Who you're voting for (or against) and why

[Flagg the Wanderer]

I guess I'm still undecided, because I hate both candidates with the burning, firey hate of ten thousand suns.

Bush surrounds himself with pretty competent people much of the time, but seems to make up his mind about an issue before listening to them. He's intellectually incurious, and doesn't question people enough when they agree with him, nor take enough time to consider the opinions of those who disagree with him. He's managed to let the federal government baloon in size under his watch - creating the various agencies (chiefly Homeland Security) without paring down the government in other places has created a real morass.

Kerry has never held down a real job in his life, and IMO real veterans don't parade their military service. I know a ton of veterans, and they are, to a man (and a couple women) very reluctant to talk about their war experiences. I think it says something about a man who marries for money. While I have nothing against a politician changing his mind on issues over time, Kerry has shown himself to be essentially spineless, testing the wind before making a stand on any given issue...and then testing it again before the actual vote comes down. I don't think that legislators make particularly good presidents, in general - legislators are used to being in a situation where they can make a voting record mark, knowing that the vote will come down the otehr way. A president, by executive action or by signing (or vetoing) a bill, has a much bigger effect, and so can't be doing things to make a voting record look better.

Having spoken at length to someone who knew both (played soccer with both) at Yale, he's as baffled as I am that these two men are the candidates for President. He's a Democrat, but knowing both personally said - "I can *kind of* understand Bush getting to that position...but John Kerry? KERRY???"

In the end, it comes down to this for me:
If I vote for Kerry, in 4 years it will be Kerry vs. Someone else.
If I vote for Bush, in 4 years it will be Someone else vs. Someone else.

The way I see it, voting for Bush gives me twice as much chance of having someone nominated 4 years from now that I don't despise.

Additionally, I think 2nd term Presidents, on the whole, are much more effective than first termers.

So, on balance, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Bush.

...if anyone cares what I think. What about you all?

Flagg

[Undertaker #59]

Interesting post. I am surprised no one has bitten on it yet. I don't like either of them and am seriously considering voting for TrueBeliever.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

I hate both of them, but what can I say? Voting for anyone else is a total waste.

Plus, for all its warts, I strongly believe in a two party system.

[BobKraftsCoozie]

I choose Tom Brady for MVP 2004-05!!!

:doh:

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Interesting post. I am surprised no one has bitten on it yet. I don't like either of them and am seriously considering voting for TrueBeliever.

I ain't not touching this'n with a ten foot pole.

[mgoblue101415]

I'll bite...

My vote is going to Kerry.

I look at this way... There is NO possible way Kerry is worse than Bush.

Well that, and I'd vote for just about anybody to get Bush out of office.

In all seriousness, I really do back Kerry. I'm actually a campaign volunteer, so I sorta feel obligated to vote for him. :p

[B A Rabbit]

The Bald Eagle flies alone.

[BionicPatriot]

Consider me the lone, scared republican.

[dred]

I'm sticking with Bush ....he obviously has the better arm.

http://msn.foxsports.com/id/2627654_7_2.jpg

:D

[bideau]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
I'll bite...

My vote is going to Kerry.

I look at this way... There is NO possible way Kerry is worse than Bush.

Well that, and I'd vote for just about anybody to get Bush out of office.

In all seriousness, I really do back Kerry. I'm actually a campaign volunteer, so I sorta feel obligated to vote for him. :p

Ya, what you said.

Big surprise here, I'll be voting for Kerry. I've stated my reasons many times in other threads. I don't feel like rehashing them.

[dreadlord]

My silence is finally broken. Been lurking here for awhile but never really found much to respond to since the "other" forum captures most everything Pats related. :) Nice to see a few familiar faces. Nice to see Townes posting. Going to take a leap of faith that the political behavior here is different than in other forums. Haven't had much luck mixing politics with football but what the hey!

Re: Who to vote for ... I am a long time conservative that has only once not voted party line. I find myself in a similar situation again in this coming election. Living in Massachusetts, I also have to live with the fact that voting Republican is a wasted vote since the popular vote is superceded by the electoral. I mirror a lot of the sentiments against Kerry. Anybody who thinks he is not the ultimate politician simply isn't paying attention. There isn't a single law firm or financial institution in Boston (or most of Massachuseets) that isn't in Kerry's back pocket. That said it is also pretty obvious Bush has his own pundants as well. At the risk of avoiding who has the better pundants (which is what this will most likely really come down to in the end) I think I'll just leave it that Kerry is a "typical" politician. So anybody expecting reform in that arena should probably reset their expectations.

I'm not here to push an agenda against Kerry. I'm actually more concerned why I find myself not aligned with the conservative right. There appears to be three major conerns for me that I can't seem to resolve re: Bush ... 1) Was the US justified going into Iraq 2) Were civil liberties infringed upon because of #1 or for some other agenda and 3) Is the Government really "smaller" and more inline with the people?

Re: 1) Unfortunately I'm not convinced the Iraqi war was about oil. Yes Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. However, if I remember correctly only 25% of the oil imported into the US comes from the Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc). Of that 25% only 2% actually came from Iraq. Approximately 50% of the oil consumed by the US came from the US. And I I have the rest correct approximately 25% came from Mexico, Canada, Europe and Africa. If we assume that somehow the US wanted to reappropriate the distribution of the oil originated from the Middle East whatwould the current Administration have to gain? Some of the "Anti-Bushers" would like to believe that this somehow would result in more than 23% of oil being imported from the Middle East. I submit that this remains to be seen. And from what I can see, the '04 #s still indicate that this will remain unchanged. So the only other consideration that we should consider when talking about going into Iraq is the possibility of influencing OPEC and oil prices. I would have to say that if this was the case this Administration has met with less than stellar results. So you can see why I'm hesitant to conspire to the whole "going in for oil" argument. Regardless, I'm disappointed in this Administration in deciding that securing other oil resources were decidely more important than reducing oil consumption. Not only is it irresponsible but it flies in the face in a campaign promise to start looking at alternate\cleaner fuels. I won't get into the Halliburton aspect of it either (just too long to get into).
So were we justified in going into Iraq? Right now I have to say no. Bad intelligence just simply doesn't excuse this for me. And every time I think otherwise I'm left to wonder how we would feel if a state suceeded from the union (sorry Townes but it proves my point) and somehow had bad intelligence created indicating a threat to take over Turkey. Resulting in Turkey blowing that State off the face of the map. I doubt many if any would be able to sit back and write it off to bad intelligence. Bottom line, you need to be sure before you make a decsision like going into Iraq.

Re: #2) Civil liberties. I can't say that I'm overtly "sensitive" to this area. More cognitively aware. There are just too many examples of this Administration pushing some weird agenda that either directly\indirectly steps on the toes of some type of civil liberty. The Patriot Act while good in it's intention has been executed horribly. Couple this with censorship and religious aspects of this Administration and my skin starts to crawl. That being said I think we are a long way from the Anti-Bush claims that the Us is the next 3rd Reich.

Re: #3) Biggest disappointment I think I can possible come up with. This Government has proven to be fiscally irresponsible and it the largest it has been in over 2 decades. Both of which are paramount in my voting criteria. Unfortunately I have ZERO confidence that Kerry is capable of making either any better.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I sit here confused about the upcoming election on what I am going to do while knowing it will matter little. :(

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by dreadlord
My silence is finally broken. Been lurking here for awhile but never really found much to respond to since the "other" forum captures most everything Pats related. :) Nice to see a few familiar faces. Nice to see Townes posting. Going to take a leap of faith that the political behavior here is different than in other forums. Haven't had much luck mixing politics with football but what the hey!


Glad to see you delurk. :) As far as the political behavior here - it really hasn't been defined yet. Politics went mostly ignored on this board, but its been creeping up more and more lately. So its up to you guys to set the tone here.

[spiderman]

My vote: Bush

Kerry's not a leader, he's a follower (of Ted Kennedy...always has been)

[townes]

Count me among those who are very happy to see Dread posting here, although we often disagreed we had great debates over the Patriots, many regarding draft issues.

BTW--Dread-I think this is a really opportune time to say something negative about the Watson pick, and it will get us off to a flying start. "Patriots Waste Another First" or "How Many Goddamn Tight Ends Do We Need?" are suggested thread titles.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by townes
BTW--Dread-I think this is a really opportune time to say something negative about the Watson pick, and it will get us off to a flying start. "Patriots Waste Another First" or "How Many Goddamn Tight Ends Do We Need?" are suggested thread titles.

Alright dammit - keep this kinda crap out of the politics thread. You might offend someone.

:D

Seriously tho - good to have you guys around. Keep the posts a comin'.

[townes]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Alright dammit - keep this kinda crap out of the politics thread. You might offend someone.

:D

Seriously tho - good to have you guys around. Keep the posts a comin'.


lmao-I definitely deserved this.

[Mark_Henderson]

The primary reason for my voting against Bush is Supreme Court appointments. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on a number of 5-4 social issues, is 80. The Court is already loaded with 6/9 Reagan/Bush, Sr. appointees and Bush has made it clear, governing as a right wing idealogue, what type of appointments he would make. There will likely be at least 3 of these in the next term. Their influence will be felt for 30 years.

For those of you who argue that Kerry is a "typical politician", I find that a little humorous given that Bush is the grandson of a Senator and the son of a President. His attempts at private business were disastrous -- he was bailed out by connections that other people wouldn't have.

If Kerry being "a typical politician" means that he puts his finger to the political winds, at least that has the effect of MODERATING his policy. The Bush administration has been the wet dream of the religious right and industrial polluters. They couldn't do better -- unless he gets a second term and doesn't have to worry about re-election.

I have been happy to vote for moderate Republicans in the past --John McCain & William Weld. But, when Weld was nominated to a national post, it was the Republican right that blocked it. Bush has governed like Jesse Helms.

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
The primary reason for my voting against Bush is...

Seems pretty straight ahead to me. Not everybody that is voting for Kerry is doing so 'cuz they like Kerry. they just want Prez. Bush out of office.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Supkem
Seems pretty straight ahead to me. Not everybody that is voting for Kerry is doing so 'cuz they like Kerry. they just want Prez. Bush out of office.

Spuke -

It's not like you put yourself on the line by posting anything of substance, but your signature line, which you just edited, gave me an idea of where you're coming from.

You listed swiftboats.com, which is pure smear politics. The group features John O'Neill, who was originally recruited and funded by convicted felon Chuck Colson (paymaster for the Watergate burglers) and the Nixon White House to ruin Kerry's reputation when he came out against the war in 1971.

The group lists a number of soldiers from other swift boats who say that they felt that Kerry was "unfit for duty". Interestingly, none of them made this claim while they were serving with him -- all of them did so to discredit him after he came out against the war.

Also, the "handful of veterans" that Kerry "trots around the country for public appearances to sing his praises" are ALL of the ones who SERVED WITH KERRY on HIS swift boat. All the members of swiftboats.com are guys who served on OTHER BOATS, not Kerry's.

If you don't like Kerry, that's fine. But this website is no different than the allegations that Clinton ran a cocaine ring out of an air base in Arkansas and had his lawyer murdered. It's what some Republicans do when they're scared they're going to lose.

[townes]

How many people do you personally know who are better off now than they were four years ago?



How many of you think this country is on a track to leave greater opportunity and well being for their kids?

How many people think this country is stronger and safer than we have been throughout our lives?


How many think that health care, insurance and education are becoming more affordable and better working as systems?



I could go on, but it will all come down to the same point.

Staying the course means leaving a worse environment, more debt, more war, fewer jobs, less pay, less healthcare, worse education, and a sucky future for all.

Screw That!



This administration has to go.

[Frankie_C]

I'm voting for Bush... Kerry has already pledged to appease the U.N. before making any moves with our countries military. Quite honestly, I can't stomach putting our country's soveriegn right to defend itself in the hands of another lesser, jealous nation. Furthermore, I don't believe Kerry's claims of heroics during Vietnam.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by townes
How many people do you personally know who are better off now than they were four years ago?

... I am...

But that's got nothing to do with Politics or the President. I worked hard. Plus I got rid of my ex-wife.

[townes]

That's confusing, the last Bush supporter said there is "no difference" in their foreign policy views, now you are saying they are 180 degrees in opposition to each other?

Which is it?

[townes]

Originally posted by Annihilus
... I am...

But that's got nothing to do with Politics or the President. I worked hard. Plus I got rid of my ex-wife.

Good answer, good move-I'm guessing on the latter.

[jim_vh]

bush borrows too much money. all the republicans do. that is ronald reagans true legacy, $7 trillion (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) in national debt. and bush won't stop it. they are out to destroy free speech also and are making it an arrestable (http://tinyurl.com/3cptb ) offense to hold up a sign that spoils the president's tv appearances. I will vote for kerry, not that it matters. if he can't carry RI he will never win anyway. I will also vote for republicans at the local level because the democrats are such a bunch of crooks. { i remember ed diprete running as a reform candidate. }

when bush was in school he was an underachiever. when he was in business he pulled a martha stewart (http://liberaleagle.tripod.com/eagle64.html)
"In 1990, Bush sat on the board of directors of Harkin Energy Company and on their audit committee. Just before the company announced a $23 million loss, Bush sold some $850,000 worth of stock. when his country called for soldiers Bush dodged Vietnam by using powerful family friends to get into the Texas Air National Guard "Champagne Unit." (http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=22715) .

when he is in government he borrows too much money, starts a war and now is trying to blame the cia for his failures - not that getting rid of saddam is a bad thing, but is it worth the price? and now that we have iraq, what do we do with it?

[townes]

Punt?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Sweet merciful crap! Jim vh posts here?

What happened to your LOS analyses, Jimmy? I may have been in the minority, but I miss them. I find most statistical analysis useful.

[jim_vh]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Sweet merciful crap! Jim vh posts here?

What happened to your LOS analyses, Jimmy? I may have been in the minority, but I miss them. I find most statistical analysis useful. I stopped doing them a long time ago. the patriots weekly actually does them, and does them a lot better.

[dreadlord]

Originally posted by townes

How many think that health care, insurance and education are becoming more affordable and better working as systems?


I think it's fair to ask how this is being measured? Are we measuring these based on how much is being funded or on efficiency with the funds available? I do find it funny that most of the people who don't advocate Bush site education as a point of reform. That includes a lot of the Democrats in Washington. The majority of whom cite lack of funding as their primary complaint. The reality is the lack of funding in the scholl system has not gotten any worse. I think most agree that the "No child left behind" act has not yielded better results but it has proven that you can do more with less. Or at the very least do the same with less. So you can see why I think it's important to identify how these should be measured.

[dreadlord]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
The primary reason for my voting against Bush is Supreme Court appointments. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on a number of 5-4 social issues, is 80. The Court is already loaded with 6/9 Reagan/Bush, Sr. appointees and Bush has made it clear, governing as a right wing idealogue, what type of appointments he would make. There will likely be at least 3 of these in the next term. Their influence will be felt for 30 years.

For those of you who argue that Kerry is a "typical politician", I find that a little humorous given that Bush is the grandson of a Senator and the son of a President. His attempts at private business were disastrous -- he was bailed out by connections that other people wouldn't have.

If Kerry being "a typical politician" means that he puts his finger to the political winds, at least that has the effect of MODERATING his policy. The Bush administration has been the wet dream of the religious right and industrial polluters. They couldn't do better -- unless he gets a second term and doesn't have to worry about re-election.

I have been happy to vote for moderate Republicans in the past --John McCain & William Weld. But, when Weld was nominated to a national post, it was the Republican right that blocked it. Bush has governed like Jesse Helms.

First, let me clarify that I inferred that both Bush and Kerry were typical politicians. There is MODERATING his policy and there is sitting on the fence on every issue (waffles are his choice of breakfast). Let's be adult enough to see the difference here. Moderating his policy might actually imply that his voting record would be something other than slanting to the left. Which it is not. Kerry claims to be a pundant of alternate energy sources but somehow finds a way to prevent windmills from being put on Nantucket and the Vineyard. Not that windmills are a bad idea per se so long as they aren't in his backyard. I'm sorry but that is neither moderating his policy or illustrative of his being in touch with the collective whole.

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by townes
That's confusing, the last Bush supporter said there is "no difference" in their foreign policy views, now you are saying they are 180 degrees in opposition to each other?

Which is it?

That's one of the problems with Kerry boy, he can't keep his story straight. A few months ago he stated that he wouldn't make a move without UN approval but at the DNC he stated that he would not only act without the UN he supported the war in Iraq and would not remove the troops. So either Kerry is a liar or he has serious memory failure issues...which might explain why he has never been present for most senate votes...

You want a President who can't even remember to show up for work?

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by jim_vh
bush borrows too much money. all the republicans do. that is ronald reagans true legacy, $7 trillion (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) in national debt. and bush won't stop it.


As a quick reading of the Constitution will attest, the President has no power to spend. That power lies with Congress.

Biggest Annual Deficit: Bush’s deficit is not the largest in American History if you take into account Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When the deficit is measured as a percentage of GDP, Bush’s is actually smaller than many of the presidents before him:


they are out to destroy free speech also and are making it an arrestable (http://tinyurl.com/3cptb ) offense to hold up a sign that spoils the president's tv appearances.

This is a common occurence and is common practice, they do the same for Democratic presidents too. In fact they have been known to do this for local politics too.


when bush was in school he was an underachiever. when he was in business he pulled a martha stewart (http://liberaleagle.tripod.com/eagle64.html)

Bush was not a tremendous success in the oil business. But the allegation here appears to be that Bush sold his stock to “cash out” before the company went bankrupt. Bush sold his stock for $4.00 per share. A year later, the stock was valued at $8.00 per share. The company, Harken Energy Corporation, is still functioning.

More info: CNN, "Bush as businessman: How the Texas governor made his millions"


. when his country called for soldiers Bush dodged Vietnam by using powerful family friends to get into the Texas Air National Guard "Champagne Unit." (http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=22715) .

Show me the proof of this statement. Bush volunteered for the Air National Guard as any one else could have done. He was fortunate that his unit did not get sent to Vietnam, some units did get sent. It was luck of the draw and nothing else. Bush no more deserves to have his military record smeared than Kerry does.


when he is in government he borrows too much money, starts a war and now is trying to blame the cia for his failures - not that getting rid of saddam is a bad thing, but is it worth the price? and now that we have iraq, what do we do with it?

A war that John Kerry agrees with based on intelligence that John Kerry agreed with. ;)

How is this liberal propaganda any better than the conservative propaganda you condemn?

[townes]

Originally posted by jeepndd
That's one of the problems with Kerry boy, he can't keep his story straight. A few months ago he stated that he wouldn't make a move without UN approval but at the DNC he stated that he would not only act without the UN he supported the war in Iraq and would not remove the troops. So either Kerry is a liar or he has serious memory failure issues...which might explain why he has never been present for most senate votes...

You want a President who can't even remember to show up for work?



Nice job of avoiding the question, so far you have ducked every one you have been asked.


Which is it, are Bush and Kerry "just alike on foreign policy" or are they "completely different?"






As for your second point-your boy is still AWOL last i knew. Too busy doin' coke and banging ho's to serve his country, even his wife came within hours of ditchin' our "highly moral DUI AWOL president..


It's amazing that Caroline Alexander can recreate the service records of people who served in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but W's has gone a missin"????

Too busy protecting Texas from Mississippi i guess.

[jim_vh]

Originally posted by jeepndd
As a quick reading of the Constitution will attest, the President has no power to spend. That power lies with Congress.

Biggest Annual Deficit: Bush’s deficit is not the largest in American History if you take into account Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When the deficit is measured as a percentage of GDP, Bush’s is actually smaller than many of the presidents before him:

This is a common occurence and is common practice, they do the same for Democratic presidents too. In fact they have been known to do this for local politics too.

Bush was not a tremendous success in the oil business. But the allegation here appears to be that Bush sold his stock to “cash out” before the company went bankrupt. Bush sold his stock for $4.00 per share. A year later, the stock was valued at $8.00 per share. The company, Harken Energy Corporation, is still functioning.

More info: CNN, "Bush as businessman: How the Texas governor made his millions"

Show me the proof of this statement. Bush volunteered for the Air National Guard as any one else could have done. He was fortunate that his unit did not get sent to Vietnam, some units did get sent. It was luck of the draw and nothing else. Bush no more deserves to have his military record smeared than Kerry does.

A war that John Kerry agrees with based on intelligence that John Kerry agreed with. ;)

How is this liberal propaganda any better than the conservative propaganda you condemn?

about deficit spending: in the world of practical politics there was no way that the $7 trillion in debt would have happened if ronald reagan had not been elected. about bush putting his life on the line in the champagne unit, it was loaded up with politicians kids and pro atheletes. i think lloyd bentsens son was in the same outfit. there was no way in forking hell they were going to vietnam. and if you think you should just laugh off $7 trillion in debt then be aware this could be something that marks the decline of the us as an economic power.

about his business practices, it doesn't matter what it sold for the next year. dubya was concerned about what would happen the next week, and he pulled a martha stewart and dumped his stock before it dumped on him.

and about the natl guard, today they get sent. in the 60s and 70s they did NOT. There were NO natl guard units sent out for vietnam, and there was a lot of competition to get into one of those units the way that dan quayle and dubya did to avoid service.

[NCPATRIOT]

I am voting FOR our Military, so I am going with Bush, 100% Republican..


Patriots have seen Bush twice in the past 3 years and I am hoping they see hime again in February '05 :D

Hey there is another superstition? :eek: Maybe?

[bideau]

Originally posted by NCPATRIOT
I am voting FOR our Military, so I am going with Bush, 100% Republican..


Patriots have seen Bush twice in the past 3 years and I am hoping they see hime again in February '05 :D

Hey there is another superstition? :eek: Maybe?

Now wait a minute!!

What makes Bush pro military and Kerry anti military??

[NCPATRIOT]

Originally posted by bideau
Now wait a minute!!

What makes Bush pro military and Kerry anti military??

I didn't really mean to say so much that Kerry is anti military... BUT I don't like his view on weapons and military funding. I shouldn't have worded it that way, sorry if it sounded stupid.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by NCPATRIOT
I didn't really mean to say so much that Kerry is anti military... BUT I don't like his view on weapons and military funding. I shouldn't have worded it that way, sorry if it sounded stupid.

No, I agree with you.

Let me put it this way.

When you are driving around in a 12 year old Humvee, and your unit can't afford lithium batteries for your manpack radio, like it was under Clinton, that's what I consider ANTI-MILITARY.

Rest assured, we will return to those days under Kerry.

You can't vote against military funding, and then make a speech saying that you are PRO-MILITARY. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way, and Kerry's record shows that he's ANTI-MILITARY!

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by townes
How many people do you personally know who are better off now than they were four years ago?



How many of you think this country is on a track to leave greater opportunity and well being for their kids?

How many people think this country is stronger and safer than we have been throughout our lives?


How many think that health care, insurance and education are becoming more affordable and better working as systems?



I could go on, but it will all come down to the same point.

Staying the course means leaving a worse environment, more debt, more war, fewer jobs, less pay, less healthcare, worse education, and a sucky future for all.

Screw That!



This administration has to go.

I'm better off than I was 4 years ago.

I believe that greater opportunity starts with our kids NOT being killed by terrorist peices of SH*T! So yeah, by default, their future is brighter than it was 4 years ago.

This year, my health insurance premium is increasing by the smallest percentage than it has in any other year since i've been employed. I'm not sure if you want to go socialist or not, I know I don't. Unfortunately it costs money for medicine and doctors. I know you probably wish it were free. If so, move to Canada.

I'm not sure where all the doom and gloom comes from. I don't know anybody that has lost their jobs. I don't know any children who are dumber now because the educational system has gotten worse. I'm not quite sure how the national debt effet me, seeing that we owe that money to OURSELVES!

This administration must STAY. I'm voting BUSH.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
I'm better off than I was 4 years ago.

I believe that greater opportunity starts with our kids NOT being killed by terrorist peices of SH*T! So yeah, by default, their future is brighter than it was 4 years ago.

This year, my health insurance premium is increasing by the smallest percentage than it has in any other year since i've been employed. I'm not sure if you want to go socialist or not, I know I don't. Unfortunately it costs money for medicine and doctors. I know you probably wish it were free. If so, move to Canada.

I'm not sure where all the doom and gloom comes from. I don't know anybody that has lost their jobs. I don't know any children who are dumber now because the educational system has gotten worse. I'm not quite sure how the national debt effet me, seeing that we owe that money to OURSELVES!

This administration must STAY. I'm voting BUSH.

What a crock of bull$hit that is!!!

My kids are no safer now than they were 4 years ago. Why?? First of all, let's start with the administration's plan to reinstitute the draft. This version, both men and women, with NO derferrments. For those of us who have kids between the ages of 18-26, think that over a little bit. The military's enlistments are way down and the quality of those enlistments of down as well. Second, the smart ones are seeing Iraq for what it is, this administration's shameless ploy to line the pockets of their oil and defense buddies. Iraq was never a terrorist threat. There has never been any proof that they had any connection with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. WOM still have not been found. There's a very large civil war looming. And 1000+ of our best young men and women have paid the price.

Am I better off 4 years later. Absolutely not. I have not had a pay raise in 4 years while the CEO of mny company has had his salary and bonus double, my investments are worth less, my premiums are higher, and many of my peers have been replaced by foriegn workers because this administration raised the number of work VISAs available for non-citizens. They've allowed important high tech jobs to go overseas with no penalties for the corporations that are lining their pockets as a result.

There is more civil unrest, more divisions in this country than we've seen since vietnam. This administration thrives on the divide and conquer mentality. They've let religous fundamentalists dictate doomestic policy.

All I can say is I'm glad you live in a state where your vote won't matter. History will eventually show Bush as one of the worst presidents in our history.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
No, I agree with you.

Let me put it this way.

When you are driving around in a 12 year old Humvee, and your unit can't afford lithium batteries for your manpack radio, like it was under Clinton, that's what I consider ANTI-MILITARY.

Rest assured, we will return to those days under Kerry.

You can't vote against military funding, and then make a speech saying that you are PRO-MILITARY. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way, and Kerry's record shows that he's ANTI-MILITARY!


Bush may afford lithium batteries but you have to take everything that comes with it. That includes the eventual reinstatement of the draft and the anarchy in Iraq.

I just talked to a friend that is home from Iraq and is about to go back there. He says Iraq is a real mess and it will be a very long time, maybe never before there is any redeming value in what we did there. That is from a soldier serving under President Bush.

I also know a Marine in Afghanistan. He is hot and heavy in the mountains inveloped in fire fights daily. It is his second tour in Afghanistan and they have told him he will be going to Iraq after this tour. If that does not tell you that the US military is over extended and that the draft will soon become a reality I do not know what will.

Kerry has seen combat... Bush has not. How can anyone say that Kerry is anti-military. :4321:

[bideau]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush may afford lithium batteries but you have to take everything that comes with it. That includes the eventual reinstatement of the draft and the anarchy in Iraq.

I just talked to a friend that is home from Iraq and is about to go back there. He says Iraq is a real mess and it will be a very long time, maybe never before there is any redeming value in what we did there. That is from a soldier serving under President Bush.

I also know a Marine in Afghanistan. He is hot and heavy in the mountains inveloped in fire fights daily. It is his second tour in Afghanistan and they have told him he will be going to Iraq after this tour. If that does not tell you that the US military is over extended and that the draft will soon become a reality I do not know what will.

Kerry has seen combat... Bush has not. How can anyone say that Kerry is anti-military. :4321:

And let's not forget that while Bush and his cronies are "fighting terrorism", they're ignoring the biggest threat to world stability, North Korea. That is a country with the ability to wreak devestation around the world. But the policy seems to be letting China deal with them.

One major reason is the over extension of resources that you talk about. As our presence in the Korean peninsula weakens, watch for North Korea to make a ballsy move on South Korea. And then our national security will truly be at stake when we need to take on a fanatical regime with one of the most powerful arsenals in the world.

But let's not deal with them, afterall, there's no money to be made there :mad:

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by townes
Nice job of avoiding the question, so far you have ducked every one you have been asked.


Which is it, are Bush and Kerry "just alike on foreign policy" or are they "completely different?"






As for your second point-your boy is still AWOL last i knew. Too busy doin' coke and banging ho's to serve his country, even his wife came within hours of ditchin' our "highly moral DUI AWOL president..


It's amazing that Caroline Alexander can recreate the service records of people who served in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but W's has gone a missin"????

Too busy protecting Texas from Mississippi i guess.

I haven't avioded any questions and I'll answer any as truthfully as I know. My problem with Kerry isn't that his foreign policy is similar to Bush's. My problem is that he can't even be truthful with his own party, he lied to win the nomination and now I suspect he is lying to win the presidency. I really don't understand the mindless lovefest of the Democrats with a politician who lies to them about his every policy....

In regards to your allegations against Bush in regard to his military record I'll believe them as soon as anyone can show ANY proof whatsoever, until then they are baseless allegations and nothing more.

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by jim_vh
about deficit spending: in the world of practical politics there was no way that the $7 trillion in debt would have happened if ronald reagan had not been elected. about bush putting his life on the line in the champagne unit, it was loaded up with politicians kids and pro atheletes. i think lloyd bentsens son was in the same outfit. there was no way in forking hell they were going to vietnam. and if you think you should just laugh off $7 trillion in debt then be aware this could be something that marks the decline of the us as an economic power.

about his business practices, it doesn't matter what it sold for the next year. dubya was concerned about what would happen the next week, and he pulled a martha stewart and dumped his stock before it dumped on him.

and about the natl guard, today they get sent. in the 60s and 70s they did NOT. There were NO natl guard units sent out for vietnam, and there was a lot of competition to get into one of those units the way that dan quayle and dubya did to avoid service.

I won't argue that Reagan didn't run up the national debt, it's true and even a fool knows it. But, he eliminated an escalating nuclear arms race that only could have resulted in the complete destruction of the entire planet. How could any price not be worth the elimination of that threat?

I am a veteran and I am fine with Bush's service. Are you a veteran?

In regard to the Martha Stewart reference it is more than clear that both Clintons were deeply involved in the S&L scandals, did that deter you from supporting them? In my opinion it is strictly allegations without proof, unlike the Clintons where there was considerable proof of misconduct...

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by bideau
What a crock of bull$hit that is!!!

My kids are no safer now than they were 4 years ago. Why?? First of all, let's start with the administration's plan to reinstitute the draft. This version, both men and women, with NO derferrments. For those of us who have kids between the ages of 18-26, think that over a little bit. The military's enlistments are way down and the quality of those enlistments of down as well. Second, the smart ones are seeing Iraq for what it is, this administration's shameless ploy to line the pockets of their oil and defense buddies. Iraq was never a terrorist threat. There has never been any proof that they had any connection with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. WOM still have not been found. There's a very large civil war looming. And 1000+ of our best young men and women have paid the price.

Am I better off 4 years later. Absolutely not. I have not had a pay raise in 4 years while the CEO of mny company has had his salary and bonus double, my investments are worth less, my premiums are higher, and many of my peers have been replaced by foriegn workers because this administration raised the number of work VISAs available for non-citizens. They've allowed important high tech jobs to go overseas with no penalties for the corporations that are lining their pockets as a result.

There is more civil unrest, more divisions in this country than we've seen since vietnam. This administration thrives on the divide and conquer mentality. They've let religous fundamentalists dictate doomestic policy.

All I can say is I'm glad you live in a state where your vote won't matter. History will eventually show Bush as one of the worst presidents in our history.

Talk about BS... :shake:

I support the draft because I think there are far too many unwilling to serve their country in ANY capacity. thier are far too many selfish people in this country today.

In regard to foreign visa's you should be thankful you still have a job. I'm a displaced tech worker who got canned while EVERY foreign visa holder retained his job! I interviewed 98 people for tech positions, all Americans, immediately before the visa program was instituted. There was no shortage of high tech workers. That was ALL true with one exception, A DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION SIGNED OFF ON THAT BILL. Yep, Clintion signed it before Bush got into office. Try again.

More civil unrest? How do you quantify that? I'm not buying it.

My vote will matter, it is your state where your vote won't matter. Unless you vote Democrat the mindless masses will render your vote useless.

BTW, I'm not a mindless conservative voter. I have voted many times for politicians who are Democrats or other parties. I vote for the best available. John Kerry doesn't show up for work more than 70% of the time and lies even to the people in his own party. How can I rationally support that? :confused:

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush may afford lithium batteries but you have to take everything that comes with it. That includes the eventual reinstatement of the draft and the anarchy in Iraq.

I just talked to a friend that is home from Iraq and is about to go back there. He says Iraq is a real mess and it will be a very long time, maybe never before there is any redeming value in what we did there. That is from a soldier serving under President Bush.

I also know a Marine in Afghanistan. He is hot and heavy in the mountains inveloped in fire fights daily. It is his second tour in Afghanistan and they have told him he will be going to Iraq after this tour. If that does not tell you that the US military is over extended and that the draft will soon become a reality I do not know what will.

Kerry has seen combat... Bush has not. How can anyone say that Kerry is anti-military. :4321:

The military is over extended? Then nothing has changed I see. For every troop with a negative story there are hundreds with positive stories... Most of our troops, the vast majority, are proud to serve. Remember, it's voluntary, if they don't want to serve they shouldn't sign up.

I personally know people serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and they all speak positively about their involvement their. One of them lost his life in Afghanistan in 2002 so I'm going to avoid getting emotional about it and I'm not going to tell you what I really think about your comments.

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by bideau
And let's not forget that while Bush and his cronies are "fighting terrorism", they're ignoring the biggest threat to world stability, North Korea. That is a country with the ability to wreak devestation around the world. But the policy seems to be letting China deal with them.

One major reason is the over extension of resources that you talk about. As our presence in the Korean peninsula weakens, watch for North Korea to make a ballsy move on South Korea. And then our national security will truly be at stake when we need to take on a fanatical regime with one of the most powerful arsenals in the world.

But let's not deal with them, afterall, there's no money to be made there :mad:

Please, you seem to be a fairly intelligent person, use your head. North Korea the biggest threat? Pull your head out of the proverbial sand. China must be the biggest threat there is. They are openly hostile in their relations with the rest of the world. They have shown that they are more than willing to take military action to force their will. They are one of the biggest human rights violators on the planet. With the resources available to them they, admittedly would restart a nuclear arms race. Our policies in China's regards, those worry me. But North Korea? Are you kidding? Despite thier propoganda they are a nation on it's knees. North Korea is a nation doomed, we only need to sit back while Kim Il Jong, a Kerry supporter ;) , finishes it off.