2004 Presidential Election.
 

For those in America who will you vote for in this election?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

wait, i wish to undo mine and put it towards bush. If aaron becomes president se5 will take an insanely long time to come out and I don't think I could wait that long.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

You forgot the Libertarians. :P

Also, I just submitted a vote for everyone... You need only one question with 4 options, not 4 questions with 1 option each.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Absolutely.
Actually, it's the tyrranical US voting system that is wrong here. If only we could vote for all the candidates we liked, and not only for the one we thought might beat the candidate we dread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

PvK

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Bin Laden for president... he's done more to change the US than any other person alive [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Bush all the way.

Evil Doer's

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Yeah we send 51 to the USA Beauty Pageant, and 2 or 3 for Presient? Its insane. Every state should send someone, dressed in some outfit representing their state. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I'm starting to think that you really deserve watherver happens to you. Think before voting, that's all. You live in a war/fear-of-war based economy, doing what you want, not signing any treaty that could make this a little fairer (i.e. the nuclear dissarming, the Kyoto protocols, etc...). Not Kerry nor Bush will improve this situation, i'm sure. Keeping growing hate amongst everybody else is dangerous. An old spanish proverb says: Breed crows and they will rip your eyes.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

that is a strange proverb. I could understand "Breed wolves" but Cows?.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I am reading A history of the American Navy in WWII. Mahan's I believe. I was stunned by the preface. My Wife and I visited the Battleship North Carolin in Wilimington North Carolina I remember telling her That For a Battleship with 16 inch guns it was really a small ship. The in the preface Of the Navy history book I am reading it pointed out that prior to WWII the Peace activists put pressure on The US to sign treaties with the other big powers to limit the size and makeup of the navies then being built. Well many of the other Countries proceeded to 'Cheat'(the US did not) So when WWII broke out the US had the wimpiest fleet because The 'Be nice at all cost' crowd had succeeded in tying the hands of the US navy.
What I think this boils down to is subscribing to the view that everyone will do what is best for everyone else will just get you kicked in the teeth and stomped on. IT has been made abundantly clear that there are people/organizations that intend to destroy The US and Freedom.
And yes we could have a better system that the 2 party system And I hate voting against someone as I would rather be voting for someone. At any rate I am going to hold my nose and vote for Bush.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I just hope Bush will get thrown out as his father so I'll be able to keep saying "I love USA" without getting a bashing.

**running the hell out of the thread before the flamewar***

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Everything you need to know to make up your mind about the election is here:
http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

Cheers,
~S
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Two points:

1. It isn't really the US that those people/organizations are attacking, its the entire western philosophy and civilization. The US is only attacked more than other western countries due to its increased influence, and the fact that it is the epitome of what those anti-Western people hate. There are in fact other countries threatened by terrorists, such as Britain, Canada, and any other western country.

2. You mentioned "The US and Freedom" as though they were inseparable concepts, as though the US is the only "free" country. It is not, and Freedom could exist without the US, and the US could exist without freedom. They are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, with some of the laws that have been enacted in the US, such as the Patriot Act (that's what its called isn't it?), I'd say that Canada is much more a "free" country than the US is now.

I'm not intending to step on any toes here, or offend anyone, I just felt I had to state my opinion. Note that it is NOT anti-US. Thanks.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

The Kyoto protocol was fatally flawed. To whit- it claimed to be purely about the enviroment, but it didn't tie the hands of everyone equally. Pollution is pollution, the place of origin makes little difference..

Several other treaties are the same way; they have more to do with "[censored] the US" then their stated goals. Not unlike the bills in congress that have one title and some action on that, then 50 completely unrelated sections; the unrelated bits are stuffed in because they would never pass on their own -and- if your opponent votes against them you can say he voted against, say, cracking down on child exploitation.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Well, i hate to discuss politics, as it mostly leads to flame wars, but i got something on the topic a few months ago from a friend, i tought it may be worth sharing

I'm not from the US, so i cant confirm the details about internal politics and stuff written in that email snippet, but i can tell you, that this one is painfully true:
"I am also the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security."

From the outside, Bush seems like a bullying jackass, who pays no attention to international laws or treaties, so basically doesnt gives sh*t about international politics. For him, there seem to be two sides: with me, or against me..

Considering the ammount of 'anti-planet' bombs he has at hand, this is more than scary.

That kind of politics will one day break the bond between the EU and the USA, and im not sure we wanna live trough that, no matter which continent we live on.

Take the current war for example: it has nothing to do with terrorism, that may have been the causus belli, the reason for the war, but i think the 'evidence' the whole war was based on was already proved wrong.

What happened? The Intelligence Agency apologized for the mistake, and the war went on.

The only reason Bush has a chance is, that its not the world that has to elect the new US president, but the people living there. I just hope they make the right choice.

The above post is not intended to offend anyone: my only problem with the USA to date is its president, which can - and hopefully will - change soon.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

*Moderator mode /on*
Hi all!
As most of us know, all of this has been beaten to death already in other threads and I really see no connection to SEIV here. I will move the thread to the general discussion area where it belongs and leave a shadow here. And, please, remember, keep it civil, different people have different views on the world.
*Moderator mode /off*

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Bush's tax cuts are what stalled the lay offs in my area. My old company has even stated that if not for the tax cuts they would have closed their doors. And here comes Kerry with his TAX increases and people think he is the greatest thing to walk on water since GOD.

He is a liar, a backstabbing MF, and to top it all off, he VOTED to cut the funding of the CIA, FBI, and NSA following the first attack on the trade center. And now he says what happened on 9-11 was all Bushes fault? Please.

He blames the economy in the US on Bush, when it was Bush who inheritied Clintons economy which started to go down hill in 97 after he opened the flood gates for free trade with China. A note to all you kiddies, China makes things a lot cheaper than we can here in the US, and they flooded our markets with their inferior products and swamped many business right out of business. And then we still have the NAFT problem that Clinton signed in.

No, I think it is best that we keep BUSH for another four yeats in order to KEEP what little jobs we do have and grow more.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

If you wanted to get anal about it, we could have gone after Iraq at any time; they never really fullfilled the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire.

By the time we knew for sure no significant WMDs would be found the war was over; and even if not, going in shooting things up and leaving is NOT an option.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

csebal - That article is not at all accurate and it is designed to be as inflamatory as possible. You should have read the one about Clinton, and Gore a few years ago. And the one about Kerry is a lot better read than this one about Bush, and is backed up by facts and not some liberal democrates imagination.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Don't you just love the sheer ignorance of the US political system that causes people to say such things? The total, national popular vote is NOT a factor in the election of the President of the US. It never has been. This is completely irrelevant to Bush having won the election.

What causes a person to win the Presidential election is winning a majority of votes in the electoral college, which is NOT based on population directly. It is based on 2 votes per state + X votes based on population. Thus, 100 of the votes have nothing to do with population, but with geography. Many of them come from relatively very low population states. Further befuddling the issue is the fact that many states give their _entire_ electoral vote count to the candidate that wins the election in that state.

These things are what allows discrepencies between total popular vote and winner of the election to occur. Usually, the two go to the same person. But a few times (I think Bush Jr. was the 3rd), it has happened that the national popular vote and the electoral vote do not end up going to the same person. There is nothing illegal or fishy about this, at all. It is how the Presidential election system in the US works. Now, you be of the opinion that it is silly, and the election should be based entirely on the popular vote. You may or may not be right. But, saying that Bush did something wrong in 2000 just because he did not win the popular vote is wrong.

Now, whether Bush did something shady to win the vote in Florida is an entirely separate issue. It should NOT be confused with overall popular vote, which is, again, not related to who wins the US Presidential election. The whole issue was a big mess. Who knows what really happened. Gore did voluntarily cede the election to Bush at the end, so regardless of whether he legitimately won the Florida election, he did win the overall election, due to Gore ceding it to him. There is no contesting that fact.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Somehow I dont seem to be seeing any of that. The jobs in my household, my taxes, my benefits, my general opinion of the future. Sorry, I wont be voting for Bush to go around again. Nor Arnold (California).

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

"trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” - J F Kerry

(What was once considered as cowardice by Kerry has become his crown jewel for election.)


What we saw around here starting in 96 was a slow down of our economy. My employer at the time was the world’s largest supplier of its product, and the third largest employer in the county.

In 97 we saw the price of our produce drop by 70% worldwide as the Chinese dumped their production onto the market. The following years we saw even greater loss to the point where we had to lay off people. The situation continued to deteriorate until Bush's tax cut went into effect. The tax cut allowed my employer to right off the depreciation of their new equipment and the building they had just built. This saved the company and 600 some odd jobs.

The economy here was the worst hit in the recession, and despite this, sales of homes, cars, goods, and such are all doing well.

I cannot speak for other parts of the nation, but I do know that if Kerry is elected, the situation will go from bad to worse.

Remember we are in the economic quick sand because of Clinton’s economic policies and Kerry going around saying its all Bush's fault is a bold face lie.

Bush had no control over the events of 9-11 that tanked our economy horribly. Kerry on the other hand did have some control and he used it to vote for a funding cut of the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He supported Clinton’s foreign policies, policies that sent the message that we were weak because we cared about not offending the Arab populations of the world. Now look at where those policies have led us. http://www.notokerry.com/military_voting.htm

No president wants to be a war president. Bush is not a warmonger nor is he a stupid man. Bush has delivered on his promises to cut taxes, increase security, and strengthen our economy. Kerry has a very low success rate when it comes to doing as he says he is going to do.

In fact Kerry enjoys saying one thing when he has plans on doing exactly the opposite. It is very aggravating to try and follow Kerry's promises, as there are so many of them.

Our economy is improving, the evidence supports this. It is just taking a very long time to affect us on the lowest rungs of this economic ladder we live upon.

Please consider that Kerry will say and promise anything to get elected. Bush has done what he said he is going to do and if we give him the time to finish the job, another four years, I think we will all be a hell of a lot better off.

And remember, Arnold inherited a bankrupt state. A state put into bankruptcy by Democrats.

Besides, Bush and his party are not interested in banning or controling many of the things that I enjoy owning or doing. Kerry belongs to a party that wants to control or regulate everything with laws including personal freedom of choice.

For me it is a clear choice, if I want to keep what little I have now, I must vote republican acrossed the board. Under Clinton I lost money, rights, control, and freedoms. Under Bush I have lost nothing and have even gained some.

Kerry is a proven liar now. Of this there is no dout in my mind. Kerry will be bad for the US, and bad for all of us.

His words. Don't buy into the liberal media's hype. Look deeper and explore the truth. Most of the anti Bush sites are busy making up things and slinging mud without any facts to support them. I should say true facts.

No To Kerry The turth supported by fact.
(BUSH) Bushes site does not target Kerry like Kerry's site does Bush. So again, a nice role reversal courticy of the Democrats.

Links to the Truth About John F Kerry (JFK2)

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I was a Republican way back when until I realized that unless my personal income grew to over $200,000 a year or I was willing to become a born-again christian the Republican party had nothing to offer me.

Anyway

- I can't afford to send my kids to private school so I'd like to have well funded schools with a small student ratio
- I'd like there to be enough police so that they show up within five minutes if I am in trouble
- I believe in a strong military
- When there's a fire there should be someone to put it out
- I hate potholes in the street so I want there to be money to pay for these
- I'd like my tap water to be drinkable
- All the money I've put into social security and medicare I want paid back with a monthly stipend if I make it to retirement
- The food I and my child eats should be safe to eat
- I want the homeless to have a place to go because most of the homeless aren't mentally compitant to take care of themselves

I rely on the government to provide these and similar sorts of functions.

I am told by the newspaper that I paid about a $1000 less in income tax Last year although looking at my taxes I paid about the same - still the loss of any of the above line items is worth way more to me than that $1000.

With Bush's tax cuts, however, none of these functions will be possible in the near future because the country will be bankrupt.

That's why I am not voting for Bush.

A few other things

- I am still trying to understand why it is that the NRA et.al. think that banning assault rifles is a bad thing.
- It's also hard to figure out why people are against raising the mpg of vehicles when it would lower our dependence on foreign oil and the technology is readily available so that even SUVs could benefit.
- What's wrong with wanting clean air? I grew up in Southern California and no the value of it.
- Why should someone be allowed to throw a stick of gum on the streets would it then be OK to throw a bag of garbage on the street too?
- Why is it that a fetus is only valuable until it is born but then services to help the born child are being cut?
- Isn't the death penalty taking a human life? - If that's the logic behind being against abortion shouldn't you be against the death penalty as well?
- I don't know why someone would want to cut down a 2000 year old tree
- Since most outdoor places will be visited before I visit them I'd like to have an approximation of the experience that the first person had. People who ride ATV ruin that for the rest of us

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I can understand your concerns about internal affairs, as we have our own - although on a less smaller scale, we are a smaller country after all - similar problems here in our own country.

What you can't see - or dont care about - is how the USA looks for the rest of the world. Bush may be better in internal affairs, but on the international level, he failed terribly.

Then again, would i be in your place, i would probably choose the one i profit from most. As an outsider i hope the one you choose will not be Bush - after all, i would hate if WW3 would happen in my life. Even the idea, that Bush may be using - no matter how small - nuclear weapons against his enemies makes me think about leaving the planet on the next colony ship.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Keeping in mind that you are talking about orginizations of individuals, and that specific reasons for individuals vary widely, I know of three basic reasons:

For some, it's a matter of caution (some would say paranoia). If assault weapons are Banned, what's to stop them from banning all firearms? If all firearms are successfully eliminated, what's to stop the government from voting themselves into hereditary positions? Respect for the US Constitution? Considering that in banning firearms they are going against the Second Amendment already? Or that in holding suspected terrorists without trial they are going against the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? However, if the general populace has enough in the way of firearms to stage a successful rebellion against an oppressive regime, then there is less likely to be an oppressive regime in the first place.

For others, it is simply the principle of the thing - the US Constitution says that "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", and view banning assault weapons as infringement.

Others just think that guns are cool, and would prefer owning them leagally to owning them illeagally.

Personally, I'm planning on breaking pattern and voting Libertarian - Bush was on watch when the Patriot Act (and the later supporting bills) was passed, so I'm not about to vote for him. I saw a commercial for Kerry saying he wanted to strengthen it even more, so I'm not going to vote for him, either.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Im not seeing that. Ive only seen Kerry mention his service in response to comments. (btw I am a vietnam vet)

Sorry about that. I can understand your position on that. Its nice to see someone actually speak of personal reasons rather than just repeat the "things are this way" media facts.

What I saw was that when Clinton started running for pres the subjects were all about the embarassing federal deficit and whether Russia would bomb us in our sleep. During Clinton my fears went away.

I know it common to say that everything good was done by my guys and everything bad by the other guy. But Clinton pulled 2 terms so I think he must have had something to do with some of the good changes.

Maybe. But what I see around here is impacts of Bushes actions. Even with a low work force (one of the hardest hit by reserves on duty) we have a low job market. I didnt really want a tax break which I guess is a good thing since I havent seen one either.

Remember? Quicksand? I know the repubs are big on shaking things up so that some go up while others go down, but I would have been happy with things staying as they were.

Do you really feel that the 9-11 incident did major damage to our economy? I thought that after 9-11 we were sending a laughing message because it DIDNT do what the terrorists had hoped. It was only after we started the Iraq police-action that I saw economic impact.

Well that says it pretty clear. Kerry can do little in 4 compared to what Bush can accomplish by carrying thru for 8. Im not thrilled with Kerry (Im not a democray or a republican) but I really dont want another 4 with Bush.

A state which went bankrupt while Dems were in office. Not necessairly by Dem policies. Arnold inherited a balance budget then made changes Im not thrilled with.

Sounds like you have made rational decisions for rational reasons. And you do seem to have clear ideas about the difference between the two parties. Of course I wouldnt use those words to describe it all but symantics is just a propoganda tool. You logic and reasons seem sounder than most Ive talked to.

<font color="blue">--
Democrats say give us your money and your problems.
Republicans say keep your money and your problems.
</font>
<font color="AA00AA">--     Its easy to understand.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.
</font>

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Rex I am sorry that you are so misinformed. If I had to explain everything to you I would be here all day. Vote for Kerry, it is the tv fed, liberal lie, best way to go for people who refuse to open their eyes. No if you choose to get informed here is a sight that might help you understand the gun grab issues.

If you think Kerry is going to give all those wonderful thing you mentioned in your post, well I am sorry to be the one to tell you that he won't. In the end he will be just another president tha we cannot wait to vote out of office.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Thank you GP for being so polite. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

So is my father, and he is voting for Bush as well. His reason is that he does not trust a man who claims he is a war hero when he is not. My Grandfather, who is a war hero, and he is angerier than hell over Kerry's claim that he is one. Needless to say, he too is voting Republican this year.



Speaking of fears, under Clinton I had many. First his tax increase that took from me a hell of a lot of money that I never got back and could have used. Then his gun grab policies that made running my business very difficult for no reason. Under Clinton I saw our military weakend and our world wide reputation damaged. Under Clinton the office of the President became a joke. Under Clinton, we saw our economies future sold to the Chinese for re-election.

Clinton my have pulled two terms, but that says nothing about him other than he had the money to pull it off. To be honest, he was relected because of his economic teflon shield that he (1) inheretited from Regan / Bush, and (2) didn't fail him until mid 1996 when the economy started to crumble.

We all are feeling this GP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif But again other than the reservest being called to active duty, this is not Bushes fault. The economy started to tank in 96, and the events of 9-11 did not help.

I think we all would have been happier that way, but they were forced into change by Clintons economic policies and the events of 9-11. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

The effects of 9-11 on our economy can not be ignored now. It did have a major adverse effect on our economy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

One of the reasons I dislike Kerry is because he has been a senator for how long, and has done little and accomplished nothing other than to vote for budge cuts for the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the military. Now he sits back and lies about it when his voting record clearly shows the truth.

Well I cannot speak to this, he is not my Govenor. Good luck.

Thank you. I know that no matter what happens, the US will still be here in four years, and we get to do this all over again. Lets just hope that things are better then than they are now.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election. *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by rextorres

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Things are not always what they seem.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Umm I wrote that I am not voting for Bush because his tax cuts are bankrupting the country (implying that his deficits are causing the bankruptcy). This was a general statement not directed at you.

In the very next post you wrote . . .I quote:

"Rex I am sorry that you are so misinformed. If I had to explain everything to you I would be here all day. Vote for Kerry, it is the tv fed, liberal lie, best way to go for people who refuse to open their eyes."

I am assuming you meant that the deficit is a liberal lie . . . but like I said it's not clear what you meant.

So once again I ask in response to your post.

Are you saying that the deficit is a liberal lie or that there is no deficit?

It's requires a very simple answer to a very simple question.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

EDIT

Rex, you can assume whatever you want from what I post. If you enjoy taking comments and calling them rants, a nice role reversal I might add, then that is your right. I choose not to debate symantics with you especially manufactured ones that you have fabricated out of thin air and claim I made in my Posts.

As for the environment, has Bush drilled for oil in the artic? No. Is Bush responsible for the horrible forest fires of recent years? No. The catastrophie of those fires were the direct result of Clinton/Gore environmental policies. Policies I am happy to say are in the process of being changed.

As for clean air, under Bush 2 stroke motors are being phased out of production. That is something that Clinton promised to do but never did.

As for the deficate, I never mentioned this and will have to research it. But from first glance, we are at war and during war decificates do tent to rise. Yes I am alarmed about this, but I do not see Kerry as the answer to it. In fact I view Kerry as a threat to balancing it.

So Rex if you want to pull things out of the air and toss them onto the debate table that is your call. But please don't blame my Posts as the source of for your rants. Thanks.

(And I am sorry for flaming you earlier. That was out of line.)

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Its all pros and cons. The repubs seem to live for the present. Keeping the most of what they make, gaining the most ground, even if it detracts from others later. Investing in the future means "my problems, my future, my families future, my states future, my countries future".

Demo's seem to be willing to accept less today in order to invest in a further tomorrow. Investing in the future tends to be "our problems, our future, our families future, our states, our countries".

Both sides tend to paint horrible pictures of what will happen if the other side is carried to the extreme. I think they are both right when they do that. So I tend to vote in a way that doesnt let either one go too far for too long.

Under the republicans we would become the Ferrengi.
Under the democrats we would become the Federation.
Under the U.S. marijuana party we would become Rhysa.
Under the american heritage party we would become the Dominion.
For more parties visit http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Speaking as someone who does not live in the US, and can perhaps provide a somewhat impartial opinion:

A few points: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11/01 had exactly the effect they wanted them to have. Think about it; most people were saying they'd failed due to the relatively low death toll, compared to what it could be. However, look at the amount of money the US has recently spent on the "war against terrorism". Hundreds of billions!! I think your deficit for this year is something like half a TRILLION!!

The terrorists simply wanted to destroy the US economy, and with the massive anti-terrorist spending that has occured, they have succeeded in a huge way.

From the view of an outsider, it looks like the US is on its Last legs. If you don't pull your economy together sometime soon, that's going to be it, some other country, such as China, will be the lone world superpower. That's something I'm sure none of us want. I sure don't, as I'm from Canada, and to a certain extent we rely on the US to provide an amount of protection to us.

Basically, the terrorists succeeded.

Another point. Both of the candidates would, in my opinion, be horrible to have in office. Its simply a question of which would be the least of the two evils. Personally, if I was voting, I'd vote for Bush. Kerry is willing to make the US into a country with few personal freedoms, and if that would happen it would be a huge blow to world democracy. However, Bush was the one to put in the Patriot act in the first place! So who knows which of them would be worse for the freedom of Americans. Why would I vote for Bush? He's in favor of the owning of firearms, which I think is a right anyone should have, anywhere in the world (unless you're a convicted criminal, or some other good reason). That is about the only thing I can say that is in favor of either of the candidates.

Lets face facts; they're all politicians!! They will lie, cheat, distort the facts, whatever it takes to satisfy their own personal demons, or to try to accumulate power.

I for one, am quite glad I'm living in Canada, instead of the US. We have more freedom than you do now, we are politically stable, among other things.

I just hope the actions of the US leaders don't push the world into World War Three. Although I bet that within 15 years it will be happening, or have just happened. Rather than being a far off dread, it will be an immediate reality.

Of course, remember that all of this is my personal opinion. If any of the "facts" I have stated are in error, please correct me. Also, if you would like to contradict anything I said, or state a counter-opinion, I would greatly appreciate it if you do so. I will not be offended, or insult your opinions, as some others would do.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

If I remember correctly thats not much compared to what it was when the republicans were Last in office.

And when someone says that 9-11 had a horrible impact on our economy Im not sure if the cost of the reaction is quite the same as the impact on our economy. Is the impact what the terrorists did? Or what Bush did?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

The Last time Republicans were in office, they increased the national debt as a means to end the Cold War once and for all, without a single shot being fired. Reagan's huge increase in military spending caused the Soviets to increase their spending to keep up. The economy of the US was strong enough to shrug it off. That of the USSR was weak, and collapsed. Russia still hasn't really recovered from ~65 years of rape by an oppressive military dictatorship, but at least the Russian people have more freedoms than they did previously...

Indeed. Unfortunately, there is no lesser of two evils in this case...

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

We really need a better way.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Well, I've been moving around the past few days, so I missed this thread. So I am going to belatedly jump in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

In a perfect world, I would probably vote Libertarian, and have Badnerik actually win. I don't entirely agree with all of his proposals (and that is most likely impossible anyway), but I agree with most.

However, that is over-ruled by the fact that I do not want Bush in the White House. It is my opinion that he has sided with his hawkish advisors too often, and messed up relations with the rest of the world (I was going to say warmongering advisors, but that wouldn't be diplomatic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ). There are a lot of people that don't think that is a big deal, usually because they have an isolationist view on international politics. But from what I've learned of history, all isolationist states end up having more harm than good come from ignoring the rest of the world. Like it or not, we live in a world with many different cultures, and agression is not the way to deal with it.

I also think that he has largely ignored most domestic issues, including the economy. In my view, cutting taxes and lowering pollution regulations is not an economic policy. The "trickle-down theory" for taxes has one huge, glaring flaw in my view, and that is the assumption that if those citizens with large incomes pay less of that income in taxes, they will spend more in the private sector. But it turns out that a lot of them don't spend, they save. Which ties up a lot of capital where it cannot be used to create products and jobs. From what I know of what Kerry wants to do, the tax cuts will shift from benefitting mostly the upper classes to benefitting the lower-middle to middle class. Here, the trickle-down theory is more applicable, since people in those income brackets are more likely to do things like fix the garage roof, or replace the broken basement door. I know this because that's what my parents did with their tax return checks this summer, when they otherwise would have just let those projects slide.

I remember one of the big issues for the 2000 election was education. It's not being made a big issue this election it seems, but I was really pissed about the so-called "Texas Miracle" being brought nation-wide. I managed to escape to college before it effected me, but after going through public school, I know that the whole "No Child Left Behind" is not the way to go about education. The big deal was, under Gov. Bush in Texas, a large majority of public school students "passed" with basic or better proficiency a standardized test, where not as many did this before. What wasn't spread around much was the little bit of information that this was accomplished by lowering the standards on the tests (eg. now answering 4 out of 10 right is ok, instead of 7 out of 10; these aren't real numbers, just made up to illustrate point). So now with "No Child Left Behind", we have flawed tests at every grade level, taking up money, time, and resources that could be used on real education, instead of encouraging schools to teach only the materials on these tests.

I am also made extremely uncomfortable by the large role that Bush's religious views play in his policies. I don't have a problem with a person having religious views, but I do have a problem with religion in public office. That is just one step too close to theocracy, and a theocracy will inevitably persecute those not of a particular religion who happen to be living under that government. Kerry, while still being religious, has shown some ability in distancing himself from his beliefs when it comes to public policy.

As for the military, Atrocities was complaining about how Clinton reduced the military during his term. I say he had good reason to! The military was the size that it was because of the Cold War, and like was already stated, we increased our military in order to cause the Soviets to increase theirs, our economy could handle it, theirs couldn't. But our economy couldn't handle it indefinitely, only longer than the Soviet economy could. So, when there was no reason to have a huge military, cuts were made. I'm not sure of exactly when the study for the re-alignment of troops was started, but that should also have been completed by around the end of Clinton's second term, instead of happening now at the end of Bush's term. Our military is plenty large, and would be still too large if not for our participation in two theatres of war. The fact that Bush is looking at ways to make even more troops available (while making sure that draft board positions remain filled) makes me worried that if he gets a second term, he'll start yet another war, in the name of the "War on Terror"... and then want to draft me. If that happens, well then I will gladly renounce citizenship, because this country obviously will not be the land of the free I thought I was born in.

Anyway, that's just how I see things.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I cant vote as im not old enough to but I wish Kerry will win because bush is bound to be the dumbest idiot in the world and should be gotten out of office as soon as humanly possible. If he wins again we all might as well go kill ourselves because there wont be much of a world left after another four years of Govener Bushey's Reign of Terror over the world

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Douglas Adams was a genius.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

"I am gods sock puppet, he has his hand so far up arse that his words are all that pop out." - Mr. Smith - Jeremiah

I say we all forum our own political group and go nominate one of our people in 2008. Oh wait; by posting this, I just marked myself as a terrorist.

Why is it that is in a free nation, when any one speaks of forming a new political group, they are denounced as a lunatic fringe and subjected to FBI surveillance, harassment, and even for some, imprisonment?

WE ARE NOT A NATION OF FREEDOM, we are a captive nation under the control of large corporations who will never share the power with any one not on their pay roll.

Mark me a crackpot, but follow the money. Where does it lead? Why would any one want to become President of the USA? Power and money.

He who has the gold makes the rules. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These statements have been proven time and again to be true. And those, like me, who ask the questions or make the statement, are often branded as crackpots or conspiracy theorist in order to devalidate what we say.

People are sheep and the will believe anything they are told so long as believing it ensures that their way of life will not be effected. One step at a time, one right, one freedom, and eventually we will have nothing left and then all those who turn a blind eye will scream "why did you let it happen?" They will accept no responsibility for it, and they will, as they have been trained to do by television, and programming from birth, blame everyone else for the problems they now face.

Kerry is as honest as Bush and I would not wish to vote for either of them. But given Kerry's propensity to take, I think the safest bet is to vote for the arsehole.

Make no mistake, in twenty to forty years things around the world are going to get a lot worse as our planets oil reserves run dry and our resources dwindle. It is already happening, and instead of concentrating on protecting what we have or looking to new sources, we fight over whets left.

There is a reason we do not want the sand jockeys having WMD's. With WMD's they can protect their oil, without them, the rest of the world can take it.

This war was not about terrorism; it was about oil and only oil. The rest was, and is BS. And no matter who is in office, the objective will always be about oil. Oil is money, and money is power, and power rules the world.

Call me a loon, but remember, in order to hear, you must listen, and those who seldom listen never hear.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Well one things you USA people will not have to worry about.

WHo ever is voted in will be hated around the world. Just as bush was, just as clinton was and just as much as the ones before clinton as well.

I do not understand why people think that voting bush out of office will go back to some acid coded vision that the world will love USA again. When it never did.

Remeber who you vote for. Govn't wins. Which also happens to be some old school rich white guy.

To me your 2 big parties are one and the same.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

It's pretty clear that it's what Bush did. Same answer with our civil rights. They were thrown away, along with our money, by our own government, to increase its own power and wealth, and that of its political allies.

PvK

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Actually there are many parties and more forming all the time. http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
In fact if we had only two parties running this time then I wouldnt be so worried about the outcome.

Considering Bushes tendency to send, I dont think that "safest" is the word I would use there. The most personally profitable maybe, but not safest.

I want to create a new party. Its called the seesaw party. We consider both major parties to be dangerous if left in office too long so we vote back and forth with each election so they will balance each other out.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Um, I dont know if you know but Clinton was loved by a bunch of countries includeing UK (granted they follow us no matter what) alot of african nations, hell even the Russian President Yelson liked Clinton. As for Govener Bushey the reason everyone hates him is because he is trying to inforce a radical right wing agenda

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

What specifically did the Bush do to our economy? I want specifics, not hearsay or IMHO's. Prove to me that the BUSH hurt our economy as bad as the Clinton did.

And this ploy where Kerry's wife IS NOW SICK like CLINTON is just sickening!!!! Oh My God how dumb do they think we are. They are playing for the sympathy vote.. WHAT CRAB APPLE BULLSH*T IS THIS?

OH sure Clinton might be ill, but the timing of his, and then Kerry's wife's illness are more the coincidental. Its all part of the Democratic plan to win the sympathy vote.

What next, the BUSH's dog will get sick and one of his daughter will have to have an emergancy arm transplanet or something.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

You want specfic thing that Govener Bushey did, Here You Go. Bushey spent the 5.6 TRILLION, that Clinton had gained for the goverment in his years, also it should be mentioned that when clinton took office we had a deficet from the reganomics and bush senior continueing that policy. How did Bushey Jr. do this, he gave tax cuts and tax refunds to the top twenty percent of americans who dont even need it. This is besides the money that is still being wasted on the war. Next what did he do, he spent the Last 2.5 trillion which was set aside by clinton to pay for Social Sequrity, and what was it spent on you ask another round of tax cuts in 2003 and who did they beneifit, who else but not the top 20% but the TOP ONE PERCENT of americans. Also he helped create tax shelters (place to hide tax money) for huge mega cooperations most of these tax shelter in the cariebean. and how does this ruin the economy, when mega coorperations are doing well they tend to down size to get more money and in turn buy out other small buissnesses. SO THIS IS HOW HE DID
Also it should be mentioned that all of his tax cuts are 3 times as much as the war
Also he repealed in his first round of tax cuts the Estate Tax, which is a tax on the inheritence of people and basically only effects the top 1% of uber rich people which introtuces alot of currency to the goverment (this is also called the Death Tax by repulicans and the Paris Hilton Tax
---And this is why we need to get rid of the nut case

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Teresa Kerry is not sick like Bill Clinton. Teresa Kerry was taken to Mercy Medical Center-North Iowa after complaining of an upset stomach. She got tested &amp; looked over, and was released. She's fine, and likely was suffering from a lack of sleep (and stress) following a 4 city jaunt in 2 days.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has undergone a heart bypass operation to clear arterial blockage.

Grab yourself a warm cup of hot chocolate and chill before you end up in an an emergency room with an upset tummy yourself.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../beerglass.gif

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

As a paramedic I can tell you that an upset stomach can be easily taken for a heart attack. To really exclude a heart attack you have to go to a hospital and take a special "advanced" EKG and take blood samples. There is nothing unusual about this procedure, in fact it is standard procedure from a medical point of view.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I've had a couple of anxiety attacks, and if you're not used to them, it feels like a stroke or heart attack (to someone who's never felt what a real stroke or heart attack feels like). Whatever Teresa was feeling, I can empathise with her 100%.