I'd take Kerry. Nobody vote Communist, that's the throwaway answer. http://smilies.jeeptalk.org

Kerry. I don't really like Bush. He didn't really think out what to do after the US got Saddam. They need to restructure Iraq and Bush isn't any closer. They need a new government to accomodate Islam and to be democratic as well. Bush hasn't done anything really to work that out.

i mean I've heard good reasons for electing Kerry over Bush...but personally, I dont think Kerry is gonna do much better in restructuring Iraq.

 

I'm votin Bush.

vote libertarian

____________

I as a Bush voter don't mind:

-That Bush lied to the American people several times to contrive a war

-Increased federal spending on social programs and tax cuts and running a massive deficit

-Taking a shakey stance on the Israel-Palestine issue

-Bush's agenda were imposed upon the world, only giving people a reason to hate us more

-That Bush is prejudice of homosexuals and wants to impose his religion onto others

-That Bush is an inept stumbling idiot

-Bush's anti-environmental stances, most concerning the one allowing old inefficient coal powerplants to burn coal and release more pollution than the previous EPA mandate

-The likely continuing of increased federal spending with no stop

 

I don't mind being lied to and I don't care how this reflects upon the American people to the world and future politicians. I tolerate a president who got us into an expensive needless war and increases spending in all areas. I tolerate an anti-progressive stance conerning the environment. I tolerate an intolerant man.

 

If you don't mind the above, by all means vote Bush.

i mean I've heard good reasons for electing Kerry over Bush...but personally, I dont think Kerry is gonna do much better in restructuring Iraq.

 

I'm votin Bush.

Amen to that. One thing I just don't understand is the Dems/Kerry making an issue out of Iraq.

 

Of all the viable issues they could take with Bush and his performance to date (ie. the economy) why would they even come near foreign policy. The Democrats have been completely and utterly inept when it comes to foreign policy since Truman went bye-bye 50 years ago.

 

Anyway, I'm a Republican and even I acknowledge there are gaping holes in the Bush presidency. But once again, the Dems can't muster up anyone with a pulse to give a serious challenge. Kerry is going to get eaten alive once the real campaign starts in a couple of months.

So if America killed 100,000 danish people because Bush's balls itched, as long as the occupation cannot be dealt with in any particular way, it is not an issue? That's wishful thinking.

So if America killed 100,000 danish people because Bush's balls itched, as long as the occupation cannot be dealt with in any particular way, it is not an issue? That's wishful thinking.

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. If Kerry holds serve and stays true to the Democratic Party's school of thought on foreign policy nothing substantive will get done most of the time, and when something is done it will turn into a complete debacle. To refresh your memory, here's a few examples....

 

Kennedy: Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, etc...

Carter: Iran hostages, OPEC syndicate price wars

Clinton: Somalia (The first nation-building debacle), WTC attack 1993, Ineffectual lobbing of cruise missles at Osama

 

Now, I'm not saying the GOP presidents have been perfect in their foreign policy over the years, but the fact remains that public perception is that Repulicans are good with the foreign policy and Democrats are good with domestic policy. The biggest nightmare I have is a Democratic president falling asleep at the wheel and letting some huge terrorist event take place because he was waiting for the UN or international consensus.

 

And yes, I do blame Clinton or some of where we are now. If he would of put his johnson away for a few minutes and actually addressed these wack-jobs in the middle East ten years ago the problem wouldn't be nearly as severe as it is.

im voting ralph. I hate politicians.

lets be sure to thank the republicans for putting saddam in power to start with.

 

 

 

 

i swear a third party needs to emerge and eradicate one of these two idiotic parties.

lets be sure to thank the republicans for putting saddam in power to start with.

 

 

 

 

i swear a third party needs to emerge and eradicate one of these two idiotic parties.

Never happen.... The good ol' American system of "first past the post" elections ensure that there will never be a significant third party.

 

But then again, the only other optin is modified British parliamentary..... Which isn't exactly known for it's progressive nature when it comes to party politics.

same thing was said with the whigs and democrats.

same thing was said with the whigs and democrats.

Yeah, but the same ting wasn't said about the Whigs, Democrats and Republicans.

lets be sure to thank the republicans for putting saddam in power to start with.

You go thanking the Republicans for that while I go and thank my friends in the Democratic party for keeping the longest running dictator in the world there for 45 years. At least the Republicans fixed their goof.

 

Better late than never.

same thing was said with the whigs and democrats.

Yeah, but the same ting wasn't said about the Whigs, Democrats and Republicans. ya cause the republicans rose up as a third party and the whigs were pushed by the wayside.

lets be sure to thank the republicans for putting saddam in power to start with.

You go thanking the Republicans for that while I go and thank my friends in the Democratic party for keeping the longest running dictator in the world there for 45 years. At least the Republicans fixed their goof.

 

Better late than never. ya and all the while never admitting they screwed up.....

 

 

 

and costing american lives and dollars to their little war party.

 

 

 

both in the early 90s and now.

So Republicans were the only ones to make a move on Iraq is what you are saying?

So Republicans were the only ones to make a move on Iraq is what you are saying?

Republicans put Saddam in power.

 

 

Republicans started the first gulf war.

 

 

Republicans started the second gulf war.

 

 

 

The Democrats did some bombing of Iraq.

 

 

 

The Democrats didnt send soldiers into the region and get them killed on their watch.

 

 

I know its hard to admit that your boy Ronnie wasnt the saint you might think he is.

 

 

Remember it was his right hand man Bush I that went with the Gulf War.

 

 

And its Dubya who has members of Ronnie's staff littered throughout his advisors and stuff.

Dubya

if kerry wins the country will be weak again. being exposed to another terror attack. :thumbdown

9/11 could have been prevented if Mr. President woulda got off his ass instead of ignoring warnings like an idiot...

 

But I think SorianoFan pretty much covered it all...

 

I'll take Kerry anyday

 

F you Bush

If people vote for Nader, that'll take out a vote away for Kerry. That's what I heard. It reminds me, I have to register soon. I'm so lazy to do it.

If people vote for Nader, that'll take out a vote away for Kerry. That's what I heard.

It's true because Republicans would never vote for Nader so it's basically hurting Kerry.....Nader's such an ass

9/11 could have been prevented if Mr. President woulda got off his ass instead of ignoring warnings like an idiot...

 

But I think SorianoFan pretty much covered it all...

 

I'll take Kerry anyday

 

F you Bush

actually, most of 9/11 should be blamed on your democratic party. clinton should have taken bin laden out when he had the chance. but scince he was a soft punk (like all democrats) they see the US as being soft and thats where the problems start.

I'm not talking about who caused 9/11

 

I'm talking about who could have prevented it if he woulda listened...

wow now your just playing the blame game. and how could he have prevented it. he didnt have anymore inside intellegence than clinton did