I really don't like either one. How I wished that McCain had been the Republican nominee back in 2000. If this is how it will turn out, I may vote independent but for this poll I put Republican for Bush. But I am finding it harder and harder to trust him these days.
I think the reason the bbs people are for Kerry is the majority of them do not pay taxes and in still in school...Once you come out to the real world and have responsibilities and pay taxes, you will come to appreciate being a Republican and eliminate useless spending... Carry on...
Generalizations like this one make 'unintelligent' and gullible people like you repulsive. Well as far as I am concerned, I am in the anybody but GWB camp. Anybody.......anybody but bush. Open your eyes my fren.
Hmmm. ~30% republicans ~34% democrats ~33% independents 2/3 of this board are not Democrats!!! 1/3 of this board who are Republicans must be in deep shock.
I believe the original question was if there was a liberal bias, not a democratic bias, on the board. That said, I think most of the independents here would attest to being liberal, which just might prove T_J right.
Look at how skewed the 'independents' are, No Worries. I can't believe even you would trot this argument out here. If you don't think this board is infested with liberals then I don't know what to tell you.
People, quit ragging on this fella. Don't you recognize THE VOICE OF WISDOM when you hear it? If only people like this had spoken out before, we could have saved ourselves years of wasted effort and concern for others. ANd again, please remember the source. A lot of you are trying to get cute with TVOW's last line, drawing some sort of line between Bush going from our biggest surplus to biggest defecit and 'useless spending', but obviously you missed THE VOICE's qualifier: Republicans understand, others don't As such, it is silly trying to break it down in pure numbers, as those like WISDOM who have experienced the real world, and as such are Republican wouldnlt engage in useless spending. Hence, there spending is usefull. It's simple logic.
I suspect that independents consider themselves moderates (liberal on some issues and conservative on others). I also suspect that conservatives more often than not consider anyone who does not agree with them most of the time to be a liberal.
I have never voted for a Demoblican or a Republicrat in a major election, which probably qualifies me for the independent category. In the last election, I was going to vote for McCain, and ended up voting for Nader (hey, it's Texas - no one but Bush could win here.) In this election, I'm voting against Bush. I will also encourage everyone I know to vote against Bush. But, again, since Bush will win the electoral votes of Texas, I will probably vote independent. I don't pay attention to party, I pay attention to necessity. I'd imagine most independent-minded voters are the same.
Basso=independent4bush. Views: Foreign Policy=NeoCon Economic=Tax and Spending Cuts Social Issues= Libertarian-to-liberal which party does that describe? the Liebermann Party?
I hurt your statement a bit. I voted "independent for Kerry" because I am not a democrat, but, if having to choose between the two and no one else, I would vote for Kerry every time. That said, I doubt I will vote for him in the real election. Oh yeah - the point is I am not a moderate.
somebody asked back a few pages whether the votes for kerry were really votes against bush. is there anybody out there who truely feels excited by what John Forbes Kerry (you're welcome, TJ) stands for? although i will vote for bush for much the same reasons bamma outlined above, there's another reason, having to do with pure political theater. If Bush wins, and assuming Cheney stays on the ticker, the 2008 race will be the first election since 1968 without a sitting president or vice-president. Think of the possibilities! A democratic primary with Hillary, Edwards, perhaps Bill Richardson, maybe Evan Byah, and a Republican primary with Rice, Powell, McCain, and Giuliani. Just the thought of it makes me tingle all over...
So you think, basso, that the Democratic Party... On issues of national security, we can't trust the party of appeasement, weakness and political expediency to wage and win the war on terror. The Democrats are as big a threat to our national security with their ill-conceived good intentions as Al Queda is. Courtesy of bama. Sorry to hear that. Carry on.
There is a theory floating around that the Clintons and other Democrats want to throw the election as to give Hillary a chance in 2008, because 2012 will be past her prime. Its all in the timing. They say thats why they back Clark-- because they feel he is good for getting their message across but not strong enough to actually win.
There is also a theory floating around that Osama Bin Laden had been captured months ago, and will be trotted out of his cell by the Bush Administration about 4 weeks before the election.
