On November 2nd, who are you going to vote for?

[Maerj]

Its pretty clear that Bush needs to go. He doesn't come off as being a person who gives much thought to his actions, although I really do think that he means well. But the best of intentions mean nothing if you don't know what you are doing. Ask the families of the over 1000 soldiers who died in Iraq or the families of the over 10,000 Iraquis who died in the invasion of Bagdad if the invasion was a good idea.

Bush has made people think that he is somehow protecting us and that no other person can. His propaganda campaign says that anyone who disagrees is un-American. We are told that we have more freedom than ever, yet it is only the government who has this freedom, the freedom to search private citizens for any reason they wish. The freedom to invade your home without a warrant. The freedom to exploit third world nations for cheap labor and services, meanwhile Americans lose their jobs. I know that's true because I am one of those people. Sure there are jobs out there now...Wal Mart, Taco Bell, etc. Well, you can't live on $6 an hour. Basically the middle class is being destroyed, soon there will only be the filthy rich and the poor.

In closing, I must say that I am not a Kerry supporter as much as I am against the current leadership. I think that Kerry needs to say exactly what he stands for and what his plans are to improve the current situation. But I would vote for Kerry over Bush at this point as we need a change and fast. Sorry if I went too far here but the board has been kind of dead lately.

[catNC]

All I have to say is:

With that much crap, you've gotta have two Johns!!

I have done my research, and I will be voting for W this November. Everyone must make sure and do their research before jumping on any bandwagon and blindly following whatever they hear.

Voting is a privilege, so vote RESPONSIBLY.

[englishboy]

Has this country ever killed so many civilians for so little reason than in Iraq?

If you want to further bankrupt the federal government, if you want to further deplete funding for hospitals, schools, and police, if you want to go to war with Iran (it's coming, just watch), if you want more ineffective pollicy with the middle east that will result in more terrorist strikes on the US, go ahead, vote Bush. He's your man, no doubt

I'll be voting Kerry.



+++++

I do understand why certain religous individuals will vote Bush. (Personally I think the man's actions in regards to irresponsibly using our technology and weapons to bring about the deaths of tens of thousands in an unfounded war is very un-Christain, but whatever.) But I understand the impulse for such people to vote for him--in regards to certain liberal social issues. (I don't agree, but understand.) I also understand the impulse for the wealthy (those with personal incomes OVER $300k/year) to vote for Bush. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone who is not in one of these two camps--extremely conservative Christians or the very wealthy--would vote for Bush. Seriously, can someone explain this to me? Honestly, this is a real question. If you make less than $300k/year, overall, in lost services, you will end up paying LOSING money. For example, at our school, the tuition was raised 16% this year to replace lost government funds, mostly federal. The average person around here ain't saving $2k in tax breaks to make up for the new tuition. Same for hospital care. Same for police service. Same for increased state taxes--cause the Feds have decided not to pay as much as they used to. Bush sends you a check for $300, but then--trust me here--little hidden bills just keep on coming.

End rant.

[Paka]

Yup, I'm voting. This'll be my first presidential election, too (I voted in the gubernatorial race back in '02, but those aren't as fun... ).

And I'm voting for Kerry all the way!

And seeing as the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume Two comes out on the same day, I think I may just pop that in and avoid all the insane news coverage on TV.

[Maerj]

All I have to say is:

With that much crap, you've gotta have two Johns!!

I have done my research, and I will be voting for W this November. Everyone must make sure and do their research before jumping on any bandwagon and blindly following whatever they hear.

Voting is a privilege, so vote RESPONSIBLY.

Ah how nice, a personal attack!

[Squirrel]

I'm not going to vote. I have a strong dislike of politics, et cetera, and don't feel good enough about either major candidate (though I'm a very conservative person, I'm not entirely enthusiastic about Bush; but I don't like Kerry or the Democratic party) ... I don't want to vote for either candidate, and don't see why I should vote "just to vote," especially if I don't feel comfortable supporting any of the choices. I could vote for a minor party, but ... I have a few more weeks to send in for an absentee ballot (which is what I'll need, if I vote), but I know I won't.

I've just had no desire to participate in the process. Yes, I realize I "forfeit my right to complain" when the winner gets in, but I'm not the type to complain about much. And I realize that things the government does ... affect me whether I vote or not, no matter how "isolationist" my personality tends to be, so why not vote ... maybe it's "apathy" or the feeling that I want to not participate as a form of protest, or something. I don't know. But, by choice, I've been planning to abstain.

[AwallaceUNC]

All I have to say is:

With that much crap, you've gotta have two Johns!!

I have done my research, and I will be voting for W this November. Everyone must make sure and do their research before jumping on any bandwagon and blindly following whatever they hear.

Voting is a privilege, so vote RESPONSIBLY.

Ah how nice, a personal attack!

Just like:

Either they admit they're candidate is an idiot and take flack or they say nothing and continue to watch the runaway train that is this administration.

But if anybody votes for Bush you need your brain taken away from you and given protective custody.

Voting Republican is one thing, but to vote for Bush...I'm sorry you gotta be living in a christian fundamentalist cowboyish good ol' boy if we can't buy it we'll blow it up fantasy world.

And all that in spite of:

Just vote and leave a comment

But I think the most important question is not who we are voting for, but who LUKE is voting for!

-Aaron

[Maerj]

Ah how nice, a personal attack!

Just like:

Either they admit they're candidate is an idiot and take flack or they say nothing and continue to watch the runaway train that is this administration.

But if anybody votes for Bush you need your brain taken away from you and given protective custody.

Voting Republican is one thing, but to vote for Bush...I'm sorry you gotta be living in a christian fundamentalist cowboyish good ol' boy if we can't buy it we'll blow it up fantasy world.

-Aaron

Yes, but those were not directed toward a particular post or person. So, they were general attacks, not personal, but that's okay.

[AwallaceUNC]

Well I didn't think CatNC's was a personal attack on any board members, either. On the Johns ticket? Perhaps, but then so were all those I sited. Saying "don't jump on the bandwagon" is no different than saying "have your head checked" or "don't live in a fantasy world." In fact, I think bandwagon carries with it a little more substance.

-Aaron

[Edge]

Of course I notice our Republican board members didn't even want to touch the comments that members of their own party made.... must be all that bandwagon hoopla actin up again from them pesky liberals who are trying to run our country into the ground with their left wing agenda and crack smokin, home wrekin, social spending ways.

I mean don't jump on any bandwagons, esp. not when the republican candidate makes you sign a loyalty agreement and a dose of "if ya aint with us, yer against us" mentality.

I mean why rebuild schools in the US or tax and spend for domestic programs. I mean God knows we gotta save up so we can afford a billion dollar a week war for reasons we've since backed away from.... I mean we wouldn't want logic to get in the way of our tax cuts to business people who we've been waiting to reinvest into their businesses for three years now.

But hey who cares right? I mean the guy goes to church and worships Jesus, that's all that matters. Everything else is just an annoying "detail".

[catNC]

I didn't mean for my comment to start an online brawl. It was on a bumper sticker I saw. With as many smug comments you see on Kerry supporter's bumper stickers, I just thought that one was funny. It was not a personal attack to anyone on this board.

Anyway, I must stop typing. Someone said I needed to go have my brain taken away....

[pinkrenata]

I'm not a great fan of either, but will vote for Kerry if I actually get myself out to do so. Tuesdays are normally pretty busy days for me.

I not just a kid man ok!!!

[poco]

Although voting is on a work day, my boss is such a great guy and is letting me vote during my working hours. Oh yeah!!!! Drat that I have to be on call that night and may not get to watch the vote counts come in.

Rev. Poco

[Maerj]

I didn't mean for my comment to start an online brawl. It was on a bumper sticker I saw. With as many smug comments you see on Kerry supporter's bumper stickers, I just thought that one was funny. It was not a personal attack to anyone on this board.

catNC, our plan worked, just as we had discussed in our Private Message! Now people are posting again...good job

[Yuki]

[deleted]

[DreamerQ18]

Oh yeah I am voting for sure this is my first election So excited !!!!

[englishboy]

Aaron,

I don't mean this as an attack. But really, why are you voting for Bush? I'm curious. Is it only a religous motivation? Are you atracted to his foreign agenda? His fiscal plan? His personal abilities as a leader?

This is not a snide comment. I'm serious. I really don't understand why people are voting for him.

[Loomis]

I'm not going to debate you (this time, anyways ), but I'd like to respond to one comment:

I also believe that he is a wise, competent, intelligent, kind man with the nation's best interest at heart.

Allow me to offer the following Bushisms:

"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything!"
Gov. George W. Bush said to a packed rally at Bellevue Community College on Tuesday night.

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take
dream."
—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to
answer questions. I can't answer your question."

"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
-- On NPR's Morning Edition (9/26)

On His Tax Break Plan Bush said that
"if most of the breaks go to wealthy people it's because
'most of the people who pay taxes are wealthy."

"I think we agree, the past is over."
— On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
— Reuters, May 5, 2000

And my absolute favourite:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

[2099net]

Oh dear. I was trying to keep out of this, but I'll have to butt in with a few of comments. I just can't let your comments slide Aaron.

One, I accept that while I like in the UK, my knowledge of the situation in America may be incomplete, so you could look at this as a way to educate me. But I have to ask:

What exactly is Bush's policy on "Oil and Oil Alternatives"? Hasn't Kerry already pledged more money for researching into alternatives for oil? Haven't Bush's other policies already resulted in higher oil prices? I don't actually know of a policy from Bush as such. Unless it's drilling for Oil in the national parks and Alaska. Which brings me onto my second question. What is his policy on "the environment"? It seems reading the papers over here, all Bush does is cancel existing environmental regulations and/or remove the onus on environmental care from the companies who make the pollution.

I can't question his policy on abortion, gay weddings etc. While I don't agree with them, I can see why some people may and I also can see exactly where he stands.

As for matters I think I have a reasonably grip on:

I'm also not sure how you can stand up for Bush's taxation policy when it has turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit. Surely that, no matter what anyone else argues about jobs, personal spending, outsourcing or exports and imports shows that its not working. You cannot have a country literally bleeding money remain stable indefinitely. America's only really getting away with it now because of the international currency standard of the American dollar, and that's slowly changing as more and more countries look to adopt the Euro (which ultimately over the next few decades seems most likely being as more people are using the Euro as their native currency than US Dollars).

Odd how all of the countries in the "Axis of Evil" where looking to change to Euros. In fact, Iraq had switched to selling its oil in Euros rather than American dollars in 2000, and Iran has adopted most of its banks reserves from US Dollars to Euros, and has been considering using the Euro for its oil sales. If OPEC switches to Euros, the gravy train may be over for America.

You comment on how Bush stands on the United Nations more than anything troubles me though. So you basically think the UN is irrelevant too? We considering how Bush and his cronies moaned and complained about Vetos in the run-up to the Iraq war, you'll probably be surprised to learn America has used the Veto more times than any other country in the history of the UN. Oh, and Bush doesn't think the UN are as irrelevant now does he, not when he needs as much help as possible in Iraq. He's gone to the UN "cap in hand" three times now.

Remember nobody in the UN objected to the Afghanistan Conflict. (At least I think nobody – although I suppose Afghanistan did, and maybe a few other smaller countries.)

(Almost?) everyone agreed Afghanistan was guilty of harbouring and turning a blind eye to terrorists, and the Taliban were corrupt leaders (which incidentally were heavily supported and helped to power by the Republicans in the 80's). People just weren't convinced of a threat from Iraq. And given recent evidence and even American inquiries, it seems the UN (as a body) were right.

It’s a shame the Afghan conflict was never fully followed through – the place is as almost big a mess as Iraq is, but the media doesn't concentrate on it. Sadly, Afghanistan is the responsibility of the UN and most of the Western world especially and they don't seem to be doing much about it. Now either the UN has been lax, which I'll admit is a possibility, or maybe most of the UN member states would rather have concentrated on Afghanistan rather than get distracted by Iraq. I know I'd rather the UK finished what it started in Afganistan rather than get distracted by another war.

As for the Iraq war, don't forget it was the Republican party when in power that sold most of the WMD to Iraq in the first place. And now there's actual real threats from Iran and North Korea who are almost-undoubtedly* working on nuclear programs, the phantom threat from Iraq and tied up all of your army. Iran especially is taking advantage of this situation. So much for making America safer. Having troops in Iraq for 'x' years is enabling other nations to flaunt America's authority, as they know a military response is less likely from an overstretched army.

Oh and do you see a thread in my comments about the wars? Both times meddling from America (under Republican leadership no less), which was presumably to keep "the world and America safer", from Communism and from Religious Fundamentalists, actually had the opposite affect in the long run. Invading countries isn't like playing Risk or Command and Conquer. Invading a country is a major undertaking, and like a pond, its ripples spread out, interact with other ripples from other unforeseen events and bounce back off the banks in ways people simply cannot predict. Sometimes they bounce back as tidal waves. No one knows if America is safer from invading Iraq, but history (and the current state of Iraq) would suggest not.

Just as nobody knows if a fully UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq would have resulted in a better outcome. Personally, looking at the evidence now, I doubt it would have. But at least the whole international community would be behind the action and - hopefully - would be willing to do more to sort the mess out.

Remember when it was in the news a while back that India's nuclear guru was actually caught selling nuclear secrets to countries such as Iran and North Korea? What happened then? Surely that’s more of a threat to America's safety than a contained Iraq ever was?

What about all the nuclear and biological weapons lying around the former Soviet states? Most of these new countries are in some form of social upheaval. They were and still are a more likely source of arms for potential terrorists than a heavily observed Iraq ever was.

I know most American's don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, but Bush really has become a joke outside America. His verbal fumblings (such as the ones Loomis posted) do make him look like an idiot. (I'll admit, that doesn't mean he is an idiot, but look at all the campaign adverts on TV in the run up to your election – appearance is; sadly; the most important thing in politics these days). I don't agree with most of Blair's recent policies, but at least I've got to respect his oratory skills which lend him more credibility on the world's stage.

* Of course intelligence could be wrong, as it was with Iraq, but already I'm more inclined to believe the Iran and North Korea information than I was about Iraq, which I personally never believed.

[DisneyChris]

I'm not a fan of either Kerry or Bush, but I think some people are pretty mean in this thread. Supporting any side is a personal opinion. We shouldn't say "who supports that side is stupid" or something like that.