Rethinking November

[MMMMMM]

1) there is not a whole lot to choose between Bush and Kerry on the spending front or social issue front. Of course I think the Democratic positions are more wrong but Bush is a big spender too and he is certainly not a minimalist when it comes to big government or government programs designed for social issues.

2) Kerry would be tough on terrorists too IMO

3) Kerry would get more support overseas at this point(obviously). Bush got the hard work started and now Kerry could get more done with more help and lessen the strain on our military personnel

4) Bush accomplished a lot going into the Middle East (IMO), and I don't think Kerry will withdraw prematurely (;-))

5) I fear that Ashcroft and certain provisions of the Patriot Act are a threat to our civil rights and liberties. Ashcroft needs to be replaced if he won't soften his approach and the Patriot Act needs to be dissected and analyzed and it should then be decided which provisions to keep or throw out. Some provisions are truly important in the war on terror while others may not be and are a threat to the people of the USA and our constitutional protections. Ashcroft's directive to federal prosecutors to basically always seek the maximum has judges across the country up in arms, and is simply too draconian and unfair to decent, non-violent people who just made a mistake. It also will places a further burden on our already overburdened prison system.

6) Socialized medicine will of course become a giant boondoggle, but Bush is moving a bit in that direction anyway (with prescription drug package for seniors)

7) Kerry is only for raising taxes on the top 2% or so, and not by some enormous percentage

8) Kerry favors dialogue with the mad mullahs in Iran which IMO is a crock because they are bound and determined to get nukes anyway. Their citizenry could use a little help getting rid of the mullahs, and U.S. rapprochement with the mullahs just gives the mullahs more legitimacy and power, politically speaking. But Bush probably won't get the congressional support to go into Iran anyway even if he is re-elected. Furthermore we can manage Iran's impending (two years or so maybe) nuclear threat by simply letting Israel take out their reactor facilities just before they go "hot". Israel is readying plans for this (and they must, because top Iranian leaders have casually mentioned solving the problem of Israel once and for all once they get nukes). So as long as Iran is somehow prevented from getting nukes, we can leave them alone (although I would like to see the Iranians assisted in throwing out the mullahs. Every time they have a demonstration, the mullahs crush them Tianamen-square-like).

9) Bush and Ashcroft are anti-gambling



Conclusion:

There is somewhat but not a great deal to choose on social and economic issues between the two candidates, although Kerry's policies will be somewhat worse on that front. There is also not much to choose in the war on terror although I think Kerry may be perhaps a tad weaker but this will be buffered somewhat by more international help and goodwill. Also, Kerry speaks to the issue of the vulnerability of our ports and it is good to see Kerry voicing this concern with a loose plan to do something about it (IMO this is a severe U.S. vulnerability that must be remedied).

I definitely think Ashcroft and law enforcement have gove too far as they are using Patriot act provisions to catch non-terrorists for other suspected crimes. That said I do give them great credit for catching terrorists and thwarting attacks and so forth. The Patriot Act should not be used against ordinary persons for ordinary crimes (like the stripclub owner whose phone I think was tapped under provisions of the Patriot Act).

So all in all if I had to choose between Bush and Kerry, there is a fair chance I might actually choose Kerry.

That said I am probably voting Libertarian anyway. Just a few thoughts.

[nicky g]

To quote the Simpsons:

"I don't think anybody expected him to say that!"
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

interesting post.. so essentially Bush and Kerry are a push for you? I think there is a slight difference though, and that may sway people on way or the other. Bush is much more about governing morality. If thats something you support, go with him. Kerry is about, well being a liberal(socially speaking). Everything else is pretty damn even. So then it looks like people may actually vote for an admin this time, rather than a president.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Bush and Ashcroft are anti-gambling

True, but the only Democrat who spoke out against the bill that passed the House was Barney Frank. However, just the changeover at the DOJ would put the brakes on a lot of anti-gambling activity, at least for a while.

So all in all if I had to choose between Bush and Kerry, there is a fair chance I might actually choose Kerry.

The fact that condescending liberals piss me off not withstanding, I probably would, too.

That said I am probably voting Libertarian anyway.

Kerry wins Rhode Island in a walk. Thus Badnarik has my vote (he probably would anyway, but there's no reason to even consider voting Republicrat in this instance, the electoral votes are already locked up)

[adios]

I haven't made up my mind either but probably Bush. I'm deciding whether or not grid lock might be a good thing at this juncture. I'm assuming the Republicans will retain control of Congress. The candidates promise a lot and use a lot of platitudes but how they will actually govern is another story. As far as the Patriot act. If Kerry is elected I don't see the sunset provisions becoming permanent since Kerry will have the veto power in changing those. However, the 9/11 commission from what I understand recommended a lot of what the Patriot act entails. Kerry wants to keep the commission going for another 18 months to enact the recommendations. If this includes provisions in the Patriot act that will expire then that's another matter. The Bush tax cuts have sunset provisions as well and I'm not certain which will expire during Kerry's term but any attempt to make them permanent will meet a veto by Kerry. Kerry is certain to make more liberal nominations for federal judgeships which will be resisted by the Republicans. Perhaps this will result in more middle of the road appointments. As far as Defense spending I think Kerry's record speaks for itself, he's basically wants to shrink spending in that area and will have the veto power to do so. Ditto for intelligence although what the 9/11 commission is recommending I believe is increases in that area. As far as the Iraq, I think Kerry's pledge to obtain more international support is a lot of bull. It's been tried and it has failed. Anyway you don't get something for nothing and I'm not sure what he would expect to pay for such support. Also I see that Allawi is basically enlisting Arab support for Iraq and I'm fairly certain that Allawi wants the coalition out of Iraq ASAP. As far as fiscal policy, I'm concerned about that but again a gridlock scenario may be ok. One place where I think the next candidate will make a difference is in the appointment of the next Fed chairman. It's widely believed that Greenspan will retire in 2006. Greenspan has been chairman since 1987 and the performance of the Fed in that time span has been acclaimed widely. Greenspan has his detractors but I find most of the complaints to be without merit. Monetary policy and the Fed are shall we say very important in future economic performance. Bush doesn't appear to be a great friend to the environment either.

I hate the Democrats class warfare pandering and I believe that their policies are aimed at keeping their poor and underclass constinuencies intact. On the other hand I'm disgusted with the Gay Marriage amendment initiative of the Republicans which I see as pandering to the religious right. I'm also essentially opposed to most abortions as well. I'm really opposed to more taxes /images/graemlins/smile.gif and bigger government (bigger than it is now anyways). I think Kerry's proposals to tax the rich ($200,000 a year isn't rich to my way of thinking btw) are a slippery slope.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry wins Rhode Island in a walk. Thus Badnarik has my vote

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus the name Badnarik sounds like a Klingon.

[MMMMMM]

Just a few comments to add:

Overall, I think Bush has done an impressive job and has risen to the occasion under incredibly difficult circumstances.

If Kerry wins, Hillary won't be elected in 2008.

Overall I like the Bush positions better except for Ashcroft having overdone things (and the minor anti-gambling bit). However I think Kerry might actually be able to use the anti-Bush sentiment overseas as a springboard of sorts. How much value there really is in overseas sentiment is uncertain, though. It is probably less than is commonly thought.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If Kerry wins, Hillary won't be elected in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ] This is all the reason to vote for Kerry, don't people realize this????

[ QUOTE ]
However I think Kerry might actually be able to use the anti-Bush sentiment overseas as a springboard of sorts

[/ QUOTE ] I think so to.

[MMMMMM]

I don't quite think they are a push but many of their differences are not as great as it might seem.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't quite think they are a push but many of their differences are not as great as it might seem.

[/ QUOTE ] and the funny thing is that the republican pundits label Kerry a super liberal.... I agree with you though.

[jcx]

I actually live in a swing state and I'm voting LBT w/ a clear conscience. If this helps hand the election to Kerry so be it. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Bush is a Rockefeller Republican at best, and any conservative who votes for him thinking he gives a damn about the conservative agenda is kidding themselves.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is a Rockefeller Republican at best, and any conservative who votes for him thinking he gives a damn about the conservative agenda is kidding themselves.

[/ QUOTE ] Bush is more a member of the Christian party than the Republican party. I agree, calling him a traditional conservative is absurd.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Bush is a Rockefeller Republican

I'm pretty damn sure Nelson Rockefeller would support abortion rights and that he wouldn't give a hoot who marries whom. And you'd likely never hear the word "God" come from Nelson either (unless he was swearing at you).

And speaking of Nelson Rockefeller, I can't think of a better way to die. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Bush is more a member of the Christian party than the Republican party

Actually todays GOP takes a lot of its social policy from the old Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party. 40 years ago, Trent Lott would have been a Democrat. Most old line liberals (65 and over) consider the Clintons to be Rockefeller Republicans.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually todays GOP takes a lot of its social policy from the old Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party. 40 years ago, Trent Lott would have been a Democrat

[/ QUOTE ] weren't the dixiecrats segragationalist?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

weren't the dixiecrats segragationalist?

States' Rights, social conservative bible thumpers. And lifelong Democrats. remember, a lot of old-line southern conservatives would never even consider voting for the GOP. That was Lincoln's Party!

There was a huge rift in the Democratic party then. So much that George Wallace broke off and ran as an independent in 1968.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Here are some of the problems with Kerry:

1) He flaps in the wind. He has no moral compass or legitimate stance on anything. He's the biggest narcissist there is and will say/do anything that he thinks will get him ahead.

2) He's all but sure to turn over the US to the United Nations. This bumbling, no-good, joke of an institution trips over itself at every opportunity and he wants to have it (France) decide our foreign policy. If people can't see what's wrong with this, then they've got a serious case of naïveté. I'm all for alliances and building strong relationships with our allies. To the extreme that Kerry wants to take it, however, it will be a detriment to our interests and our sovereignty.

3) The most overlooked issue of this campaign is the appointment of federal judges. Federal judges in general are getting quite a power rush lately and are getting out of control. There are some very key appointments coming up, including some places on the US Supreme Court. We can't afford to entrust Kerry with these decisions or we'll be set in a downward spiral that I fear we'll never make our way out of.

This is all without mention of the terrorism issue and the fact that people are blind to the larger picture with regards to Bush's campaign in the Middle East. Pulling out of it now would be disastrous. It may be a bit of a mess now, but that's the process. Not to trivialize the situation, but when you clean your house/room, it's usually a mess a short time after you start as you shuffle things around and whatnot. If you were to stop halfway, your place would be left in a huge mess. We're right now in that period a short time after the start. We need to finish the job. Kerry's only interested in short-term observations that rile everybody up and forward his career. Bush et al have the long-term vision for what is best for the country.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't quite think they are a push but many of their differences are not as great as it might seem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the differences are big but more subtle.

I agree on foreign policy. Kerry has an edge in terms of getting help from other nations and he won't just pull the plug. I didn't support the war in the first place and I don't think we need to get into any more wars in the next four years without major provocation. Anyway, Democrats do police actions too, so don't count on anything.

Supreme Court Justices: This is the area where Bush's Christian backers are pushing him the most. A Bush appointment to the Supreme Court through a Republican Senate is likely to be against Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, women's rights, or patients' rights; in favor of corporate personhood and subscribing to the narrow view of 'conservative' held by Ashcroft and Co. that holds up states' rights when it favors their causes and in favor of extending federal power when it doesn't. In short, not someone I would favor.

There are other differences - funding for solid scientific research, funding for effective drug treatment, support for international aid that involves condoms or sex education, etc. Educational policy that doesn't place insane demands on underperforming schools without providing necessary funding.

In short, they're all nitpicky policy differences that won't make a difference to the average voter, but are pretty crucial if you are in school, in a hospital, filing a lawsuit, living in another country, or otherwise affected by any of these issues.

NT

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Let me give you some advice that any good sales person knows. When the customer says yes, take the order and STFU.

He's already said he'll likely vote for Kerry. Stop trying to tell him why your reasons are better than his reasons, 1) what you say won't make his vote count any more and 2) you may actually bring up a point he didn't think of that may sway him to vote for Bush.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
States' Rights, social conservative bible thumpers.

[/ QUOTE ] thats sort of sugarcoating them though. Just call them what they really were: Old-Boys-club racists.

[ QUOTE ]
There was a huge rift in the Democratic party then. So much that George Wallace broke off and ran as an independent in 1968.

[/ QUOTE ] Can this major rift be atributed to JFK?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me give you some advice that any good sales person knows. When the customer says yes, take the order and STFU.

[/ QUOTE ] This can get you in trouble at times, but still funny and very true. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

MMMMMMM,

Can you honestly give Kerry's position statements any credibility? Can you name a candidate(past or present) who has waffled more on the issues than this guy?

Stu

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Can this major rift be atributed to JFK?

No. I mean, FDR wasn't exactly a good old boy either. The rift had existed for a century for the simple reason that a southerner considered voting for a Republican to be akin to being treasonous to his roots. There were probably fewer Republicans in the south 50 years ago than there are in Massachusetts today.

Political Parties morph with the times. remember, George H.W. Bush ran against Reagan for the nomination in 1980 and one he his key differentiating points was that he (Bush) was pro-choice. In the 80's, Senator Al Gore had a 96% approval rating from the National Right-to-Life Coalition.

Parties change and politicians change. That change is often not based upon some "moral compass" but on the source of their financial support.

You mentioned Kennedy. Back in 1960, it was feared that his party would be the one controlled by a religious agenda.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly give Kerry's position statements any credibility? Can you name a candidate(past or present) who has waffled more on the issues than this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's a politician so of course he was waffled on a few posistion, but I think he has remained firm on a majority of issues. Bush has waffled too.

[MMMMMM]

Actually I wrote that if I had to choose between the two, there would be a fair chance I would vote for Kerry. Let me more specific if I possible: that chance is somewhere between 40%-60% and I'm not being deliberately vague. I don't think it likely I would vote for Kerry, but I no longer think it very unlikey either. Considering that the former chance I would vote for Kerry (like 6 months ago) was virtually nil that's a big change. Just some things to consider.

Of course if CT is not a swing state I am almost surely voting Libertarian. I am sick of the BS of the Dems and Repubs, and their policies, and think we could have better.

The Libs already have more size and support than the Greens or Nader and are already qualified to be on all state ballots, so there is some chance in the future, hopefully (though obviously not this year).

[Senor Choppy]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

[MMMMMM]

He does have a waffling record. It's not that I give him a lot of credibility but rather that I think the damage he may do may not necessarily more than the damage the Bush administration may do. In particular I am concerned about
certain provisions of Patriot Act and "Patriot Act 2" (I couldn't tell you which provisions specifically as I haven't researched it deeply) and Ashcroft and our civil rights/liberties (not that I think we are about to be taken over by fascists, as jokerswild may fear;-)) Also while I think Kerry's social programs would extract a toll on the economy it is not like Bush is a fiscal conservative either.

My post may have sounded like I am favoring Kerry over Bush. That would not be accurate. I am just no longer greatly favoring Bush over Kerry, and have some more weighing and scenario-projection to do.

[cardcounter0]

"The Patriot Act should not be used against ordinary persons for ordinary crimes (like the stripclub owner whose phone I think was tapped under provisions of the Patriot Act)."

Geeez, if that was all it was -- who cares. The actual CRIME committed by Big Brother, was reverse engineering the guy's On-Star system in his automobile. This allowed them to listen in on conversations that were taking place inside his car (including talking to his lawyer when he was a passenger) via the On-Star satellite system.

It seems the On-Star system has unused features like two-way communication built in. Under the Patriot Act, the government won't even need a court order to listen in on any one inside their car. Think about that when it comes time to buy a new car -- and think about how much of a stretch it will be for the Govt. to move from easedropping in the privacy of your car to the privacy of your home.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for the information on the case and On-Star-

do you have a link on that?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
In particular I am concerned about
certain provisions of Patriot Act and "Patriot Act 2" (I couldn't tell you which provisions specifically as I haven't researched it deeply) and Ashcroft and our civil rights/liberties (not that I think we are about to be taken over by fascists, as jokerswild may fear;-))

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take all this too personally - it may sound a bit harsh.

This is the typical standard response you could get from any anti-Patriot Act / Bush screamer. You object to the thing crying about how it's taking away your rights, but you haven't the foggiest idea how. You just know that you should be objecting to it, so you do. You are exactly Michael Moore's ideal target audience and it's people like this that make him such a powerful and scary figure. Baaaaaaahhh! Baaaaaaahhh!

At least you admitted to not knowing what it is you're objecting to, although I'm not sure how much that helps.

[cardcounter0]

It was in the Las Vegas Review Journal.

I forget the strip club, maybe some one here knows. The guy was bribing local govt. officials in San Deigo to get a liquor license, or some big national security concern like that.

www.lvrj.com (http://www.lvrj.com) would be the place to start.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm like MMMMM. I tend to cringe at the tought of a "Patriot" Act before i even see the details.

But here's a slight nitpick. Why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? We have the FBI and CIA. It strikes me as a typical tax and spend big government knee-jerk non-solution. Something bad happens (something, by the way, that nobody likely could have stopped), so what's the government's response? Throw money at it. Create a whole new department.

And I also agree with MMMMMM (I can never remember hom many Ms) on Ashcroft. The man's an idiot. The only part of the Constitution he understands is the 2nd Amendment. I never in my life thought we could get an AG worse than Janet Reno. Just goes to show you. Never underestimate how truly inept government can be.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
But here's a slight nitpick. Why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? We have the FBI and CIA. It strikes me as a typical tax and spend big government knee-jerk non-solution.

[/ QUOTE ] Totally.... I thought one of the main problems with our 9/11 intel failure was that there was to much beauracracy. So, someone decided the best way to prevent that from happening again was to add to the beauracracy instead of cutting some out. But don't get me wrong, the DHS did create the very valuable and informative color-coated threat levels....

[ QUOTE ]
I never in my life thought we could get an AG worse than Janet Reno

[/ QUOTE ] Reno did nothing and Ashcroft does everything.... we need a middle-ground here. Why not Guiliani???

[MMMMMM]

I have read more about the Patriot Act than my post indicates but it was a while back. I don't have all the information avalailable at the moment, and I didn't actually study it deeply, but I did enough reading to convince me that more study is needed and that it is not all necessarily innocuous. I think that most, but probably not all, of the fears about it are unfounded. However if even some of those fears are justified then it is a very serious matter indeed.

There are important provisions in the Patriot Act which are very useful in the war on terror. There are also, I strongly suspect, certain provisions which may threaten our constitutional protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is also of concern that powers granted by the Patriot Act for the specific purpose of fighting terrorism are now apparently being used by law enforcement more generally. The ease of getting wiretaps today may be an example of this.

Just because I admittedly don't know exactly what I'm talking about doesn't mean I know nothing of what I'm talking about. The Patriot Act is a lengthy document and not light reading, and some distinguished legal scholars and judges have widely disparate opinions of it. If it were all clearly innocuous then it is very doubtful that there would be much controversy amongst legal professionals and scholars (though there would of course be controversy amongst politicians and the agenda-driven). Many senators complained that they didn't have time to study it and even today may be somewhat unclear as to what it all means legally.

[ArchAngel71857]

Reading all these posts convinces me of one thing;


My history teachers sucked.


-AA

[ThaSaltCracka]

this type of history they don't teach in high school, instead they stick to the warm fuzzy stuff.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
7) Kerry is only for raising taxes on the top 2% or so, and not by some enormous percentage


[/ QUOTE ]

If Kerry is elected he will be all over the road on this and most other issues. Any tax statements made pre-election are completely bogus.

Kerry will suck the dick of the UN (as pointed out by another poster).

Dialogue will not work with Iran's Mullah cadre. A rebellion is fermenting in Iran that may, with some help, get going in a few years. If this is not successful, the US should just start and finish a nuclear war. About 1,000 warheads should do the job.

The US needs a military of about 10 million. We are in a religious war of long duration. If we want to survive that will be the price. Nothing else will suffice.

That’s my political take - Diplomacy through brute force and nuclear butchery. Vaporizing about half a billion people would be about right.

That’s my political post for the month.

-Zeno

[MaxPower]

Nice analysis even though I disagree on a couple of points.

For me, Bush has done only one thing which is inexcusable. That is the way he handled Iraq. It is a complicated issue, but I think he did practically everything wrong. I also think that the doctrine of pre-emptive war is dangerous. I might favor it in a few extroadinary circumstances.

Kerry's my man even though he is no better than most politicians.

[ QUOTE ]


4) Bush accomplished a lot going into the Middle East (IMO), and I don't think Kerry will withdraw prematurely (;-))


[/ QUOTE ]

What did he accomplish?

Yes he desposed Saddam, which is a good thing for now, but what else?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The US needs a military of about 10 million. We are in a religious war of long duration. If we want to survive that will be the price. Nothing else will suffice

[/ QUOTE ] Thank you for proposing a military which would likely include myself and many of my friends. I take it that you are past military age? Whoever you are voting for will be precisely who I won't vote for, thank you.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes he desposed Saddam, which is a good thing for now, but what else?

[/ QUOTE ] and who can forget that wasn't even the initial reason for going there.

[jokerswild]

Hi Stu,
Bush has waffled more, no pun intended. Bush used cocaine for years and brushed it off as youthful indiscretion. He then doubled the sentencing for youths convicted of the same crime.

Bush paid for an abortion in his youth for one of his girlfriends. Now he panders to the religious right on stem cell research.

Bush was all for the war in Vietnam, but didn't show up for months in Alabama.

Bush said he would fight terrorism, and then went after Saddam instead of Osama.

Bush ran as a fiscal conservative and has run up the largest deficits in history.

The only thing Bush cares about is trying to prove that his wanker is bigger than his dad's.

[nothumb]

I don't work in sales because I'm too honest. And I won't be voting for Kerry nor do I care if he does.

M has shown he is quite willing to discuss these issues constructively and with an open mind. Just adding my 2 cents to the mix. I know the reasons I don't like Bush are some of the same reasons he might favor him. I don't think he's going to vote based on my 2+2 posts anyway.

NT

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't work in sales because I'm too honest.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is blatently ignorant, and is borderline offensive to those who have worked in sales. Obviously you either (a) have never been close to someone who worked in sales, or (b) hang out with the wrong people. Salesmen are no less honest than everybody else in this world. In fact, some of the finest and most integrous people I have ever known are working in sales.

"I don't gamble, because I'm not a degenerate" is the equivalent phrase that comes to mind.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't work in sales because I'm too honest.

The key to success in sales is repeat business. I make the income I make in sales precisely *beacuse* I'm honest. But why am I wasting my breath. You're a 20-something Massachusetts liberal. You know everything.

Why do I bother answering ignorant children?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

and is borderline offensive to those who have worked in sales.

There's nothing bordeline about it. I view it a direct attack on my character.

[Screwtape]

Oh come on you didn't like Babs

[nothumb]

Wow, there's that Klingon temper.

Just a joke about the sales thing. Being flippant, no more. Sorry to ruffle any feathers. I've actually worked in retail and done quite well at it. My apologies for those who took this comment seriously, I guess that is a stereotype you run up against a lot.

And if you've been reading this board you know I'm about as far from being a liberal as I am from voting for Bush. I wasn't raised here and (again, as I've said) I can't stand the attitude of a lot of people around here.

My whole point was that M brought this up not because he wants help picking who to vote for, but he wants to discuss it. I stand by that.

NT

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Wow, there's that Klingon temper.

Fair enough.

I'm about as far from being a liberal as I am from voting for Bush.

I guess its fair to say the same about me.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has waffled more, no pun intended. Bush used cocaine for years and brushed it off as youthful indiscretion. He then doubled the sentencing for youths convicted of the same crime.

Bush paid for an abortion in his youth for one of his girlfriends. Now he panders to the religious right on stem cell research.

Bush was all for the war in Vietnam, but didn't show up for months in Alabama.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you credit for pointing out that Bush has gone farther to morally improve his life as an individual than Kerry has. However as a politician Kerry is the king of the wafflers. For example, Kerry waffled on:

Trade with China
The First Gulf War
The Second War with Iraq.
Eliminating the marraige penalty tax for the middle class
The Patriot Act
The Gay Marriage Admendment
Death Penalty for Terrorist
No Child Left Behind Act
Affirmative Action
Ethanol
Cuba Sanctions
Nafta
Taxation of Dividends
50 cent gas tax increase
Leaving Abortion up the the states
Tax Credits for small business to purchase health insurance.
Welfare Reform
Stock Option Expensing
Medical Use of Marijuana
Burma Sanctions
Israeli Security Fence
Ballistic Missle defense
Tapping Strategic Oil Reserves
Internet Taxation.


[ QUOTE ]
Bush said he would fight terrorism, and then went after Saddam instead of Osama.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 20,000 troops in Afghanistan looking for the Basdard Osama right now. Your statement is in error, the truth is Bush went after both Osama and Hussien.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush was all for the war in Vietnam, but didn't show up for months in Alabama.


[/ QUOTE ]

In response to that I ask you go read the Congressional Record page S17709.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush ran as a fiscal conservative and has run up the largest deficits in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are in error, the largest deficits on a precentage basis occurred under President Reagan. The deficit under President Bush is only about half that size.

Stu

[Bill Murphy]

But at least he's not a religious nut. It's a sickening joke of a 'choice' but, "I'm voting for Kerry, Tom said FLIPpantly." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Cyrus]

"Kerry speaks to the issue of the vulnerability of our ports and it is good to see Kerry voicing this concern with a loose plan to do something about it (IMO this is a severe U.S. vulnerability that must be remedied)."

The only difference now and the time before 9/11 is that the American government know the danger is out there. (Let's leave aside for a moment the credible and strong warnings ignored by the current administration about 9/11-like hits.)

Now it pays, naturally, to guard everywhere and against evertyhing. But, if I were to wager (in secret), I would not wager that the terrorists next time (if there's a next time) will hit the United States in any remotely similar way.

Let me be frivolous for a moment:

From the air --> from elsewhere
Men --> Women
Arabs --> non-Arabs
Continental US --> US territories
Kill many people --> destroy something grandly symbolic or important

...I recently read a statement made by Gen. Tom Franks (ret.), whereby he strongly suggested the following (I quote verbtim): "The United States should have more spies out there to learn about terrorist preparations." Yes, this would be absolutely corect! This iwould be indeed the necessary first step towards combatting terrorism - this, and NOT sending bombers and air carriers against ...countries!

By the way : You are invited to pinpoint the one redundant word in Ge. Granks' statement! Should be easy.

[MMMMMM]

"Yes, this would be absolutely corect! This iwould be indeed the necessary first step towards combatting terrorism - this, and NOT sending bombers and air carriers against ...countries!"

Try a Google search, Cyrus; I recently read an article in which I think the CIA and/or FBI was quoted as having claimed infiltration of leadership levels in al-Qaeda (but not the highest "inner circle").

If those countries significantly support al-Qaeda, they might be worthy targets too. State sponsorship of terrorist orgs has been a major enabling factor for the orgs.
I agree, though, that such decisions must be weighed carefully.

[Zeno]

Those are the vicissitudes of fortune that have fallen on all people throughout history. In the coming religious wars we will all be in the military in some fashion or another.

I am certainly past prime military age for combat duty. I would, however, volunteer my expertise to the military in a heartbeat, if needed, for any capacity I could fulfill (including combat).

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever you are voting for will be precisely who I won't vote for, thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should vote for who you honestly think will do the best job for the country, not on who I may happen to be voting for.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

"I recently read an article in which I think the CIA and/or FBI was quoted as having claimed infiltration of leadership levels in al-Qaeda (but not the highest "inner circle")."

As the fella in that old western implied, this is supposed to be a clandestine business. When we hear or read stuff about clandestine operations, well .. they are not. (Now please equate "clandestine" with "successful", as you must, and you'll get the point.)

Speaking of blabbermouths : I just watched an Israeli anti-terrorism expert, as he described himself, on CNN, politely saying that this kind of mass alerts and warning currently experienced in NY, NJ and DC is extremely counter-productive.

The man explained that such announcements serve no practical purpose, lower the morale of the civilian population and provide the would-be terrorists with insight as to what the good guys know or don't know. Such announcements certainly do not help as deterrents either, he argued. Then he offered examples that show that all those (highly visible) counter-measures do not amount to much. He insisted on, as he put it, "working in the dark".

"If those countries [that are attacked militarily by the US] significantly support al-Qaeda, they might be worthy targets too. State sponsorship of terrorist orgs has been a major enabling factor for the orgs."

Actually, this is a major misconception, promoted by the Bush administration quite heavily. The Saddam Hussein regime distanced itself completely from the likes of Qaeda, as soon as the organisation made clear that it did not want to hit Israel but the US. (That's in B&W in the 9/11 Report.)

Even the Taliban were not enthusiastic about bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan but were tolerant as long as he did not jeopardize their position and were simply offering him shelter as an old Islamic jihadist (against the Soviets), as the Quran dictates.

Removing two vile regimes is one thing. Attacking terror is quite another! The former is now being given as the official reason for going to war, while the latter was up until yesterday the causus beli. It's a conman's game.

[cardcounter0]

Obviously, since it does no good in actually stopping the terrorists, upping the fear level and the big show of "special" operations around "known targets" is being done for another reason.

Do you think MMMMMM could ever figure out what that reason is?

[ThaSaltCracka]

yes, but you would like an army of ten million Americans. A vast majority of those troops would be combat troops, and the only way those ranks would ever be filled would be with a draft. First in line would be those younger than me, then moving upwards to myself and my friends.

[ QUOTE ]
You should vote for who you honestly think will do the best job for the country, not on who I may happen to be voting for.


[/ QUOTE ]any candidate that says anything about bringing about the draft will certainly not be the person I would vote for. Nor would he be the right leader of our country.

[Lottery Larry]

who is the Libertarian candidate this year?

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes he desposed Saddam, which is a good thing for now, but what else?

[/ QUOTE ]
and who can forget that wasn't even the initial reason for going there.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that was told to the American public/the world as to why we were going to Iraq (ie weapons of mass destruction) was never the reason at all, only an excuse, and a false one at that. The real reasons were to get rid of Saddam (good) and establish a Western foothold in the Middle East (good) before things spiralled out of control (eg Israel nuking every last Muslim in the area). The deciet that took place (bad) and the war/loss of life (bad) causing much anti-US sentiment (bad) are the yang to the ying. Still to this day I haven't made up my mind as to whether the US's military actions in the past few years are +EV or -EV.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"If those countries [that are attacked militarily by the US] significantly support al-Qaeda, they might be worthy targets too. State sponsorship of terrorist orgs has been a major enabling factor for the orgs."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, this is a major misconception, promoted by the Bush administration quite heavily. The Saddam Hussein regime distanced itself completely from the likes of Qaeda, as soon as the organisation made clear that it did not want to hit Israel but the US. (That's in B&W in the 9/11 Report.)

Even the Taliban were not enthusiastic about bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan but were tolerant as long as he did not jeopardize their position and were simply offering him shelter as an old Islamic jihadist (against the Soviets), as the Quran dictates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet al-Qaeda benefitted greatly by having a relatively secure and stable "base" for their training and organizational operations in Afghhanistan.

[MMMMMM]

Michael Baradnik.

www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

[Q8offsuit]

Hey mmmmmm, I wouldn't normally jump into a political discussion like this, but I think you have made some good points. Let me preface my responses by saying I am very conservative, I would never vote for a Democratic candidate, and I firmly believe in the statement "Live Free or Die."

1) there is not a whole lot to choose between Bush and Kerry on the spending front or social issue front. Of course I think the Democratic positions are more wrong but Bush is a big spender too and he is certainly not a minimalist when it comes to big government or government programs designed for social issues.

Very true. However, this election is pretty much about selecting the lesser of two evils. At face value, Republican policies are more likely to lead to a smaller goverment than Democratic ones. Also, Bush's (unpopular) tax cut was a large step in the right direction that a Democrat would never attempt.

2) Kerry would be tough on terrorists too IMO

What about Kerry makes you believe this? Certainly Clinton's administration did nothing to combat the Al-Qaeda threat.

3) Kerry would get more support overseas at this point (obviously).

sarcastic a-hole answer: Who Cares?
real answer: I don't want the support of most of Europe, the UN, and the third world, because they do not share American philosophies or goals. I would form a coalition with Israel and that would be the only other country that would deserve our respect/support.

4) Bush accomplished a lot going into the Middle East (IMO), and I don't think Kerry will withdraw prematurely (;-))

Probably not. However, Kerry's long-range plans and motivations for being there would be different than Bush's. I highly doubt Kerry has the "right stuff" for a prolonged, casualty-filled global conflict against terrorism.

5) I fear that Ashcroft and certain provisions of the Patriot Act are a threat to our civil rights and liberties...

Absolutely true. One of the major drawbacks, IMO, of the American Republican party is their acceptance of censorship and their seeming disregard for personal liberties. It goes back to the idea of the lesser of two evils. I certainly do not support Bush whatever he does.

6) Socialized medicine will of course become a giant boondoggle, but Bush is moving a bit in that direction anyway (with prescription drug package for seniors)

FABULOUS point. Bush's concession here (like many of his liberal policies) seem to be to placate the hard-line socialists that make up some of the Democrat's base. This concession is much like the farm bill- Bush is selling out his basic philosophies in order to pander to the other side. This I find unacceptable.

7) Kerry is only for raising taxes on the top 2% or so, and not by some enormous percentage

Even though it's just a "little bit," this is very backward economic policy. The top income brackets pay the vast majority of taxes anyway, so this will significantly stifle economic growth. The key to boosting our economy, as Reagan brilliantly realized, it to cut taxes, putting capital back into the economy instead of lining the govt.'s coffers. Thank God Bush realizes this as well.

8) Kerry favors dialogue with the mad mullahs in Iran which IMO is a crock because they are bound and determined to get nukes anyway...Furthermore we can manage Iran's impending (two years or so maybe) nuclear threat by simply letting Israel take out their reactor facilities just before they go "hot". Israel is readying plans for this...

Yes, this is exactly what should happen. However, Israel's biggest ally right now is George W. We simply must support Israel and their right to exist. IMO Kerry would leave Israel hanging in the wind like every other modern US president has. This is why, if I had to vote for a Democrat, it would be Lieberman. The Israel/Palestinian "conflict" is ground zero for the war on Terrorism. Lieberman at least, as a Jew, seems to understand this. I don't know if Bush does or not.

9) Bush and Ashcroft are anti-gambling.

This is not a major issue in the whole scheme of things, but one that affects us poker players highly. Another example of the Republican's confusing and incongrous (sp?) policies concerning personal freedom.


Kerry and Bush are two sides of the same coin, but Bush is IMO by far the lesser of two evils. If you are a true libertarian, please realize that Kerry's far-reaching social policies are probably much more dangerous to personal freedoms and liberties than the "evil boogeyman" John Ashcroft.

This is probably the most important election since 1860. No, I'm not kidding.
It is too bad that we MUST pick between Doofus #1 and Doofus #2.
Doofus #1 is slightly better and slightly more likely to express my values.

[Q8offsuit]

That said I am probably voting Libertarian anyway.

Kerry wins Rhode Island in a walk. Thus Badnarik has my vote (he probably would anyway, but there's no reason to even consider voting Republicrat in this instance, the electoral votes are already locked up)

Good point Kurn. I live in Ohio, one of the key battleground states, so I do not have the luxury of voting my conscience in November. I must vote for Doofus #1 because he is clearly better (but not by much) than Doofus #2.

I love OH with all my heart but around November 3rd I wish that I lived in some hippie commune like California so I wouldn't have to punch that circle beside George W. Bush. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

I roughly agree with many of your points.

The list I put forth was not intended to be comprehensive, but rather just some thoughts, since previously I would have been almost sure to take Bush over Kerry.

What I may do as an exercise (if I vote Libertarian anyway) is to draw up a list of all reasons I can come up with for Bush or Kerry. The list will have two columns, one column listing pro Bush/negative Kerry reasons and the other column listing pro-Kerry/negative Bush reasons. I will then attempt to assign a numerical value on a scale from 1-100 to each listed point. Sum the results and voila a more concrete analysis and conclusion.