I been watchin the election closely, and im a democrat. From what i see im Kerry all the way, but thats not to say i reject Republicans, in fact i have a very good friend whose a republican, but id just like to see why people like bush or kerry.

Personally, the thing that tipped it for me, was when Hans Blix announced that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Its not the fact that we went to war over something that wasnt there as much as the fact there have been over 8000 american casualties and who knows how many Iraqis. I mean what would you think if your son/daughter died over nothing, its different dying for a real cause, but really...

On a somewhat unrelated note, I love the phrase "I have a friend who is a ". It almost always means that the person is about to say something denigrating about but it's alright because they've got a friend.

On-topic, it's not my future since I can't vote for either. I just hope you guys vote out Bush since unilateralism tends to produce more instability in the world than it fixes.

*hum* Lets just say Im a Texan - guess that says a lot about who Im voting for. -peers at other wierd looking tree ent candidate with his lawyer puppet- *puts earplugs back in and tunes out all this us politics bullcr@p*

Im just trying to prove that i dont hate Republicans because Bush is one

Well I'm voting for bush, no question about it. I've been watching this election since bush got voted in, because I voted for Gore and was really curious why someone who "won" refuses to try again. I know the reasons, it just looked wierd to me.

I have yet to hear kerry say anything except that Bush is trying to scare us into voting for him. Sounds to me like Kerry is the one trying to scare me into voting for him. I've yet to see evidence that shows any of the terrible evil bastardly things that bush has supposedly done to destroy the country.

I have seen 20 to 30 years of complacency towards something that only hurts innocent people and never achieves anything possitive. (i.e Islamic terrorism)

Oh another thing... I really hate how the media (tv and radio) Has tried to make this seem like a time when the country is completely divided. I have some theories about that one, especially the production of "polls" in our overly sensitive and highly demographized (is that a word)society.


explanation: Demographazied... Political pollsters and campaigners are apparently having vietam vets call army people, teachers calling teachers, Nurses calling people involved with medicit. etc.. Kinda scary actually. And i've even heard in some areas that a person will come to your house 3 or 5 times making sure you've registered, and then they plan to come to your house to make sure you go vote.

And its all based on hatred. (I never hear anyone say I love kerrry, only hear people say I hate bush)

That is commonly known as choosing the lesser of two evils.

If you lose Bush, then maybe we can take Howard's leash off him, neh?

Edit: by that, I meant, the leash Howard is wearing that often appears in Bush's hand in those funny little comics in the papers....

I get to rant....yay....let me start by saying I am voting for Bush and here is why:

I am in the military and since President Bush got elected, we have had some nice pay raises. People, the military isn't a gold mine, I don't even make $20,000 a year and that is WITH the money that they give me for food.

John Kerry was in Vietnam and I'll give him credit for being there, however, some of the medals that he got were bogus...case in point, and you don't have to listen: John Kerry has 3 purple hearts from Vietnam, he got one because his unit was out on a river in the swift boat, he shot at a rock with a 9 milimeter pistol and the shot ricocheted and "grazed" his arm. The doctor who treated him didn't even use anesthetic to get it out.

John Kerry is also supported by probably 50 swift boat crewmen which is fine, but that is 50 vietnam-era swiftboatmen out of a community of over 2,000. A retired gentleman came into the clinic recently who was in Vietnam and his exact words to me about Kerry were this, "The man has stood there and called me a raper, a murder, a robber and a torturer and I never saw any of that happen, not once. The only torture that I saw came from the North Vietnamese and it was against our troops."

Now, on the subject of Iraq.....you're right, there were no WMDs found but I wonder why? If you tell a crack dealer that in 6 months the cops are coming into his house to raid it.....do you think the crack would still be there? I don't. And the fact of the matter is, the media has distorted the picture on what is REALLY happening in Iraq. There are so many people over there who have a better quality of life because American troops have built better homes, better schools, better hospitals and are allowing better medical treatment and better educations. And 8,000 American troops have not died over there, 1,000 have. And while none of them are my son are daughter, some of them WERE my friends and all of them were my brothers and sisters in arms and I wouldn't say that they have died for nothing.

On to the subject of terrorism, John Kerry likes to throw around that there "is no terrorist threat" and it's this kind of attitude that President Clinton had when Al'Qaeda attack the World Trade Center the first time and then the USS Cole.....the USS Cole is a particularly sore issue for me. It's this kind of attitude that lead Al'Qaeda to attack the World Trade Center on 9/11....since we have a President with a backbone who stood up against Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda, you haven't seen anymore attacks on our country and you have RARELY heard from Osama either. The fact of the matter is, these Muslim Extremists are ALWAYS going to see America as evil and are always going to want to do us harm simply because the things we stand for as a country are contradictory to what they believe as Extremists *I keep using this because I know that these beliefs aren't shared by all Muslims*

There you have my rant and I shall be quiet for now.

The only people ive seen Bush help are those in the military, and those who make over 200,000 dollars



Again, Hans Blix, UN inspector, not the media, identified that there were no weapons of mass destruction



Casualties, not deaths, bot deaths and injuries

I refuse to vote for someone who is supporting a constitutional amendment to limit the rights of American citizens. If you know what I mean, then that's enough. If you don't, then you can contact me if you actually want to know.

It wasn't so much over the rights of the individual as it was the fact that they wanted to solidfy the definition of marriage.

As I said, of course there were no weapons when we went in there. To say that there weren't any before that is nuts because look at all of the time Saddam used them on his own people.

I have yet to see how bush has only helped people who make over 200,000.
They recently changed a large amount of taxes, making people who make more than 200,000 pay more taxes, and those people who own small business pay les taxes. We've also had to change some terrifs around because of the WTC. But wait, Bush only does what his cronies say right? he never listens to the rest of the world on anything right?

What sickens me is how much the left twists lies and never actually use arguments with facts. They say things such as "perhaps" or "do you really expect me to believe" I call it argument through ineundo, and generalization.

Just watch Feirenhype 9.11 and you can see how almost every argument people make is based on information that is false and missleading.


And sorry, Picking the better of two evils is when theres actually something about them to pick. I think people who are voting for kerry would just as likely vote for Mickey mouse if he was being toted as the democractic person.
I would love to be a ballot counter person, and see how many people vote "Someone else" as the write in candidate. And I predict, bush wins by 5% at least

How have 8000 Americans died as a result of the Iraqi Liberation?

P.s. Voted Bush. Not in the military but Felemar covered things well.

Felemar,

by adding the 'definition' that they seek, in the Constitution, they're mixing Religion/Morality with Rights, for one, and for two, it's creating a second tier to citizenship. It's saying 'you don't deserve the same rights we do'



History Lesson Anyone?

Seperate but Equal is Not Equal at all.

I said the lesser of two evils. That means the one you hate least. THat does not mean picking anything about them in particular.

I don't know, I think they should change the definition of Veteran to anyone who has been shot before. And Military to anyone who has ever owned a gun. Because they have created a second tier of citizenship saying 'you don't deserve the same rights we do'

Your rights to get married have not changed. Every citzen has the same right to marry another person of the opposite sex. Why does my roomate who is younger than me, and married just so he can live in this country get more rights than I do just because I was born here and didn't decide to marry someone to get into the country?

I think both are silly, but the real act about trying to change the constitution is to combat against the judges in crazy fedral courts who say things like "We don't know why Dolphins don't have the right to sue yet, but untill they are given that right by the constitution you can't bring this class action suit"

Its sad when judges try to take the role of lawmakers.

p.s Bush and Cheney have both said they think marriage should be kept to states rights anyways. There is no law that says one state has to recognize the marriage of another state.

I probably should not get into the political chat too much, but since I absolutely love to study the Constitution I shall withhold my own opinion and instead toss out an interesting question to chew on that this thread made me think up of. Suppose that there is a constitutionally mandated complete seperation of Church and State (that is not really what is precisely in the 1st Amendment, but just hypothetically speaking). And suppose that the State subsidizes and/or regulates various things like education, health care, marriage, family, etc.

Whicg of the following would be constitutional and which would be unconstitutional:
* Fund education at a religious school?
* Subsized someone who majors in theology in a secularly owned college? (Or teach theology in a public college?)
* Pay medical bills for patients who go to hospitals owned by a church?
* Pass regulations for hospitals and schools in general and have them apply to religious the ones as well as the secular ones? (Opposite of the above ones; hypothetical seperation actually benefits the church here.)
* Recognize a marriage formed by a preacher instead of a justice of the peace and offer them the same benefits as those married by a judge?
* Only recognize a marriage formed by a preacher or a justice of the peace, but not recognize other non-religious marriages? (Like suppose I wish my atheist best friend or my father to officiate and seal the marriage instead of a preacher or the government.)

So the bonus question for those that say such things would generally be unconstitutional, does that create a second class of citizens? (Specifically, do the religious become second class to the secularists and atheists?) To those that say it would generally be constitutional, is it really fair to make people fund religious institutions they do not believe in, such as atheists and wiccans funding schools that teach the Bible?

I won't give my answer, but it may be fun to see how others interpret the different scenarios that put a twist on State/Church issues.

along the same lines, one wonders with that understanding of church and state seperation, why the goverment has any say in marriages at all.

I have no idea how the courts determine religious vs state systems but generally I'd regard receiving additional support above that received by the state equivalent as violating it. If both religious and state schools receives the same amount of funding, great. If the religious one receives more, bad. Now unfortunately this is a simplistic point of view because religious systems often have other sources of income to supplement government funding (donations, fees, etc) unlike state schools (at least here in Australia) so this will likely result in a two-tiered system with religious schools having an advantage... but that's why I'm not responsible for setting up funding for schools (or if I was, I'd have more information at my disposal).

As for the government having any say in marriage, you're right, it shouldn't. But only if all laws are rewritten to recognise a secular version of marriage instead (deceased spouse benefits, etc etc etc).

Maybe i need to be even MORE clear, there are over 8000 both deaths and injuries...COMBINED


Its funny that Haliburton can get a tax cut as a small company