2004 Presidential Election.

[rextorres]

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

[csebal]

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.

[Jack Simth]

rextorres said:
- I am still trying to understand why it is that the NRA et.al. think that banning assault rifles is a bad thing.

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.

[Atrocities]

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.

[rextorres]

Post deleted by rextorres

[Atrocities]

Things are not always what they seem.

[rextorres]

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.

[Atrocities]

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.)

[Gandalf Parker]

rextorres said:
Are you saying that clean air, clean water, public schools, social security, police and fire protection, etc. is too much to ask?

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

[Renegade 13]

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.