Just remember, my vote for Bush will essentially disqualify one your Kerry votes. Remember that when you pull the lever. Your vote means nothing.
Watch the day pass. It takes all of 15 seconds to click through. It's a six page long article and I don't feel like digging the relevant portions up.
I've been hearing a lot of talk about not letting the terrorist influence our election. Well it looks like they already have.
I'm going to post something on topic I'm strongly leaning towards Kerry. But you're a self-proclaimed libertarian! Don't most of you folks usually vote Republican? Yeah, as a group, libertarians usually vote Republican. I, on the other hand, feel that George Bush is a bigger threat to libertarian ideals than John Kerry. Short summary: I'm fiscally conservative and very socially liberal. John Kerry is fiscally and socially liberal. George Bush is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. With Kerry, I get something I like out of him, while Bush has nothing to offer to me. Long story: On the fiscal side, which is less important to me: Bush is spending like a madman. Even without the war, his discretionary spending is well above Clinton's, and this coming from a candidate who claimed to be pro-small government while campaigning. Fool me once... At least Kerry promises to balance the budget. Since a fellow Democrat did that (Clinton), I'm more inclined to believe him. Now, for social policies. John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, is on a personal crusade on p*rnography. Now, I agree that some p*rnography is disgusting, and I would never watch it, but that is a decision I make by myself. p*rnography is made with consenting adults, watched by consenting adults, and I don't see why it's the government's business to tell people not to watch the stuff. Gay marriage? Staunchly for it. Bush's insistence on treating homosexuals like second-class citizens is completely disgusting to me. If Kerry gets elected, he might have a chance to nominate Supreme Court justices. Specifically, Supreme Court justices who would be more inclined to support the causes I agree with (gay marriage, no censorship, pro-choice). This is why I'm leaning towards Kerry. Maybe something will happen during the debates that will sway my opinion, but I'm not counting on it.
I'm a true undecided. I hate the political double talk and the string of broken promises of politicians. It always seems to be a choice of the lesser of two evils and I don't think it is much different this time. (my voting history 88 Bush 92 Perot 96 Clinton 2000 Bush) I probably won't make up my mind 100% until I'm in the booth voting. I'm pro personal freedom - draw slight edge Kerry due to Ashcroft I'm anti big government - Draw - both sides want big government I'm pro choice - edge Kerry I'm pro gun rights for law abiding citizens - edge Bush I want a president who is well spoken - edge Kerry I'm anti war on drugs - draw - bush started it, clintion and bush perpetuated it I'm pro capital punishment - edge bush I want a president who is not in the pocket of special interests - draw I'm anti big deficit - slight edge Kerry due to unknown I want to take care of America first - Draw - both will contiue to fund other nations before helping us at home I'm anti UN - edge Bush War on Terror Short Term - Bush War on Terror long term - Kerry Affordable health care - draw - no chance from either canidate As you can see I'm torn but I always vote even in little local elections without fail.
Then you have bought into the fear. The 'terror alerts', the constant flow of ingrained fear that has been fed into this country for the last few years, has worn on you. You are voting, both considering the decision making in this country - including the lives of our armed forces - in fear. There was terrorism long before GWB. There will be terrorism long after GWB. That's the key - that there is a 'war on terror' - that somehow our current administration is going to put an end to it - is all rhetoric. You are not going to destroy all the sources of terrorism in the world. You are not. Especially not alone. And we couldnt' even destroy the source that specifically attacked us. For the first time, it came to our shores. This is true. And this is unprecedented. And for the briefest of moments we were doing something meaningful. With tons of support, we had a target that had done such an awful thing, and we were going to find it and teach it that terrorism will not stand. Then everything went to crap. We didn't even find the b*stard who did it. We didn't even completely obliterate his organization. We didn't even finish the job in the country we invaded trying to smoke him out. Is he dead? Who knows. Does it even matter anymore? Not really. And that's what's really sad. And then things got worse and worse. And instead of having the support of the world behind us, instead of showing that we are chasing down the people that actually attacked us, instead of showing that we are capable of protecting ourselves and still thinking logically and reasonably, we went on yet another tangent. We had a chance to actually make a difference, to actually show what it was like to have a relatively united front go against a heinous act and wipe it out completely - thereby increasing our safety - and we blew it. If anything - and of course this is my own personal opinion here - we have made more enemies in the last few years. We are less safe now than we should be. Our military stretched thin. Less respect in the global community. More reasons for those that already hated us to find others to hate us. I do not mean to insult you at all Chance, really - please do not take this that way; but the reasons you listed, to me, are simply driven by an emotion that - and let's be honest - the current administration in all actuality benefits from. Do they instill it purposely? I wont' go as far to say that. But there is no doubt to me that those who have not allowed those fears to override other reasoning are seeing the current state of the world much differently than those that have. Chance, I will tell you why I can't bring myself to vote for GWB. This is, essentially, for me, what occured: 1. 9-11 happens. 2. With an almost unilateral show of support, it becomes clear the US must take a stand against those that attacked us. Bin Laden and the Al Quaeda terrorist network. 3. We invade Afghanistan, hunting Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. 4. We do not find Bin Laden, do some damage to Al Quaeda but do not destroy it. 5. We invade Iraq. I see a problem with this chain of events. WHATEVER the motivation, what happened was this: Our emotions; our fury, our anger, our sadness, our fear....all of this was used to gather support for an invasion of Iraq. At the time when the word 'terrorist' held more weight than usual, we were steered in the direction of invading Iraq. And we accepted it because our emotions were high, were played like a drum, and we - as a country as a whole - were too divided to do anything else. FOR WHATEVER REASONS, the administration used the death of 3000 people, a shocking tragedy, to help push an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AGENDA. They used the memory of those people's deaths to fuel their support for their next military action...which had very little (or maybe even nothing) to do with the tragedy to begin with. We don't even know for sure, which is bad enough to begin with. And that disgusts me. And it is why I can not support giving the Administration that did it more time in the White House.
I'm with you on that Rokkit, well said. Some people here are still too blind and don't understand what's going outside the US.
I don't really remember hearing too much about the "War on Drugs" in Highschool. (Grad 87) Maybe I was just too stoned to remember, so sue me. I do know it has been escalating ever since and both parties seem set on continuing it. So many misguided and wasted resources.
"Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman Goering
