Indeed. I believe Syria will be next if Bush remains in power, followed by Iran most likely... Except... hold the phone... Iran IS a democracy...

DUM DUM DUMMMM!

Quote:

---

I'm sure the Carter years were worse than this

---

if i remember well, the only problems carter had was with iran, after the current spiritual leader, sistani took over from the shah of iran or the emperor, he cut ties with most of the western world and then saddam invaded iran, which stopped the oil production in iran, and also cut down the supply of oil from iraq, the iranians fundamentalists also took some american diplomats hostage, the reagan crowd(during his campaign for president) while openly denouncing any negotiations made secret deals with the iranians and later supplied saddam with "weapons of mass destruction", it later became a scandal, bush senior pardoned the participants. the extremist in other words worked hand in hand with reagan to get him elected.

the country economic state was better in carter's administration than in either bush senior or reagan administration, gearge w bush however has broken all records, america owes more money than ever. bush "the small spender" had spent more money since he became president than all other countries in the world combined in the last four years, let him explain how over $4 trillion disappeared from the federal reserve.

Anyone notice that the poll thing I posted back at the end of Page 21 now has Kerry leading by 3-4 votes? Heck, yesterday it was tied.

Looks like Kerry's starting to pull through the Electoral College... If Bush is going to use his "October Surprise", now would be a decent time to use it, when convincing people would easily push the tally back in his favor.

I'm feeling kind of anti-consumeristic right now, so here's a nice quote:

"The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability. Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing."
- Arundhati Roy

An American friend of mine wrote this:

Life is the most precious gift we are given. Without life, we have no opportunities to love, to learn, to explore, to share, to give, to bring new life into this wondrous world, to begin and be and end all of creation and it is within us all.

We need a change in Washington. With all our votes, hope is on the way.

It seems almost religious in a way, doesn't it? The sort of general denial of today's rampant "disposable" consumerism and the promotion of the mental environment.

If you live, you consume.

Jimro

Since you must consume, it's best to try and reduce this consumption for the sake of the environment. "Anti-consumerism" generally refers to unnecessary consumerism. You know, things like gigantic SUVs, supersize fast food, satellite packages with four instances of the same channel, and single-use disposeable toothbrushes. It also refers in a way to the negative effect on our minds and health of the torrent of advertising with which we are constantly bombarded, and of our irrational attachment to our possessions.

Are you saying that it is not a good idea to be a slave to your appetites?

Jimro

Basically, yes. Either that, or it's a good idea to at least question them.

Anyways, Kerry recently paused for a photo-op carrying a gun and a goose of the dead variety, which looked suspiciously like a Canada goose. This brings him up a notch in my book, having rid the world of one more of those blasted birds.

Cycle,

I admire your "progressive passion", but I must question why liberals are so afraid of another four years of the Bush administration.

Every argument seems to be that Bush will take away civil rights, set himself up as a dictator, and lead America down the path of Germany under Hitler.

That scenario will not happen. A fascist government takes away guns, GWBush let the AWB die. A fascist government censors, the Bush admin has had more anti gov. propaganda thrown at it than any since the Vietnam war. A fascist govt. is usually racist, Bush's cabinet is more diverse than Clinton's was. A fascist govt. seeks central control of everything, GWBush wants to expand charter schools, empower citizens with faith based initiatives.

Jimro

I think it's less people worrying about him being this fascist, Neo-Hitler and more people worrying about having a person in power who makes a "mistake" that causes a large war with thousands killed (doesn't matter whose side, a person dead is still a person dead) for a cause that either just turned out to be untrue or was a blatant lie from the beginning. And while I doubt Bush will do anything QUITE as stupid in the future if he were president the next four years, do you really think anyone will risk it?

In addition to what ShadowHog said, I personally have issues with anyone who believes in "tax cuts, tax cuts" and then when submitting a spending plan to Congress doesn't even make an allotment for paying for operations in Iraq when the country is at war. War is expensive and whether people like it or not, it needs to be paid for as well.

I have problems when someone decides to call judges "activists" for doing their duty in terms of interpreting state law just because he disagrees with it. If people took that attitude on the federal level when judges made mixed marriages legal among other controversial issues in the past, then I dare say that women & minorities would be much worse off than they are today.

I have problems when someone calls for amending the U.S. Constitution in the same manner of Prohibition (which we all know was later overturned) while ignoring amendments, such as the totally ignored Equal Rights for Women.

Personally, I have many other issues, but I don't have time for them at the moment. Ironically, while Kerry is far from being the "stereotypical liberal" that the Bush administration keeps trying to make him out to be, I have less issues with him than I do with the person currently occupying the White House.

Every argument seems to be that Bush will take away civil rights, set himself up as a dictator, and lead America down the path of Germany under Hitler.
Not mine. I'm concerned about their criminal activities in Iraq, their complete disregard for the middle class (read: that huge corporate-only tax cut Bush signed today), and their poor handling of a failing economy (read: that huge corporate-only tax cut Bush signed today).

thank you cycle for bring that up, the new tax cut.

if anyone remembers, bush was whining that kerry and (kerry's allies) refused to support bills that would fund soldiers in iraq, well a week or two ago, military officers openly complained about not being funded adequately, the economy is going down the drain, but bush has now decided to take another $140 billion and is handing it out yet again to the wealthiest americans.

less than $1 billion from that would have saved the lives of the ameircans that have contracted the flu and a few have died already, only the old, infants and people with illnesses are now allowed to take the vaccine by lottery,some american are now going all the way to canada for this shots, but bush thinks that paying back his campaign contributors and giving them extra money for their winter holiday in the mediterranian is a better option.

according to yahoo he sign this bill with no fanfare and most conservatives and fellow republicans like mccain denounced his latest move.

Quote:

---

I admire your "progressive passion", but I must question why liberals are so afraid of another four years of the Bush administration.

---

I wonder why conservatives are so desperate to stop Kerry from getting in for the next four years. No, really, I wonder.

But let's list why I'd rather not have to put up with Bush in charge of the world's most powerful nation for the next four years:

- his lack of cooperation with the international community on environmental issues
- he considers a murdering terrorist responsible for some 3000 deaths (most of whom were Americans) unimportant
- the Patriot Act
- detaining terror suspects without charge or trial indefinitely and in breach of international law
- Iraq, need I say more?
- his expectation of international support clearing up his mess after a war that most of the world opposed
- his homophobic policies
- his religious fundamentalist attitude towards his position and his wars
- his use of fear of the of terrorism to drive his political career
- the increased problem of Islamaphobia both in the USA and the UK resulting greatly from his actions
- his attitude towards anyone that disagrees with him(France, American judges, etc.)
- his 'hatriot' followers prommoting a state where questioning is synonymous with treason
- tax cuts for the rich, while the poorer people and middle classes are hit deep in the pocket
- spending more money than the rest of the world put together without any good results
- the fact that the man is a complete and total moron

There... I'm sure that's not all, but that's all I can think of right now. And I've never accused Bush of racism nor have I have I ever claimed that he is in any way Hitlerean. Nor do I know any other liberal to have made such a claim.

Personally I don't think Bush is an all-around idiot at all - it's just when it comes to running a country that he shows problems. If he weren't president, I'm sure most people would just think him a nice guy.

Oh, I forgot to ask one thing. If the "liberals" should explain their problems with four more years of Bush, I think those that are "so afraid" of at least four years of Kerry should also explain why. Oh and, I'd like to hear something better than Kerry "flip-flops" since Bush administration's "flip-flops" (present: **cough**Homeland Security**cough**9/11 Commission**cough** and past:**cough**supporting cutting the intelligence community**cough**wanting to spend less on defense in certain aspects**cough**) are very well documented even if they aren't focused on at all. I'd also like to hear something better than "we're all gonna die" if Kerry is in office as an attack is equally likely no matter who is in office. I can give many policy reasons for not liking Bush and preferring Kerry. I'm sure others can too, so I'd like to hear them and not the silly stuff. :p

Unfortunately anymore people look less and less and why TO vote for a candidate because of all the mudslinging most of the "facts" out there are all negative campaigning.

Quote:

---

I admire your "progressive passion", but I must question why liberals are so afraid of another four years of the Bush administration.

---

I admire your conservative veal, but I must question why a soldier would want to keep a man in office who is directly responsible for 1,100 American soldier deaths all because of lies and an utter failure in intelligence.

The working class people who are voting for Bush are doing so because he is a 'people person'. They can see him talking to them, whereas Kerry is just a man in a suit.

This displays ignorance and stupdity on a phenomenal scale. I'm really going to let my next door neighbour vote for Bush because I feel comfortable talking to him.

In four years, has Bush ever knocked on the working class people's doors and asked them how they're doing? What is the point of voting for someone because you think they empathise with you? Aren't they paying any attention to the unemployment rates in the USA?

Castor,

Conservative zeal, not veal. The term originated with the religious sect, the Zealots. Religious revolutionaries at the time of Christ fighting for Jewish independance of Rome. Veal is calf meat.

I am not afraid of my death. If you want to know how I can support a man who has shown that he may send me to my death, join the military and find out. Some things must be learned by experience because they cannot be taught by words.

Harley,

This displays ignorance and stupdity on a phenomenal scale. I'm really going to let my next door neighbour vote for Bush because I feel comfortable talking to him.

I'm so very glad that you allow your next door neighbor to make up his/her own mind. Very noble of you.

Democracy is mobocracy. The politician who can appeal to the larger number of voters is the winner.

Jimro

conservative veal
Mmm... tax-free veal.

with some fava beans and a nice Chianti?

mmmm...now I'm hungry....

Jimro

Quote:

---

Conservative zeal, not veal. The term originated with the religious sect, the Zealots. Religious revolutionaries at the time of Christ fighting for Jewish independance of Rome. Veal is calf meat.

---

Note to self, don't post while hungry. It causes random, albeit humorous slipups.

Quote:

---

I am not afraid of my death. If you want to know how I can support a man who has shown that he may send me to my death, join the military and find out. Some things must be learned by experience because they cannot be taught by words.

---

Understandable. I have a friend in the navy.

However, you forgot that a soldier's loyalty is not my case in point. My case in point is why show loyalty to a man who recklessly throws his own troops into the fire based on out-and-out bad intelligence/lies? Wouldn't you, y'know, prefer to die under the command of someone who gave a damn about you and made sure that he used your alligence to him responsibly instead of haphazardly throwing you into the grinder whenever he caught a whiff of bad juju/potential good PR?

Quote:

---

Democracy is mobocracy. The politician who can appeal to the larger number of voters is the winner.

---

True in most democracies except America.

Two words: electoral college.

www.slapthecandidate.com/

Go on. You know you want to.

I had fun slapping them both.

Newspaper endorsements continue to roll in for John Kerry, who has been endorsed by 117 newspapers including the New York Times, the Kansas City Star, and the Oregonian. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has picked up just 71 endorsements.

But there's good news for Bush - despite lagging in the number of newspaper endorsements, and being dumped by almost 30 newspapers which touted him in 2000, he recently picked up the mother of all endorsements. Yes, last week George W. Bush was given the nod by terrorist sympathizer and proud member of the Axis of Evil, Iran.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," grumbled Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council. "We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton. And we should not forget that during Bush's era - despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran - he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran ... We do not desire to see Democrats take over."

Mohsen Mofidi, an Iranian political analyst, said getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein has done wonders for Iran. "The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran." He added, "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."

Quote:

---

Democracy is mobocracy. The politician who can appeal to the larger number of voters is the winner.

---

Almost correct.

The part about democracy being mobocracy is correct. The part about the politician who appeals to the most people is the winner is incorrect. Once politicians become involved, you have a republic, NOT a democracy. A democracy would mean that everything is voted on and decided by the people directly. A republic has politicians represent "the people" and do their voting for them.

Quote:

---

Found an interesting article.

www.newsmax.com/archives/...2930.shtml

---

That's ridiculously biased, not in the sense that it's opinionated, but because it ignores the facts. Do you expect me to believe that this sort of thing is not going on between supporters of both sides?

Quote:

---

Think about it - the mainstream media elite has not bothered to report on this widespread organized brutality. Imagine what their reaction would be if it was being carried out by supporters of George Bush and his Republican colleagues.

---

We already know their reaction to a voter registration company committing voter fraud against Democrats. A whole lot of nothing. The media is more concerned with political correctness and not making waves than reporting.

The foolishness continues with attempts to put the USSR, Nazis, and China under 'socialism,' which is kind of like putting the U.S., ancient Greece, and Monaco together because they're all countries. The Nazis were rabid anti-communists, and none of the mentioned regimes have any relevance to the point that some people are committing hostile acts for political purposes. He's also trying to compare independent acts to organized, directed acts, and keying of cars to racist thuggery and violence. The whole thing is pure emotional demagoguery and dubious associations.

Quote:

---

When openly socialist policies abroad are adopted by the Democratic Party, well, if it looks like a duck, and quack likes a duck.... The current Democratic party is not the Dems of John F. Kennedy and before. The current Democratic party has a socialist agenda and mission statement.

---

Hilarious. Yet more attempts to disguise thowing around of subjective categories as an argument. How do you figure Democrats are socialist? If you mean they support social programs, then that's a pretty broad way to use the word. Do you think police and fire services should use public money? There is absolutely nothing less 'socialist' about funding those services than funding health care.

dictionary.reference.com/...=socialism

Quote:

---

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

---

There is ZERO reference in the platform to government ownership of the means of producing or distributing goods. If you're saying it has to do with government planning of the economy, I don't see many candidates wanting to fire Alan Greenspan and make interest rates random.

If you want to keep out a candidate who will expand the mammoth state and intrude on people with the government, then keep out George Bush.

Look at what Kerry has said. Has Kerry suggested anything that would give the government more control over Americans' private lives? Look at what Bush has said. He supports the entire Patriot Act, which not only undoes the Constitution but the Magna Carta by getting rid of the right to a trial or charges. The Patriot Act runs all over the Constitution by allowing searches of consumer records with no warrant, and even makes it illegal to reveal that someone has been searched. It defines any kind of crime that involves politics as terrorism. According to the Patriot Act, Ghandi and Rosa Parks were terrorists.

Bush has embraced secrecy and Machiavellianism. The Bush buddies not only use intelligence agencies as scapegoats, but out their members for political purposes. He has lied about the purpose of the Iraq war, which was obviously about democratizing the Middle East. Whatever the merits or flaws of that idea, the fact is that it's a war of false pretenses. Bush wants to mess up the Constitution to use the government for cultural engineering, and thinks it's the government's job to dictate morality and interfere with science.

The following articles occasionally misapply and overuse the simplistic and misleading concepts of left and right. But otherwise they make some good points.

Why conservatives must not vote for bush

An editor of The American Conservative on why not to vote for him

More at Republican Switchers

Whatever happened to the American Constitution? If I knew what the Ammendments were, I might be able to say.

As it is, the USA is now the most capitalist country in the world, but this doesn't matter because in many American's eyes, the USA is the only country in the world.

I've never really understood why Americans are so terrified of socialism. Honestly, having a government with a few socialist policies doesn't erradicate capitalism. As far as I know there's free trade and a competitive market in Sweden; dockers don't get paid as much as doctors, etc.

The upside of a few socialistic policies in that country involve things like state-paid healthcare and university education, whereas in the USA you need to rely on health insurance and have to pay a fortune to attend some universities, which excludes people from poorer backgrounds. And that's a vicious cycle from which only the wealthy benefit, hence why I support state-paid higher education; it recognises only one's capabilities, not the size of one's parents' bank account.

Hell, Britain has a state-paid healthcare system and for a while we had state-paid higher education (but Maggie Thatcher decided to scrap that). Does that make us socialists? In the eyes of some Americans, yes.

Eon,

Just because it's cheap to go to school in the UK doesn't mean that there isn't extreme competition to get into certain schools. I point this out because you pointed out economy as a reason some people couldn't afford some US universities. Very true, but people get through Harvard on scholarships all the time.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Jimro

Quote:

---

Just because it's cheap to go to school in the UK doesn't mean that there isn't extreme competition to get into certain schools.

---

You obviously haven't been keeping tabs on what Tony Blair's been doing with higher education tuition here. It's far from cheap and it's going to get even more expensive come 2006. I'm lucky I get to avoid that by one year.

Quote:

---

Very true, but people get through Harvard on scholarships all the time.

---

Didn't you claim that the fact that gun control laws work in the UK isn't sufficient grounds upon which to claim they'd work anywhere else (ie. in the USA)? Same can be said about a government's policy on education.

Just a random thought that's plagued me lately: what exactly is wrong with socialism?

Eon,

I didn't claim that gun controls work in the UK, in fact I've pointed out several crime trends to point out that they don't even work in the UK.

I did say that differing populations automatically will have differing crime rates, specifically using Germany as an example.

Socialism,
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Command economies suck, Yugoslavia while it was under the "Iron Curtain" is a prime example of a command economy.

I don't want to live under the dictatorship of the proletariat. If I worked for it, I don't want the government taking it away and giving it to a lazy person just because I have and he has not.

America is the land of opportunity. Opportunity to make something of yourself. Intel, Microsoft, and Starbucks could not have happened in a socialist state. Only a capitalist economy provides such economic opportunities.

If you want to live in a socialist nation, China is eagerly awaiting the refugees of the west who have decided that capitalism just doesn't work.

Jimro

State-sponsored healthcare and other social programs don't automatically come with a planned or controlled economy. Canada and Sweden are perfect examples. In fact, Canada has enjoyed more economic growth in the past few (five?) years than any other G8 country. Yes, it's true: you don't have to be a comie to avoid going bankrupt paying medical bills.

Why people make this inane connection on a routine basis is beyond me.

Yes. Believe it or not, capitalism and socialism can co-exist.

There is a difference between social programs and socialism.

However, the difference is small and the line blurry. When Social Security stopped being just for those who paid in (or their spouse in case of death) it passed the line. I like the Shepherd's stew model of social programs, if you didn't put in, you can't take out.

The line between socialism and communism is well defined and one not easily crossed. If you could peacefully go from socialism to communism most of Europe would have fallen under the Iron Curtain and the USSR wouldn't have fallen. As we know that didn't happen. Modern communism is defined by rule through oppression.

Jimro

Technically, I think "social program" and "socialism" are synonymous. But like I said, having social programs won't necessarily lead to the complete Marxist package. Let alone a Stalinist regime. And don't even get me started on people who mention "socialism" and "Nazis" in the same breath.

http://media.texansfortruth.org/bushuncensored.mov

EDIT: Holy crap, I just realized I can vote in less than nine months. Here's hoping the Martin government will last that long.

I think we need to clarify some definitions here.

Socialism
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I think most democracies fear socialism because they see it as a prelude to communism and rightfully so in a way. Socialism is more often implemented in Communist regimes. I don't think that most Americans are afraid of social programs though, which in my eyes are slightly different than Socialism (which I view as production control/control of economy). The public school system is a social program that is widely supported, as is Social Security. In fact, although we lack a healthcare program, America does have a fair number of government programs most people don't consider.

As an uninsured American I fully support the idea of government subsidized health care, but, I dont know if it should be done in the same way as Canada's or GB's. Because it's been implemented for so long, I wonder at times if Canadians or Britons are aware exactly how much more expensive it is to live in those countries because of taxes to support their programs. For instance Texas has a 8% value added sales tax, Canada's is 16%. Property taxes go along the same line. My point isnt to say that it is better to live in Texas because God knows that'd be a lie, but my point is to say that although you don't have to pay upfront for healthcare in Canada or Britain.. it isn't free. Which is why I think that maybe when/if America implements a health care system, maybe the means should be a bit different.

Oh also:
1. I've never heard any American refer to British social programs as Socialism.
2. Wtf Nazism is a Fascist movement, who would call it Socialist?

For instance Texas has a 8% value added sales tax, Canada's is 16%.
Wrong. Goods and Services Tax is 7%, and additional Provincial Sales Tax varies from province to province (7.5% in BC).

my point is to say that although you don't have to pay upfront for healthcare in Canada or Britain.. it isn't free.
I'm not saying it is. But think of it this way: I can't remember how many it is, but each day a considerable number of Americans go bankrupt paying medical bills. That never happens here. Well, except maybe in Alberta. Still, I'd rather pay more taxes than go bankrupt. Surveys consistently show that most people are perfectly okay with the fact that they pay more taxes than Americans when they consider the immediate benefits.

Anyways.

Globe and Mail:
Victoria - The USA Patriot Act gives officials the power to see private information about Canadians despite attempts by governments in Canada to thwart probes by American authorities, a report released Friday by British Columbia's privacy commissioner says.

CIBC credit-card holders in Canada sign an agreement acknowledging that their information could be viewed by U.S. authorities, the report said.

Quote:

---

America is the land of opportunity. Opportunity to make something of yourself. Intel, Microsoft, and Starbucks could not have happened in a socialist state. Only a capitalist economy provides such economic opportunities.

---

Yet Ericsson, pioneers of the mobile industry, inventors of the bluetooth standard and forward researchers in the mobile/telecom business originate from the socialist democracy known as Sweden, as does the world-spanning furniture company known as IKEA.

Extremist anything is bad, that one fact should be blatantly obvious. Pure socialism doesn't work all that well, and pure capitalism is nothing but dictatorship. The trick is to find a good middle ground. Personally I prefer a middle ground that still cares for the population no matter the thickness of their wallet.

How about a separate topic for socialism?

How about I don't want to get into a discussion in which I compare my country to the United States, because it always results in me offending at least three American forumers?

Kompi,

"Pure capitalism is nothing but a dictatorship"? I don't understand how you can say that as there is no historical model of capitalism leading to a dictatorship.

Most dictatorships are associated with fascist communism or socialism.

Jimro

EDIT: Ericsson was not founded post 1970's socialist reform sin Sweden, it dates as a company to 1867. IKEA dates from the 1940's. Husqvarna dates from 1689 as a weapons manufacturor. I can't think of a large Swedish corporation that has roots post the socialist changes. Anybody know one?

I used Starbucks, Intel, and Microsoft as examples just because they rose to international corporation status extremely quickly as markets opened up for their products.

Quote:

---

I don't understand how you can say that as there is no historical model of capitalism leading to a dictatorship.

---

Simple. Just look at RIAA. That's where the ideology leads. "Free competition" stops existing when one player gets so much monies that it can crush any other player that tries to get into the game.

Without restrictions on it, capitalism is simply a glorified variant of the rich rule the world and everyone else is stepped over. Hence fanatical anything is bad.

Kompi,

I think you are confusing dictatorship and monopoly.

Jimro

Cycle,
Sorry for misrepresenting the VAT number. I mentioned it because I remember a conversation we had on MSN where you asked me what a certain tax was in Texas and you told me that in Canada it was 16%. I assumed that was the sales tax we had discussed.

I thought I said it was 14%. *shrug* Oh well.

I think you are confusing dictatorship and monopoly.
I think you're confusing "left-leaning, parliamentary government that uses tax money to nurture and help its less fortunate citizens and prevent average people from going bankrupt paying medical bills" with "communist police state which rounds up rich people and gasses them".

Quote:

---

I think you are confusing dictatorship and monopoly.

---

Both vie for control, and will often put up quite a fight to maintain it. One steps on competitors and followers for their own personal gain, another steps on competitors and customers for their own personal gain. And in a sense, dictatorship is a monopoly on ruling.

The ideologies are variations of a theme, but I guess yeh can't see the forest for all the trees.

If history had the answers to everything, the world war count would've stopped at 1.

This topic was about Kerry vs. Bush at some point, correct? Now to repost. ;P

If you want to keep out a candidate who will expand the mammoth state and intrude on people with the government, then keep out George Bush.

Look at what Kerry has said. Has Kerry suggested anything that would give the government more control over Americans' private lives? Look at what Bush has said. He supports the entire Patriot Act, which not only undoes the Constitution but the Magna Carta by getting rid of the right to a trial or charges. The Patriot Act runs all over the Constitution by allowing searches of consumer records with no warrant, and even makes it illegal to reveal that someone has been searched. It defines any kind of crime that involves politics as terrorism. According to the Patriot Act, Ghandi and Rosa Parks were terrorists.

Bush has embraced secrecy and Machiavellianism. The Bush buddies not only use intelligence agencies as scapegoats, but out their members for political purposes. He has lied about the purpose of the Iraq war, which was obviously about democratizing the Middle East. Whatever the merits or flaws of that idea, the fact is that it's a war of false pretenses. Bush wants to mess up the Constitution to use the government for cultural engineering, and thinks it's the government's job to dictate morality and interfere with science.

The following articles occasionally misapply and overuse the simplistic and misleading concepts of left and right. But otherwise they make some good points.

Why conservatives must not vote for bush

An editor of The American Conservative on why not to vote for him

More at Republican Switchers

Jimro, you do realise there are such things as Right-Wing Dictators as well, don't you?