Reading Politics

Who would you prefer to be the next/same president of our country?

Personally I would prefer Bush. He seems to know what he is doing... and the war on terrorism isnt such a bad idea. He has alot of great things he wishes to do with the country... and I presume it would be a good idea to give him another 4 years to start new programs and other ideas hes been wanting to implement.

Kerry... although I dont agree with his flip flopping and liberal ideas, he does have some minor ideas that might be put to good use. I dont entirly agree with democratic views and theories... But it shall be a close match between the two...

I just wondered what other people on Netalive felt about our current president and his opponent.

White

:0)

If sitting on the toilet and reading is multitasking... then why does windows have such a hard time?

Personally I would prefer Bush. He seems to know what he is doing...

and the war on terrorism isnt such a bad idea.

He has alot of great things he wishes to do with the country...

Just a sec... I'm still trying to figure out the punchline...

In case you're serious with asking this question, I won't go into too much detail but you can browse the virtual archive of my opinion if you so wish:

We don't need no war (with a comment from an actual US soldier!)
Who the fuck does this moron think he is
Bush is Hitler (only not as smart)
It was about oil, after all
Why the reasons for the Iraq war are obvious lies
The USA are barbarians
Bush is a dyslexic
Bush is a fascist, according to Webster's (sic)
Why Osama would vote Bush

There are countless others, but I think you get my drift.

At present I'm torn between hoping that Bush gets re-elected - because there's a good chance he'd ruin the USA which might be a good lesson for its citizens - and hoping that voters get some sense before it's too late.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Sep 23, 2004.

That's probably the first election in which people don't vote for someone but against the other...

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Every election is a lesser-of-evils decision. The problem with these two clowns is that no matter which is elected, there'll be a dime's worth of difference in policy once elected.

The US is screwed, but I think the public deserves punishment less than do the corporations who have cultured ignorance, greed, economic deprivation and centralized accumulation, and warfare. In other words, yes, the public is misinformed, fat and happy, and may deserve much of the blame for this, but let's also find fault with the farmers who fattened up the cows and pigs and kept them hidden from the light of truth.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

I am totally frustrated with the whole election process. I do not like either candidate and at this point I am not voting because there is not a candidate I want to vote for. Sure this may be a wasted vote to some people but I believe it's well within my right to exercise my free speech by not voting.

The election process sucks! Why should it boil down to two possible candidates? At the very least it should be the top two members of both parties. There should be a minimum of 4 possible candidates plus any independents. The whole process is about who has the most fucking money and that makes me totally sick. These pompous assholes dig up shit from each others past and parade it in front of millions of people to make up some fantasy that they are somehow better than the other. Until this process changes I simply will not utilize my vote.

I do not like either candidate and at this point I am not voting because there is not a candidate I want to vote for. Sure this may be a wasted vote to some people but I believe it's well within my right to exercise my free speech by not voting.

I don't blame you for feeling this way; I'm not thrilled by either candidate, either, though I'll take the Johns over George and Megalomaniac Cheney any day.

But please at least go to the polls, even if you cast a blank vote, or a write-in for Sponge Bob Squarepants. It's important that the numbers of voters stay high; otherwise, what's to prevent corrupt politicians from doing whatever they want in the spirit of "Well, the American public must not care too much, since they don't even bother to vote."

Personally, I'm psyched that I'll be home for the election now– nothing like voting in person, and since Minnesota's a swing state... *fingers crossed*

My stepdad isn't mean, he's just adjusting. -Death to Smoochy

He seems to know what he is doing... and the war on terrorism isnt such a bad idea. He has alot of great things he wishes to do with the country... and I presume it would be a good idea to give him another 4 years to start new programs and other ideas hes been wanting to implement.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Firstly, he has never appeared to me to be a man who had any clue what he was doing at any given time, and the 'war on terrorism' was a pretty name to cover up a bunch of hidden agendas. It seems he has a lot of disastrous and horrible things he wants to do with America (amend the constitution to ban gay marriages, reinstitute the draft, invade Iran, etc.)... and therefore it would be a fantastic idea to get him out of office before he has a chance to implement them.

All of which for some time now has seemed fairly clear to me. But, hey, you have your opinion, and you're entitled to it. All that I and anyone who opposes Bush can hope for is that you may read some of the surprisingly extensive writings/thoughts/expose's about Bush on here with an open mind.

Who would you prefer to be the next/same president of our country?

I just wondered what other people on Netalive felt about our current president and his opponent

Funny, you made it sound like we were all Americans here. But so far, of all the people who have replied in this topic (myself included), only one was american (majic, who took a decidedly neutral stance).

I think a greater proportion of people outside the U.S. are anti-Bush than people in the U.S.. I don't know why that is. Maybe it helps to have a third person view. Maybe some non-americans feel that, while Bush might be best for the american people, Kerry would be better for the rest of the world. I don't feel that way myself. On the contrary, I think Americans have the most to lose in this election. Asides from damaging your liberties and economy, by re-electing Bush the american people could lose whatever shred of solidarity and respect that remains in the vast majority of the rest of the world.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

I think a greater proportion of people outside the U.S. are anti-Bush than people in the U.S.. I don't know why that is.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because we have more (better) news sources than just FOX and Rush Limbaugh.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because we have more (better) news sources than just FOX and Rush Limbaugh.

You need to realize our Liberal news stations outnumber our conservative ones, infact FOX is the only conservative leaning news source here.

Another reason why there are more Bush haters outside the US is because he doesn't worry about 'pleasing everybody' and staying 'low key', he focuses on America's interests (which always interfere with someone elses interests, pretty much a law of nature).

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

This post was edited by eljefe on Sep 24, 2004.

Even if some of the news media are left-leaning, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't ignoring a lot of GLARING problems with Bush's policy. For example, nobody ever really heard about his first act as president, in which he signed a law just before being informed it did something almost completely different from what he thought it did.

Thbbbbt

They may ignore some glaring problems, but they attack him on everything. Problem is we get assaulted from every corner, movies, broadcast media, print media. I'm tired of it. I just want to hear about it on the news, read it abit, but Michael Moore is crossing lines. Cinema is a sacred instiution, and should be separated from the state (with some limits of course).

Frankly, if a movie is politically motivated, don't do it. It is too easy to put lies into a movie and get away with it (no one holds movies accountable to being factual, but they check the press with fine tooth combs). It's alright to choose a more conservative government in a movie, or make decisions on the cinematography and scriptwriting that lean towards a side, but I've had enough documentaries.

I digressed didn't I? I don't disagree with your opinion, but I believe the international "bush bashing" is not due primarily to 'better' new sources, but his internationally abrasive policies...

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Its not that I agree with all of what each has to say. Its the fact that Kerry has even less sense than Bush. Any bashing on anyone politically should not be trusted... Im conservative at heart... but was recently upset due to the bashing of Kerry about his military background. Bush was in a war... So was Kerry... No need to disgrace what service they gave by bashing one another on past events that didnt affect the presidency. Im still very glad Bush won over Gore... Due to the fact Gore's head was up his ass. :P.

Im not saying Kerry isnt a good person... or that Bush is any amount better. I just believe that our country needs a president that doesnt hide behind closed doors and get blowjobs all day. *cough* no need to explain. The democratic party has desecrated what was a glorified position in politics... Im not saying things that clinton did were any dif. than what others had done in the past. But being able to keep a secret is a great gift :P.

Over all the canidates presented in the past and in the present... Bush would be the best choice in a time of crisis.

Plus... How would changing presidents in the middle of the war effect the war? It could possibly ruin what progress we have made.

As for News programs... =/. Although Michael Moore has made some outragous comments... Bowling for Columbine... is amazing. FOX, no matter how ignorant some guests are, is the only conservative news station in a country filled with ignorant voters who make a decision based on what MSNBC has to say.

In a world where Hollywood makes political speeches, Clinton is getting his dick sucked, and people are getting decapitated by terrorists... Arent you glad you live in the US? haha.

White

If sitting on the toilet and reading is multitasking... then why does windows have such a hard time?

In a world where Hollywood makes political speeches, Clinton is getting his dick sucked, and people are getting decapitated by terrorists... Arent you glad you live in the US?

In a world where a raging alcoholic C-student professional failure can be elected president, sit idly by as 3,000+ Americans are slaughtered in an instant, then go into two wars that have killed 5,000+ innocent Afghani, Kurdish, and Iraqi people, as well as 1,000+ American soldiers, then even dare to run for reelection, aren't you glad to live in the US?

Thbbbbt

but I believe the international "bush bashing" is not due primarily to 'better' new sources, but his internationally abrasive policies...

That too, but what really led me to believe it's a media problem is a poll I've heard of recently. Unfortunately I can't recall the URL (I know I should have written it down), but IIRC it states this --
58% of all Americans still believe that WMDs were found in Iraq,
36% of all Americans still believe that Iraq was tied to Al Quaeda.

100% of all non-Americans I know (including me) say the above claims are bullshit.

All the non-US media I read/watch/listen to have made it clear for several times that there are neither WMDs nor terrorist ties. So either the people above are incredibly stupid, extraordinarily good at denying the truth, or... well... just extremely misinformed. And that's exactly the point where US media come into play.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Sep 24, 2004.

Go to Yale... Make an A then you have some ground to comment on his college lifestyle. Who doesnt drink? =/. Sit around? The attacks were unforseen. In a war the loss of life is enevitable... Dont give me that bullshit :P.

White

If sitting on the toilet and reading is multitasking... then why does windows have such a hard time?

Go to Yale... Make an A then you have some ground to comment on his college lifestyle. Who doesnt drink? =/. Sit around? The attacks were unforseen. In a war the loss of life is enevitable... Dont give me that bullshit

I can't help wondering if he got into Yale more because of *gasp!* money than anything else. As for the grade itself, it's not my ability to get an A that we're talking about, it's the fact that the Republican Party willingly put forward a second- or third-tier (intelligence-wise) candidate when there are plenty of people in the party who are quick-witted, decisive, and capable of reasonable responses to difficult media questions. "Who doesn't drink?" Bush was and more than likely still is an alcoholic; I've heard a number of things that I can't necessarily confirm about his drinking habits, and I've heard him on the news claim that he kicked drinking because of his faith, but it doesn't work that way when you're a through-and-through alcoholic. You don't just up and stop being that way. And of course the loss of life isn't inevitable in war; that's what makes it war. At the same time, THOSE MOTHERFUCKING WARS WERE AVOIDABLE, ESPECIALLY IRAQ. Can you honestly sit there, comforted in the knowledge that "people die in war" while thousands of innocent fucking humans have died?

How many mothers have been killed who did nothing to harm us? How many fathers? Brothers? Wives? CHILDREN? How many more innocents can no longer walk, or see, or hear, or work, because we decided it's our right to rain down death and dismay on the lives of other people? What fucking solace do you HONESTLY find in the quip "death is inevitable in war?!" Have you ever heard of Johnny Got His Gun? Dalton Trumbo. Brilliant man. If you haven't yet, go out, buy it or get it at a library or something, read that book, and tell me how well you can sleep at night by telling yourself people die in war, while ignoring the fact that the war itself wasn't necessary. Why don't you do a quick google search for "Iraq" and "casualties." I guaran-goddamn-tee you that there will be things on there that will make you sick. I've seen the pictures of old women weeping on the rubble that destroyed the lives of their families. I've seen the images of 4-year olds on operating tables, desperately clutching to life as the doctors scramble to save their arms, their legs, their sight, their very lives as the wounds, wrought by the belligerence of a small faction of people, empty them of their strength. If the loss of life (oh how neutral a phrase; let's not mince words, we are murdering the innocent en masse) is inevitable in war, that's all the more reason we should not stumble so self-righteously and joyously into the destruction of other living things for bullshit causes that, in time, will no doubt be forgotten. You know what will be remembered? The tears of that grandmother, weeping for her lost children and grandchildren. The last glint of light flashing from the eyes of a young girl as her body gives up. The indescribable, inmeasurable amounts of agony, of torment, we have brought people who did nothing to us or our country.

American civilians and troops killed in Afghanistan: 143
American civilians and troops killed in Iraq: 1,070
Estimated number of Iraqis (civilians)killed in Bush's war: 12,000-14,000
Estimated number of Afghanis (civilians) killed in Bush's war:3,400+

That's between 17,000 and 20,000 deaths. And that's not even touching on the wounded, who are by no means even accountable, for their sheer numbers and the fact that many of the wounded don't have hospitals to report to, and many more are afraid to go.

Thbbbbt

Gonna Cry? People die everyday... What makes this any diff? Wow they are dying because of other people... People kill people... people make decisions that kill people... Its how society has always worked... It wont stop... So why rebel against it?

My dads an alcoholic... But he can keep his fucking mouth tied. And keep his wits up and seemingly enough makes 150k a year.

Theres a limit even alcoholics have it. Its the point where you just cant continue being the way you are.

White

If sitting on the toilet and reading is multitasking... then why does windows have such a hard time?

Gonna Cry? People die everyday... What makes this any diff? Wow they are dying because of other people... People kill people... people make decisions that kill people... Its how society has always worked... It wont stop... So why rebel against it?

I'm sorry, but with more respect than is due, words can't describe how fucking stupid that sounds. I literally read that statement out loud, to see if maybe I had misread it and you meant to say something different.

Wow.

You're talking about real human beings like that. You're making me hurt on the inside. Bad.

Thbbbbt

This post was edited by Magnifico on Sep 27, 2004.

I love you democrats...You have nothing good to say about your own candidate, so you cover it up by bashing the hell out of the only guy with the balls to stick his foot up Al Queda's ass and do something about the impending doom that is approaching us.

The true problem with the democratic party is that it is split straight down the center, literally and figuratively. You have the crazy, anti-war bashers on the left, and you have the pro-war bashers on the right, right side of the democratic party that is.

And you have a Candidate, who is such an idiot, who is put in such a bad position, by himself mostly, but also by the stupid, whiney, power-hungry little old men who don't give a damn if a terrorist nukes half a million people, as long as they are in power.

Want some insight? Want to know a more plausable reason for invading Iraq rather than for WMD's, not a great excuse, or for OIL, the stupidest excuse ever, Saudi Arabia has like 150% more oil than Iraq ever will...

Check this, found this little jewel in my email...

The Third Jihad

Take it as you will, assume that it is all crap, whatever.

Just atleast think about the "whole Picture" before you go and do what may end up in the end being a "rash" decision.

Cause this whole election is a fork in the road to decide the future of America, and possibly the fate of the free world.

My Opinion: Keep Bush in office:

- He's strong on terrorism.
- He's solid in his resolve.
- He doesn't give a damn about what other countries think. (*cough* France *cough* Russia *cough*)
- And he is religious and has faith.

I, personally, am not a religious person, but I'd rather trust a man who believes in something rather than a man who has lived his entire life doing everything half-assed and hopping from one "rich-bitch" to the next. (John Kerry is such a tool)

eat me.

To each his own...

- He's strong on terrorism.

Virtually all (sic) independent studies, commissions and experts in the world agree that Bush's actions have increased terrorism. Al Quaeda has never had more volunteers than since Bush took office. Almost the whole Arab world would like to see you dead (even in most countries which officially support you a vast majority of the citizens are anti-war). If that is Bush's idea of striving for global safety, well, then goodnight!

- He's solid in his resolve.

He can't admit he's at fault and rather finds new excuses for his actions. That's not exactly a proof of strength of character.
A true believer will never admit it when he's wrong. When facts threaten to refute the teachings of his religion, he just denies the facts and prays harder.

- He doesn't give a damn about what other countries think.

Yeah, and that's why the whole world hates your country for what its government is doing (sic). Great starting position to obtain safety, don't you think?

- And he is religious and has faith.

Yeah, he believes God speaks to him. Quite an attitude for a political leader.
Wasn't there something about separation of state and church?


Remember when you went to elementary school? One of your classmates was probably bigger and stronger than the others, and used this advantage to bully the rest of the class. You know what kind of guy I'm talking about? Nobody attacks him and few dare to speak up to him, but nobody really likes him, some outright hate him (especially those he beat up for some reason), and nobody would be sad if he got his ass kicked one day.

That's how most people outside the USA think about your country. The USA are the school bully in the classroom which is this planet.

If you like it this way, vote Bush. If you don't, vote Kerry. It's not about Republicans vs. Democrats, it's not about voting for the man with the cleanest slate (all candidates have a bunch of skeletons in their closets). It's about the future of your country. It's your choice, and it's not about picking the best possible candidate but the lesser of two evils.

This goes to all voters in the US. The next elections will not only decide who's your next president, but also tell the world whether you're happy with your current president's politics.
In many ways, from many people your country still gets the benefit of the doubt (aka "maybe they wouldn't have voted for Bush if they knew what an arrogant asshole he is"). Don't underestimate that benefit of the doubt, for all I know a lot of goodwill depends on it. With the next elections, that doubt will be removed. Either Kerry is elected, which preserves (and quite likely increases) that goodwill, or you show the world that you're happy with Bush and lose most of that goodwill.

I'm sure there are enough idiots who think Bush is a moron but vote for him anyway just because they're die-hard Republicans, and (unfortunately) I'm sure a whole lot of people vote for Bush because they think he knows what he's doing. However you vote, it's your choice. But do us and your own country a favor and consider the points I've just mentioned. It's your country which has to face the consequences of your vote, after all - from terrorists, Iraqi freedom fighters and the rest of the world all alike. And speaking of terrorists, it's also up to you voters whether your country gains enough of its credibility back for other countries to support your anti-terror efforts.
To (very loosely) quote Adam Yauch once more, if you truly want global safety, it's better to make friends than bully the rest of the world.

But it's of course your country, your election and thus your decision.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Hey null, I'd hate to burst your nice little bubble about US foreign policy or anything, but the world hated us long before we took a stand on terrorism.

Think about it...

It's not a bully status we represent, atleast that's how the liberals want you to look at it as, it is more of the status of the father figure, or the "Alpha" male.

"Father" - Ironic enough, America has become the world policing agent of the entire world ever since WWII. If some little jerk of a tyrant invades another country, guess who has to go in and clean it up. Other countries may not like it, cause it undermines their policies and shows them to be the weaker, but they ask of it anyway because they know we have the testicular fortitude to get the job done.

"Alpha" - Back to the basic way of life, before we all started playing X Box and bitching to each other about the stupid things in life. Back in the primitive days, human beings were a tribal people. And each tribe had one leader, the "Alpha" Male. Every one did as the Alpha male did, but the other males were always waiting for their chance to take his throne. This structure of society is evident in just about every communical species (wolves, lions, humans, cats, etc...). And, it is evident in the structure of much of are society still today. Just look at the presidency, Leader of the free world, total power.....hundreds of power hungry males waiting to topple his throne at all costs, even the cost of the very nation they want to control, cause it doesn't matter to some what is left to control after all the harm has been done, as long as they have something to control(*cough* democrats *cough*). And finally, this structure is evident in the world governing system itself. As much as we like to deny it, or boast it, we, the US, are the "Alpha Male" of the world. We have the strongest economy, we have the most influential and desired culture, and we have the greatest governing system yet. And every little country that is jealous of us; and their are alot of jealous nations, for good reason too, they would love to take just a little chunk out of us, take us down a leg, or even destroy are whole culture and take it as their own.

Personally, i dont know, cause I've lived in the US my whole life, but if i had to guess, I'd say it would definitely suck to live in another country, always under the shadow of the US; the world power, the cultural leader, the greatest nation in all of existence of nations in the history of mankind.

So who would Osama vote for?

DUH, if Osama could vote, i know he'd rather just kill us all than do something as untyrannical, peaceful, and non regimest as practicing the democratic process, but for the sake of speculation.....Osama would vote for Kerry, definitely.

Think about it. Would he vote for the guy who invaded his stronghold (Afganistan), the guy who has put him on the run and in hiding along the Pakistan border, the guy who who has made it his resolve to take the fight out of the US and into other countries for the sake of the lives of American civilians, the guy who is putting a democratic satellite in the dead center of the Middle East to thwart the oncoming radical movement (Iraq), the one guy who convinced Lybia to give up it's nuclear ambitions by the shear demonstration of force?

Or would Osama vote for a Blowhearted, flip-floppin, unsure, unconfident, foolish, rich-bitch wife-hopping, Kennedy wannabe? Who, went to Vietnam for 4 months (8 months shy of a full service), came home and jumped on the hippie wagon and protested the war (which hurt the resolve of all the POW's who were being tortured for Kerry's own words), who still didn't throw away his medals like he said he would out of protest (guess he wasn't that committed, as usual), who has had the crappiest record in the senate to date (he voted against the B2 bomber and other military hardware at the height of the Cold War), and who has flipped flopped so many times on his position of Iraq that it makes some sick and confused where this idiot stands, even if he stands for anything at all (he voted for the war when it was popular, he voted against the war when that was popular). Isn't it obvious how John Kerry operates? He is a follower, he looks at the majority of positions in a room, and takes the position of the strongest one. He has no resolve. He just follows what is the "coolest" thing to do. oh yeah, he plans to get russia and france to help out in Iraq. YEAH RIGHT. Have you ever seen france in a war? Might as well tell them to leave their guns, so they can surrender alot faster. Russia? Russia doesnt want to admit they are wrong on the issue of terrorism, hence the clouding of the media when that little terrorist incident occured in that school. Also the misrepresentation of the amount of poeple in that school when the terrorist took it over (they said about 400, when there was more like 1000). Shows their honesty and resolve.

So who would Osama vote for? The idiot, no-stance blowheart, Kennedy wannabe? Or, the resolute, defined, "cowboy"?

It's so freakin' obvious, he'd vote for the Flip-flopper. While John Kerry is wind surfing on Lagoona Beach, thinking happy thoughts about hugging trees and kissing babies, Osama can sneak in the back door and shove a nuke up his ass.

Why do people hate the cowboys?

In the old westerns, cowboys were always good, they always saved the innocent, and rode off into the sunset. They may have done the job a way some may think was extreme, or unpleasant. But hell, THEY GOT THE JOB DONE.

I like Cowboys better than flip flops.

To each his own...

Sorry, I'm not trying to bash you directly, but I find it highly fascinating how effectively Bush supporters pick only those facts that support their claims.

Hello, good morning, wake-up call: Iraq was not a threat to you!

Fact* #1 - Iraq statistics:
Nukes found: 0
WMDs found: 0
Plans to attack the USA found: 0
Ties to Al Qaeda found: 0
Terrorist camps found: 0
Credibility of the USA in the world: 0

Fact* #2 - Global trends in terrorism:
Global terrorism has INCREASED since Bush took office.
Terrorist groups are reported to recruit hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis who have lost everything in the war.
The Iraq war did not HARM terrorist organisations, it HELPED them!

Fact* #3 - Attitude towards the USA:
Due to your government's incredible arrogance and complete lack of credibility, no country besides a few 'allies' following their own agendas is willing to support your "war on terrorism". You're more or less on your own. But hey, another tax cut for the rich will boost the economy and the money to support the war will roll in, right? And if it doesn't, well, who needs medicare or social security.

( * These are labelled "Fact" for a reason.)

You say you like people who get their job done. Well, if the job consists of completely destroying your country's reputation in the world, creating an incredible deficit and attacking harmless countries regardless of civil casualties while being unable to catch the real villains... well, THEN Bush is doing a great job. Mission fucking accomplished.

Let's be honest. What did he achieve, terrorist-wise? Global terrorism has increased since he declared his war on terror, the Iraq war was a complete flop, and Osama is still at large. But maybe they'll catch him a few days before the election, who knows?

As for Osama, I tend to say he'd vote for Bush. Why?

• Osama wants to isolate the USA from the rest of the world. Bush has achieved this.

• He's still at large. Bush's people are obviously unable to find him, and it doesn't seem to be a top priority either.

• Iraq is a new breeding ground for terrorists, and they all hate the USA. Kerry might improve the situation in Iraq (i.e. do some of the long-promised reconstruction work).

• The US economy is on its last legs. Bush turned a record surplus into an incredible deficit, and things are guaranteed to get worse.

Mission Accomplished. Osama has every reason to be happy with Bush.

Hey null, I'd hate to burst your nice little bubble about US foreign policy or anything, but the world hated us long before we took a stand on terrorism.

Some extremists maybe. But they're not the whole world, and they hate us European infidels as well. The rest of the world didn't hate you. Granted, there's that prejudice everywhere that Americans are ignorant simpletons, but people were aware that this is a prejudice, and it's nothing compared to the anti-Americanism you experience nowadays. Trust me on this one.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Ive heard it from many sides, even from my own country side (*cough* Michael Moore *cough*) the resentment of the American nation. It's not extremists, it's the whole lot.

It's the resentment that a country just over 200 years old, self proclaimed, self made, and self reliant has risen up to be the leader of the free world. 200 years! That's insane by historical standards for a society to rise that fast and be that successful.

So don't tell me it's just extremists and a few anti-american bashers out there. And that this anti-americanism is something recent and new. It's been going on since the beginning of this nation. Everyone resents us, and sad as it may be, alot of our own American democrats hate the proud America that stands today.

They'd prefer America to stand down as the leader and be an equal among the rest of the sovereign nations of the world. But that is just foolish and idealogical at best. It just won't happen. It's not our economy, it's not our land, it's not are population that makes us what we are...it's are attitude that makes us American.

Arrogance if you may. The "go to, I can do what ever I want, cause I have the will to do it" attitude. And the rest of the world resents it.

And they resent Bush because he embodies the American, "can do", cowboy attitude.

attacking harmless countries regardless of civil casualties

whoa...are you saying Iraq was a harmless little country?

Wow man, where the hell have you been for the last 12 years. Kuwait, gassing his own people, public executions, hanging bodies from the street lights as a sign of deterence, tyrannical rule, hiding in palaces behind children, mass graves in the desert, "oil for food" UN scandal, etc., etc.

If you think Saddam was a peaceful little dictator, them damn dude, i guess there is no point debating this election with you, you're already gone......wow.

---------Predictions-----------

Kerry Elected:

He raises taxes, the economy tanks, confidence in the US drops to nothing, allied support disappears, Iraq falls apart, American hatred explodes, terrorist attacks in the US larger and more horrorific than 9/11 (and he blames it on Bush)

Bush Elected:

Economy rises, Osama is Captured, Iraq prospers and governs itself as a democratic state, resentment of the US continues, but who cares, that's how it always has been.

Oh yeah, I can't believe you still believe the whole Iraq WMD crap, grow up man, it's nothing. I'll say this one more time.

The Reason America Invaded Iraq was:

NOT FOR WMD's, IT WAS TO PUT A DEMOCRATIC SATELLITE IN THE CENTER OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO HALT ISLAMIC RADICALISM.

....where it will be graciously needed for the future events about to unfold, to decide the fate of the free world.

damn, i just wish people would get over the petty and stupid little crap, and step back and take a good look at the WHOLE PICTURE.

"Your best defense is a good offense..." - unknown.

I'd rather have a president who is proactive and puts the battle on the enemies doorsteps, rather than a president who is reactive and waits for the enemy to come to the US.

Ironic enough, I almost want John Kerry to be president, so when he screws everything up, I can go up to a democrat and say "HAH...I TOLD YOU SO!"

But that "zing" is not worth the future of America. People need learn a lesson from history.

O well, one can hope.

To each his own...

Arrogant

\Ar"ro*gant\. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to persons.

But you've already provided a definition with your posts.

The ideas you are presenting are an intellectual disease with which America is infected.

The Third Jihad

I read it. Frankly, even if it was true it fails to help your argument in any way.

Firstly, Islamic terrorists claiming to be fighting the Third Jihad is like penny sized militant groups in in the U.S. or elsewhere claiming to be fighting WWIII. They may know grade 3 history, but any objective view dismisses them as overblown nutcases.

Secondly, his three step plan which he believes the Muslims are excercising (yeah right) does not include an attack on American soil, it simply calls for an American withdrawl from middle eastern territory which it invaded. So why does the U.S. care so badly?

I know what your answer will be: 9/11. But 9/11 is completely contrary to the supposed master plan for the Third Jihad. If Islam wants to start by taking over the middle east, why would they get America involved. And don't tell me it's because "they didn't see it coming". It's because they were a bunch of feather-brained hate-bred extremists who took advantage of Bush's removal of the early warning systems for a terrorist attack that Clinton had instituted. It was tragic. But in regards to a big picture plan, it had no lasting point. If you approve of killing so much, maybe you guys should quit bitching about it.

Back in the primitive days, human beings were a tribal people. And each tribe had one leader, the "Alpha" Male. Every one did as the Alpha male did, but the other males were always waiting for their chance to take his throne

That's myth. Tribes were non-hierarchal. Don't talk about tribal systems when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

it is more of the status of the father figure, or the "Alpha" male

*laughing*

Personally, i dont know, cause I've lived in the US my whole life, but if i had to guess, I'd say it would definitely suck to live in another country, always under the shadow of the US; the world power, the cultural leader, the greatest nation in all of existence of nations in the history of mankind.

On the contrary, I've never been more glad not to be an American. If I was American, I'd be constantly having to apologise for the insane stupidity of my leader. Not that our PM is too great either, but at least he doesn't go around shoving other peoples face in it.

DEMOCRATIC SATELLITE IN THE CENTER OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO HALT ISLAMIC RADICALISM

You're right, that'll work. Their right to vote will make up for the fact that that their family is dead.

Unless you really meant AMERICAN COLONY IN THE CENTER OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO SHOW THOSE LITTLE BROWN SHIITES WHO THEY SHOULD RESUME BOWING DOWN AND KISSING THE ASSES OF. That seems to reflect your attitude a little better.

---------Predictions-----------

Swap the Bush predictions with Kerry's and you're a little less wrong.

I can't believe you still believe the whole Iraq WMD crap, grow up man, it's nothing

You're calling Bush a liar? That's surprising.

If you think Saddam was a peaceful little dictator, them damn dude, i guess there is no point debating this election with you, you're already gone......wow

It's not like anyone will ever be able to make YOU see anything other than your own twisted delusions. Insulting null in this way is a gross double-standard, and highly unwarranted.

Especially since what he said was that Iraq posed no serious threat to the U.S., making the invasion unjustified, and since the invasion is just making things worse, it's true no matter how you look at it.

It's the resentment that a country just over 200 years old, self proclaimed, self made, and self reliant has risen up to be the leader of the free world. 200 years! That's insane by historical standards for a society to rise that fast and be that successful.

The bigger they come, the harder they fall. What I find insane is that America has become the modern version of the very imperialistic state that it originally opposed.

And you speak of learning from history.

---

NOTE: Blue Ghost, I can't say I know you as a person. I don't know what music you like, what clothes you wear. I don't know if you're a nice guy, if you're friendly or witty or have a good sense of humor. I can't pretend to judge you as a person. As a result, please take this post for what it is: not an attack on you personally, but rather a heated reaction to the ideas you presented here, which I find backward.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

Ok Bunk, time to lay into you...

at's myth. Tribes were non-hierarchal. Don't talk about tribal systems when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

no leader, huh? ok Bunk, whatever. Go study some ancient pre-history and look at communical animals today and tell me they are just leaderless bands that happen to roam together with no direction or purpose.

it is more of the status of the father figure, or the "Alpha" male

*laughing*

Denial and resentment; Where ever you live man, even if it's not in the US, go walk a couple blocks down the street and im sure you will find some nice "Golden Arches". McDonalds, classic case of American influence. Then tell me you don't resent our culture.

Unless you really meant AMERICAN COLONY IN THE CENTER OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO SHOW THOSE LITTLE BROWN SHIITES WHO THEY SHOULD RESUME BOWING DOWN AND KISSING THE ASSES OF. That seems to reflect your attitude a little better.

wow, you just can't think five minutes in front of your face can you...

It's always the stupid excuse that we just want to claim more land and oil for ourselves. no one looks into the long effects of a democratic state in the center of a regimest, tyrannical region.

I can't believe you still believe the whole Iraq WMD crap, grow up man, it's nothing

You're calling Bush a liar? That's surprising.

yeah, i am. if you haven't noticed by now, ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS! It's the lesser of evil we choose.

Especially since what he said was that Iraq posed no serious threat to the U.S., making the invasion unjustified, and since the invasion is just making things worse, it's true no matter how you look at it.

No shit sherlock, Iraq wasn't an immediate threat, i'm just protesting the fact that he referred to Iraq as an "innocent country".

As for the invasion, have you noticed that they always talk about the bad stuff that occurs in Iraq, and never mention the good things that occur; Free elections, free enterprise, freedom to walk the street without the fear of being an "example" to Saddams power, etc.

as for the 1000 troop casualties; better for 1000 troops to die over there keeping the terrorists and insurgents at bay, than 3000+ innocent civilians dying here in an instant. notice how they always say the American casualties and never mention the terrorist casualties, biased media?

Another thing, 1000 troops in a WAR? By the records of history, that is pretty damn good for an invasion. I mean, if you consider the fact that over 5000+ american service men lost their lives on one beach in Normandy in the invasion of Europe in WWII.

5000+ in one day vs. 1000 in 1 1/2 years.

The bigger they come, the harder they fall. What I find insane is that America has become the modern version of the very imperialistic state that it originally opposed.

wow, man, you summed up all your jealousy, resentment, and hatred right there in that one comment. thanks for proving my point. i appreciate it :-)

America; land of the free, home of the brave....

To each his own...

This post was edited by The_Blue_Ghost on Sep 28, 2004.

no leader, huh? ok Bunk, whatever. Go study some ancient pre-history and look at communical animals today and tell me they are just leaderless bands that happen to roam together with no direction or purpose

Your statement was to the effect that people in tribes were resentful of their Alpha Male. That's not the case. In a tribal system, the leader is simply an equal of everyone else performing one of many important duties: leading the tribe. He or she is simply the best leader in the tribe, and as a result is not always under attack. Others in the tribe would probably not want the challenging job of leading, since the leader does not recieve any dominating excess of the wealth. This is the original tribal model.

In a heirachy, the leader is not necessarily the person with the best leadership skills, the leader is simply the person who has all the wealth (or controls the food supply). In a heirarchy like we have, the leaders recieve the majority of the wealth while often being no better qualified than the rest of us. That's what builds the resentment.

I did not say that they had no leader, I said they were non-hierarchial. Until recently, I was among the billions who didn't see a difference. For more info on tribal systems, I recommend Daniel Quinn's Beyond Civilization.

Free elections, free enterprise, freedom to walk the street without the fear of being an "example" to Saddams power, etc.

None of these are permanent. All you have done is shake up the dust and sent a country into an anarchy that only an Iraqi dictator will pull it out of.

And really, do you expect them to be grateful? Thankful that you 'saved' them? The resentment that was there before your invasion is only made stronger, as long as you presume to go in and forcibly impose what you consider best for them.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom and to a certain extent Democracy, but there are not a lot of great historical examples of a superpower nation trying to change another nation by force. They can only realise democracy when the people are ready to build it for themselves.

wow, man, you summed up all your jealousy, resentment, and hatred right there in that one comment. thanks for proving my point. i appreciate it

Hmm... well, I didn't expect that. I thought you might take exception to the fact that I consider America to be simply another version of the dying imperialist state that was the British Empire 100 years ago, and the Roman Empire 1000 years ago.

You see, I don't automatically consider the U.S. to be the "best nation in the history of mankind" simply because it is the most powerful right now.

Beginning 200 years ago, the people who founded your country saw a great opportunity to create that great nation of which you speak. A nation of hard working equals, of free speach and Democracy. Maybe that existed at one point, but that died when you presumed to be more than a country. Now that you see yourself as an empire, others will view you this way as well, and thus your cycle of hate is created. Right now, it is capitalism and a distracted middle class that are keeping America going. Not bravery or freedom.

You aren't even the most free nation in the world right now. I'd say Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Norway and France (one of the original modern democracies, the country you hate for no appearent reason) all equal or better your standing when it comes to social liberty.

As a Canadian, I am proud of my country just like you are proud of yours. We could argue endlessly about who's best, but really, does EVERYTHING have to be one big cock-fight with you? I know there are Americans who are far more reasonable when it comes to seeing America the way it really is.

Ok Bunk, time to lay into you...

heh heh... yeah.

I was most looking forward to hearing your thoughts about my reply to "The Third Jihad". Which I notice was one part you declined to reply to.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

This post was edited by Bunk on Sep 28, 2004.

(*cough* Michael Moore *cough*)

Moore has his own proiblems. Don't believe everything he says. And this advice comes from a goddamn leftist tree-hugging singing hippie liberalist.

The "go to, I can do what ever I want, cause I have the will to do it" attitude. And the rest of the world resents it.

It's the resentment that a country just over 200 years old, self proclaimed, self made, and self reliant has risen up to be the leader of the free world.

You see, that's your problem. You actually believe this to be true, don't you?
Right, excuse me for a minute, I have to go to the bathroom and laugh my ass off.
"We're the leader of the free world." Oh man, the fact alone that I still find people who believe in this is hilarious. Wake up man. Ask anybody outside the USA how they feel about it. Better yet, go to Iraq, show them your US passport and tell them you're here to liberate them.
Exactly what freedom are you talking about? Patriot Act? Your country doesn't exactly have the best record in preserving freedom and democracy. Want to guess which country in the world has installed the most dictatorships by military force?

Oh... wait... you said "self proclaimed". Sorry. That changes everything. What a great idea indeed!
I herewith proclaim myself to be the new leader of the free world.
Hey, why is everybody laughing at me? Ah, it must be jealousy because I'm a leader and they're not. Makes sense!

And they resent Bush because he embodies the American, "can do", cowboy attitude.

No, we just think he's a retarded, alcoholic, dyslexic and self-aggrandising asshole in general.

--------Predictions-----------

Kerry Elected:

He raises taxes, the economy tanks, confidence in the US drops to nothing [...] (and he blames it on Bush)

Bush Elected:

Economy rises, Osama is Captured, Iraq prospers and governs itself as a democratic state, resentment of the US continues, but who cares, that's how it always has been.

Hmmm.

(and he blames it on Bush)

Why shouldn't he? Doesn't Bush blame everything bad on Clinton as well?
"Clinton's terrorist warning system failed on 9/11! (After I cancelled it)"
(Just a sidenote)

But as I said before,

A true believer will never admit it when he's wrong. When facts threaten to refute the teachings of his religion, he just denies the facts and prays harder.

You deliver an excellent example for this theory.

Facts (again):

When Bush senior took office, he was handed a so-so economy. He deregulated and introduced tax cuts similar to the current ones. Republican analysts predicted that this would give the economy a considerable boost. When Bush senior left office, and Clinton moved into the White House, he was handed a recession and a record deficit.
Clinton then raised taxes for the rich and reversed most of the changes Bush senior made. Republican analysts went crazy on how this would kill the economy and Clinton is doing everything wrong.
Clinton left office with a strong economy and a record surplus.
Bush junior re-introduced the tax cuts and basically did away with any environmental protection or big-corporation-unfriendly regulations. Republican analysts predicted that this would help the economy a great deal.
Two years later... well, I won't describe the state of your economy, it may be too painful for some Americans to read.

I know, you're probably gonna blame the recession on 9/11 and terrorists. To that I have to say, the economy was on its way down even before 9/11.

And what do we learn from this? Right, nothing, because Bush can't possibly be wrong and Clinton is a goddamn democrat so all he did must be despised.
The first tax cuts didn't work, so we need more tax cuts.

Isn't that exactly it, they close their eyes and pray a little harder.

Besides, what makes you so sure Bush will capture Osama and Kerry won't? Osama is still at large more than three years after Bush promised to catch him, and prior to the Iraq war Bush has even publicly stated that finding Osama is "not our top priority" anymore.

Oh yeah, I can't believe you still believe the whole Iraq WMD crap, grow up man, it's nothing. I'll say this one more time.

One more time? When did you say this before? Not where I could hear/read it, I reckon.

NOT FOR WMD's, IT WAS TO PUT A DEMOCRATIC SATELLITE IN THE CENTER OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO HALT ISLAMIC RADICALISM.

Two possibilities.
One, you're right. That means two things, namely a) you imply that the Bush government are a bunch of professional liars, and b) they've failed miserably, as Iraq is further away from peace or stability than ever since Gulf War I.
Second, you're wrong. In that case no further comment is necessary.

Oh, and there's that bet.

whoa...are you saying Iraq was a harmless little country?

Harmless in the sense that they were no threat to you, or any of your allies. Saddam confined himself to killing some of his own people ever since Gulf War I. And speaking of religious fanatism, Iraq wasn't too terribly active.

gassing his own people

With gas given to him by the USA, and (according do mclaincausey) they even gave him the satellite coordinates where he should spread it.
Now whaddya say.

"oil for food" UN scandal

You forgot to mention another thing, the "Rumsfeld and his buddies illegally sold him weapons and stuff for some $110 million" scandal.

Ironic enough, I almost want John Kerry to be president, so when he screws everything up, I can go up to a democrat and say "HAH...I TOLD YOU SO!"

Funny, I feel the same about Bush. So far he's doing a good job of ruining the country.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

I absolutly agree.

The choice is hard.

I think the question should have been "who do you think will ruin the country faster?"

Maybe we sould elect someone who is homeless to be president.
At least there would be someone in office who has a clue to what a huge chunk of the american population goes through every day.

Or how about a recovering victim of sexual abuse? Sex offenders would be in short supply as they would face the death penalty.

Or how about one of the millions of individuals who have lost their jobs due to down sizing by companies subsidized by the american goverment?

Or how about someone with little or no money? That would be a good choice.

I say limit the political advertising to statements on the public broadcasting system, one each. Make everything about each's canidates politicial activities and the groups to which they are an acitve member of the subject of the front of every newspaper, and make them accountable.
I know that sounds like the witch hunts for communists of the 1950's and Mcarthyism, but in actuality making the people who want the office of president completely accountable and looking at the track record, and making a decision based on that would make more sense than listening to t.v. adds and edited news broadcasts.

I agree with you Null, I do watch the bbc, when ever I can, and the world views what we do from a very different place.

Did you know after 911 the only plane seen in the skies over america was the osma family plane leaving Texas?
Matter of public record here.

I've made my decision....I'm voting for Null for president. Just promise me that when you get into office you won't be swayed by any big corporations or by any lobbiests, ok?

It only looks that way because your standing on your head.

I'm voting for Null for president. Just promise me that when you get into office you won't be swayed by any big corporations or by any lobbiests, ok?

I feel honored. :-)
In return I will vote for you. Your speech has really impressed me. I'm sure you'd make a great president!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Human beings are human beings... If one dies... Its nothing but if many die its such a tragedy...

Im sick of people caring for those that would have never cared for them.

Bush has his head together Kerry cant make up his mind... Its obvious which road is the best choice.

White

If sitting on the toilet and reading is multitasking... then why does windows have such a hard time?

Bush has his head together Kerry cant make up his mind... Its obvious which road is the best choice.

Yeah. Hooray for the Cocaine President!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Do you reallly think Bush is that dumb? Don't you get it?

NOT EVERYONE ARE AS THEY SEEM.

And that's a life lesson;

- All politicians are liars and twofaced. (Rep. and Dem.)
- All religions are "man-made", ergo, flawed.(merely matters of perseption of the same basic "message")
- History repeats itself, hence, the downfall of America is inevitable (I will admit that).
- Nothing stays in a permanent state, just in permanent existence. (A change will come, hopefully not at the hands of a flip-floppin' blowheart)

- Bush may put on his "country bumpkin" persona, but do you really think that is how he is behind the camera? Do you really think that his advisors would say,

"hell, let's just go invade Iraq for no apparent reason and say it was for WMD's."

if that is true, them I am wrong and my country really is being run by a bunch of idiots with the affinity and urge just to blow shit up. But if im right on my speculation, which sounds more plausible, then the true reason behind the invasion is more sound than anyone can argue. Yes, it's not politically correct to try and "Halt the spread of Islam." But since the Islamic society won't lift a finger to change the minds of these radicals and terrorists, it seems that the only option is what usually causes the best results....

DIRECT ACTION. Nothing like a show of force to get someones attention.(Just look at Lybia, they wised up pretty quick)

So if you believe every little thing you see on TV or read in the New York Times, you really are gonna be treated like a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed on shit). I suggest taking a step back, get all the sides of the matter, look to the past for a correlation, and then make your own assumption.

Cause what someone tells you is not the truth, no matter how you cut it, it is not the total, whole, unbiased, unaltered, direct truth. The only way to find the whole truth of anything is to experience it for yourself. Since that is an impossibility in matters like this, i suggest you take the lesser of two evils.

- And do you think John Kerry is really a caring, concerned, "fight for the little man", understanding democrat? Just look at the guys record; He switches his ideas so fast you can't tell what he is for or against. And his concern for the poverish? The guy has been rich-bitch wife hopping since he got out of the service (which was only 4 months). The guy, spent like an ungodly amount of money to have a ski lodge built. He took pieces of an old barn in Europe somewhere, shipped them over seas to the US ,and had them reconstructed into a personal ski lodge. He has like four different estates, a billionaire, fowl mouthed ugly wife, and yet he manages to pay less taxes than George Bush, who only has a ranch in Crawford, Texas. Now that sounds fishy. In the simplest of terms, Kerry is just SUPERFICIAL.

IMAGE. You can see it, but it doesn't really exist, it's not something tangible.

As for arguing over who has more patriotism and national pride, that would be futile at best.

I'm not angry with you crazy liberals, I actually enjoy arguing with you very much, it's interesting to see the same issues from a different perspective.

Keep it coming.

To each his own...

This entire thread is getting really nasty, to the point where it's almost painful to read. (And yes, I know I don't have to read it, but I have been because I'm a nerd for politics, and it's always interesting to see what people have to say.)

The_Blue_Ghost, this is just a piece of advice, and you can take it or leave it as you choose in the spirit of all the democracy and freedom you're waving around like an axe.

If you want people to respect your opinions, you need to at least PRETEND you're willing to respect theirs.

Saying things like:

I'm not angry with you crazy liberals, I actually enjoy arguing with you very much, it's interesting to see the same issues from a different perspective.

will not endear you to anyone, liberals or otherwise, American or not. I'm an American liberal, and you've pissed me off. Riiiiight. We're all "crazy" just because we don't agree with you and your Bush propaganda.

I'm not just writing this to pick on you, though. A few general requests:

Could the country-bashing go away? I love my country, and it infuriates me to read: "Gee, I sure hope that whatever happens, those assholes in the U.S. get spanked so the rest of us can laugh at their sorry demise." First of all, I don't like the implication that I'm an American asshole, and if you think that poorly of me and mine then I'd prefer that you tell me to go away now before I waste any more of my time writing posts here. But mostly it's just illogical. If any major nation that's a world player in politics and economics got flushed, it would affect the entire planet. Whether you're a proponent of globalization or not, I'd like to assume everyone here is at least intelligent enough to understand such a simple principle.

But on the same level, would all the Americans here who are acting like assholes STOP? Honestly. We're not the only nation on the planet, there are a whole bunch of other really great ones, and I think they're all pretty damn cool, or I wouldn't spend so very much of my personal time, for example, in Japan and Canada. (Besides, if you act like a loser all you do is prove their point: Americans are arrogant bastards who can't see past their own borders unless there's oil involved.)

A founding principle of "Americanness" is love of equality. We're not the fucking leaders of the free world, we OUGHT to be partners, EQUAL ones whose goal is to bring ALL countries together in democracy and freedom.

And don't try to tell me that that's what Bush is doing, because he is the most unilateral president we've ever seen.

I meant this to be two cents, but it turned into a fifty dollar soapbox. :(

My stepdad isn't mean, he's just adjusting. -Death to Smoochy

Bush has his head together Kerry cant make up his mind... Its obvious which road is the best choice.

So it's good to be willing to kill tens of thousands of people, so long as you're decisive about it? Your idea of "good" is nothing short of fucked up.

Thbbbbt

So it's good to be willing to kill tens of thousands of people, so long as you're decisive about it? Your idea of "good" is nothing short of fucked up.

So you would rather have a president that "cuts and runs" and leaves "tens of MILLIONS of people" to suffer at the hands of radical terrorists and regimists. Oh? You didn't hear, that's Kerry's plan (just about the only plan he's made).

Good luck with that on your conscience.

ps - sorry pendragon, i'll try not to be so much of an asshole. :-)

To each his own...

A look to the past:

Actually, I'd rather we have Gore as president so we wouldn't have so many people already dead with so many more with so much to fear, but because so many radical conservative vigilantes took the country's politics into their own hands and hijacked the damn election, it's too late.

A look to the future:

I don't want to leave Iraq before they can hold themselves up. I think that Kerry is willing to weight the options before he just ups and pulls out. I just don't trust George W. Bush to make the right decision about Iraq. I think it's a possibility that Kerry will do the right thing, especially if he makes Wesley Clark his Secretary of Defence, but Bush has revealed himself to be, shall I say, fucking heinous when it comes to international relations.

Thbbbbt

Actually, I'd rather we have Gore as president so we wouldn't have so many people already dead with so many more with so much to fear, but because so many radical conservative vigilantes took the country's politics into their own hands and hijacked the damn election, it's too late.

Have you listened to the rant of AL Gore lately....

it's psychotic.

i rest my case.

To each his own...

Gore had his head too far up his ass to even remotly control our country.
OMG People are dying... =/ Wow nothing new. They signed up for the military... Join at your own risk.

And Innocent people die by the hands of saddam as well so how is this diff?
White

If sitting on the toilet and reading is multitasking... then why does windows have such a hard time?

Ok. I've read read them all, and first thing, I'm not an American, and from my point of view neather one is a good candidate. Democrats bombed my country(Serbia) and republicans bombed Afghanistan and Iraq! Please excuse this heates statement I going to make: Screw 'em both! The only thing why I almost liked Clinton is he wanted to make US citizens responsible before the internation court in Rome, but Bush refused to ratify it! Where the fuck is that liberty and justice for all? Oh, and nobody seen to have mentiond this FACT: of around 5000 casualties in 9/11 just over half are US citizens. others were forigners! so IT IS NOT ONLY US THAT FELT THAT TERRORIST ATTACK!Why don't you get an indipendent candidate and why don't everyone vote at onece insted state by state?
What hapened to live and let live?
And why do you think that what US is allways right?
What if you made a mistake?
I let your conscience judge you.

IMPORTANT:I do not intend to insult anyone, and I do agree on some other forums with blue ghost(Love and Lifesense for example), so please, everyone do not thake this personaly!

Vladimir, student od economics

And Innocent people die by the hands of saddam as well so how is this diff?

The USA under Bush claim to be the good guys.

In addition:
Millions jobless, because their workplaces were either destroyed during war, or the US-appointed interim government refuses to re-open thousands of factories.
Millions homeless, because their houses were destroyed by the US Army.
Destroyed infrastructure, no signs of reconstruction yet (for more than one year).
Now, let's repeat this as it it a rather important point: No reconstruction work for more than a year. (Besides oil pipelines and some business hotels for foreign investors.)

When an oil pipeline breaks (sabotage or otherwise), it's fixed as quick as humanly possible.
Millions of Iraqi civilians still live without electricity and clean water, and when they want to take a good satisfactory shit they have to stoop over a hole behind the house (provided they still have one).

Reconstruction work is postponed for two main reasons -
* No foreign company in their right mind would send a large number of workers into Iraq right now, and
* the interim government rather tries to get US companies into Iraq than contracting local companies which could do the same work for a fraction of the price (and wouldn't be under permanent attack from the local inhabitants).

Example: The interim government imports countless 'anti-terror' cement blocks 'made in USA' for $1000 a piece. Meanwhile Iraq's biggest cement factories, which could produce&deliver those blocks for about $100 a piece (a tenth of the cost!) stay closed - and hundreds without work and pay - by order of the interim government because they say there is no work for them.

And some people wonder why the Iraqis doubt the occupants' noble motives.


To get back to the Bush/Kerry question, Bush has obviously failed miserably. The Iraqis hate you, the current political situation down there doesn't allow any company to make major investments, and when it comes to paying for everything the USA are more or less on their own after Bush so masterfully pissed off all of your former allies.
Simply put, Kerry couldn't possibly do worse than Bush.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Oct 01, 2004.

Ah the political arena, where nither canidates are my choice.

As to the currant president, his track record shows little regard for the natural resources of this contry, little regard for answering to the united nations, and doesn't have a clue as to what is going to happen to all thoes rual kids who will have to be bused to much larger cities to go to school since the brilliant enactment of no child left behind.

For his first term in office he spent more time on vacation than in the white house, this too is a recorded fact, and with the inactment of the patriot act has made protesting of any kind whether the protest is something valid or not, it effectivly did away the ablity to stand up and let our voices be heard. Now if you feel that something the goverment is doing is out of line or if you feel that something a large corporation is doing is out of line, you have one less way to show your disagreement. What you could be seen as is a threat to national security and thus thrown in jail.

As far as the war on terrorism goes, terrorism started along time ago when the roman empire dectied to take control of as much of the world as possible.
Then we have Hilter and his idea's. Complete genoside of an entire nation.
Then we have the irish, and their nifty acts of terrorism.
Basicly, terrorism is anything that purposes to do away with the freedom of others. Not sure if that's a dictonary deffiniton or not, but history shows that's what it does.
As long as you have groups of people who decide that everyone else should do what you do and think like you do, then acts of this nature are sure to follow.

As for Kerry, I'm not all that sure of his track record, just what I've seen on t.v. and in the newspapers.
It gets pretty muddled up.
I think it's all just another form of entertainment, seeing as how this is a republic and not a democracy we live in.

I haven't decited how I'm going to vote. I think the deciding issue for me will be the re-introduction of the draft. If that comes than what someone told me about this war being another Viet Nam will be true and all kinds of mess will break out here at home. Last night they aired a poll taken of the american people and 58% of the people are against the war in Iraq and only 13% percent of the people in this nation support the war on terrorism.
Definately two different issues here.

And in my humble opinion the goverment never really listens to the american common person, they are going to do what they want. And now as more and more freedoms are being taken away without our knowing about it, than all I can do is hope and pray that who ever gets in to the highest office in the country has more interest in doing things that honor human life, than to show the world who's the boss.

It only looks that way because your standing on your head.

I think it's all just another form of entertainment, seeing as how this is a republic and not a democracy we live in.

haha, i think the term is democratic republic... :-)

Personally, both parties have their faults.

Kerry is neutral (switching so much he really has no position at all).

Bush is on the offensive side (fight them there, not here).

whether that is right or wrong, im not sure. What may be wrong in one perspective is right in another. It all matters to who is benefitted or scarred.

Just vote for who you think will have the balls to stand for something. No matter what you stand for, atleast stand for something. No body likes pussies, no body likes neutrals.

ps - I don't get personal on these forums, if i act like an ass on one topic, it doesnt' spill over to another. No worries Vlad.

To each his own...

Just vote for who you think will have the balls to stand for something. No matter what you stand for, atleast stand for something. No body likes pussies, no body like neutrals.

I'm not quite sure if you are referring to harold_maude's post or not... but if you are, I think what she is trying to say is that she feels disempowered. And she is right to feel that way, because our 'democratic republic' is fast becoming like a monarchy. I intend to vote, but I have not made up my mind. I intend to watch and wait until the very last minute. You never know what might happen.

As for the above statement in a much broader perspective than a response to one single person's post... well:

Hitler had the balls to stand for something. He wasn't a pussy. He wasn't neutral.

Not that I'm calling you a Nazi, because I'm not. Read between the lines of your own writing, man. Do you realize what you have just said? It is dangerous to just stand for something no matter what it is...you must be informed, and you must care about the rest of the world and their opinions, because they will affect your ability to voice your opinion, potentially. And not just on this site, but really, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, in the greater scheme of things.

'Pussies' and 'neutrals', as you call them also have another name. They are mediators. If you can't see past what appears to be weakness for it's inherent strengths, then that is too bad.

Your angry, name-calling posts are an ear-sore to read, and you 'claim' to be trying to clean up your act... in deference to r_pendragon... but you are not. So even if you apologize it means nothing.

And instead of responding angrily to me... or to harold_maude (in a slightly veiled sarcastic manner) maybe you should look at the top of r_pendragon's post and read her words: THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

I certainly do, now, and even though I am sure you will likely fire off some form of nastiness to me, because that appears to be what you get out of this forum... you seem to use people here as punching bags... I will still add my two cents, and get on MY 'fifty-dollar soap box' as r_pendragon so aptly put it.

Nuff said.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

Do you realize what you have just said? It is dangerous to just stand for something no matter what it is...you must be informed, and you must care about the rest of the world and their opinions, because they will affect your ability to voice your opinion, potentially.

If you don't stand for something, than you have no right to dissent the actions of others.

Which brings me to my point; there is no such thing as neutrality. It's a guise. No matter how you want to play it off, you will lean more to one side than the other. The ones who try to deny this or hide the fact, well, they are referred to as "flip-floppers" and hypocrits.

Tell me this. If a person tells you that he is going to kill someone, do you tell the cops or just ignore the fact? and stay "neutral"?

When the Nazi's began their march over Europe, what do you think would happen if America stayed "neutral"?

Two Outcomes:

- A Nazi Empire in place of the European Nations.
- A Communist Soviet Regime that spanned two Continents.

Don't preach to me about the "good" things about being "neutral". No matter how much they turn and look the other way, the neutral still have as much blood on their hands as the guilty.

To each his own...

If you don't stand for something, than you have no right to dissent the actions of others.

In spite of rosyxxx's fine erudition, you seem to have missed her point:

There is a difference between standing for something just for standing's sake, and making an informed decision and going with that. In past posts you claimed you preferred Bush because he stands for a nebulous "something." Well, I know what he stands for: robbbing the poor and giving to the rich.

And I won't stand for that. I'm informed, I've chosen, I do stand for something. I think you're confusing liberalism and neutrality. But being anti-Bush is hardly neutral.

Tell me this. If a person tells you that he is going to kill someone, do you tell the cops or just ignore the fact? and stay "neutral"?

This is a confused metaphor. Political and moral neutrality are two different things. Not reporting an attempted murder would be fatalistic; political neutrality is not.

No matter how much they turn and look the other way, the neutral still have as much blood on their hands as the guilty.

Do you really want to get into the nuances of this argument? Since you seem focused on WWII, let's look at the bloody hands of some nations who stayed neutral from '38-'45:

Sweden. Oh, the guilt the Swedes must bear from accepting and hiding escaped Jews from Norway and Denmark. How dare they? And, hey, now that I think of it, didn't those craaaazy Swiss stay neutral and accept refugees across their borders too?

Bloody hands, indeed.

This is, again, where you're confusing political and moral neutrality. Sweden and Switzerland were politiically neutral; they fought on neither side. But they were not morally neutral/fatalistic; they rescued those who were in need.

In any case, lauding neutrality does not disparage activism; it's not as if the two are mutually exclusive. Both neutrality and activism saved lives during WWII. But to say that neutrals are bloody-handed....

I'm putting the soapbox away again. But I can't promise it won't creep out a third time....

My stepdad isn't mean, he's just adjusting. -Death to Smoochy

This post was edited by r_pendragon on Sep 30, 2004.

The_Blue_Ghost, how in the hell can you say that if you don't stand for something, you can't dissent the actions of others.
I am freinds with almost everyone on this sight. In this situation I am a nuetrality. I am, however, encouraging you to start posting in a more polite and respectful manner. Your, I am right and you are wrong attitude can get the hell off of this sight; It has no place here!

At any rate, I consider you a freind, as I consider anyone else involved in this cat fight a freind. However, In the essence of nuetrality, I demand you clean up your aggressive attitude before I do take a side.

Oh and by the way, nuetrality does exist, I could care less who the fuck the candidates are, let alone pick a side! Seriously, the government is going to have it's way and I am going to sit in front of my computer. Nothing will change, becuase things aren't as good as, say, a true democracy, as bunk so keenly described to me before. So until we become one of those, I don't care!

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Sep 30, 2004.

Which brings me to my point, there is no such thing as neutrality.

If you have time, during your 'fast skimming' of other people's writing, as well as obviously of your own... you might want to read r_pendragon's post beneath - #27156

...read it carefully... like you've never read anything before... in fact, why don't you go back and read through all of your posts... and sit down and think about how much you are behaving like an 'ostrich'... sticking your head in the sand... hiding from who you are as a person while dogging everyone else for their beliefs... and that is what you have been doing...

While you are busy dragging 'red herrings' through yours and everyone else's arguments, you miss the finer points. You focus on what you think will rile people, and not on what they are saying. YOU DON'T LISTEN.

Don't preach to me about the "good" things about being "neutral".

Hey name-caller, hey hash-slinger, hey 'man-who-skirts-the-issues', guess what...I don't have to 'preach'...anymore... r_pendragon has already done it for me...and as for your directive - if "preaching" is being polite, then I'm done with that (as you can so obviously tell by the name-calling and not-so-sly-insuation that I've already indulged myself in)...but, if it is simply telling people that what you believe is right, and what they believe is wrong...well, then YOU'VE BEEN PREACHING TOO, my dear, dear friend (and hypocrite).

ah... me thinks, I have stooped to the level...

That is, of course, so obviously what you wanted anyway, isn't it? Happy now that you have pissed a lot of people off?

On and on and on and on..... *sigh*

Tell me this. If a person tells you that he is going to kill someone, do you tell the cops or just ignore the fact? and stay "neutral"?

hmmmm.... another one of your 'red herrings'... perhaps?... but anyway, I'll bite, for now, even though I don't like herrings... I've called the cops on friends of mine when they've been fighting, knowing I'd loose the friendship... but not wanting to hear anymore furniture being hurled... I've gone to the police when I've been told that 'someone' was going to shoot someone else and cut them up into tiny bits and send the parts in the mail to their family. Not that, as r_pendragon said, moral neutrality (which I don't have a lick of...) is really the issue here. It is political neutrality.

btw, my grandparents are from one of those so-called "neutral"/gray area/non-commital/"pussy"/blood-on-their-hands countries - namely Denmark...

and they weren't really actually 'non-commital' now were they? If you call refusing to take sides on the surface (and I guess, two-facedly :/)

but, beneath it all, hiding Jewish people as well as the Danish dissenters -

like the ENTIRE DANISH POLICE FORCE who incidentally, wore the 'Star of David' as a whole group paraded through the streets of Copenhagen for their brazenness to defy the Third Reich with their initial 'neutrality'

- in your home, then I guess those people, my fellow Danes, were just "pussies" then weren't they...until they finally took a stand and dissented against what Hitler was doing...

BOTH approaches have their benefits.

You don't want sickly sweet, sappy, cute, kind, pollyannaish 'preaching'? Well how about bitchiness... go ahead and call me one, cause it's my middle-name... don't mistake my kindness for weakness...don't mistake my supposed neutrality for weakness...

You just simply don't get it, you probably never will, and you'll just be 'one of the many Americans' that I have to apologize for when foreigners here and abroad ask me what the hell is wrong with the people in our country....

Have a nice day, man...

You have thoroughly pissed me off... and it was time to cut loose on you...niceness doesn't get through your skull... in fact nothing seems to... so that said...

Yes, our country is a wonderful country... and what we did during the Nazi regime of WWII was only possible by not being 'neutral'; yet if, you'll refer to points made above, as well as what other people here have said elsewhere on this site, neutrality also has its merits - it allows you to weigh the options until you are finally ready to make a decision... apparently indecisive people are usually the most decisive when they finally take a stand...they've had a long time to think about it...

I have read this thread, and I do see the points you are trying to make about 'Kerry'... he, quite frankly, worries me just as much as Bush does... voting in the booth for me, will be the 'lesser of two evils', unfortunately... that is WHY I am watching so carefully.

To continue, the point that I originally 'was trying to make' is that it is flippant, thoughtless, careless, as well as dangerous, to just stand for 'anything' no matter what it is... that statement you originally made in reply to harold_maude seemed to be very careless and a fairly non-commital reply in itself.

Hey, call me arrogant too... arrogant enough to say that if you are trying to 'beef-up' the vote for Bush, you are a detriment to your party... and don't just assume that I'm in the Kerry camp - as I may, much to my surprise, vote for Bush... who knows...I'll try to keep an open mind... but once election day comes, I'll be taking a side and voting for whomever I believe is the candidate... it's not that I'm too much of a pussy to tell you now, it is that I take a 'watch and see attitude'... when I watch the debates I'm actually paying attention to both sides... not just rooting for my candidate...

And as far as thinking before I post, well I did... and I think it is high-time you stopped bullying everyone who was trying to be nice to you, in their efforts to try to get you to see more than one side of the coin.

Of course, that is what I've been doing my whole life, standing up for what I believe in, and standing up for other people, even if it gets me in hot water.

I am going to go do something worthwhile with my time... like actually help people instead of sitting here reading this stupid thread anymore...

How's that for not being neutral?

I'm outta here...see ya lata alligata }:->

NUFF SAID

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Sep 30, 2004.

Sorry dude, the words in the national anthem read as follows:

I pledge alegence to the flag and to the republic for which it stands.

Clear as day. This nation is a republic, not a democratic republic.
Read your history. Again if nessisary.

The founding fathers of this nation "in order to form a more perfect union"...

They rebelled against the tyereny of King George, and we had that little thing called the "reveolutionary war", remember that one in history class?

It's my understanding that at that time the concensess was that the common man most of whom had very little education would have trouble making wise choices. So they decited when they put the foundations of our goverment together that it would best serve everyone here to make this a republic and not a democracy. Or in more understandable terms "let us make decisions for you because we're more educated than you"

Somewhere along the line the idea that this was a democracy got thrown into the mix and it stuck. Why do you think when it comes time to vote for the president each state has so many electorial votes. And not the thousands of votes if all the votes of all the people who voted counted in the process?

Electorial votes are thoes that count. In any presidential election it's the electorial college that decides. That's what gets me about the last election, they made a big huge deal out of florida when in actuality it was the electorial college that had decited that George was the president already.

If you don't believe me about this read your history again. And the voting process.
That's why there is such a big push to vote democrat or republican and no go independant. The less or more each side has takes the state....hmmmm...somehow reminds me of the farmer and the dell...wonder why.

It only looks that way because your standing on your head.

Bush is on the offensive side.

Well, what I've already seen of yesterday's TV discussion didn't give me that impression!
His advisors should have given him two plates on sticks, labelled "Me good" and "Kerry bad", and he could just have held them up when deemed appropriate. Would have given about the same amount of insight from his side, but with less dyslexia.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Oct 01, 2004.

He's not the one having to make a come back. Kerry is the one who is in the hole and has to dig himself out. All Bush has to do is focus on the issues at hand, essentially he could ignore Kerry for a month and still win the election.

Kerry on the other hand has to clerefy all the "mispoken" things that have come out of his mouth (talk about a speech impediment, the guy says one thing and contradicts himself in the exact same sentence, but i guess that's more of a psychological disorder...).

Don't expect any outright attacks on Kerry from Bush, or vice versa, both are trying to play "the nice guy" or the "guy you'd want to go have a beer with" persona. Bush has that down pretty good, holding his country bumpkin persona (many americans would rather "hang out" with a cowboy than a hard nosed money chaser). Kerry on the other hand...well, he's got some socialogolical misunderstandings. It doesn't look very good to the common man when you put on a "fake & bake" tan and go get your nails done before the debate. He keeps digging himself in a hole, and giving the Republicans ammo to shoot at him.

I'm a conservative, but that doesn't mean I hate democrats. Actually, I sympathize on some issues with them, only a select few though. And in reality, I feel sorry for the democratic party; their party is broken in half (extreme left and the moderates), their bomb throwing supporters have actually made their image worse (Gore, CBS, etc), and their candidate has no confidence what so ever(not enough to stick with something, atleast).

People say Bush needs to tell the truth? how bout Kerry?

suggestions for Kerry:

- admit that it was a mistake not to vote for the 87 Billion for armor. No more of this, "i voted for it before i voted against it..." Just apolgize.(worked for Swarzennager on the boob grabbing, why not...)

- Stop wind surfing! stop snowboarding...whatever, these are activities the average american cannot relate to. Go bowling, do something that everday americans get to do, not something the luxurious and "people with alot of free time" do.

- Give more short, concise, pithy, STRAIGHT ANSWERS. and define where it is you stand on issues. This confusion you have caused by switching sides is hurting your image. It may work in the Senate, but it doesn't cold water in the Presidency. Essentially, have more sincerety and clerety.

- Shut your wife up. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, it has nothing to do with that. But the woman just can't keep her mouth shut. saying crap like, "Shove it!" and "anyone who disagrees with my husband is an idiot...", that's just not gonna fly with the voters. not very "first lady-like".

Personally, i think the guy is out of touch, and easily swayed by what is "popular". And it is sad, yes it is, but, it's better to see these problems here and now and end it where he stands, rather than 4 months when he's in office with a crisis.

Bush for President, Four more years!

To each his own...

He's not the one having to make a come back. Kerry is the one who is in the hole and has to dig himself out. All Bush has to do is focus on the issues at hand, essentially he could ignore Kerry for a month and still win the election.

Actually, Bush is in the hole, too. Admittedly, a lot of people want to know what Kerry's deal is, and where he stands on a lot of issues, because he hasn't said too much in that category, but a lot of people are angry with Bush for that whole "going to war when you lied to us" thing.

Thbbbbt

Actually, Bush is in the hole, too

This is true in the sense of responsibility. But what I was referring to was the statistical factors of the current polling process.

Essentially, an incumbant president generally needs approximately 50% going into the ballet. Where on the other hand, the challenger needs a good sum over 50% to insure his victory of the office. Hence, Kerry is in a hole and needs to do something about it.

Honestly, and politically standing, I don't think he will pull himself out, and I hope he doesn't. I mean, he did have some good points in the first debate, but he did contradict himself about his "consistency". And he didn't really have any "new" ideas to make the war better. He simply stated that he would do the same thing as Bush, only better.

As usual in the Kerry way, vague.......

Vote George "Winner" Bush.

To each his own...

This post was edited by The_Blue_Ghost on Oct 01, 2004.

Vote George "Winner" Bush.

Funny, I always thought the W stands for Wanker or Warmonger.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Funny, I always thought the W stands for Wanker or Warmonger.

Well, I think the W stands for Walker.

I could make fun of Kerry's name too, but I'm tired of throwing shit. How bout some informal rhetoric?

Vote George W. Bush.

To each his own...

Vote George W. Bush.

You repeat yourself. But since I'm a nice guy I've got you a couple of Bush-2004 posters to spread among your friends. Vote Bush!

Bush vs. Jesus

Why you should vote Bush!

Good luck, and in case he's re-elected, have fun!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

How bout some informal rhetoric?

I really hate repeating myself unless I really have to put a point across(hence, the "Vote Bush" Signatures you want to focus on so much instead of something interesting and insightful to discuss).

So I ask again, why not discuss something more intelligent?

Or, have you run out of "ammo"?

You're starting to bore me. :-/

To each his own...

So I ask again, why not discuss something more intelligent?

Or, have you run out of "ammo"?

If you must know, the discussion is boring me. I'm tired of repeating my arguments all over and over again, every time a new Bush supporter shows up to proclaim how great a leader that idiot is.
I don't get much of a response to most of my important points anyway (e.g. you insist that you prefer a guy who "gets things done", but avoid explaining how you feel about him getting the wrong things done and messing them up). I rather invest my limited time into other, more interesting discussions.
Honestly, I don't think you have much more to say than what you learned from Bush's attack ads... and I've already been exposed to plenty of that kind of 'information'.

It's not like I'd have to mind too terribly, anyway. Bush, Satan Cheney and Himmler Ashcroft can't touch my civil liberties or retirement fund. You Americans vote, and no matter the results, the majority of you will get the government they deserve. For the others it's bad luck. Have fun.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

No worries for null; it'll be a cold day in hell when the U.S. tries to attack Switzerland.

Thbbbbt

This post was edited by Magnifico on Oct 03, 2004.

You're putting too much stock in CNN/Fox/Gallup polls. Even the best of those polls are often inaccurate because they tend to get more older people, who have a higher tendency towards moderate conservatism, and a lot of those polls almost completely miss the poorest people in the country.

Thbbbbt

I may not agree with everything you have said here, but I like the way that you have thoughtfully written out your responses... I can see more where you are coming from, without any irritation. For the sake of our country, I hope you are correct.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

To the blue ghost....I sure hope not

It only looks that way because your standing on your head.

This post was edited by harold_maude on Oct 03, 2004.

I think Kerry is undecided about what he wants. I agree with Mr. White, Bush does seem to know what he's doing. Well, my opinion doesn't really affect anyone that much because i'm not old enough to vote.

Now we speak with ruined tongues, and the words we say aren't meant for anyone. -bright eyes-

The one thing that bothers me the most is that every where you go the feeling is that which one is the lesser of two evils. The truth is that neither is the lesser of two evils. I say that because no matter what these people will still be controlled by the same PAC's that arlready are in control.

I suggest that you all look at what your true feelings are and find a candidate that is more appealling to you. The media controls who gets the attention such as it is there are only two that get any real publicity a republican or a democrat neither does anything for me. Why, because they really arn't any different. Most people focus on the 9/11 issue and what has followed well I do not think that either of these candidates would have reacted much differently. If you reallly think that they would you should look back in history and see that sometimes we become trapped by outside influences.

Drew