Are we doomed to four more years of George W Bush? Egaddds! Why don't we all just save some time, go find the nearest rich person in our area and give our money to them? It would be far more efficient than the circular route it is taking now to pad their pockets, and will save alot of third world nations the whole hassle of being invaded, destroyed and then rebuilt.
Oh captain, my captain...I can see that you're in George's corner. Alas, we all have our flaws :s (j/k). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that's what makes this country great. Personally, my vote will either go to Kerry or Nader...preferably Nader, but I'll have to wait and see how he's looking in the polls closer to the election. Bush will most definately not be getting my vote, as I have a horrible feeling that if we alot him 4 more years in the white house he will undoubtedly find a way to initiate either WWIII, or the apocalypse itself.
The truth is Bush is a little too liberal for my taste. But given no other viable option I'll go with him.
What he does well is stick to his guns. He says he will cut taxes, he cuts taxes. He says he will happily fuck you up if you threaten the U.S., the boot comes down. He gave the finger to anti-American environmental silly-asses and smiled while doing it. Like Reagan, he does these things in the face of incredible opposition, both international and domestic, and prevails - the mark of a good leader. For these reasons and a few others I like him.
But he spends too much money on bullshit. He has not cut spending - increased it beyond what is necessary IMO. Some of his social policy - drug law, abortion, stem-cell research - are pretty outdated, but I'll worry over those issues when not facing annihilation from radical Islam.
Unfortunately WWlll was declared long before W ever got near the White House. The closest I can come to pegging a start date was February 26, 1993 with the first attempt to topple the WTC. We saw how efficiently a Democrat administration responded to that unmistakable message.
I respect you too. No intended hostility.
But I won't be seeing you on the unemployment line. I'm self employed and spend five months of every year working to pay my taxes - I can't afford not to work. If The $169 million Dollar Man John Kerry (inherited wealth) has his way I'll be working full time for him and his super rich hypocritical Democrat buddies.
>But hey, it's still a relatively free country.<
Can't disagree there. The last time I tried to light a smoke - in a fucking bar, of all places - I was threatened with arrest and there was nothing relative about it: They meant it. I can't recall any conservative passing such idiotic anti-freedom legislation - in fact, I'm pretty sure this slow and certain erosion of my rights and freedoms are motivated by the blood-sucking lawyer lobbies intent on making a fortune through the redistribution of wealth.
Interesting too, is that these swine give the vast majority of their money to the Democratic Party - an organization of miscreants so full of shit they perceive no conflict in taxing me for buying those ciggs and then locking me up for using them.
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Ralph is a great man, and nobody can take away what he has accomplished during his career, but the variety of idealism and indulgence that seems to be fueling these presidential bids makes me suspect he's lost touch with political reality to a great extent.
Terrorism is up worldwide under Bush, and he brags about not reading very much. Of course, I wouldn't either if I suffered from dyslexia and ADHD. He's done a terrible job, and he's not qualified to be the leader of the free world. He doesn't care about you or any other common people. He's not a compassionate man, and he doesn't understand diplomacy and government. He's wrecked years of environmental legislation set up to protect our health and conserve our resources for future generations because he panders for corporate support. And when I speak of the environment, I'm not talking about mainly asthetic issues like smoking, I mean he has allowed corporations to mortally injure and abuse ecosystems and squander resources. More or less all of the credible scientific community cite Bush as the worst environmental president in history and are aghast at his adminstrations perpetual refusal of scientific fact when formulating policy. His adminstration is filled with political extremists and is the most secretive in history. His family originally profiteered from Nazi contracts and has been immersed in shady business dealings ever since, these days it's the Saudi royals. It can be argued he's never done a hard days work in his life. He also consults with religous extremists whose views come close what many of us would describe as science fiction. I think we all know what religious extremists are capable of . . .
Kerry is a fiscal hawk, a shrewd diplomat, and respected by world leaders. He's also a war hero (Bush dodged the war in the Guard and went AWOL for a year). He didn't inherit 169 million dollars that I know of, I actually believe his family's wealth was more or less depleted by the time he came of age. The joke has always been that he marries money for financial security. Kerry prides himself on personally managing a small bakery for several years that he started with a partner. It was his primary occupation at the time and he cites it as a formative experience. Bush on the other hand, was just given several oil companies by friends of his father, all of which he steered to bankruptcy, only to be bailed out at taxpayer and investor's expense. Who would you guess is going to be more sympathetic to small business owners and the middle class? Bush is a half-baked fool who reduces the complications of the world to black and white scenarios and shames our nation with his lack of respect for the principles of democracy and liberty. He serves himself and those that have a stake in keeping him in office. Kerry is a talented and intelligent man who has made his own way in the world and been successful in many different arenas. He's a true leader that doesn't trade on a family name and money to accomplish his goals.
Swank, I really think you are peddling some BS if you think Kerry is any more in touch with the common folk than Bush. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I seriously doubt you or I could run a bakery for a couple of years and end up married to the heiress to a multi-million dollar family business. If you want to vote for somebody you feel you can relate to and vice-versa, vote in your local schoolboard elections, because that's about as far up the political ladder as you will get and still deal with people who have any sense of reality.
As for the presidential thing... you have to decide who's going to support policy that closely follows your own conscience. I don't like it when people, albeit well within their rights, vote straight ticket D or R. I have never voted party line, and I doubt I ever will.
Most of what you propose as an argument against Bush could have been said about John Kennedy in 1960: Wealthy, never worked, son of a politically powerful family accused of Nazi sympathies, "unpalatable" religious beliefs (is this you demonstrating tolerance?), inattentive to detail, a bad student, little if any foreign policy experience - blah blah blah.
To blame Bush for a rise in terrorism is like blaming an umbrella salesman for the rain. It is a ridiculous argument.
To a man, everyone I hear rail against Bush cites his "weak" environmental record as a top reason for their disdain for him. Give me a break. There is nothing Bush could do to appease the environmental "community" - a suspect movement that invents it's own standards, creates and disseminates alarmist "science" into the popular dialog, and at the expense of the truth and well being of the citizenry (what the fuck is an "Environmental President" anyway? This is exactly what I mean about these people inventing things).
I could care less about either of these guys' family fortunes, what they did when they were 23 years old, who smoked what, who fucked who, baked bread or spilled oil.
In the end, Bush is closer to what this country needs right now: Unwavering, unapologetic stewardship. The fact that he is "less" liberal than Kerry is just one more reason to support him in my book.
Liberalism, as it has degenerated into pseudo socialist, anti-American silliness is poison.
Kerry is a modern Liberal in every sense. He is Ted Kennedy and Michael Dukakis wearing shoes he borrowed from Jimmy Carter.
Is he an evil man, a dyslexic man, a stupid man? Who knows, I'll leave that kind of personal vitriol to you compassionate liberals to spew. In the meantime I will pray for his defeat and settle for Bush.
BTW- I agree that Ralph Nader is a great man. I don't agree that he is out of touch - quite the contrary. Nader possesses the sincerity and moral fortitude the Democrats lost forty years ago. That is why he will never be accepted by the Dems as a viable candidate.
Ah, apologies if that appeared confrontational, I hold no ill will towards the right, as it were. To me Bush isn't even a true republican, nor is he at all liberal, he's a bit of a lone wolf in most respects.
On that note, to categorically lump all left thinking together as evil and anit-american, well you seem to be a very intelligent man and so I take that to be a little ribbing. As a point of curiosity, to all those of you that despise the left and consider liberal to be a dirty word, how do you define liberal, and then in turn, conservative? I'm curious to know.
Kennedy and Bush are not the same man despite similar traits. They have some superficiality in common, but there's far more dissimilar. I don't judge the man soley by his background either, if his performance and policy were adequite I'd cheer him on. Furthermore, to suggest that anybody voting democratic idolizes Kennedy is a bit of an assumption. He was a great figure and came through for the nation in some high profile moments, but certainly does not rank among our very greatest presidents in terms of raw ability and performance.
As far as the environmental stuff, that could easily be a large and disaterous thread on it's own. Let me state that I'm not a 'greenie' or any sort of environmental activist. I am, however, realistic about what has happened and somewhat studied in the matter. I will say that Bush has been through several heads of the EPA because he's needed to replace those that refused to play ball with his pro-corporate anti-environment policies. Lawmakers on both sides of the spectrum have spoken against Bush's unraveling of years of careful and hard-won policy towards conservation and the environment. The scientific community isn't partisan to any great extent, and it's not alarmist quacks crying foul on Bush. A general condemnation of his regard for scientific evidence was drawn up and signed by all of the nation's most respected and venerated scientific authorites, including many nobel recipiants. When the Bush administration get's a scientific report that they don't like the sound of, they bury it and find somebody else who will tell them what they want to hear. It's not conspiracy, it's public and documented, free for all to reserach and discover. Caring about the condition of the environment is our duty so that future generations don't ahve to deal with the ramifications of our greed, waste, and irresponsibility. It isn't really a partisan issue in my opinion. I know many highly conservative people who are aghast at Bush's treatment of the environment and it factors towards their voting.
I also think it is valid to cite Bush's policy on terrorism as weak. He is the commander in chief, and under his watch we've lost the war on terrorism so far. His policies have allowed for a record rise in trained terrorist street soldiers. The administration recently came under fire announcing that terrorism was down, something that so many people were able to show was absolute bunk that Colin Powell was forced to come out and call the report a serious mistake. Bush's diplomacy is weak any way you look at it. He is indeed resolute in his good/evil few of all matters, but we all know that the real world isn't cast in black and white shades. Diplomacy is complicated, nuanced, and difficult, and right now the man who has the reins is a fellow who brags about not reading the newspaper and 'shooting from the gut' when making decisions that affect life and death as well as our national security.
I agree, John Kerry is certainly a patrician, though not to Bush's extent. If you examine the record of both men, however, you'll find Kerry has demonstrated a sincere concern for the working class and middle America throughout his career. Don't get your info from political adds and talk radio, go to the source, read about the bills he's worked on, causes he's championed. It's highly unlikely we'll see a president from a humble background in the near future, but of the two you can better believe that Kerry has lived and worked in something closer to the real world far more than Bush. I'm not sure why so many people associate liberal ideas with wealth and snottiness; the millionares of this country overwhelmingly vote Republican every year. The stronghold of the GOP is first and foremost white people, specifically men, also of the highest and lowest percentile of income. The middle class and minorities form the base for Democratic constituancies.
And so far as old Ralph, I'll never be half the man he is, but for somebody who has made his name on insisting on truth, his claims that his campaign doesn't damage Kerry's chances are dubious at best. He fought for consumers by taking the numbers to the people and not allowing corporations to waffle on statistics, yet now he's doing just that. Polling after polling shows he's sucking support away from Kerry at exponentially higher rates than Bush in crucial regions, yet he ignores this reality. I've heard him speak many times, and I understand his arguments in support of his position, but it just doesn't add up for me. Perhaps he's a visionary too far ahead of the game for me to get a fix on, but I have doubts. Ultimately I'm pragmatic; Kerry isn't perfect but I believe him to be far more qualified to protect our nation's interest and security than Bush. Kerry has proved throughout his career that he can lead and deliver, Bush, so far as I can tell, fails at most things. If I were interviewing the two men for a job I have little doubt who would impress me more, with both resume and conduct.
I agree with voting across party lines whole heartedly, that's democracy in action. Liberals love democracy and the principles on which our country was founded. The principles on which the country were founded are what make it great, and I believe George Bush has stepped out of line with those concepts. Liberty and true democracy are our guiding lights and the cornerstone of our national strength. Bush has done more to reduce them in our country during his tenure than any other president in my memory. It's not a partisan issue for me, It's idelogical. I see Bush as a threat to our nation's greatness in several ways, and I'm personally hoping he is removed.
Bush has been the only president with the balls to do something REAL about terrorism. We have been at war with militant Islamics since the Iranians ATTACKED the US Embassy. That was an act of war. Each attack since in Lebanon and the attack against the USS Cole is an act of war! Up until Bush the respose has been to lob a couple of cruise missles or appease the terrorists. The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was an act of war. Sorry guys, but war is hell and sticking ones head in the sand solves nothing. Bush didn't start this war, but at least he knows what to do since we are at war and have been since 1979.