For those of you who watched the debates both last thursday, tuesday, and again tonight, I would really like to know where you stand on some of the issues and who you lean towards.

Please, keep this discussion civil.

DO NOT attack other posters that don't agree with you.
DO NOT result to childish insult and insiuations when someone has undermined a point you have tried to make.

Let's try and learn some things tonight. Anyone with facts to back up a thought, please post a link to where the information can be found if one is available. Feel free to express, but do it with respect.


"Discuss"

Speaking to what Tony said on style, I must differ in opinion. I think John Edwards carried himself a little naievely, definately showing his relative lack of experiance, but Cheney came off as a man who does not have much passion for anything. The more Edwards attacked facts, the more Cheney attacked Edwards. Also, I feel Cheney does not have the strength to take a stand on an issue that is obviously very personal to him: the issue of gay marriage. He will support the party line all the way to the point that he has to make an actual statement. either have the conviction to stand with your party, or the conviction to stand with your daughter.

Tonights debate was definately a tough one, hell, I felt exhausted after it. I have to admit the President definately presented himself much better tonight than he did last thursday, and that clearly made it tough on Kerry. However I don't feel that assuaged his avoindance of questions, nor did it cover the hostility he seemed to carry into the majority of questions. I felt that Kerry brought more facts to the table to support his views and he never let show a lack of respect for the President. ON the contrary, I beleive he showed great respect for the President while still attacking his decisions and policies. The GOP technique seems based more on attacking the person more than anything else as it has been shown time and again, and I don't agree with this.

That being said I believe both candidates did their fair share of tap dancing around questions and beating the same old drums they beat in their last debate. To his defense, I can understand why Kerry has been vauge about the specifics of his plans. The last thing you want is to have small pieces of your strageties picked apart and undermined before you have a chance to properly present them. I do not beleive the President has been upfront regarding many issues that can clearly be seen just by looking around.

The war on terror is a great example of this. In plain speak, you cannot fight a WAR on TERROR. You cannot fight a WAR on Evil. These are ideas, not things. You can kill terrorists, but others will always take their place. And evil is a morality play that is always tainted by whom ever is making the judgement. The war on terror is a wa that we cannot win, and it is a war that will never end. The idea is to keep people in fear in order to justify just about anything you want to do to "keep them safe". I believe it irresponsible and dangerous to attempt to keep the public in a constatn state of fear. Think about the "Color Alert" system we have in place. Has it ever been in the blue?

Kerry has not inspired me to jump up and sing his name to the stars, but perhaps I am to old and cynical to be inspired that way any more. I do know that I am not satisfied in what has been happening in terms of civil rights, civil liberties, jobs, and foreign policy in this country. I do not like the fact that I have a friend on the other side of the world who could die over something that wasn't ever there. I'm not going to vote for Kerry, but I will vote for change. And if that means Kerry is my man, then so be it.

Also, in what is actually a MAJOR shock to me, check poll results on all the major news sites. The polls have Kerry clearly cleaning house on Bush, and I'm not exxagerating. MSNBC.COM shows that, out of 857905 responses, Kerry is said to have won the debate by a count of 68% to 32% for Bush as of 2:14 AM Detroit, Michigan time.

I thought the margins would be a lot closer, but everywhere I go shows Kerry clearly stepping out ahead in the quick response polls. Now that could be because Republicans go to bed earlier than Democrats, I dont know. Still. CNN.Com, MSNBC.Com, and FOXNEWS.Com all have polls that clearly show Kerry taking a command of the debate.

Surprising to say the least.

Kerry beat Bush in the first debate, who definitely was not on top of his game.

I didn't watch the Cheney/Edwards debate.

Bush beat Kerry in tonight's debate. I was disappointed that both of them avoided some questions. I think Bush can really corner Kerry on the tax issue...or rather I think Kerry has cornered himself. He has promised no new taxes for people making under $200,000 but at the same time he promises more troops and more gear and says he'll increase spending on education, medicare, etc...Then he promises a balanced budget. I don't see how its possible to increase defense spending and social spending and have a balanced budget without raising taxes.

Those polls are highly, highly unscientific. Let's wait for some random sampling polls to come out before declaring anything. I watched CNN, FOX and MSNBC coverage after the debate and the majority of the analysts seemed to be saying how well Bush did.

In Canada, we have all those great thing (minus the military ) and a surplus, imagine what the states could do with their money

At the very least Canada, among many European countries, shows that national healthcare DOES work. Sure it costs, which is where I take issue with Kerry's statements(I hope that doesnt come back to bite him in the ass) but I think many people will be happier to knwo that, if they need it, health care will be there for them. Privitized healt care just does not work. My ife and the lives of the people I love are worth more than some companies bottem line.

I don't support the idea of national public health care and never will.

Not very compassionate.

Well FOx, why dont you tell us all what you think is wrong with a national health care plan?

the largest argument against it is how high it will raise taxes to pay for it.

Because I don't want to pay for somebody else's healthcare. I'm also not paying for anyone's sex change operation. I'm plenty compassionate, but I'm not socialist. You can have compassion without feeling the need to pay for everyone else's problems.

Very good points, indeed I had not thought of it that way. At the same, I feel that the potential good that can come out of it far outweighs the few nit wits that just need to change the dumb things they do in their lives. For every overweight yuppie that has heart conditions from eating shitty food, theres a single mother working a shitty job that could really use the help to make sure her kids aer healthy. W have a huge problem in this country in that health care is WAY expensive. And we do have situations where people get denied potentially life saving services because their health care provider has a policy of not paying for certain procedures because of how much it would cost. These are things you can research if you don't believe me. And if Kerry stays true to what he said on friday, the national system will be an option to people. There if you want it, but you can still go with your own choice if you want.

Where the money will come from is a good question, and I can only imagine that it will come from the tax cut roll backs and certain shifts in where the govenrment is putting it's money right now. I think Kerry put his foot in his mouth by promising not to raise taxes, and that's going to be a problem. But seeing as how the government is already taking money from us and spending on things without getting our permission, I'd rather they take my money and do something with it that directly benefits me in some way, something I can actually look at and say, "Yes, I feel better off because of that." I hope he can get that money if he's elected.

since we're on the subject, both JohnKerry.COM and GerogeBush.COM have each candidates plans outlined, well as much as you can get anyone to say anything concrete anymore that is. Read and compare, it's simple. I think they both say things that sound good, but it's going to come down to which plan is actually more practical and which has the more immediate impact.

seeing that its illegal not to vote in Australia...

are you serious? that's crap.

Firstly I wasn't born into a rich household. Secondly, I believe in equal opportunity, not equality. That would be socialism. Life's a bitch. Get a job that provides health care.

But anyways, I'm done with this thread. It was started with good intentions but thanks to a couple of idiots it's taken a turn for the worse and I don't think it'll recover.

If you are trying to decide who to vote for, I think you should ask yourself two very simple questions:

1. Are you better off now that you were four years ago?

2. is the country in better shape now than it was four years ago?

The answers for me are "no" and "no."

According to you, your parents are considered rich by the government but are flat out broke. So which is it, you have 8 siblings or your parents can't manage their money?

I consistently see idiots whine about Kerry's possible tax hike. You ungrateful fucks live in the richest country in the world. One less cappuccino and tank of gas for the ol' SUV eh?

Careful, you're starting to sound like one of these "liberals" I keep hearing about over here in the States. Personally, I don't think they exist. Who would want to sacrifice a 30-gallon tank of gas for their Suburban Assault Vehicle for the betterment of their neighbors?

Communists, that's who!

Well, the core problem with America's economic policies -- as practiced by both parties -- is good old American gluttinous greed.

The neocons that are running the GOP these days practice the idiotic trickle-down Reaganomic policies that Bush's own father referred to as "voodoo economics" back in 1980 -- until he got his ass whipped in the primaries, and then suddenly the Gipper looked like a genius.

These policies, in their most simplistic terms (which aren't a whole lot more simple than their most complex terms) amount to giving Americans more of their take-home pay, in the hopes that they'll spend more and get business rolling again. Corporations, freed of their "oppressive" tax burdens and propelled on by heightened consumerism, will grow larger and create more jobs. Everyone will be happy, right?

Well, not really. Because while the GOP talks a lot about their policies reflect "human nature" and "enlightened self-interest", they fail to take into account that when you're stuck in a shitty period, you don't tend to run out and spend money as soon as you start getting a little extra again. Families know that their gas bills aren't going to be smaller this winter, regardless what happens to the economy. So they hang onto their extra money, because they don't know how long it will last. Corporations that have been taking a beating for the last few years suddenly find their profit margin increasing when their tax burden is lowered -- but this is not necessarily an incentive to hire more workers or change the way they do business; see, they just GOT a "raise" without changing anything. "Human nature" and "enlightened self-interest" are exhibited in these times by people REFUSING to put their extra cash back into the economy. They'd rather have it in their pockets.

Trickle-down would probably work if people were willing to wait for it to actually trickle down. But that will take longer than any president's term.

The Dems, on the other side, continue to want to be everyone's dad and tell us all how to spend our money, and the easiest way for them to accomplish this is to take more of it from us. That's also the quickest route to get us bitching.

So we continue to walk the line between the only two natural forms of government -- dictatorship and anarchy.

And occasionally we elect a complete fucking nitwit fratboy who has spent his entire life slipping on dogshit and falling into honey, and who deserves to be run out of town naked on a sharpened rail. (Just in case anyone was wondering who I was voting for.)

agreed, trickle down economics basically amounts to the rich pissing on the rest of us. The reason, I beleive, the government needs to step in and foist some social responsibility on people is because too many people will basically say, "Fuck um, it's not my problem." But in a society, it is your problem. We're all responsible for each other, not just in America, but all over the world. And those that have the most also have the greatest tendency to be the least giving, which is usually a reason why they have the most in the first place. There is a definate line that divides socialism from social responsibility. But as long as people and corporations are greedy, and as long as their are those who want to keep the regulations low because they are going to join those ranks "someday", there will be a gap between people. It's hard to know the mindset unless you've been on the upper side of that hill, and I'm sure many of those people do indeed work very hard to earn what they get, but a society just doesnt function unless all sides contribute. And if the difference just means that some people may have to settle for two european vacations a year instead of four, well I think they'll just need to get over it.

If ever you get sick and your insurrance doesn't cover it, we will see you come crawling back.

That's exactly why we have to get back in the good graces of the rest of the world. Maybe Iran or N. Korea think they can play games with the U.S. alone, but once you factor in 7,8, or 10 other nations, not like the so-called coalition of the willing where some of the nations don't even HAVE a military, but nations with some people and some firepower, I think they'll think twice. We can't change the way other countries are governed, but if we'er smart and we make good stron alliances, we can make it damned uncomfortable for anyone to seriously consider fucking with anyone else.

War on (those who use and support) terrorism
Iran is next on the list of people to act right or get attacked. Bush named them in the axis of evil and our army surrounds them on two sides, Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of those "insurgents" are Iranian-sponsored Muslims who wish to take over Iraq. That's actually why Bush 41 did not go into Iraq in 1991. He knew Iran would make a powerplay for Iraq.

As far as terrorist nations go, Syria would be next after Iran. Do you think it is mere coincidence that the Hussein boys fled to Syria (home of Hamas) and were kicked back out at the end of our invasion? Syria realizes it harbours terrorists. It is also surrounded on two sides by our army in Iraq and the Israeli army.

For the above reasons, I'm glad we went into Iraq and continue to stay there. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria were all havens for terrorists. Bush went to Afghanistan first, because it was the immediate home of Bin Laden and the Taliban openly defied any action against him. Bush knew he would get the most support for this action. He went into Iraq next, because after a decade of lingering threat he knew his next highest support lay there. Libya saw the writing on the wall and has already renounced terrorism, handed over their WMDs and welcomed inspectors. The case for dealing with Iran grows daily with the "insurgent" threat and the nuclear threat. Syria was quick to distance themselves from Saddam and his boys, but they cannot continue to harbour Hamas and fly below the radar. Something will give.

Taxes
We have had and continue to have a graduated tax scale. The wealthiest pay close to 40% and the lowest paying level pays 10%. The poorest pay nothing and actually receive a $1,000 "earned income credit" just for being a citizen. Bush's tax refund lowered the amount that all taxpayers had to pay, not the wealthy, poor or middle class. Kerry only wants to raise taxes on the rich. This reminds me of Carter. When Reagan took office the highest tax bracket was not close to 40%, it was close to 80%.

Social Issues
Bush has pushed faith based initiatives, given fedreal funding to stem cell research and banned partial birth abortions. On all of these issues I am in complete agreement. I agree with the earlier statement that our nation offers equal opportunity for all citizens, not equality. I'm from Georgia who has one of the worst ranked education systems in the US. It still is a whole lot better than most other nations. We also offer the HOPE scholarship so that any student with a "B" average can go to college for free. That is equal opportunity!

Bush is my President and I will vote to keep him four more years.

My Feelings.....

War on Terror: So when does it stop? When we, the ones who are waging this war on terror, are the ones imposing the definition of what makes a terrorist, when does the war end? How do we know when we've won? There are those within the government that are calling those who protest for peace terrorists. The green party is listed as a terrorist organazation. When do we decide it's ok for the world to be safe? What gives us the right to make that decision? how can a man who says he believes in a culture oflife send kids off to kill and be killed for something that never goes away.

Abortion: Unless you are the one carrying the baby, this issue has nothing to do with YOU! Period. No group of people has the right totell an entire half of the species hat they can and can not do with their on bodies. And it seems so benign, but again, where does it end? It's not alright for a woamn to decide if she wants to end her own pregnancy, but it's ok for pharmaceutical companies to register patants on the very cells and genes that make up human life? This all ties into stem cell research as well, and it all comes down to relegion. NOT spirituality, but RELEGION.

Not one person can provide me with a rational argument against abortion, or gay marriage, or stem cell research that doesn't have something to do with god and relegion. Well guess what, I DO NOT share your beliefs and I don't want them telling me or the women I love what to do.

Taxes: No one would care about how much they were paying in taxes if everyone was healthy, employed, and happy. If everyone felt that they were getting out of the system what they are putting into it, then it wouldn't be an issue. If everyone was getting equal rights, equal pay, equal benefits, an equal chance, 15%, 20%, 40%, what difference would it make? And if you think the system is treating everyone the same, come to my hometown of Detroit for a few days and let me show you somehting about fair.

These are the facts: people are poor, people are hungry, people are sick, and our government is not helping them. They help when it is conviniant. The same thing with relegion, they help who they choose to help. And I dont mean just the Christian faith, I mean ALL relegions, they all serve the purpose of segmented groups instead of working for the whole of man, the relegion of humanity. We need to help eachother. And to do that we need o firs get rid of a leadership that is full of arrogant, self serving, relegiously motivated people who take a great deal from the system, do not contribute their fair share, and will not send their kids off to fight and die in the wars they start for their own purposes, and if you don't beleive me then all you hav to do is look up where all the money being made off the war is going, cause it's always going somewhere. You think the war is such a good idea, you pick up a gun and go fight it so my friend Steve can come home. Or you send your kids over there and we'll see how righteous you feel when they send the pieces of your son or daughter home in a box. As you can tell, I have a really bad fucking outlook on the idea of people killing eachother over something both sides think the other "believes".

Do I think John Kerry is the greatest thing since God put cheese in a can, no. But Iwant someone in that little round room who believes in the things I beleive in; Equality for all people, tolerance, and peace. Bush is fighting against something while losing sight of the fight FOR something more important: the future. Not the next four years or ten years, but for the next generation, and the one after that. I don't think Kerry is going to change the world, but he has the potential to pave the way for those that can. What good does it do to save all those children from abortion if they are only going to grow up in a world where we teach that hate is the answer to ignorance, and violence the answer to fear? What are we really fighting for anyway?

If you believe we created the mess, then you should have no problem with the US cleaning it up.

PT, that was so bad it was Funny!!

Freeman, I would have less of a problem with the US cleaning it up if they were willing to admit they made the mess in the first place. Fixing it up without admitting fault is not cleaning it up, it's covering it up.

Freeman, you're a smart guy. I like this debate.

Projbalance, thanks for the compliment.

I too enjoy a well-versed debate. As for admitting the mistakes, I saw a discovery channel special on Osama. It had former CIA operatives who use to help Afghanistan back in the Soviet-era occupation. They admitted we created these guys. "We were told to find people willing and able to fight the Soviets. We were not told to find nice guys."

The problem is the world changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and small annoyances, left unchecked, became large problems. I am just glad that Bush has finally recognized the threat, said enough is enough and is cleaning house.

Tony, what information do you have to support your claim on Kerry? I can guarentee that whatever reasoning you use to summise that Kerry has no plan can be equally applied to Bush and his people. All I can say about Michael Moore is that all of his claims have passed many levels of fact checking, so like the person or not, the information he is giving is accurate.

Those have to be two of the most un-flattering pictures I have ever seen!

That's a pretty poor reason...
Hitler wasn't very smart either, and he also beleived what he said...

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.shtml
How can you vote for somebody so clueless?

Knowing what's wrong and being incompetant is better than NOT knowing what's wrong and being incompetant...
If I was an american citizen, I'd vote Kerry.
Lesser of two evils

Then again, Bush can steal the election again and plunge USA into a civil war next year, then MaBus(h) will be assasinated and WWIII will begin and last for 17 years

Part of me wants him to win...
For comedy's sake.

http://www.youforgotpoland.com
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.shtml

Whoa, somehow skipped this line...

At the time of this post...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/


Pardon?

Besides, polls mean nothing!
DKR1138 knows what I'm talking about... ALP

Polls only account for a small % of the actual voting entity that have participated in the poll. I never use polls to prove a point (unless it's in my favour and I'm feeling trollish )

They shouldn't play with the dead :P

Bush has a clear purpose of vision and knows what he is talking about. The reason that Kerry takes 500 words to answer a yes/no question is because he doesn't want you to know where he really stands. He, like Clinton, would have us arrest the actual men who attacked us on 9/11 (except they died in the crashes). Since he can't do that, he would have us arrest the figurehead who planned it, Osama Bin Laden. Bush understands that we actually arrested the men who carried out the first attack on the WTC, but that did not stop the attacks. Bush understands that there is a greater threat which must be dealt with.

Our allies are those who choose to align with us. In Afghanistan that included the French. In Iraq, that did not (for obvious economic reasons). Kerry use to point at Russia's lack of involvement as support for his position. After Chechens killed 100s of kids in Russia (presumably with help from those tied to al qaeda) Putin is seeing the light. Putin even said this past week that the insurgents are trying to effect our elections and want Kerry to win. (I'm paraphrasing, I don't speak Russian)

Australia has recognized the threat and sent troops to fight this war. I don't live down there, but I think Bali is pretty close to home for you guys. Thank goodness that your electorate made the brave choice, rather than following Spain's example.

Voting is a privilege that we free Americans choose to participate in. I do not want slackass people who do not care enough about the elections to show up to be forced to pick my President. I don't trust someone who would not even exercise such an important privilege. Also, for the record, Bush did not steal the last election. He won it outright. We live under the rule of law and the law is that you don't change the rules for elections after the election, just because you don't like the outcome. That's what Gore tried to do and the Supreme Court stopped him. Since you may think that was unfair, every group that has gone back and unofficially recounted the votes in Florida still has Bush winning. Just because you don't like the outcome, don't call it stealing!

Afgahnistan had UN support and France was there :p What you call a flip flop, I call someone who is eloquent.

You can't beat Terrorism. If you are scared of the terrorists, then you have already lost.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH !

Stop demonizing Clinton, he didn't want his wife finding out he got a blow job from another woman.

Putin blasted Bush's approach to terrorism after the Chechen bombing.

HEY HEY HEY!!!

I VOTED TODAY!!



What did you do with your time??

-ben

And compulsory voting simply means people that arent interested in politics are going to be voting based on stupid reasons, rather than the real issues at hand.

These people have reasons like "Hey, Latham just doesnt do it for me" and "I dont like Howard, but I'm afraid the interest rates will go up", despite anyone political knowing that was a load of shit.

If you make voting voluntary, at least deadshits wont influence the outcome. It'll be the people that really want to have their say about the future of the country.

Bush's answer to the worlds problems seems to be peace at the barrell of a gun. IF someone wrongs you, and you know where he lives, you dont bomb his entire block to get back at him. Bush's plan to combat terrorism is tantamount to American colonization of most of the middle eastern countries. we gon in there and rout their current political body, disrupt the infrastructure of their country, and the offer them our model of freedom and democracy upon which to base a new government. There are two problems with this;

1) Most of those countries are ruled by their relegious sectors, not their political sectors.

2) We would need to maintain a constant military presence in that country to combat the freedom fighters (we call THEM insurgents in their own country) who want us out.

Their culture simply will not adjust to our way of doing things because so much of it runs counter to their relegious beliefs. And yes, Saddam was a bad dude, we get that, but by hook or by crook he kept the peace in his country. And since the people there did NOT rise up on their own to fight for their own independance like so many other people have, maybe in the ned that iron fisted rule is what the really wanted. Who are any of us to say what's right for another culture of people? Perhaps instead of blowing the shit out of every oil rich country that we percieve as being a threat, we should be examining the issues of why these "terrorists" are so hostile.

Freeman, I respect you as a man of intellect, but I totally dissagree with you on so many issues. What is this clear vision Bush has that so many speak of because, honestly, I don't see it. His administraion, and in part the president himself, has been part to so much deception and mistruth these last four years it is utterly frightening. The whole 911 story about terrorists, that mid air phone call, it's all bullshit. I don't know who was really behind it, but there is more than enough available data to punch some very large holes in the story. And the amount of data that is simply not available for reasons of "national security" casts further suspicion. Just the implasible story of how hijackers from Saudi Arabia, working for a psychotic recluse form Afghanistan, led us to war in Iraq and possibly Iran in the name of combating terrorism around the globe is like the plot of some bad movie. I'm not gonna lay out all the details here, (the pod on the plane, the mysterious flash that was not connetd to the collision of the second plane, the demolition style collapse of the buildings, the fact that the archetects and designers of the towers have gone on record to say that there is no way that kind of collision could have knocked the towers dow, the fat that all the government offices in teh buildings were vacant on that non-holiday morning, the order to "pull" building seven which had NOT been hit, the dissaperance of the gas station surveilance tape that had a clear view of the pentagon when it was hit, the lack of wreckage on the pentagon lawn, the lack of damage TO the pentagon lawn, the impossible scale difference between the hole in the side of the pentagon and the size of the plane that supposedly hit it, the fact that none of the bodies of the passengers on the planes have been identified, the fact that according to the federal air commission none of the planes that were "hijacked" were even scheduled to fly that day, that clear as crystalk recording of a cell phone call from the plane that isn't possible to have been made because the first announcment of available technology to allow cell phone transmissions from planes was just made three months ago) Bush has ridden on the back of some very shakey information for the last two years, and everytime he gets backed into a corner, he starts pressing the 'orange" alert button and scares people away from whatever else is going on. He doesnt have a plan to get out of Iraq that's any different than Kerry's, he has completly dropped the ball on civil rights, womens rights, the environment, the economy(which many analylists say was NOT in decline before he took office), he has squandered the largest budget surplus this country has ever had, and he's play fucking Stratego with the lives of our friends and children, as well as the children in the rest of the world. Richard Nixon once said, "If a president can not bring you peace in four years, he does not deserve a second term." Richard Nixon for god sake!!

And Tony, the US was one of the last countries to join WWII because, since we had not been attacked, we had no excuse to go until Pearl Harbor(which, I'm not going to dispute the awefulness of the event, but there is information that MIGHT lead one to summise that THAT attack was allowed to happen to allow the country to enter the fray in Europe) Many European countries and soldiers fought hard and suffered under the Nazis LONG before we got into it. Most of the countries that were subjigated were so fallen because they had people inside that sympathised with the Nazi goal of racial purity. Hell, we had Nazi sympathisers here in the US that financially backed the party and pushed their agenda in the states, so don't go waving that bloody flag around because our hands are just as dirty as anyone elses in the world.

I love this country and the ideals we have in place that I beleive most of us here(including all of us on this board by, value of our willingness to discuss such things) want desperatley to live up to. But we have a bloody, terrorist like history of conquering here on our on soil to contend with, so we are really no true model for any other country other than to say, "The ideas we hold are the ideals that all men, regardless of country of birth or god of worship, should hold and fight for under their own spirit of liberty and independance, and that no mans idea of freedom should have domain over the independant spirit of another." Those are, in my opinion, the ideals this country was founded on. I beleive our place in the world should be to stand as a model for everyone else to look up to, so other countries will want to aspire to the ideas and ideals we hold. When that becomse the case, we won't have to go shooting up the world to combat evil, because the people of the world will stand united against it.

But what do I know, I'm just a kid who likes Star Wars and doesn't want to see people seperated by ignorance and fear.


*EDIT* Sorry, I guess I got a little hot there. Didn't mean to be confrontational and I apoogise if anyone feels attacked in this post.

Projbalance
Wow! You honestly believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy? Even Kerry won't say that! Now I understand why you won't vote for Bush. I am continually amazed at those who will disparage our country, point out our flaws and use that to justify the US sticking its head in the sand for all eternity. No disrespect intended, but I've heard this anti-US, we're bad people too, stuff from friends and colleagues before. I want to snap them back to reality. It almost reminds me of Moses. (He killed a man, was banished from his homeland and then told God he could not lead his people because he was a bad guy) What makes a person or nation great is not dwelling on past mistakes, it's what they do inspite of their mistakes. Freedom is not easy and many have tried to destroy our freedoms from within. Just as many have done atrocious things in the name of goodness.

Reading your rant, I know that you will not recognize what Bush has done for you and I. My hope is that others reading will look into the facts themselves and recognize the value of the tough decisions Bush has made and see that he is the best man to lead us. I spent 8 years watching Clinton change policy on the whim of the polls. I spent the past 4 years watching Bush do what he (and I) believe is right, despite the polls. If Clinton had not gone into Somalia and pulled out as soon as we had a bad day, had not gone into Bosnia and pulled out before it was stable and treated the first WTC attack like a police action; I can't help to think that 9/11 may not have happened. Had it not, Kerry would likely have much more supported than he does. Bush was inexperienced, according to the polls, but he surrounded himself with Rice, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld. He listens to these advisers, but in the end does what he believes is best for our country. He has my vote and I hope others will educate themselves and do the same.

Well I don't see it as dispariging our country to hold us to a admit our failings and our dark hearts while holding ourselves to a higher ideal. I happen to think myself somewhat of a patriot for holding myself and other Americans to the task of living up to our reputation for being the "land of the freeand the home of the brave".

And I really wish people would stop telling me about all that Bush has done for me and staret telling me exactly what has Bush done for me? And don't tell me that he's "protected" me from terrorism because I just don't believe that. I honestly just do not see what the man has done that has benefitted me or the things that I believe in any way. So give me a list of things he has done and give me links where I can verify them myself. I can give credit where it's due, but honestly HONESTLY, I want to see it for myself.

I'll start with the basics. First, he created a homeland security department and appointed a cabinet secretary. I have lunch regularly with our sheriff and emergency management manager who tell me this has been very helpful in coordinating security issues.

Second, he pushed for and signed into law the patriot act. This allows ongoing search warrants, after a Judge's review and finding of probable cause, to investigate suspected terrorists. This is the same ability we had for suspected mobsters and drug dealers, the patriot act just expanded it to cover suspected terrorists.

Third, he started seizing known terrorists' funds and got the support of a majority of nations to help seize terrorists' assets. The guys who were on the planes on 9/11 didn't have to work and save their money to come here and buy plane tickets, they were funded by Bin Laden. Now we havea big chunk of Bin Laden's cash.

Fourth, he invaded Afghanistan and overthrew a government that harbored Bin Laden and his cronies. Making it harder for Bin Laden to coordinate attacks on us. While there he killed or arrested many of those who would have supported or actually carried out future attacks.

Fifth, he invaded and overthrew Saddam. To me this is the greatest accomplishment because it gave us a battlefield to fight terrorists that is not in my backyard or yours. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are pouring into the country from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Our army is kicking their tail as they arrive and in much greater numbers than we are losing. As long as they are over there fighting our army, they are not over here attacking me.

Finally, he recognized the failing economy from the dot com bust and the oncoming recession, fueled by the 9/11 attacks. In response, he offered across the board tax cuts which made this the shortest recession in our country's history.

You may not appreciate these things and you may disagree with what has happened, but this is what Bush has done to protect you and me.

You two need to learn to make short posts.

VOTE BUSH

Freeman, those areas relating to terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistanare all questionable areas that, again, play mostly to the fear of attack aspect of Bush's administration that have no real bearing on daily life here in America. The Patroit Act, while having some benefit, is a very broadly defined document that has been attacked from both sides of the floor as being dangerous to civil liberties and individual freedoms. Bin Laden is not only still alive, but terrorists we have captured or killed have been replaced by new recruits. Iraq is a complete disaster, was not threatening us, and even though we all acknowledge that Saddam Hissein was a bad person who is better off cleaning bedrooms in roach motel in Hell, there is too much questionable information and not enough clear fact to support the invasion and occupation of that country. The economy has been experiancing slow growth in the wake of the ridiculous Dot Com fiasco(no, I never believed that the whole country would become so dependant on the internet that anyone with a website would be a millionaire for life), but it has been experiancing growth I'll give you that.

But aside from the quite questionable motivations and tactics being used in the so-called "war on terror", what else has he done for the welfare and future of the people of the US and the rest of the world?

I'm not trying to convince you that you wrong, Freeman, as our fundamental difference on opinion is what is making this whole debate interesing and fun. Be that as it may, I'd really like to hear your take on issues other than Iraq and terrorism. It's obvious we dissagree on those issues, so this is quickly turing into a stalemate of discussion.

Vote smart, get informed, stop being afraid, and use your voice to make the world better.

Proj, since you don't think security helps the welfare and future, Bush passed the largest increase in social security coverage providing increased healthcare & prescription drug coverage. (Personally, I think this is too liberal and will cost me to much)

He is pushing for private social security accounts for young, working Star Wars kids like me so that the money I put into social security can grow at a better, but still conservative, rate. (Roosevelt introduced social security as a savings plan, not welfare for seniors)

He decreased the marriage penalty, encouraging marriage and reducing my tax burden. He introduced a 10% tax bracket to ease the tax burden on the poorest taxpayers.

He was the first president to grant federal funding for stem cell research, advancing science while respecting the value of life. He increased funding for hydrogen fuel cell engines, limiting our dependency on oil and helping the environment.

He improved race relations by appointing more minority race members as top advisers than any prior president. He also appointed minority Judges to two different Courts of Appeal, which were blocked by the democrats.

KitFist0, I tried to be brief.

Free, most reports seem to think that the Bush agenda has done more to hurt social security and medical aid than it has helped it.

Analists say that the social security reforms suggested by the president will not positively impact social security, but help push a case for privitization.

The marriage thinkg doesnt apply to me since I believe marriage to be an outdated concept and I have no plans to ever participate in it. 10% bracket has eased the burden on th lowest rung, but that along with teh cut from the upper bracket, has increased responsbility on middle brackets. Though it is true that the overall amount of taxation as a whole has decreased, it has been dissproportinate in favor of the top bracket.

If you believe Bush has approved race relations then I can't help you there. The judges Bush is approving are agenda supporting judges whatever their race may be, he's pretty much ousted Colin Powell fom his circle of trust for standing up to him, and Condeleeza Rice is unqualified to do her job and she has been caught spewing mistruths on several occasions.

On the topic of stem cell research, I point you to this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug22.html

This one from the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 5FO9L1.DTL

And this one from American Medical News:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/0 ... sf0901.htm

I did read some contradictory articles here at Time:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krau ... 12,00.html

And at about.com:
http://election.about.com/b/a/116871.htm

That's all I can do for now since I'm leaving work.

It always amazes me when a non-democrat is not considered a minority unless they tow the party line. I saw Rice testify before the 9/11 Commission and repeatedly speak on news programs. She is one of the smartest people I know of and the fact that she is a black woman makes her a role model for minorities. Also, I cannot believe that any hispanic person can vote for a Democrat who opposed the first hispanic appointment to DC Court of Appeals (1 step below the Supreme Court)

The problem with the stem cell research debate is that they want taxpayers to foot the bill. There are many, who for moral reasons, do not want their money spent on destruction of embryos. Bush is trying to balance the scientific and moral questions. All of those who complain about the tax cuts for the wealthy should go ask the wealthy for contributions to this research. I heard Ben Affleck complain about how large his tax refund was in a speech supporting Kerry. With lower taxes, he is free to spend his money on stem cell research without forcing everyone else to spend theirs.

This is the fundamental difference in liberals and conservatives. The left wants to decide (or have the government decide) how to spend your money. The right wants you to keep more money and spend it the way you wish.