Okay. Here's the deal. After being inspired by some of Mort-Hog's words, I've decided to set this thing up. After reading his posts, I realized that all we've done so far is:

• Insult the candidates
• Cast our vote for one or the other without reasoning why
• Trying to "debate" using the two methods above

[/color]
In this thread, you will work out not only who you would vote for, but WHY , in a calm, rational, and logical manner. I stress that you respect the views of other people, because politics are highly subjective, as I'm sure all of us here are able to understand. As such, it will get us nowhere to flame, belittle, or heatedly "debate" with other people about their beliefs. You can debate if you must, but keep it impersonal. I don't see it as necessary, though, since "political debate" is an oxymoron.

To help us along, I will provide a generic template to get us started:

Issue: Civil Rights
I believe John Kerry would not only be less of a detriment to our civil rights than George Bush, but he would work to procure more civil rights for Americans. I'll tell you why I think so. First and foremost, Bush is for an amendment that would ban gay marriage, which I view to be a civil right. I understand that many people would disagree that it is a civil right, but I believe that it is. Kerry supports no such amendment.

Next, there have been a few other incidents during Bush's four years that leave me wondering about my civil rights. When visiting different areas of the country, he has often Set up "no protest" zones; areas which protestors are arbitrarily relegated to if they wish to protest. It is my opinion that this could possibly be a violation of the first amendment of the constitution, and it's downright creepy.

As my last example, Bush supports the Patriot act. I do not. In my opinion, it walks a thin line between enabling my government to protect me, and discarding certain civil rights (mostly privacy). This is only how I feel about it. Feel free to read the two opposing viewpoints I posted about the subject.

Issue: Education
I side with Kerry's education policy. Although I feel it is a shame that he supports Bush's No Child Left Behind act, I believe he will be the lesser of two evils in education reform. First, I believe Kerry will provide schools with the necessary funding required to meet the standards of the act, whereas Bush is tending to use vouchers as a cop-out. I do not believe vouchers are a good idea at all. They encourage the degradation of the education infrastructure; not only the quality of teachers and education, but the physical facilities, which become neglected when vouchers allow parents to send their children to more affluent schools.

Second, John Kerry will do much more to support higher education. It is my belief that the federalism of universities is the answer to spiraling costs. I know, it usually works the opposite way, but not in this case. Kerry noted that tuition costs have raised 35% in the last five years, and, as far as I am aware, Bush's higher education record looks ugly indeed.

Conclusion:
There you have it. I have outlined my reasoning on two of the issues I feel most strongly about. There are many more, which are of lesser importance to me. I did not outline my feelings on them because of lack of time, and not wanting to get into the stickier issues (foreign policy). Now, to be fair, I feel I must give credit to Bush where it is due. I side with him on his policy for abortion [top of the page] and (to a lesser extent) gun control.

Now go, make me proud! I know you can discuss the actual ISSUES rationally, while respecting others' opinions. Let's make this the greatest political thread Massassi has ever seen!

I'm too tired and the chiefs are on, plus no one will give a crap and none of you really are worth writing an English paper to convince when no one will change their mind. I choose to watch some football rather than batter my head against the wall of politics and slander.

EDIT: IMO: Gay people cannot reproduce. Allowing gay marriage is like giving tax benifits to people who want to screw each other for kicks. Being gay is either a disease or a hobby, because if it was genetic natural selection would have killed it off long ago, seeing as how gay people can not reproduce naturally. I don't wanna pay to sponsor two people of the same gender screwing each other and calling it love when it is only lust. If they wanna talk they can just be friends. Gay people can't reproduce and create the next generation, it's unnatural and far too creepy. It's your right to let you screw another person of your own gender, but the people shouldn't have to pay taxes for it.

You're missing the point. That's what I would wish people wouldn't do. Don't try to convince people one way or the other. And people will surely "give a crap". It will be interesting to hear thoughtful arguments for once rather than the standard prattle. People like myself and Mort-Hog and others are interested in WHY people feel the way they do. This format, I am sure, it far more likely to change peoples' minds than another format. Here, people won't feel the need to be defenseive. They just lay their beliefs out on the table for others to see.

Now, if you're done hijacking the thread, people are trying to make progress here. I'd really like this one to stay on track.

me too, i don't really like the chiefs but monday night football kicks butt, go KERRY!!!!
(I have plenty if reasons for my choice but i will discuss that later on in this thread when questions arise)

[bad attempt at pacification through mockery]

WTF!?

You have your football and the chiefs, I have my vendetta against purple dinosaurs.

[Just a misunderstanding. Nothing to see here.]

Wow, this thread got off to a very bad start, freelancer will not be pleased.

Anyway...
Here's a quick look at where Sen. John Kerry and President Bush stand on the central issues in the race for the White House.
In their own words
Kerry: "I'm running for President to make the country we love safer, stronger, and more secure. I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again committed to leaving no American behind."
Bush: “My campaign is going to take a hopeful and optimistic message to the American people. I hope you will show your support by taking action in your community. Vice President Cheney and I are focused on the nation's top priorities -- strengthening the economy, protecting the homeland, and winning the war on terror. We will continue to earn the confidence of the American people by working to keep this nation prosperous, strong and secure.”

Bush opposes abortion and kerry likes legal abortion
I am for legal abortion

Bush doesn;t have much of a plan for the goverments budget, ecxept to decrease the increse of spending. kerry plans to stop the tax cuts on wealthy americans.

Bush is pro-voucher and likes private schools. He favors more logging of federal forests to prevent fires. Favors a gradual cap on mercury emissions. Favors storing the nation’s nuclear waste in Nevada. Favors moving towards a non-polluting, hydrogen economy. Withdrew the United States from U.N.-backed climate change treaty, saying it was unfair. The Sierra Club calls Bush's environmental record the worst of any president. Bush says local and state governments often can do a better job than federal regulators.I really hate that. I am a enviromentalist and my dad is a member of the sierra club. i read most of the stuff he gets.
I am very tired noe and don't feel like doing much more, maybe later.

Awesome idea, Freelancer. It's a shame idiots are ruining it.

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but



I think you're right. Plus, if it did get off to a good start people would be arguing three diffrent threads in one. In other words, big mess. :p

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, but could we have an "IMO" or something? I'm not going to try to debate with you, because it's a valid belief. Thanks for laying it out for all to see. It's something to think about.

Geez you guys.

I am voting for Bush because:

Economy:
I believe the tax cuts are helping the economy. It is NOT in a crap hole like most would believe. Markets have been doing well lately. The DJIA is back above 10K. The unemployment numbers were down. Although economic indicators were down in August and September, we still have growth in the GDP.Hell even San Diego economics are doing well. I've always been a supply-side economics guy. I think that giving people back more of their money is a good thing instead of having 535 people decide for you. Yes, consumers are not as confident as they once were, but once consumer confidence levels rise, the GDP should rise.

Foreign Policy:
President Bush relied on the intelligence gathered from the CIA and MI6 and Russian intel. Three seperate intelligence agencies all said that WMDs did exist in Iraq. This was in complete defiance of 14 U.N. resolutions passed over the decade since the first Gulf War. Bush asked both the U.S. Congress and the U.N. to basically do something about it. The U.N. passed another resolution stating that Saddam had to comply or face action. He didn't and thus we went in. I supported this and so did John Kerry. He believed the SAME intelligence provided to him as was the president. He voted in favor of the war. Now, if it turns out that the intelligence was bad. People MUST be held accountable because LOTS of resources and lives went and still are going into Iraq. Any clear thinking American can attest to that no matter what ideology. I'm all for honesty and I do not believe that Bush lied to us. Personally I believe Bush should be demanding more from the CIA. Bush also took a stand on this issue. He didn't poll numerous times for opinion. He made a decision based on what facts and information he was given and acted. He knew damn well what the consequences would be. That's leadership. As far as our allies, France was shown to have economic interests in Saddam remaining in power. I am still unclear as to Germany's reason on why they did not support.

Misc domestic stuff:
I am in all favor of more privatization of health care and not some one large national health care (HillaryCare ring a bell?) an idea supported by Bush. I do not trust the governement to manage the health care for a population of 280 million. My chief concern is fraud. People who do not legitamately need gov't funded health care yet get it. I do not want my tax dollars paying for somone's care making $500K/yr. Get it yourself damnit! I think the private sector would be better since they are motivated to profit and not lose that profit to fraud. The issue regarding gay marriage/benefits. The word marriage has always been used to define a union between man and woman and now a minority wants to redefine something for the majority. If homosexuals want to get married...as much as a disagree with it, the effort to physically stop this practice is monumental and endless. So I say let them. What I do NOT like at all are "gay pride parades." Ok, you're gay...uhh...TFTI? Do you see me flaunting "white pride or Catholic pride?" No. I would be chastised greatly. A Constitutional amendment is a bit drastic. It is in, essence legislating morality, and we all know how that goes.

Those are some of my beliefs.. I am who I am. Whew that was a long post.

I'm voting for Bush because I like his viewpoint on the more important topics. For me, there really is no choice because even if I wasn't satisfied with Bush, Kerry is definitely not someone I want to see made President.

-------------------------------

And here's why:

Gay marriage: First, let me say that I am opposed to gay marriage and would love to see the movement crushed. That said, gays *do* have the right to marry themselves under the constitution. And I think that it will inevitably be legalized.

However, just because they can get married doesn't mean they should get tax breaks. Gays aren't going to have any kids - they don't get any benifits.

I like that Bush is against gay marriage. And while this is unconstitutional, I'm still going to vote for someone that believes in what I do.

The War in Iraq This is one topic that really pisses me off sometimes. I hear so many people complaining about how the war is a mistake, how we're not doing any good, and especially how Bush is trying to lead this effort without any support. That is just complete nonsense. All you have to do is look at the facts - there's nothing to debate.

Is the war a mistake? Look at how many Iraqis have been freed from Saddam's rule. Are those people better off being murdered left and right by an oppressive ruler? Oh hell no. Didn't Saddam completely ignore all those UN Resolutions? Yes he did. And what was the UN going to do about it? Nothing. I don't believe there was too much of a threat to the US from Saddam, but I would have supported the war even without that possibility.

Bush showed he had the backbone to do what needed to be done. He enforced the UN Resolutions and the Iraqi people will eventually get a democratic government.

The trouble is that Americans (and the world in general) are too concerned with themselves to worry about people elsewhere. We need to stop complaining and see this thing through.

I'm voting for Bush because he's shown he's the kind of president that *will* take action. I'm surely not going to vote for someone who wants to lead a more "sensitive" war. Kerry has said for a long while that Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with. Now that Kerry needs the votes from those anti-war democrats out there, he's taking back most of what he said. He wouldn't do that if he believed in what he said originally.

Abortion: Now with abortion, it all depends on when life begins. This is very much a matter of opinion, but there are some obvious things here that most people overlook.

The most important thing IMO is that these unborn children have lives. This life should be constitutionally protected. It's not like these children are just lumps of flesh inside a woman. They are alive, they are human, and they feel pain. How can people think that it's humane to rip apart an unborn child with a vacuum tube (or any of the grotesque instruments of torture that are in use)?

You pretty much have to think that aborting a fetus should be illegal. But what about before that? Does an unborn child suddenly become a person when it reaches three months? What kind of logic is that? The exact time is a matter of argument which mostly depends on what you believe.

As for myself, I think that you can't be too careful when it comes to human life. When a child is conceived, it is IMO a child and deserves to be treated as such.

Bush supports my views on this topic. Democrats have traditionally caved in to liberal groups like the fem libs, and I can fully see Kerry trying to appease that group.

---------------------------

Take a look at Kerry for a moment, instead of focusing on what he says he'll do:

War Record: I'm sick of Kerry talking about his personal experience in the military and what he did. He only spent four months over there, and while it isn't clear what he did over there, it is clear what he did when he came back.

He joined the VVAW, testified to committing attrocities, went to Paris to talk to the Viet Cong (is this treason or what), and launched his political carreer by opposing the war.

This alone ought to be enough to disqualify him, but add to this the fact that he's trying to run as an anti-war candidate while he, in fact, strongly supported the war. He shouldn't have a chance.

---------------------------

I don't think my logic is unreasonable, and I don't think I'm being biased - for me, Bush is a clear winner. I don't agree with Bush on everything (such as the aforementioned environmental record, and the way his administration caters to corporations), and I definitely don't like Cheney - but Bush is still better than Kerry.

---------------------------

So now you all have another POV to consider.

Nice topic, Freelancer.

What about St. Patrick's day?



So he's not allowed to be against a war that didn't help anybody and only resulted in tens of thousands of wasted lives? And I don't think discussions with the enemy is "treason". Otherwise wars could only end with the complete and utter annihilation of the other side.

---

MY VIEWS: I can't vote in America (obviously), but if I could I suppose I would vote for Kerry, because he's not as far to the loony-right as Bush.

GAY MARRIAGE :
Kerry is not vehemently against allowing a group of people to be happy; a happiness that would have no tangible negative result on anyone else. Additionally, Kerry is not attempting to pass a constitutional amendment TAKING AWAY rights rather than giving them, which is what constitutions usually (and should) do. Are there any other than prohibition that take rights away?

People might not want to pay for two men to be married. Frankly, I don't want to pay for any married couple. They're not doing anything for me. However, marriage is more than just a tax cut. Marriage is the right to visit a sick partner in hospital. Marriage is the right to custody for your children. Marriage is a sign of commitment. And I don't think people should have the power to take away these rights just because they don't like what the couple does in the bed room. That's incredibly selfish.

FOREIGN POLICY:
I am unsure of Kerry's policy on this, but Bush supports a haphazard policy of invading countries with dictators, apparently. However, the method by which he chooses these dictators is unknown. While apparently Saddam had "WMD", according to some dubious sources, so did the USA. So does Russia, Britain, France, and a bunch of other countries. Having weapons is not a reason to be invaded. Being a non-democratic country is not really a reason, either, as there are a whole bunch of non-democratic countries around.

So why did Bush decide to invade another country? Faulty information that said that Iraq might be able to attack the USA sometime. Maybe. So is this the "No one can should be able to stand up to the USA" doctrine? If so, frankly, I don't like it. I thought I lived in a sovereign nation, not a country subject to the USA's military whims.

People can say "we freed Iraq! I don't care if we had a good reason, it's a good result!". It would seem that the Iraqis are not, in fact, "liberated", as large numbers of the country are under the control of murderous warlords. Further, additional numbers have only been "liberated" from life itself, when bombs fell on their house and blew them up. And finally, who are all these people attacking US troops? Terrorists, from what the Bush administration would have you believe. So, Iraqis defending their country from an invading army are terrorists, now? Sure, their methods may be a bit poor (televising executions and all that), which is against the Geneva convention for POWs, but then, the USA hasn't been exactly fantastic in that regard, either, has it?

ECONOMIC:
Bush's plan seems to be "tax cuts for the rich!". Like the excise tax cut that only affected the rich. This is not a plan I see as either fair or economically sound. I'm sure Spork would be better at the economics stuff, but I think a few rich people and masses of poor, where the rich are not subject to tax as the poor are, strikes me more of pre-Revolutionary France than anywhere else.

MISCELLANEOUS:
Bush seems to think he's on a religious jihad against, well, someone. "Terrorists", apparently, which is a vaguely defined group and seems to include everyone with whom he disagrees. America is a country founded on principles of freedom and equality, and Bush's Patriot Act, which limits freedom, and his desire to "Christianise" a country that was founded on religious freedom, seem extraordinarily contrary to me. It astounds me that it is people who stand up for freedom and equality that are accused of being "un-American".

---

To sum up, I really don't know what Kerry's policies are, except I doubt they could be more extreme and unfair than Bushes, so it is him I support.

useless blabbler....going on...

It's more the fact that the relationship is almost entirely based on lust that makes it an unstable environment for commitment and custody of living being, which they can not create.


You shouldn't try to justify beheadings. Iraq is better off free from Saddam than before, the average citizen stands an actual chance of a life when we get past all this crap with people commiting suicide attacks and bombings. I'd think that recently it is only going up because they want to influence the election, when they see that they did no good they will whither in their dedication, not totally go away. Iraqi's aren't the one's "defending their country" either, most of the attacks are from outside terrorists coming in. The war was not just about WMDs, and Sadam did have the potential to hurt us, there was a reason for the Gulf War, he was a threat then and he was a few years ago. Beign non-democratic also isn't a reason, but being a dictatorship with large means to attack your neighbors and hijack the world market as well as torturing citizens and supporting terrorism is.



Accoring to Kerry my family is rich, and my family is still fighting their way out of debt. And he wants to put more taxes on a family like mine. Tax cuts are a good thing, the money all comes back to businesses anyways most of the time and that has an exponential effect.



It's not good to assume your candidate will do better with no sound reason to do so. You're rolling the dice and 5 of the 6 sides are bad.

Feel free to not quote parts of my post that you don't want to respond to.



1. This makes no sense.
2. What is "lust", what differentiates it from "love", and what makes you feel that you can accurately determine how others feel? Further, what makes you think that you can make arbitrary decisions about their happiness based on this crystal-ball-induced knowledge?



I'm not. Murder is awful. Beheading people is murder. Bombing them is murder. Both should stop.



Right. Saddam was a threat to Kuwait. Not the USA. And Saddam reasonably could have expected the USA to back him up. After all, they had a decade earlier when Iraq invaded Iran after a popular revolution. Oh, I forgot, it was the US backing a dictator over the popular wishes of the people, again. Further, since some of the people Saddam was busy murdering with communists, he was found agreeable to be sold weapons and jets. (Of course, things in Iran didn't turn out so well...) This war was, incidentally, one that made the USA richer in its prolonging, and a war in which over a million people died. Let's not even mention the chemical warfare possibly used.



There's no evidence Saddam supported terrorists. Moreover, Saddam would have to be an idiot (which he wasn't, though this does not exclude his being an evil dictator) to support them. Saddam is not a Muslim, so he would not agree with the ideology of Islamic Terrorists. Further, Saddam was a dictator, and would not want people who resist against governments in his country or receiving any support from him!



Right. Here, Warren Buffet, one of the richest guys in the world, lampoons a dividend tax cut plan because it would reduce the amount of tax he'd pay to 3%; while his secretary would still pay 30%. Further, he said:



Don't get me wrong; I'm not making the USA out to be evil (and I'm certainly not implying its citizens of it). And I think my own government is pretty damn bad, too. Neither the USA or Australia (Or Britain, or France, or Germany, or Swahili) are Angel Countries, determined to help the poor and downtrodden in the world (to their demerit, say I). So don't make them out to be.

this about sums up my thoughts also.

Well, Germany for one is doing a far better job of doing just than any of the other countries mentioned.

I'm not voting for Bush for the reasons given to not vote for him.

I'm not voting for Kerry for the reasons given to not vote for him.

I'm voting for Nader, without any knowledge of his policies. Why? It takes at least one vote away from Kerry and Bush, and I don't have to be worried in the least bit about the guy I voted for screwing up the country. In addition, should I feel that whoever wins the the election warrants a complaint, voting for Nader will quiet those who by whatever backward logic, feel that you have no right to voice a complaint when you didn't vote for anyone.

[best left for PM]

I guess I'll waste my time to post my policy preferences, even though I know that 90% of Massassi will just insult it without thinking, as computer geeks generally have little to no knowledge of political science.

• Economy: Bush claims that his tax cuts are helping the economy, but I find it hard to tell that anybody aside from the rich is getting a benefit greater than an annual shopping spree (or an annual opportunity to push back bills). After taking a look at his tax refunds for income tax, it appears that it does favor the rich; people in the working class appear to recieve 1.6% of their income back, while those with six-figure incomes are recieving close to 4% of their income per year. What is there to explain this 250% difference? I know there are obviously fixed ammounts of tax credits that make income tax more progressive, but not to this magnitude.
  
  Although I am heavily a capitalist at heart, I do favor some degree of wealth redistribution, if it helps increase the ranks and strength of the middle class; I think limiting a tax refund to, say, $5,000-8,000 a year should be enough to work (only by making some $150,000-250,000 annually or more would you see a decrease in returns), and it would save 40-50% of the money sent out in the tax cut plan. This would put the vast majority of the money in the hands of the middle class, and would help give the federal government more funds. (given the other expenses with education, health reform, and the war on terror, this is badly needed cash) Since John Kerry's tax plan seems to resemble this more closely, he wins this arena.
  
• War on Terror: No matter what is said, I don't think that Iraq can be counted as part of the War on Terrorism. They had no WMDs, they had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and the morale of Saddam Hussein's army was so low, the vast majority just surrendered to the Coalition forces. This obviously means that Saddam Hussein was by no means a threat to even US interests in the Middle East (being Israel and Saudi Arabia), let alone freedom, democracy, and liberal capitalist (read: American/Western) values arround the world. While it was a gigantic mistake, it would be an even bigger one to pull out. Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable, albeit non-free, nation. Crime was incredibly low, any Islamic fundamentalists got to meet Saddam's secret police forces in an interrogation room, and people generally didn't have to worry about becomming a victim, save for the fact if they were too vocal against the baathist party. (Saddam killed very few of his citizens; he may have gassed 5,000 Kurds, but very few incidents of executing "traitors" ever happened at other times). Also, services were well-maintained; after the Gulf War bombings of Baghdad, Saddam's forces had electricity returned for 100% of the population within a week.
  
  Once the Coalition forces came, the people supposedly became free. However, looters ran wild across the cities, burning and pillaging what they could, and most citizens actually needed to carry firearms to be safe from muggers. Electricity and running water are still rationed, and some parts of Baghdad are still without it; they are obviously worse-served by the Coalition than by Saddam. Worse yet, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that as much as 70% of the Iraq people won't be able to vote in the first election! Not only are they no longer secure, they are still not really free at all! At the very least, we could have given them democracy already!
  
  Also, Bush has shown that he is horrible with creating alliances. Though he mentioned Poland being an ally throughout the debate, it now appears that Poland will be pulling out its meager ammount of troops in Iraq in 2005. That means that US forces, which are already stretched to the limit, will take even more work. I wish I could've supported Bush here (after all, making an active effort to combat terrorism is one of the good ideas his administration has come up with), but he has completely de-railed his efforts here, or was getting back ol' Saddam the entire purpose of this "war on terror"?

I'll add more later.

Wow, this is going better than expected. We really haven't degenerated into a full-scale flamewar yet, after, what 21 posts? Yeah. Definitely a new record. Keep 'em coming guys! It's really interesting to hear your objective reasoning on the issue.

EDIT: I just wanted to say: you're not waswting your time, nottheking. People will read over your beliefs and probably learn something from it. The only reason you'd be wasting your time is if you wrote what you did for the purpose of persuasion.

That is pretty stupid. "I don't know his stance on things, but he isn't Bush or Kerry!"

How the hell can you call someone's beliefs stupid? There's no such thing as a "stupid" well-thought out decision. It's like calling someone stupid because they listen to pink floyd or something. Wolfy graciously offered his opinion on the issue for everyone to think about, and you thank him by insulting it? I'm sorry, SAJN, this just doesn't compute to me.

Questions:

1. Would any of you voting for Bush be considered a swing voter?

If so, were you ever in favor of Kerry? And if yes to that, at what point did you figure out you wanted Bush for president and why?

For anyone who is a swing voter:

2. Would US support for a genocide response force through the UN cause you to approve/disapprove of Bush? (force would allow the UN to monitor and quickly react to genocides before we have another repeat of Rwanda.)

3. If the US sent troops to Cyprus to aid the United Nations security efforts there, would that make you like Bush more/less?

4. If Bush gives Israel the greenlight to attack Iran nuclear facilities, would that change your mind on him?


Ok, I'm done.

Interesting questions, though I'm pretty sure you won't find many people who have actually changed their minds on who to vote for recently. That being said, I am actually a swing voter and I have changed my mind in the past 6 months. I was all in favor of bush until I realized our pretenses for war were borked. I don't care if he had rotten intelligence from the CIA, Russia, and other intelligence agencies. Call me an ignorant dolt, but I still hold it against bush. After all, he has control over the CIA, does he not? But that's just the way I feel.

Then, when I compared Bush's domestic policy against Kerry's, that sealed the deal for me. Bush is interested in policing the world, while Kerry is in favor of fixking our country, which is what the president is supposed to do. Fix our country, not other countries. But again, my opinion.

As for your questions:

2) It might nudge my approval for Bush slightly higher, but not enough to flip my vote.

3) It would have no effect on me.

4) Very interesting question. After a lot of thought, I really don't know. But since when does Israel need our green light to do anything? It really doesn't, but directly attacking Iran would obviously have severe repurcussions against them. For the sake of stability, I don't really think it would be wise to encourage any country to attack any other, especially in the middle east. It would add to Bush's perception as a warmonger.

A lot of recent articles believe that if Bush drops in the polls, his October Surprise might be to endorse an Israeli attack on Iran. A lot of analysts believe that Israel wants to attack Iran before it becomes a nuclear threat, but they're waiting for an opportunistic time. (I.E. US endorsement) They're unlikely, for example, to want to do it while Kerry is president because Kerry would be less helpful to them as far as military support than Bush would be.

Thanks for answering. I'm actually doing their survey to see how likely people outside high school debate would buy the arguments that are made every round.

I would say that I was a swing voter. When Bush was elected in 2000 I thought it was going to be an amazing 4 years, what with the Republicans controlling both houses as well after 2002. Then last year I started getting into the political affairs realm because my major is International Affairs (yes, some geeks care enough to know) and I realized all the closed doors and mismanagement of not only the budget, but the military, intelligence, and domestic policy resulted in a quagmire, not only in Iraq but also in America.

The Patriot Act is what tipped the scales for me. I started investigating what it actually was granting the government the authority to do and it scared me that Americans could actually vote for things like this and still stand up and say they were enjoying the blessings of liberty. The entire piece of legislation smacks of McCarthy era politics.

anyways, i gotta run my ride just showed up but i'll continue with my Political Testimony later

Ugh. I can't imagine Bush starting war #3 during his four year term. But how is it ethical to start a war just before you go out of office?

It's not stupid at all. Nader will never win -- I know this, you know this, Nader knows this. While I don't completely disagree with Bush or Kerry, I do disagree with them on key issues that I'm not willing to sacrifice and help put one or the other into power.

However, by voting for Nader, I get a third party one vote closer to gaining federal funding (and thus increasing the chance of a three-party election), and it's as close to a vote of no-confidence as I can get. I'm not seeing any bad here.

Sigh, I'm moving to Switzerland.

Grow up first

You should quote the previous person if you are referring to an individual so as to avoid confusion. In this case it is pretty obvious you are referring to Kieran, but make it clear next time.

I am torn between "you are just a teenage troll with too much testosterone" and "you really are just like that"

NADER!

Economy

I dislike Bush's ongterm economic policy. Sure, for a couple years it'll stimulate the economy a little bit, but if these tax cuts are held in place and spending continues at its current rate, then inflation will destroy the value of the dollar and bad things will happen. I think we either need to increase taxes or decrease spending, and Bush isn't planning to do either of these.

Moral Issues

I oppose Bush's stance on gay marriage. I see no reason why gay people shouldn't get married, as it hurts no one, although I don't think they should get tax breaks. They should, however, get the rights to take care of their partner in the hospital or whatever.

The one thing that I really like about Bush is his view on abortion. I personally consider it murder and one of the biggest problems today. Abortion should be banned.

Foreign Policy

I don't think either candidate has the answers as far as foreign policy goes. We need to be tough, but we also need friends. The United States cannot continue to "go it alone". Get rid of the UN and replace with a global organization that is effective. What we really need is a worldwide EU type of thing.

Patriot Act

The Patriot Act needs to go. The act eliminates vital checks and balances built in to our government, violates out privacy, and gives unprecedented power to the executive branch and the Justice Department.



I agree.

Oh, right so ending the reign of a person who tortured and killed his people, and even tested his biological warfare weapons on is a waste? It also may have prevented one of the worst disasters in modern times. We know he had the labs to create WMD's and we know he was working on them. He may have already had them, we don't know. He had tow weeks, a huge dessert, and friendly territories to give them too. The time to stop such a man is before[I/] he has the weaponry, not after.




Ignoring the moral aspect, it's a worthless practice that contributes nothing to society but AIDS. I can't see why we should encourage it. Besides, your reasoning stinks. You could use the same line of reasoning to make the argument that killing people made you happy, so there should be a law against murder.



As for the killing of civilians that was kept incredibly low. We have smart bombs that can take out pin-point targets. Also, Sadam was a dangerous man who did not have responsibility to have WMD's. He’s also our enemy. You don’t allow your enemy to get as powerful as you just be “fair”. That’s just stupid. As for the Iraqi people, it’s up to them weather they want to co-operate and govern them selves or not. They seems to have trouble getting along with them selves, as there are three different factions in Iraq who all hate each other’s guts.


Your policy seems to be “if they have more than you, take it away.” I’m not rich and I most likely never will. But if people work their buts off to be rich than it’s certainly not right to take away 60% of their income, when I’m only getting 30% taken. Besides, increasing taxes on the rich won’t do hardly any thing. They make up a very small portion of the tax bracket, despite the fact that they pay more than half they own to the government. As for masses of poor, you have got to be kidding! We have huge middle class. The few “poor” in the economy have it much better than the rich did 500 years ago. Anyone, if their willing to work hard enough can make a good fortune. Unless you consider bums the poor of course.



So what is all this extremist Christian 'jihad" stuff I'm hearing about?

Hmm. Ok, for example, let's say that the tax is 50%. In this example, we have two people. One makes $10 million a year, the other makes $25,000 a year.

If you tax them 50%, person one still has $5 million, while person two has $12,500. $12,500 is definitely not enough for ONE person to live on, let along to sustain a whole family. Do you see why the rich can be taxed more? Because they can afford to be.

As far as "The few “poor” in the economy have it much better than the rich did 500 years ago", definitely not. 500 years ago the rich were aristocrats, noblemen who had massive baronies and tremendous income. The poor today oftentimes go hungry, have no health care, poor education, and a not-so-good place to live (as opposed to the manors and castles the rich had 500 years ago..)

As far as there being "few", 38.5 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003.

Do you believe Marriages to be a monogamous relationship? Then if so how would it contribute to the spread of AIDS (which the heterosexual community does fine on its own)?

And the second part of your statement.... WTF?