Who do you want our next president to be??
John Kerry or George Bush?
Personaly I want John Kerry to win. I think George Bush has done enough to destroy the United State. If he's re-elected he's probably going to destroy the U.S.
that this topic (unless some changes or regulations are placed) has "fiery" tendencies?
** hopes for the John-John team to win **
Meh, we've already stumbled into flaming territory. (WHAT aspect destroyed the US? Iraq doesn't count, since that's destroying Iraq or the US' reliability, not the US itself.)
Either way, I know who I want to win.
I want him (FexusFan) to win the elections, too 
The Black Scorpion Gang robs tombs while giving caution to deathtraps, but Black Snake Syndrome will put them in their place under a needle ceiling. Insert wheatstraw pennies into the willd blue yonder to keep Gargamel from Smurfing the oasis! Shoot the midnight Jello over the eel cage when the wild straw needles sip the black wheat yonder gang with their leader Bakura the catman!
*hands out buttons and waits in fear for the Fexusfan campaign's merchandising people to sue him*
Quote:
I think George Bush has done enough to destroy the United State.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that. There's just one now. Due to the cruel dictatorship of Lord Bush, we've all had to merge together into a single state: Bushtopia.
I still plan on voting for our Dark Lord, though. I just cant' bring myself to trust a man who got BOTOX injections. I don't care how many Purple Hearts he's got.
Gotta give his wife props, though. Heinz Ketchup is a staple in my life that I'm not sure I can live without.
i hope kenny wins because my dad says we are moving to californa if bush wins.
Kenny's dead, son. I...I thought you knew.
And what good would moving to California do? Are you sure he didn't say "Canada"? Seeing as how California part of the US and all... o.o
Bush has been destroying the U.S. with the Patriot Act, record deficits, attempts to screw around with the Constitution, running all over the Bill of Rights, brutalizing Iraqi prisoners many of them committing no crime and forcing them into sex acts, a ridiculous emphasis on secrecy, etc. And then there's the facist wing among his supporters such as Ann Coulter (or to borrow a term, the Hatriots), who think pointing out this stuff should be called treasonous. Bush himself said there should be limits to freedom after seeing a site that bashed him.
I can only hope that Kerry wins, another 4 years of Bush and I'll go insane. Wait I think I already am.
Who's gonna win? Huh? HUH?
Lurch or Monkey boy?
I'm personally hoping for Kerry to win. Not because I like him, but because I'm part of the 'Anything but Bush' camp.
Then again, I live in Holland. Home of boring politics. *Yawn*
I may not be American, but with the UK's current prime minister, whoever leads the USA has an almost direct effect on the UK. So it bothers me who's in charge of the USA.
Of course, it's not only the effect of the USA on the UK's foreign policy (which is currently 'blindly follow the USA into every conflict Bush starts'), but Bush's effect on his own country that irritates me. I agree with Vec on the Bush Administration's policies. From the start Bush has done nothing to impress me. I'd elaborate but Vec's managed to cover anything I'd rant about and ranting will encourage another left/right flame war and Cycle isn't here to back me up. 
*shot*
Suffice it to say that if either of the two candidates must win then I'd rather it was the one who isn't Bush, as Spon said. Things have got bad enough with just 4 years of his leadership. I dread to think how bad they'd be after 8.
Well, I really don't like Bush. And I don't like Kerry too much either. But since the person in office now, Bush, isn't doing too great of a job, pick someone new, Kerry. And if Kerry doesn't do too good of a job, don't re-elect him, instead, pick the person who hasn't had a shot at the presidency. It may sound like I would just pick whoever, but if you can get a good president like that, THEN re-elect him. Because you need to get a president that works for what most people think is good for the country.
BTW, I want Kerry to win if you didn't realize that.
GO JOHNNY, GO!
You might've been able to tell because of my liberalness.
It's just.... This whole war, all these deaths, all these broken families, was started because of oil when you get down to it. And since the Bush family had friendly ties to Saudi Arabia, he won't get after them! Their government is the ones who are dangerous! If we don't do something, there's going to be huge consequences!
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Kerry. Bush is ok, but I think it's time for a little change. Bush has done enough for his country for now. *dodges tomatoes*
>>
<<
W0000. Go Fexusfan!
This won't be the first Presidential election I've been able to vote in (I was 21 in 2000), and I think it's about time I did vote. Problem is, I don't know much about what Kerry or Bush is promising to the country, and I'm too lazy to find out, plus I don't know where exactly I can read about their promises. Does anyone know where I can find out more about the Presidential candidates' campaigns?
But from what most of you guys have said about Bush (that he's responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq), and because some cartoonists I admire (Matt Groening and Ken Penders) are liberals, I'll probably vote Kerry. Besides, my parents are diehard conservatives, and I think I'd like Kerry to win just to spite them. 
Jennifurface
"All my life I've wanted a pet, you guys. Someone I could call my own. But, my dog ran away, I was allergic to my cat, and my rabbit gave me nightmares."
It's going to be a close election either way, which seems to prove either how stubborn, ignorant, or just plain stupid half the people in America are. I mean, after all that Bush has done or hasn't done, why would anyone still vote for him? I'm definitely hoping that Kerry wins, because I already know that Bush is a terrible president, and I doubt Kerry could be any worse. The only place to go from here is up.
It's going to be my first year to vote [turning eighteen in September], too. I won't explain my reasoning since, well, it's been stated already.
Kerry is a waffler. Bush isn't a waffler.
The problem that I see with a Kerry presidency is that we the people don't really know where he stands because he has been on both sides of the fence so much. We know Bush, nobody knows Kerry.
I miss the old Democrats like Truman, FDR, JFK, and Woodrow Wilson.
slate.msn.com/ is a great websight to learn the issues and realities of both candidates. If you want to learn the dirt on either candidate go to the opposing camps websight. Makes for interesting reading.
Jimro
I agree with Shade. If Bush wins, I may just go insane. Oh wait, I already am insane. If Bush wins I may just go sane... oh the horror.
I always go with the Democratic candidate anyway. I'm a donkey till the day I die, and even in death I shall remain anti-elephant.
Really? Even if democrats started lowering taxes, teamed up with the NRA, dumped crap in the environment, poured millions upon millions into the military, controlled the country with fear, restricted gay marriges, and radically supported the Patriot Act?
History tells us that a political party can shift gears at any time.
In fact, some democrats are already starting to go the way of the elephant...
The South used to be firm democrat territory until the Democratic party announced that they were pro-choice.
Sonicmax, can you give me a list of URL's that show gratuitous pollution caused by the republican party?
Jimro
Kerry is short for inconsistency and flip flop! Why would I want a guy who doesn't know what he even wants? I respect Bush and we may not see eye to eye on things but it's either Bush, Kerry or *shivers* Nader.
I'll go with Bush.
Well, that had SOMETHING to do with it. The South U.S. was staunchly Democratic for many many years following the Civil War, as they held a grudge against the Republican party for their tough reconstruction reforms and the 14th and 15th(I think) amendments. The democrats referred to it warmly as "The Solid South".
About 1950's and 60's it began to swing from the left to the right. Roe V. Wade and the Democratic party's support had something to do with it for sure. Although you can't discount the Republican's more libertarian agenda and John F. Kennedy's catholicism either (although ironically now that Catholic immigrants are more integrated into America, most Catholics and southern Republicans are on the same side of the political scene, whereas back then most Catholics were democrats.)
I'm voting for Bush.
*flees*
Sort of picking between the lesser of two evils.
I don't care about this so-called flip-flopping. Not that it's true (except for the Patriot Act), but I prefer someone who's capable of changing their mind.
Refusing money from interest groups? Please name a politician who does. Besides, "special interest groups" is a classic political demagoguery. There's nothing wrong with a group that cares about an issue. Many such groups are performing an essential defense of the rights of the public.
This reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons. "Mayor Quimby even released convicted criminal Sideshow Bob. Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor." Voing for the Patriot Act was inexcusable, but at least he's one of MANY Senators who later turned on it. Would you rather have the guy whose administration put it together, supports it, and wants to extend it?
Calling war criminals what they are is not exclusive of his military background and should not be criticized. Anyone who doesn't consider the Abu Gharaib guards and those giving the orders war criminals has a lot of explaining to do.
The Republican party is so not Libertarian it's not funny. Taxes, gun control, and, what else? Constitutional amendments against flag burning and gays? Dissolving the right to a trial or even to be charged? Fanatical enforcement of drug laws? Trying to fuse church and state? Elevating the supremacy of the state in general? Love of the military? Wanting to dictate law to other countries? Now this doesn't describe all of them, but it does describe Bush and his cronies, who represent a quasi-fascist wing that's gradually taking over that party. They don't even have taxes any more since the Democratic candidate is campaigning for tax cuts too, and they traded in the balanced budget thing a while ago. Yet people still put this label on them. This is part of why I say that the parties are just ideologically misaligned enough to preserve oligarchy without generating strong alternatives.
this reminds me of what George Washington once said in his farewell address. He became worried that the party system would affect the way the government works. If he were alive, he would jump of the nearest cliff.
Quote:
This is part of why I say that the parties are just ideologically misaligned enough to preserve oligarchy without generating strong alternatives.
Sad but true. This is what Washington was worried about and never been so true in our days. ** sighs again **
Those are the only candidates I know about with websites that you can check, Jennifurface. There are possibly more though realistically only Bush or Kerry have a shot of winning.
Don't forget Lyndon LaRouche!
"The duckiest pond ever, that's how they got me to vote for Lyndon LaRouche!" Grandpa Simpson.
Kerry.
Now, I don't think that Bush is evil, I don't think he has some sort of vast corporate-military-oil conspiracy or anything like that. I just think he's wrong for this country.
a) Iraq. Bush said we were going in because there was a threat to national security because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There aren't any. So why are we there? I understand that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, violated human rights, etc etc, and I'm glad that we got him out. I don't think we did it the right way. We now have this chaotic mess on our hands. You'd think that if we were to overthrow someone's government we should at least get the clear support of their people first. We rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII, so it's not like the US is incapable of rebuilding nations, but we have to do it with a willing populace. (Another thing that can be said of Germany and Japan is that they were already Westernized nations, with strong industrial bases and an educated middle class, which helps a lot.) Also, if we were truly so noble-minded, why Iraq? Why not Sudan, or Liberia, or East Timor? If we're trying to be the humanitarian police of the world, it's funny that we only help people when it's expedient.
b) Gay marriage. Ok, with the economy like this, and terrorism, and rising health care costs, our biggest problem is that two people want to get married? Sanctity of marriage what? We'll protect the sanctity of a drunk Britney Spears getting married overnight in Vegas, and Anna Nicole milking an old geezer out of his money? Unless the government has some magic powers to discern whether one marriage is abusing the sacred institution, and another is truly blessed, it should just butt out of the whole "moral authority" business completely. The government marriage license exists to help people planning to live together for life acknowledge their legal realities. Just because gay marriage is banned doesn't mean gay live-in lovers will suddenly stop having to worry about where their property goes when they split up, or how to file a joint tax, etc. The government marriage license exists for pragmatic, not moral purposes. A marriage license doesn't mean that you truly will love each other until death do you part, that God smiles on your union. It's just a piece of paperwork giving you certain legal rights and responsibilites that go with your new position. If your church, synagogue, mosque, temple, coven, cult, or family refuses to marry a gay couple on moral grounds, I respect that decision. But something like that is not the government's job.
I don't see what banning gay marriage is supposed to do, other than look good to religious conservatives. What, will gay people stop being gay because they can't get married? It's silly. Another thing, what about hospital rights? A gay man or woman is denied access to his/her lover in the hospital because he/she isn't technically "family"... now that's just ridiculous! A hospital patient should have the last say in who he/she wants visiting. It's a highly personal decision and the President, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court can just stick their laws where the sun don't shine, for all I care. It's a free country, and if a dying man in a hospital wants to see, his HAMSTER, for God's sake, then no law, come hell or high water, should keep him from it.
Even if you did oppose homosexuality on a moral ground, which is a personal opinion, I don't see how this justifies amending the Constitution. The Consititution is what prevents presidents from gaining too much power, by setting a groundwork for what, except in dire circumstances, cannot be changed. I don't see the erosion of the Constitution as a good thing.
In conclusion: Bush is dead wrong.
c) Stem cell research: Guh? Suppose you believe that life starts at conception (which I don't). Fine. The embryos are already dead, though! It's not like you're killing them when you extract stem cells. If you are so pro-life, ban the fertility clinics that create and destroy unused embryos in the first place, not the scientists trying to do find ways to alleviate suffering. Besides, not all stem cells are embryonic; there are also bone marrow stem cells, for example. Anyway, I've posted my opinion on fetuses elsewhere.
Conclusion: Kerry rocks.
d) Tax cuts for the rich: In theory, this should work to stimulate the economy. In practice, it doesn't. It's extremely difficult for the government to time economic policies precisely, because first, once the information is available, the situation has likely changed. Then there's the time that it takes to pass legislation, and then there's the time it takes for the legislation to take effect. So by the time fiscal policy enacted, it won't help anymore. Besides, while I'm not a communist and actually like the idea of people who earn their money keeping it, rich people manage to worm out of many taxes anyway. For example, normal people earn a revenue, and then are taxed from that, leaving the remainder to pay their expenses. But if you put all your personal assets in a corporation, you're allowed to use your revenue to pay your expenses first, and then are taxed on the remainder. Also, if your personal assets are in a corporation they can't be confiscated to pay off debt. Or, if you trade a piece of real estate for a piece of real estate worth more, the tax on your gain on the sales of the first piece of real estate is delayed, meaning that if you keep trading for bigger pieces, you can delay paying your real estate taxes indefinitely. Sneaky! Stuff like that!
People who take the brunt of the conflicting 'tax cuts for the rich/ free market' and 'wealth distribution' ideals are the upper middle class. Kerry is going to cut taxes for the middle class, and it's about frickin' time.
e) Bush's policy of abstinence only education: Teens need to learn about safe sex. This is common sense. Teens will not stop having sex because you refuse to acknowledge that they are. They need to learn how to have sex responsibly. If they have it pounded into their heads that they're evil if they have sex before marriage, the ones that have already had sex won't listen to anything else you say, the ones that plan on having sex won't listen to anything else you say, and as adults if they actually do believe that sex is evil, they'll have a hard time surviving in a sexually responsible manner once they have sex. And of course there's the Christian overtones. Many of the abstinence only programs are overtly religious (nothing wrong with that, but not something that should be funded by public schools) and promote tired gender stereotypes, like, "Boys want sex but are less emotionally mature," or "Girls are more vulnerable." Not exact quotes, but you get the idea.
f) Military service:
Kerry won three Purple Hearts, which demonstrates courage, decisiveness and grace under pressure. It doesn't conclusively prove that he has the qualities of a president, but it certainly doesn't hurt. Bush joined the National Guard during the Vietnam War. Nothing wrong with that, but he never did his National Guard duty! Conveniently, the records went missing. Also, his family had an "understanding" with the Army. Bush got out of serving because he was going to business school, which is an excuse that won't appeal to all the men and women who joined the Army because they couldn't afford college. There's a reason most of the people getting shot are working class boys and girls. Using privilege to get out military service is a flagrant display of arrogance and elitism.
Also, if you promote yourself as a wartime president you should have credentials to back it up. If you didn't have military service, fine, but you shouldn't have tried to worm out of it and cover it up. And if you *did* do all that sneaking, you should at the least have the good graces not to criticize a rival who actually served his country the hard way.
g) Accessories:
John Edwards: Born in a working class family, first in his family to go to college, graduated 3rd in his class in college and within the top 10 in his class at graduate school. Great reputation as a trial lawyer in malpractice suits. Smart, ambitious, charismatic, and a fighter for the injured against giant corporations and organizations. (good) Singlehandedly raised health care prices in South (North?) Carolina with the cost of the malpractice verdicts. (bad... I guess? But if there weren't malpractice it wouldn't cost anyone.)
Dick Cheney: Tough as nails, smart as hell (good), CEO of Halliburton, a company which is (quite coincidentally, we're supposed to believe) the one contracted to export oil from Iraq and is making a killing (bad), supports amendment against gay marriage despite having a lesbian daughter who conveniently keeps very very quiet and out of the public eye and a wife who disagrees on that issue (v. bad).
Hmmm.
Teresa Heinz Kerry: Spent her early years in Mozambique and South Africa, would (technically) be the first African-American first lady. Doesn't take @#%$.
Laura Bush: Librarian. Ex-schoolteacher. Wallflower.
h) Dubya: Had an alcohol problem until age 40. Not.. during college or, "in my young days." Until he was 40.
---
Kerry is dumb because:
a) What the heck is that, "Keep jobs in America" crap? What are you going to do? Subsidize companies that don't outsource? That hardly seems like good incentive.. oh, and hurray for keeping prices artificially high and most likely causing many companies to go bankrupt because of the cost of labor. Hurray for discouraging investment overseas (creating job opportunities, modernization, training and infrastructure in countries that would otherwise be economic cesspools). Hurray for starting up another brand of "made in America" jingoism that will no doubt cause even more racism towards Indians and other Asians. GOOD FOR YOU, JOHN KERRY! -_-
---
I still think Kerry wins.
I know this thread is old, but I want to point this out:
[Kerry gif] I voted for the war in Iraq...
That kind of makes sense, you know, considering the Bush Administration LIED to Congress about Iraq's weapons, and Saddam's nonexistent involvement with 9/11. Since most Americans (particularly those who are as patriotic as John Kerry) tend to support their president and believe every word that comes out of his mouth when they feel vulnerable, I'm not entirely convinced that Kerry can be called on that. Just a thought.
And for the record, I'm not much of a Kerry fan either. I just hate Bush more.
Despite what I've said above, I'm not anti-Bush! (Watch out for anti-Bush extremists within the next few months! I see that they're plotting something big!) Here's something that may change your minds if you are an extremist.
This war WILL lead to WWIII. (You don't need to be psychic to tell that.) After that, there will be a 50 year time of peace. (As prophecised by Nostradamus.) During that time, people will finally realise WHY Bush did it! He did it because he knew that a revolution was going on after 9/11. He knew that if we don't do something, America won't be prepared for this new world order.
Now it may sound that I'm a republican, but I'm not, as I said. I just think that Bush had his time. If he stays in office any longer, we could be facing danger far beyond imagining! He'll take it too far if he's not out this election! Kerry will do just fine. Don't ask how I know!
DON'T ATTACK ME!! PLEASE!!! *ducks*
I'm still surprised no one's linked to "This Land" yet, but what the hey. I figure Kerry'd be hard-pressed to screw over and up the US any more than Bush has.
I think nobody linked it since another topic on it previously existed?...
I'd actually like to expand on my previous point.
John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq because he was told that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 and/or was poised to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. He also voted to approve the Patriot Act because he (and other members of Congress) was told that it prevents terrorism, and, like the rest of Congress, he did not actually read it.
Only later did he and the rest of the world (at least, those who hadn't already clued in on the obvious truth) learn that the Bush Administration LIED about both.
What does this tell us? I personally think it tells us that John Kerry is concerned about the safety and freedom of Americans, both short-term and long-term. Not that I particularly care, but really now, a politician is allowed to change his mind once he finds out that a previous decision was influenced by lies.
Quote:
This war WILL lead to WWIII. (You don't need to be psychic to tell that.) After that, there will be a 50 year time of peace. (As prophecised by Nostradamus.)
Because clearly, Nostradamus is a military, economic, political and historical expert beyond is time, capable of understanding modern technology and mores over 400 years after his death.
When this was a, secret ballot?
We were, young and idealistic then...[/parodylyric]
Eh, don't mind me. Carry on.
Because clearly, Nostradamus is a military, economic, political and historical expert beyond is time, capable of understanding modern technology and mores over 400 years after his death.
Dude, I think you better brush up on your knowledge of the word "prophecy".
Quote:
Dude, I think you better brush up on your knowledge of the word "prophecy".
Or, you could brush up on your knowledge of the word "sarcasm." 😛
I know it was sarcasm, which is exactly my point. A prophecy is like a supernatural premonition sent by God or whatever, and unlike a prediction, it generally does not require the prophet to be an expert.
Not that I believe all that schlock, but still.
Quite frankly, I dun like either one. 
*holds up a "Dr. Fexusfan for President" sign*
Troophead,
You mentioned Bush's war record and Kerry's war record. Unless you are a serviceman please don't speak for us. Kerry racked up 3 purple hearts in 4 months on the swiftboats. Not to mention the Silver and Bronze stars. If you're a serviceman 5 medals in 4 months smells fishy.
www.swiftvets.com/ is a good place to start. It's not a republican sight or a democrat sight, it's just the guys who served with Kerry telling what they remember.
There are a couple sights on the net about W going "awol" and it's complete and total BS. I've done more than 4 years Active, and more than 2 reserve and I've never heard of a National Guardsman or Reservist being labeled AWOL from a TPU, (troop program unit). I realize that the military has changed a little, but not that much, we still have guys in my unit who were serving in 1973 and remember how the National Guard and Reserves were.
If someone had unsatisfactory attendance then they would usually be transfered to the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserve or later Individual Ready Reserve), IF someone bothered to do the paperwork. But doing the paperwork has always been iffy with understaffed administration offices and commanders wanting their unit to look fully staffed on paper.
Commanders get kudos if their unit looks combat ready on paper, no matter what the reality of the situation is. So W's lack of documentation doesn't surprise me in the least. Reading through Kerry's FITREP's makes me wondery why the heck he released them.
Jimro
I personally think that candidates' military records are completely irrelevant in politics and should not be such large issues. It's like voting for someone based on the size of their genitals.
Quote:
It's like voting for someone based on the size of their genitals.
As sad as this sounds, somehow I think somebody out there is doing just that.
Or would if they knew the said genital sizes.
Actually, my political science teacher tended to say that many voters subconsciously do just that, and campaigns are pretty much built around it. In other words they try to play up "macho" tendencies as much as possible. Personally I agree.
Quote:
As sad as this sounds, somehow I think somebody out there is doing just that.
Or would if they knew the said genital sizes.
They'll just guess based on stereotypes.
