topic. The right wing is saying that Kerry would take away guns? No, that would go against the constitution. Kerry would restrict the use of[I] AK-47s[/I] in the United States by civilians, people could keep their hunting rifles and whatnot. One threat fallen on deaf ears. They say that he was a bad leader who commited war atrocities in Vietnam? Only one out of [U]fifty seven[/U] people who served under Kerry said that. Two down. They say that he and Jane Fonda met with the leaders in Vietnam before the invasion of Hanoi? In Paris? I'm sorry, that's just moronic.

The Fact of the matter is, Kerry would make a better president than Bush. Plain and simple. Bush was [I]a draft dodger[/I], for crying out loud! Kerry served in one of the worst wars in the past 100 years while Bush sat twirling the keys to the white house! Bush has put us in a recession and has let the environment go to ****. I don't want to go off on something most of you already know about, so I won't go into the economy and the environment. That's all I have to say.

[Guest Garelock]

This is in reply to what Samus said.

Right, you're right that most of our stuff comes from other countries but the fact is that still doesn't justify us killing all those innocent people. Yet, no one has addressed that nor will they because if you support Bush, I guess you wouldn't because you really can't address my question; it makes too much sense.

A war isn't necessary, a war isn't called for and a war isn't the answer. I'll end this with a quote from what Harrison Ford said or at least I think it was him.

[QUOTE]"Wouldn't war be great if it were only fought between the ******** who started them?"[/QUOTE]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Bush told Kerry he [Kerry] wasn't ready to run the world.

It's funny, because if it was up to the world, the Kerry/Bush support ratio would be 5:1.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[samus413]

This is in reply to what Garelock said.

Dude, we want to stop the war to avoid casulties too, just because they aren't of our citzenship doesn't mean we should let them die. ultimately we try to stop a war early so in the long run fewer people die. Unfortunatly, as long as there are people who think they have the right to kill others bassed on there believes, we're screwed.
Bush just made some mistakes that made us come out of it worse than it could have. If he had stopped it sooner a lot of people might not have died, but that's just it, it's only an if.

[QUOTE]"Wouldn't war be great if it were only fought between the ******** who started them?" [/QUOTE]
yeah, but they affect us too much, so we can't affored the wrong people to win.

[Guest Garelock]

Dude, in any war, the wrong people always die. I'd much rather see one or two people die than hundreds upon thousands. Bush sends someone's son or daughter, father or mother, uncle or aunt or someone's best friend over to Iraq and Afghanistan. He needs to send those drunken daughters of his over there and let them die, therefore, he can understand what it's like to lose a child. I've seen a guy lose his only son because of this stupid war. How the hell do you justify that?...exactly, you can't. You can't justify the killing of someone for any reason. But claims he's Christian, well, in the Bible it clearly says as one of the commandments and I quote:

[QUOTE][SIZE=3]THOU SHALT NOT KILL[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Read that carefully. He claims to run America based on his Christian belief so again, if anyone's sending mixed messages, it's him...

Signed,

An even angrier black dude...

[samus413]

OK, I just figured it out, We are against killing them, or any one else for that matter, but no one said they were against kiling us,any one else, or even themselves.

Other than that I agree with you fully.

This world is made of LOVE AND PEACE, but if you try any thing I'll chang that real fast.

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] Yeah, and not to mention that Bush totally crashed and burned at the first presidential debate. Hold back on the wise faces there, buddy.

I'm just about 100% convinced that Bush is lying striaght through his teeth when it comes to the information dealing with Iraq, and now I don't really care about his foreign policy or whatever. It's his fault we're having a tough time with reconstruction and such...I don't care if things didn't happen they way Bush planned them to. Does it ever? And he did a crap job of preparing everything in the first place anyway. I'm just praying that Kerry wins the election.[/color]

[samus413]

I only hope kerry doesn't screw up like bush did, I mean we all know someone is going to screw up, we just try to pick the one who will pull the smaller blonder.

I never rilized that we pick our leader, but we don't get to pick our choices for leaders.

Oh, I want be saying much of anything on this topic after this so don't actualy direct anything towards me like Garelock did. Bye.

[Animegurl4ever]

[FONT=Arial Narrow][COLOR=RoyalBlue]I seriously would vote for Kerry/Edward. I mean, hello! This war is going like crazy, and everyone is dying like hell. I believe that war can solve nothing but blood shed. Also, Kerry would do a good job as president because in his speech he clearly stated that he has a plan for america, unlike bush himself.
[INDENT]Anyway, bush is such a liar! :flaming: He lied that he went to fight at the war in Vitenam! Gosh, we wouldn't want a president that lies would we. At least I wouldn't! Bush, Bush, Bush, did you ever know that I love bushes...? :laugh: [/INDENT] [/COLOR][/FONT]

[Animegurl4ever]

Yeah! Really, Bush is killing all of our love one for a stupid peace in Iraq! why can't he sends his *** over there and fight for real now! Or even send his "drunken" daughter over there and let them die...heh, that's even better than seeing hundreds of people dying...Besides, he needs to die....like right now...urgh.........I HATE BUSH!!!!

[chobit]

I have no clue...I live in the wild North. :love:

You know you love me.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Sorry I haven't been on in a while. But my dad is keeping an eye on Abby (not hard to do when she's sleeping) and Lincoln is on his way back to Iraq :flaming: (Grr, stupid Bush) So now I have pleanty of time to catch up...riiiiight.

Anyway I still say I would vote Kerry instead of Bush. Here are some more reasons.

Bush is constantly accusing Kerry of voting no to spending more money on body armor for the troops over in Iraq, but he never mentions that he did the same thing. Besdes, Kerry is still Senator and had nothing to do with sending troops over to Iraq in the first place, Bush did. So I'd like to know how he sleps at night knowing that most of the casualties could have been avoided if our (US's) men and women had better protection.

He also likes to talk about how Kerry constantly flip flops on issues. I guess Bush forgets that back when he was sworn in as President of the United States he promised to lengthen the ban on automatic weapons and do more for gun control. Nearly four years later the ten year ban on automatic weapons has been expired for almost a month and it's because he was promised votes from the NRA. No, Bush doesn't flip flop on important issues. Sorry if my sarcasm dripped on you, I'll get a burp cloth.

Bsuh has vowed to appoint supreme court judges who are opposed to Roe Vs Wade if he is re-elected. I'm pro-choice so that worries me. My belief is that even though I would never get an abortion myself unless my life were at risk I would never try to tell another woman what to do with her body. I don't think that the government should make the descion for a woman's body by drafting bills with catchy fine print about how an abortion performed at 3 weeks is considered the same as killing a woman and her unborn child at eight months.

Recently I saw highlights from the presidential debate (hey, give me a break, I was doing stupid things like giving my daughter a bath and spending time with my husband) I wasn't too thrilled with George W.'s behavior while Kerry was speaking. The faces he made and some comments were more fitting to that of a first grader than that of the current president of the United States. Then again I wasn't too thrilled with Bush back in 2000 when he kept looking at his watch while Gore was speaking. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but how can you really like a guy who thinks only certain people (ie those who believe like he does) are destined for heaven?

Oh, and the comment on how Kerry isn't ready to run the world yet, hell, nobody is really ready to run the world, that's why we all elect people to help run separate countries.

Oh, if anyone watches the debate with John Edwards and Dick Cheney let me know what you thought. I wonder if Cheney is going to tell Edwards to **** himself[/color]

[Justin]

I honestly think there should be a "None of the Above" catagory.

I'd be voting for Bush, were I born a couple months earlier. Thus far, Kerry has given me no reason to support him, just reason not to support Bush--and that's no way to campaign for the presidency, in my opinion.

I don't trust Kerry's resolve, and I don't support any of the few things I know he supports. Under no circumstances do I support abortion, and I do not think gay union should be mandated by the states. Those two factors alone are enough to sway my opinion.

I think Bush has good ideas, he seems to support what I support, and I just like him better than Kerry in general. So, that more or less seals my support of Bush, wouldn't you say?

I personally don't see how debates like this stay in circulation. It seems like they'd get awfully repetitive.


[quote]Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but how can you really like a guy who thinks only certain people (ie those who believe like he does) are destined for heaven? [/quote]

It's not his fault that that is what the Bible says. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man may come to the Father but by me." -Jesus

How can we believe what we do without believing it wholly?

-Justin

[Guest Garelock]

RIIIIGHT! You don't support abortion at all. Like I said, until you speak out against the senseless killing that goes on in Iraq, I don't want to hear a dang thing about abortion. Death is death, you don't sway your way around that, you don't talk your way around that, you don't see it from any other view, when someone gets killed, dangit, they get killed.

Kerry is a WAY better candidate than Bush, or at least that's what the majority of America thinks. Gay marriage, dude, once again, I'll say this. MARRIAGE IS NOT SACRED IN AMERICA. Like Chris Rock said, Marriage is nothing sacred when you got TV shows with people wanting to get married just to get rich. Take Joe Millionaire for example, the woman only married the guy just because she thought he had 50 million dollars. Now that's my case and point about gay marriage. I'd much RATHER have gay marriage than heterosexual marriages because at least gay people don't showcase their stuff on TV like heterosexuals do!

I don't believe America has a right to tell people who they can marry and who they can't marry because simply, that's discrimination without a doubt. The fact of the matter is we have the Bill of Rights, we got all this stuff, we have this and we have that and yet no one has THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Damnit, what business is it of America who I marry and who I don't marry? That's my damn choice, that's like telling someone, "Hey, we keep saying that you have free rights and you can pursue whatever you want but just don't try to marry a guy or else we'll get mad." That's stupid and you know it!

I repeat, YOU CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY BASED OFF RELIGION! That's what so many leaders have done wrong for years! That formula JUST DOES NOT WORK, IT WILL NOT WORK AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE WILL IT EVER WORK! America is a country that has so many religions, cultures, religion misunderstandings and cultural misunderstandings. How the hell do you run a country with so many beliefs off ONE belief?! It's impossible, you have to learn how to accept and tolerate any culture, creed, custom, belief and sexual orientation. If Bush can't accept people of other religions, if Bush can't accept gay marriage, if Bush can't accept anything that he doesn't believe in then that's all the more reason why he shouldn't be our commander-in-chief.

You know Justin, the Bible says alot of things. The Bible also says:

[QUOTE]Do not try to remove the splinter in your brother's eye before you remove the plank in your own.[/QUOTE]

Well, we try to remove Saddam and Osama before we tried to remove the KKK, the new black panthers, the crips, the bloods, folk, Jersey devils and ALL those people who are more of terrorists to me. I mean it was just last year where the KKK dragged a guy up and down the street in Texas, ripping his body to shreds. Now, if that isn't terrorism, I don't know what the hell terrorism is! We need to worry about the terrorists we have at home before we worry about the ones that other countries have! I mean, no Iraqi or Afghanistanian ever put dogs on my people, they never shot at my people, hung them, castrated them or anything, it was the KKK that did that so I think their regime should be taken over before anything else happens. I'm more afraid to walk around in New York City than Iraq right about now because at least in Iraq you'll only get shot, in New York, you'll get shot THEN mugged for everything that's valuable on your body..hell, I wouldn't be shocked if they stole my internal organs and tried to sell it to a hospital; hustlers are desperate you know. America is so worried about Al Queda, well, the fact is when you can get shot for wearing the wrong colors in a neighborhood then what goes on in Afghanistan should be your LAST CONCERN and what goes on in America should be your FIRST. We're so busy taking care of everyone else that we haven't stopped to take care of ourselves for once.

Jesus says:

[QUOTE]Ye who is without sin, cast the first stone...[/QUOTE]

Well, Bush has alot of sins so therefore, he didn't have a right to cast a single stone at Saddam. Bush and his daddy have screwed America up so badly that more than half the country doesn't even like him and that's even some of the Republican party who doesn't want anything to do with him.

The bible says:

[QUOTE]No man has the right to judge another unless they be perfect.[/QUOTE]

Bush judges other people like he's perfect. Well, he is perfect, A PERFECT LIAR!

I mean, he keeps talking about No Child Left Behind. Well, of course, WE ALL KNOW that doesn't work and that is pretty pointless. As an education major, I've seen too many children left behind every day of the week. Not enough money is spent on education, not enough money is spent on improving our schools, not enough money is spent on America period. We live in a nation that will rather build a prision bus than a school bus, a bomb before a book and a gun before a peace of mind. That's the way Bush wants to run this country, hell, lets be honest, he did come from TEXAS, a place that kills more people with the death penalty than any other state, a place that builds prison buses like crazy but children are still walking to school and a place that has more gun violence than New York.

I guess when Bush said no children will be left behind, he must've been talking about those daughters of his. Of course they'll never get left behind because like Kerry said, "The Bush daughters are just an example of no one being left behind if your daddy works hard enough." And that's what I like about Kerry, hell, that's what I like about the whole Democratic party; they say things that no one else thinks of.

So in closing, I'd like to say that everyone should vote but before you do, and if you WILL vote for Bush just imagine America in complete ruins then cast your vote; therefore, you'll make the right choice.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Justin]

It's not his fault that that is what the Bible says. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man may come to the Father but by me." -Jesus

How can we believe what we do without believing it wholly?

-Justin[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]I know that this may be a bit off topic, but Bush believes that [i]only[/i] evangilical Christians will get into heaven. Meaning, no Catholics, no Jews (no Muslims or any other sect of monotheistic religion are eligible for heaven. I guess I didn't make it clear enough.

I don't believe that God is like that that he keeps some kind of score card on who will or will not get into heaven and such. Maybe it has to do with how my mom raised me with religion or maybe it has somethingto do with every other type of research I've done concerning religion, but I think that this is one more thing that Bush has messed up on.

Religion is a wonderful thing when used in moderation it seems to give people strength to get through life's obsticles, but I don't believe that it should be used when governing a country that doesn't have one secular relgion.

I like how Garelock went into how Bush can't say he's against abortion when he goes off into a war with a country who hasn't had weapons of Mass destruction for over a decade and hasn't bothered to attend a soldier's funeral yet even though he's the cause of the death.

Bush will pass a ban on partial birth abortions yet he won't hesitate to send innocent men and women into battle and use weapons such as Daisy cutters on civilian areas in Iraq. Then he'll promise to put judges on the supreme court who are opposed to Roe vs Wade and at the same time allow a ban on automatic weapons to expire just to get votes from the NRA. Not only is that flip flopping on important issues that's flip flopping on your own views.

I think the reason these debates can last for so long on these site is because we keep finding different ways to look at the issues.[/color]

[chimazokuruby]

....bush bad...kerry...better

[Soliel]

[COLOR=GREEN]I'm for Kerry; democrat through and through. I really don't like the way Bush has handled things these past four years.
Let's start from the begining of his term. First, Bush was elected with less than the majority of the popular vote (he was elected due to a defalt in the electorial college). Then came 9/11. Now I'm not blaming anyone, especially Bush, for that horrific tragedy. No one knew exactly what was going to happen, with the exception of those involved. He did the best he could, under the circumstances, and I really felt like he was able to unite the nation after that. If the elections had been held in those first few months after Sept 11th, Bush would have been reelected in a landslide.
After that he sent troops to Afghanistan to retribute for what they had done to us. This I also feel was a good move for Bush. Then, several months after that, he desides that he wants to attack Iraq because he thought it was a "threat". That's where my confidence in him dropped significantly. I have yet to see valid proof that Iraq was a threat to the US or that their government was working in cooperation with the Al-Qaada (not sure if its spelled right) terrorists. Plus the economy is going down hill and gas prices are the highest they've ever been (granted they are going down now).
I just feel like we need a new person in office. Plus it's a proven fact that an incubant president is less likely to fulfill his campaign promises than his primary challenger. Why? Because of the two term limit for presidents; they know there's no way they can get reelected to a thrid term so there's so reason for him to worry about popularity or aproval.[/COLOR]

[Sui Generis]

[COLOR=Indigo]Call me idiotic, an extremist, or whatever I really don't care, but I support Bush/Cheney.

Granted I really know nothing of Cheney, to be honest, I don't pay much attention to the VP, but as for Bush.

I know many people think that his attack on Iraq was bad, for the wrong reasons, etc etc etc.

In my opinion although the reason for going into a country is important, I agreed with Bush. If a dictator (Suddam) can get away with human rights violations have the other without the ICC/UN/EU/NATO or any International Organization truly doing something about it, then well I think he'd be smart enough to hide WMD.

Ironically, I think that if Kerry gets elected, two years from now we'll dig up some chemical weapons in the middle of the desert, and of course Kerry will take the credit.

Thats just the type of person he portrays himself as being in my opinion. I mean granted he could be a great person I just don't see him as a president. I'm not going to call him a flip-flop, because well first off its over used, and second off truly he isn't that big of a flip-flop.

Its pretty much in the same category as the stupid military service argument Kerry has.


Now my real basis of decision many of you will probably laugh at.

Its pretty much based on Debate. If you are in highschool debate you know that the resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Establish A Foreign Policy Substantially Increasing Support of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations."

So naturally foreign affairs, Iraq, Bush, Terrorism, ICC, all those wonderful things are included in that topic. Well in my opinion, the United States is the world leader.

The United States hemegony is actual accepted world wide, despite extremists hating the United States, even the European Union has recognized the fact that US hemegony is key to world peace.

I think thats something that should be worked towards, granted total peace in a world is impossible, because humans have evil in them. I just think that it should be a goal of the United States as the World Leader to help this issue, and a good example is Iraq. I knew someone who died in Iraq, he was on of my best friends, but he wrote me all the time.

The funny thing is, he felt so passionatly about being in there, he always wrote about how all the people were so kind to them, and how the Iraqi's welcome the United States.

You know you only see pictures of protests, dead bodies, and angry civilians because the fact is thats what sells. The media doesn't have to 100% accuratly portray a situation, they just have to give a little bit of truth, and then cover whatever sells the most.

I have countless connections with people over in Iraq, and through it all I have yet to find someone who has written (or came to a class, or whatever) come and say that the Iraqi's didn't want us there (majority wise) or they didn't believe in what they were fighting for.

Personally I think as the world leader it was our responsibility to help another nation that was suffering. Obviously the United Nations can't do it, I mean look at Rwanda, they had a PKO in there, of course the PKO soldiers hid when the genocide started.

The thing is, the reason I say Bush can do this over Kerry is well...Kerry isn't firm. True some say Bush is a little to arrogant and confident about what he believes, but I'd rather have that than a president who is afraid to take action.

If you look at the debate Kerry kept saying we'll use multilateral forces to help promote national security. He'd then twist it around to make it sound like he would be stopping terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I just don't buy that, I think that he really isn't the man to do it, I don't think he could handel the knowledge that he'd be sending people to their death's to uphold the United States' morals and sleep at night.




Honestly I could keep going about why I like Bush better, theres the whole Russian issue, theres countless other issues, but really I don't want to type an essay here, if someone really wants to debate thats cool, PM me or something and I'll express all my beliefs.

I just think President Bush is portrayed as an imbocile and ignorant because thats what sells. The media has overstepped its boundaries in many areas in the last generation (in my opinion) and this is just another example where the sales matter more than the truth.[/COLOR]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I don't understand why people keep blaming Bush for this war when it's a war that any president would've went for. Kerry voted to go to war, anyway.

The problem with Iraq is that at this point we're wasting our time there, doing nothing but letting soldiers die. I think Bush was right to go to war in the middle east, but I don't think it was handled competently, and certainly isn't being handled competently now.

However, Kerry is a strong pro-war candidate, and rather than saying he wants to pull our forces OUT of Iraq, friggin promises to double the amount of divisions out there. He wants to send more American troops to dangerous territory (and how the heck he plans to bring in our "allies" on this, I think maybe he's praying Superman will help him out). And regardless of how well he (as if he will personally command forces) might want the troops to be handled, as far as I see it more American troops means more American casualties. The more soldiers you send out the longer it will take to bring them home.

I believe he is also gunning harder for Afghanistan. And if he's not, criticizing Bush for diverting his attention from Afghanistan to Iraq is asinine. Not to mention that it displays a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to warfare in a place like Afghanistan (if you ask me we should never [i]set foot[/i] in that country; bomb the crap out of it if you have to, but NO ground troops; the Soviet Union during the 80's showed us just what a drawn-out war in Afghanistan can turn into--Vietnam all over again). Honestly, we're not gonna find Bin Laden ever; if he doesn't want to be found he won't be. That's another reason we went after Saddam--to have [i]visible results[/i] for this "war on terrorism." I'm glad he was found; I'm not glad we didn't just shoot him like a dog then and there, though.

Now, I'm not a genius when it comes to this stuff, but it seems to me that if you're gonna be angry about Bush committing troops to Iraq then you'd have to be downright misinformed to prefer Kerry concerning the issue. All Kerry really says is that he "has a better plan," which is about as meaningful to me as monkey crap at this point. I have no reason to believe that Kerry's administration will be a more decisive commanding force than Bush's (although Bush's does seem to have somehow entrenched our troops in Iraq, or at least they're convinced they have, heh).

[GuyYouMetOnline]

Kerry voted to give Bush the authority, but he didn't agree with how Bush used it, as he made clear in the first debate. Clear to those with brains (which is synonemous(sp?) with 'people who aren't going to vote for Bush'), at least.

Yes, that's right. If you actuallly support Bush, I don't see how you can possibly know anything. Bush himself is an idiot, and yes, I mean an actual, literal idiot. I was quoted in the [i]Arizona Daily Star[/i] calling him an idiot, and he is. There's no point in explaing why I know (not think, know. He [i]is[/i] an idiot) he's an idiot, because if you're capable of understanding the explination, than you already know what I'm going to say (mentioning everything moronic that he's done, which is [i]everything[/i] he's done).

Yes, I have a strong oppinion. How strong? Well, let me put it this way: everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Oppinions are never wrong (unless it's an oppinion that contradicts fact), pretty much by definition. Unless you oppinion is that Bush is a better President than a rock would be, that is. Then you're wrong.