[Will]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
I am not old enough to vote yet but I still have very strong political opinions.

At least it sounds like you *want* to vote, which is refreshing, even if I don't agree with most of your points.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leave

Soon, hopefully... Unfortunately, the US will be in Iraq for some time to come, and there will not be a solid government there for even longer. Ditto for Afghanistan, which most people seem to have forgotten about. Not to mention all the other places we have "peacekeeping" troops (IIRC, N/S Korea border, former Yugoslavia (sp?), various locations in Africa, all over Latin America, etc.)

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.

Well, if you will kindly look back at your history textbooks, you will see that we in fact used them *twice* in World War II. And I'm not sure on this point, someone who has more military knowledge than I can confirm or deny, but the US Military currently uses low-yield nuclear bombs as a part of it's regular arsenal. I recall seeing a bomb used in Afghanistan which was designed to penetrate the ground several feet deep near a cave network, then detonate, and it was something on order of 1/20th the power of the "Little Boy" Hiroshima bomb.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

Drilling for oil does not involve clear cutting entire forests and neither does logging. Also forests need to be logged a certin ammount to prevent situations like the massive forest fires that have plauged the west/south west. Also Bush put all that money(7 or 8 billion I think it was) into the development of Hydrogen Powered Cars, I sure he would have done that since all hes interested in is oil and destroying the enviroment

Drilling for oil has other impacts on the surrounding environment. I know, I grew up in Northwest Pennsylvania where the whole oil thing started. While most environmental Groups severely underestimate the ability of an ecosystem to recover from "oil exploration", that still doesn't mean that it's an OK thing to do.

As for the "hydrogen economy", most people who have more than superficial knowledge on the subject will tell you that it is largely a chimera. To have a hydrogen economy, you need energy to split hydrogen off of other molecules. One way to do this is split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and so far, most of the energy to do this is derived from... fossil fuels. Another way to get the hydrogen is put fossil fuels through an expensive chemical process to extract the hydrogen. So everything you've heard hyping hydrogen powered cars and the like has been just that: Hype. Hydrogen costs more energy than it generates.

The Bush energy policy tries to drive a middle road between what the industry wants (making it easier to increase supply) and what the environmental lobby wants (making it easier for consumers to conserve energy). It has been critisized a lot since it was first released because it does not promote conservation much. The issue has largely disappeared from the media since the energy plan was released, but the huge "energy crisis" it was designed to combat turns out to have not really existed, so we're left with a plan that is mostly short-term supply increase, and little effort into the long-term strategy of increasing efficiency.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

Gay Marriage:

I am against this because marriage is between a man and a women and its sad enough what our culture has done to the word marriage with an almost 50% divorce rate, there is no reason to degrade it any further than it has gone.

The Judeo-Christian religious definition of marriage that we use is between man and woman, yes. But just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it can't change. I direct your attention to the slavery debate...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Bush: There is only 1 problem with basiclly anything he has done while in office and that is the Patriot Act. I find parts of this disturbing because of the power it gives the government and law enforcement and the Last thing this country needs is a government with more power.

Kerry:
Doesn't come off to me as a very nice guy, everytime I see him he has a weird cringe on his face, but this is not the main reason I dislike Kerry and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has no ideas anymore all they do is ***** and moan about everyting. Kerry also has switched back and forth on alot of key issues in a short ammount of time, he says what he thinks has the best chance of getting him elected and has no opinions of his own. Also The Democratic Party accused President Bush of being AWOL while he was supposed to be serving in the National Guard and had no evidence to back it up, these kind of unbackedup accusations from either side are unacceptable and sad.

I find many other things with the Bush presidency disturbing, other than the Patriot Acts championed by Mr. Ashcroft. For one, the extreme secrecy and lying about various issues: Clear Skies Initiative, which loosened pollution requirements on industry, Healthy Forests Initiative, which loosened logging restrictions, the continued refusal to release who had a hand in creating the administration's energy policy, pressuring intelligence agencies to come up with convenient facts about other countries' weapons, releasing severely underestimated costs for the healthcare bill and the Iraq war to Congress, on, and on, and on... Then there's the economy. You can say that the current economic situation is not the fault of the current administration all you want, but it doesn't matter when the economic policy consisted only of huge tax cuts that could not be afforded by the government, and largely ignoring the economy the rest of the time unless media started reporting on the lack of attention to the economy too much. Then a few speeches are made, and nothing is really done, and the media reports go away. Bush has absolutely no idea on how to deal with foreign policy, his economic ideas are a joke, and the military aspect of his administration is largely handled by other people, who are far too trigger-happy for my tastes. I really cannot wait for the election, so Bush can be replaced by someone who will actually *DO* something.

As for Democrats not having any "proof" of Bush going AWOL... I thought the fact that Bush didn't show up for something like 7 months for his National Guard duty was enough to show that he was Absent With Out Leave. That's the definition, in fact.

For the other charges against Democrats, I (sort of) agree. I don't like either of the two parties, but I side with Democrats far more often than I do Republicans.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Elections in general:
I think a canidates military service or lack thereof should not come into consideration in an election or at least the very high place that both sides have put it at.

Ok, here I think you're just flat out wrong, at least in the case of a US Presidential election. Military service has everything to do with the position, since the President is Commander in Chief of the military. I would highly prefer a military leader who actually has some military experience. A President with no military experience will have less support from the very troops he commands, and that is not a good thing for the country. I also think a President who knows what the military life is like will be a little more hesitant to send soldiers into combat situation, and be more concerned with the duration of a conflict. These are things I think Bush has largely ignored.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
If you vote for Condoleezza Rice(current national security advisor) for president in 2008(I hope she runs, but all I have heard are rumors) we can have a very good chance to get a president that isnt a rich old white guy.

Another issue that has come up recently but I don't think will turn into one debated by our current presidential canidates is whether it is constitutional to have "Under God" in the pledge. My opinion on this is as long as you arent made to say it then there is nothing wrong with having it in there. I myself goto a school where it is not maditory and find that this solution works very well.

Sorry, but little chance of this happening. There is still a very large portion of the population around that would not take kindly to a President that is not what my friends call a WASP male (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male). Predjudice still exists in many places in the US, and it is very hard to overcome.

For the Pledge, what most people seem to ignore is the fact that "under God" was inserted during the McCarthy witch hunt era, in addition to the "In God we Trust" on currency, etc. This can barely scratch by the Constitutions prohibition on the government from respecting the establishment of any religion, by arguing that it is a 'spiritual' god mentioned, and not the Christian god in particular. But anyone who truly believes this, in my humble opinion, is being very naive. Would it really harm someone if the pledge was reverted back to "I pledge allegience to the Flag, and to the Republic for which It stands, One Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All"? I personally think the original is far more patriotic and inclusive, which is what the US is supposed to be. All those who are complaining about changing it back also happen to be Christians it seems...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Ok well I think thats all I wanted to say for now but most likely I will have more later. And everyone this is a thread about politics, lets make sure it stays that way and not into a flame war as many threads like this do(I have seen this happen on other forums and highly doubt it could happen here but it doesn't hurt to be careful)

Oh, I'm sure we all can remain civil.

There's probably some stuff in this post that could be considered flamebait, I'll be editing later to make things a bit more civil... but I gotta run now. Apologies in advance, no intention to insult anyone was intended (really!).