Support NeoGAF

[Triumph]

I'm certainly not going to vote for Bush.

But I can't tell myself that Kerry is the best candidate that will be on the ballot this November. He's not, even if Nader can't get on the ballot in Georgia. The modern Democratic party has shifted too far to the center on social issues in an attempt to pander to mainstream American, while at the same time ending up in the pockets of the same corporations and industries as the Republicans.

I don't care if my vote costs Kerry the election. The Democrats have betrayed their traditional party base and values by this horrid, horrid shift that goes back to the early '80's. I refuse to endorse and support a candidate that won't take a stand for liberal issues and causes. Fuck the right wing smear machine for successfully turning "liberal" into a four letter word. Fuck them right in the ear. It is time for an end to the two party system in America, and the sooner the better. I believe that I will attempt to collect signatures to get both Nader and Cobb on the ticket in Georgia. The more choices, the healthier our country will be one day. I can no longer support the Democrats just because they're "not the Republicans". It's time for a change.

 

[Willco]

Uh, do you want a medal to throw or something? I am confused.

 

[Triumph]

Uh, do you want a medal to throw or something? I am confused.

Nah, I'll just content myself to collecting signatures for Ralph and Cobb. I'm actually printing out forms from www.votenader.org right now to get signatures. I'll look into how to get Cobb on the GA ballot as well, but Nader made it super simple on his website.

I don't want a pat on the back or anything, I just wish people would get informed on the issues and realize that the Democratic party is not worth supporting any longer. I would support the Libertarians before I would support a Democrat for President again. Clinton has a heinous record, and Gore would not have been much better.

 

[Willco]

Voting for Nader is like voting for Bush, no matter how you slice it. So I hope you like Republicans more than you like Democrats!

 

[Zilch]

Ugh. Extremists on either end of the political spectrum are so god damn irritating.

 

[heavy liquid]

...

 

[StoOgE]

a vote for nader isnt a vote for Bush. I voted for nader last time around, and was happy to do it for the reasons stated in the first post. I think that the democratic party shifted back to being significantly more liberal than it had been... which is all it took for me to vote for a democrat again.

In any case, at this point my vote is more anti-bush than it is pro-Kerry. I think that Nader is the better candidate, but I would rather put up with dems in office than Bush.

 

[Triumph]

No. Voting for Bush is voting for Bush. I don't endorse his warped worldview and heinous policies. I'm just wary of Kerry; I fear his policies would not be too different.

I'm voting for Ralph Nader, if I must write him in on the ballot so be it. I will likely still vote for Democrats in local and national races, but the times of endorsing the Democratic Nominee for President simply because he's "not Republican" or "not Bush" no longer cuts it. I agree with all of Nader's campaign points, why should I not vote for him? And it's not like Kerry would win Georgia, anyhow.

Finally, Barbra Streisand supports Kerry. This is inexcusable.

 

[Willco]

a vote for nader isnt a vote for Bush.

Yeah, it is. The majority of those who vote for Nader are Democrats or liberals, and those people would normally give their vote to the only party that has a chance of defeating Bush -- the Democrats.

I appreciate your determination and idealism, but let's get real.

 

[Matlock]

When you vote for a third party, you're throwing your vote away!

 

[Archaix]

Voting for Nader is not voting for Bush. Nor is voting for any other candidate not alligned with Democrats or Republicans. If the only choices were Kerry and Bush, I just wouldn't vote. I don't want either to be president, and I'm not about to vote on what may be the "lesser of two evils".

People who want to vote for somebody who is going to win aren't going to be voting for Nader or another lesser known candidate anyway. It's not as though votes are being stolen.

Gore lost the last election because he was incompetent. That's all.

 

[demon]

Here's the reality: there are only two people who have ANY shot whatsoever at winning the election- Bush and Kerry. You know what your vote is going to do, and you know what the consequences will be.

Nader needs to build up popularity at a smaller level first, like state. Just jumping into the presidential race and snagging liberal votes here and there only helps put Bush in the white house.

 

[way more]

I've been having this same argument with my friends.
1. This election is wavering back and forth, your vote may matter.
2. Remember last time?
3. Probably doesn't apply to anyone else, but the only time dems won Colorado was when Perot ran. He stole votes from Bush and we got Clinton in there.

You probably won't change your mind and I can't make you. But for me, life is better when a democrat is in power, how about you?

 

[Hitokage]

The problem is... using the presidential election in attempt to gain legitimacy is pretty much a pipedream. Even if you DID get Nader in the white house by some fluke, he'd still be facing a two-party congress, with neither side being his chums.

So really, if you want to break open the two party system, you're going to have to go about it at other places in government. Once you build your party as a real contender in local, state, and congressional elections you can break into the white house.

 

[demon]

The problem is... using the presidential election in attempt to gain legitimacy is pretty much a pipedream. Even if you DID get Nader in the white house by some fluke, he'd still be facing a two-party congress, with neither side being his chums.

So really, if you want to break open the two party system, you're going to have to go about it at other places in government. Once you build your party as a real contender in local, state, and congressional elections you can break into the white house.

That's what I was getting at. so, umm....yeah. I agree.

 

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, it is. The majority of those who vote for Nader are Democrats or liberals, and those people would normally give their vote to the only party that has a chance of defeating Bush -- the Democrats.

I appreciate your determination and idealism, but let's get real.

just because Nader supports a lot of left-wing policies, don't fall into the trap thinking most of his support comes from Democrats...

at most, 60% might (I'm guessing this was the case in 2000), but recent polls have him taking about evenly from both candidates...


anyway, I'm a conservative and voting for Nader, and I'm sure many conservative upset with Bush are going to vote for him, so I don't see how "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", maybe "some votes for Nader would otherwise SUPPORT John Kerry", but most people voting for Nader (liberal or conservative) would have otherwise stayed home in any case...

 

[Willco]

Voting for Nader is not voting for Bush. Nor is voting for any other candidate not alligned with Democrats or Republicans. If the only choices were Kerry and Bush, I just wouldn't vote. I don't want either to be president, and I'm not about to vote on what may be the "lesser of two evils".

People who want to vote for somebody who is going to win aren't going to be voting for Nader or another lesser known candidate anyway. It's not as though votes are being stolen.

Gore lost the last election because he was incompetent. That's all.

Yeah, if you want to live in fantasy land. Sure.

By the way, per usual, Hitokage is right. He is the winner, you Nader-lovers are the losers. Goodnight and thank you for playing OUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS.

 

[Archaix]

Hito is right, to a great extent.

I'm not a Nader-lover. I don't know whether I'll vote for him. I do know that I won't vote for Bush or Kerry.

I do know that I'd like to see all the John Kerry and Al Gores of this world lose the election for the democrats. Not because I want a Republican in office, but because I won't vote for a democrat candidate who is trying to play both sides of all issues like those two, a candidate who has nothing to say but "I'm not like him!"

If the democratic party nominates a candidate I even remotely agree with, I'll be glad to vote for him. John Kerry is not that candidate. So I hope he loses. The Republicans are never going to be close to what my ideals are, but the Democrats can be if they continue to lose with the current party mentality.

 

[LuckyBrand]

I actually like Bush alot, I love him actually.

But I am more of a libertarian... in fact, I think most people in America would be libertarians if they read up on the party...

it often gets smeared as a left wing or right wing extremist party.. how is that possible, being both?!

It is a common sense party,.. I dont agree with EVERY idea they have, but I agree with most..

Larry Elder is basically my political theorist idol.. The Sage from South Central!!!

I would vote for a libertarian candidate if there was one running that was serious.. as is, I think Nader actually has alot of good ideas... he is "green" party, technically, but many of his ideas should be republican/conservative ideas...

I aint liberal, but maybe I'll vote for nader just to help get other parties and ideas out there.. I am in illinois, which is going to kerry anyways...

 

[etiolate]

But I can't tell myself that Kerry is the best candidate that will be on the ballot this November. He's not, even if Nader can't get on the ballot in Georgia. The modern Democratic party has shifted too far to the center on social issues in an attempt to pander to mainstream American, while at the same time ending up in the pockets of the same corporations and industries as the Republicans.

This is how I feel. Why throw out one asshole to put in another one?

If you don't understand the problem with voting someone out instead of voting FOR someone.. then blah. This isn't some sport where you think "well if my team can't win then at least the Yankees better lose!" So you root for the Diamondbacks, but they are just another big budget megadollar team full of bought superstars. You can deal with that, because theres always next season and it just impacts the world of baseball. This is four years, this impacts the world really. You know this, so why do I have to say it?

 

[Justin]

We need the man in your avatar leading the country. Hunter Thompson would whip this country into shape for sure.

 

[Triumph]

We need the man in your avatar leading the country. Hunter Thompson would whip this country into shape for sure.

Yeah, I keep waiting for Thompson to announce a Freak Power run for the Presidency. Jack Nicholson would make a bitching VP.

 

[Santo]

I actually like Bush alot, I love him actually.

But I am more of a libertarian... in fact, I think most people in America would be libertarians if they read up on the party...

it often gets smeared as a left wing or right wing extremist party.. how is that possible, being both?!

It is a common sense party,.. I dont agree with EVERY idea they have, but I agree with most..

Larry Elder is basically my political theorist idol.. The Sage from South Central!!!

I would vote for a libertarian candidate if there was one running that was serious.. as is, I think Nader actually has alot of good ideas... he is "green" party, technically, but many of his ideas should be republican/conservative ideas...

I aint liberal, but maybe I'll vote for nader just to help get other parties and ideas out there.. I am in illinois, which is going to kerry anyways...

Wow, that's scary. You LOVE Bush? I can't name a single president I LOVE and Bush is definitely one of the worst this country has ever had. Now THAT is scary.

Regardless of your silly thoughts, voting for anybody besides the two main parties is literally throwing your vote away as that party is guaranteed not to win. But as long as your happy with that then more power to you (and wasting your time at the polls!) The point is to vote for the lesser or two evils, which in this case, is definitely Kerry. Government, whether its democrats or republicans, has always been fueled by money from big business so accept that damn fact.

 

[----]

Bush's Presidency brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, it brought justice to the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, his regime, and countless terrorists. On top of that he brought the economy back to tremendous prosperity with tax cuts after inheriting a recession, 911, and war.

He's been effective in the fight on terrorism and he's been effective on building up our economy. He deserves to be re-elected.

CBS/NYTimes Poll Results 6/2004:

ISSUES VOTERS WANT TO HEAR CANDIDATES DISCUSS
(Registered Voters)
War in Iraq 23%
Economy and jobs 20%
Health care/Medicare 13%
Education 5%

BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S POLICIES HAVE MADE THE U.S. …
(Registered Voters)
Safer from terrorism 53%
Less safe 28%
No effect 15%

THE ECONOMY IS …
Now
Good 58%
Bad 41%

5/2004
Good 52%
Bad 47%

The President has succeeded and continues to succeed on the issues that matter most to voters. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/28/opinion/polls/main626478.shtml

 

[Triumph]

Please take your unctuous prescence from my thread, sir.

 

[Santo]

Please include that Bush has lied to the country (on numerous accounts), has committed war crimes (prisoner abuse), has gone against almost EVERY member of the UN to forge a war based off lies, only to occupy, note: OCCUPY a country that had done NOTHING to the U.S. or its allies. Further, Bush has shrunk the surplus that he inherited at a record high to a record low, he has lost more jobs than any other president since hoover and the jobs he is re-creating are paying poverty-level salaries (MUCH lower than those that were eliminated when he took office). His tax cuts barely stimulated the economy and of course, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The middle-class is quickly becoming defunct and Bush has cut funding from education to fund an UNNECESSARY war which is costing american lives and billions of dollars.

Just because a couple polls show they are happy with the economic growth doesn't mean shit, have a mind of your own and look into what's happening before you commit on such an important decision.

Our foreign policy is KILLING our international relations, the jobs Bush is creating are low-end low-paying jobs and we are STILL wayyyyyyy below where our growth levels should be. His way of dealing with 9-11 was laughable, at best. He is the worst public speaker the presidency has ever seen and he runs around every important question he gets asked. Not to mention americans are dying every single day.

It's people like YOU with your blind ignorance that make me want to move the fuck out of this country.

 

[Kuroyume]

The Taliban isn't even gone from Afghanistan, in fact they're still putting up a fight...

 

[Triumph]

The Taliban isn't even gone from Afghanistan, in fact they're still putting up a fight...

Who are you to question Big Brother? Oceania is at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

 

[kablooey]

I'm certainly not going to vote for Bush.

But I can't tell myself that Kerry is the best candidate that will be on the ballot this November. He's not, even if Nader can't get on the ballot in Georgia. The modern Democratic party has shifted too far to the center on social issues in an attempt to pander to mainstream American, while at the same time ending up in the pockets of the same corporations and industries as the Republicans.

I don't care if my vote costs Kerry the election. The Democrats have betrayed their traditional party base and values by this horrid, horrid shift that goes back to the early '80's. I refuse to endorse and support a candidate that won't take a stand for liberal issues and causes. Fuck the right wing smear machine for successfully turning "liberal" into a four letter word. Fuck them right in the ear. It is time for an end to the two party system in America, and the sooner the better. I believe that I will attempt to collect signatures to get both Nader and Cobb on the ticket in Georgia. The more choices, the healthier our country will be one day. I can no longer support the Democrats just because they're "not the Republicans". It's time for a change.

Without reading the rest of this thread, I have to give an emphatic IAWTP! I'm so disillusioned with two-party politics, it's ridiculous. Though having said that, I'm still undecided about whether I'll vote for Kerry or not. (I don't think this necessarily makes me a hypocrit). My state is still very much up for grabs, unlike Georgia; if I lived there, I'd surely vote for Nader as well. However, if my state, traditionally democratic, would've voted Gore in the last election, he would've won; because of that, I feel that I should focus on getting Bush out of office, and hopefully deal with the consequences of Kerry winning while he's in office.

I strongly believe that every voter should make up their own mind though, and there's nothing I can't stand more than people who say to those who may vote for Nader that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", or other similar nonsense.

 

[Tekky]

I'm certainly not going to vote for Bush.

But I can't tell myself that Kerry is the best candidate that will be on the ballot this November.
...

That's fine, you don't have to vote for Kerry.

But as your penance, you must convince 5 Republicans not to vote for Bush.

Send them a copy of "The Lies of GWB", for example.

 

[homerhendrix]

i love it when people supporting one party claim the other lies

it's politics, they all lie

kerry isn't even in office and has lied already, just like clinton did, just like the first bush did etc...

 

[kablooey]

The problem is... using the presidential election in attempt to gain legitimacy is pretty much a pipedream. Even if you DID get Nader in the white house by some fluke, he'd still be facing a two-party congress, with neither side being his chums.

So really, if you want to break open the two party system, you're going to have to go about it at other places in government. Once you build your party as a real contender in local, state, and congressional elections you can break into the white house.

I disagree, sort of. I don't know if the goal at this point is to actually get Nader into to the White House, but more to use the spotlight of the presidential position to bring attention to Nader's platform. Nader being allowed to participate in the debates would be the real victory, imo, though I'm sure the Dems will do all that they can to ensure that he doesn't.

You're right though, that he, or any other true Green or non-Green liberals, should try to work themselves up the ladder slowly if they want to have a real influence within the system...


edit: Oh, and about that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" bullshit: statistically, it's not even completely true. According to a recent CNN poll, out of every 6 Nader voters, 3 would vote for the Dem candidate, 2 wouldn't have voted at all, and 1 would've voted for Bush instead. Yes, in a close election like the last one, this may tip the scales toward Bush, but if the Dems can't win by more than a slim margin over one of the worst presidents in this country's history, then that's their own damn fault.

 

[Santo]

Just as important, the U.S. ignored relevant lessons of history. In the 1920s, the British also attempted to bring some representative government to Iraq. After getting hopelessly bogged down in a culture that resisted outsiders, the British gave up and installed a strongman, though they were forced to keep troops in the country until the 1950s to maintain stability.

 

[Tekky]

i love it when people supporting one party claim the other lies

it's politics, they all lie

kerry isn't even in office and has lied already, just like clinton did, just like the first bush did etc...

Yes, but you're dodging the issues if you just say "they all lie".

We know they all lie. The question is what their lies & their actions will do for the country.

Would you rather have the frying pan or the fire? I'll vote for the pan.

(At least Clinton's lies regarding sex had everyone amused for a while; Bush's lies are getting people robbed & killed.)

 

[JackFrost2012]

Recommended reading:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

 

[----]

Please include that Bush has lied to the country (on numerous accounts), has committed war crimes (prisoner abuse), has gone against almost EVERY member of the UN to forge a war based off lies, only to occupy, note: OCCUPY a country that had done NOTHING to the U.S. or its allies.

"Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied" Drop the party line for 5 seconds and use your wits...

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D,MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |
http://www.washingtontimes.com

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/10/2002A07621.html

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html


"Hussein has ...chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |
http://www.washingtontimes.com

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |
http://www.washingtontimes.com

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/


"If Saddam rejects peaceand we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/


"One way or the other, we aredetermined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

When are the liberals going to admit that George Bush did not lie? It's amazing how GWB, was able to control the administration before him. Right or wrong we are in this one together. If these people really believed that there were WMD in Iraq, then they acted irresponsibly by not taking any serious action.

Iraq did notthing to us? That's insane. Saddam was a dangerous/unpredictable force trying to invade and take over all of his surrounding neighbors, he brutalized his own people for decades, and he even helped to fund and pay for suicide bombers in Israel. Since when is Israel not an ally? Oh wait that's just what you wish, right? Saddam violated our UN resolutions, he consistently fired upon US containment forces during Clintons adminstration making the war perfectly legal. Clinton responded with ineffective carpet bombing on numerous occassions. Clinton's reaction to Saddam violating all of our UN resolutions was embarassing. It is the most shameful aspect of his Presidency. He claims he couldn't take action even though he wanted to because he would have been further accussed of a "wag the dog" scenario. Bush Sr. made a grave mistake when he left Saddam in power in 1992. It almost cost Bush Sr. his life as a matter of fact. I suppose the attempted assasination of a former President would only bother you if he was a Democrat, right?

Further, Bush has shrunk the surplus that he inherited at a record high to a record low, he has lost more jobs than any other president since hoover and the jobs he is re-creating are paying poverty-level salaries (MUCH lower than those that were eliminated when he took office). His tax cuts barely stimulated the economy and of course, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The middle-class is quickly becoming defunct and Bush has cut funding from education to fund an UNNECESSARY war which is costing american lives and billions of dollars.

At this point he's lost less than 500,000 jobs after a recession, 2 wars, and 911. Your Herbert Hoover line courtesy of John Kerry is serveral months out of date. You're going to have to try harder. In the last 10 months he's created 1.4 million jobs. Job growth has been enormous and unwaivering. The economy has done a full turn around. The tax cuts applied to and benefitted everyone. Raising taxes as Kerry wants to certainly wouldn't have created jobs or made the recession as shallow as Bush's tax cuts did. Obviously what he did worked extremely well, and all of the polls are refelcting it.

Just because a couple polls show they are happy with the economic growth doesn't mean shit, have a mind of your own and look into what's happening before you commit on such an important decision.

I see consumer confidence is at a 2 year high, about 300,000 jobs are being created a month, the fed is raising the interest rates, and in a single year the Bush economic plan will have created about 2 million jobs. About the amount they announced it would and were mocked for saying at the beginning of the year.

Our foreign policy is KILLING our international relations, the jobs Bush is creating are low-end low-paying jobs and we are STILL wayyyyyyy below where our growth levels should be. His way of dealing with 9-11 was laughable, at best. He is the worst public speaker the presidency has ever seen and he runs around every important question he gets asked. Not to mention americans are dying every single day.

The UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, and many other countries strongly supported our efforts in Iraq. Knowing that countries like France were benefitting from Saddam's dictatorship and selling weapons to him should make us want to question our international relations with a country like that. If that is the way they are behaving then they are not a true ally. The fact that they protest to even allow NATO to provide security for the elections in Afghanistan shows how misquied and corrupt the current Chirac administration is. Testing our relations with a country like France is a good thing. They should be worried about killing their relations with us, not the other way around.

Eloquence does not equate to intelligence. Just because you use the word "unctuous" doesn't mean that your policies are sound or even sane. Americans are dying every day for a good and just cause. You should be proud of the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives to make the lives of others better and provide a secure tomorrow for all of us. I personally don't have respect for anyone more than I do for the troops in Iraq. Someone said they "love Bush," well I love the troops who make our freedom, our ability to question the government, our ability to pursue our dreams possible. None of this is possible without the men and women who are courageous enough to put their lives on the line every day and night. People in China aren't even allowed to do what I'm doing right now.

It's people like YOU with your blind ignorance that make me want to move the fuck out of this country.

It's people like you I wish would move the fuck out of this country. Please move up to Cananda, it's liberal country up there and they're suffering badly because of it. Give it a try and see if you like it better, and if you change your mind and come to your senses America will always let you back in.

 

[Leon]

.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Hey, this guy's right! I don't think Kerry or Bush are good.. but neither is Nader!! Oh well, I guess I'll just vote for Kucinich, since he is from Ohio and so am I and while I don't completely agree with all of his policies, he could win! Right? Right?

Look man, I understand what you mean: none of the candidates are perfect. But if you vote for Nader, it's a vote away from Kerry, pure and simple. And while Kerry is shaping up to seem like a jerk, he has better polices than Bush, and he most likely won't go about warmongering.

 

[----]

Yeah, badly. Badly, badly, badly. Almost as badly as Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and Keith Matthew I would say.

The lives of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and Keith Mathew represent the average life in America somehow? I think what their tragedies represent is life in Iraq or the Middle East right now. Last I checked people from all over the world, not just the US have been terrorized and decapitated by these sick freaks trying to cause trouble in Iraq. Ultimately it's senseless acts of violence and it affects nothing. It's great to be Canada and not have to worry about invasion or attack from afar because your big brother will always look out for you no matter what you say or do to him. Point being, don't like America, nothing, no one, nobody is stopping you from ever leaving. Ironic thing is most people are dying (literally) to get into this country because they don't have a fraction of what we have. I'm glad I have the good sense to appreciate it all.

 

[videogamer]

It's people like you I wish would move the fuck out of this country. Please move up to Cananda, it's liberal country up there and they're suffering badly because of it. Give it a try and see if you like it better, and if you change your mind and come to your senses America will always let you back in.

Why do you want him to move out of the country? Don't you want a diverse set of opinions? Also, like what Leon said, it's nice not to have dead soldiers coming home. Canadian voters were actually relatively content about their country. Of course, there were the scandals and the health care waits. However, the country was also fiscally healthy, and many voters were happy with the direction in which the country was going. Interesting how you missed posting that on Canada Day (PST).

 

[Tekky]

...
Eloquence does not equate to intelligence.
...

Ah, the nameless one joins us again.

I left the above quote because I thought it applies to GWB very well.

And even though I think Bush's lies about Iraq are an impeachable offense, it's his other lies that concern me much more. Like how he talks about "no child left behind", but cuts education funding, or how he tries to proclaim himself as doing good for the environment but guts environmental regulations and gives loggers free reign over public forrests. Most amusing is how he talks about the benefits of his tax cut for the lower middle class family, when in reality that family is getting almost nothing, while 50% of the trillion dollar cut goes to 1% of the richest people in the country.

There's lots more lies to talk about, but it's getting late, and I doubt the nameless one will really address any of them, because he's more concerned about attacking liberals than he really is about the welfare of this country.

 

[Alcibiades]

Hey, this guy's right! I don't think Kerry or Bush are good.. but neither is Nader!! Oh well, I guess I'll just vote for Kucinich, since he is from Ohio and so am I and while I don't completely agree with all of his policies, he could win! Right? Right?

Look man, I understand what you mean: none of the candidates are perfect. But if you vote for Nader, it's a vote away from Kerry, pure and simple. And while Kerry is shaping up to seem like a jerk, he has better polices than Bush, and he most likely won't go about warmongering.

how is it a vote away from Kerry if someone that votes for Nader wasn't going to vote anyway?

it doesn't make sense, it's a vote from both Kerry and Bush since neither was going to get the vote anyway...

 

[videogamer]

The lives of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and Keith Mathew represent the average life in America somehow? I think what their tragedies represent is life in Iraq or the Middle East right now. It's great to be Canada and not have to worry about invasion or attack from afar because your big brother will always look out for you no matter what you say or do to him. Point being, don't like America, nothing, no one, nobody is stopping you from ever leaving. Ironic thing is most people are dying (literally) to get into this country because they don't have a fraction of what we have. I'm glad I have the good sense to appreciate it all.

It doesn't hurt to try to improve things according to their opinions. Many of us do appreciate how privileged life is in America (or developed countries in general), but that doesn't stop us from trying to make things better.

 

[Belfast]

Most of the people you just stated agreed with Bush because they're FUCKING POLITICIANS. There was supposed to be credible evidence, the ignorant masses (including myself and many others who originally supported the war) agreed that going to Iraq was the best thing AT THE TIME. Common sense tells me most politicians want to appeal to their constituents and I'm sure some of them also believed that the evidence/intelligence was fairly credible.

FAST FORWARD.

We (politicians and people in general) know a lot more about the whole thing now and recognize it for the clusterfuck that it is. Yeah, that shit's going to change some opinions. And politicians will continue to appeal to their constituents IF THESE OPINIONS CHANGE. So get your head out of your ass an understand the sad reality of politics before throwing meaningless quotes around. A lot of people changed their mind after everything that has been revealed about Iraq, some politicians did it of their own accord and others did it, yes, to appeal to voters. Funny, considering all this, that the Bush administration and religious right still won't realize the error of their ways.

 

[Hitokage]

The Bush Administration was the one making the case for war considering they were the ones with the means to investigate such things, and at the time... it was generally believable... but now it's come out how sloppy those dealings really were and anyone would be right in being upset even after supporting it earlier.

 

[----]

It doesn't hurt to try to improve things according to their opinions. Many of us do appreciate how privileged life is in America (or developed countries in general), but that doesn't stop us from trying to make things better.

Yes many of you do and we should continue to work together to improve the country. I was however addressing the ones who are constantly making idol threats about leaving and play pretend like everything is going wrong in the country. If you can't acknowledge the tremendous economic turnaround or admit that Iraq is better off then you don't really care about the country either. You can still disagree with the way the war was waged, but calling Bush a liar is unproductive nonsense. As you can see every major player in the Democratic party today believed there were WMD in Iraq and most of them advocated military action.

Most of the people you just stated agreed with Bush because they're FUCKING POLITICIANS. There was supposed to be credible evidence, the ignorant masses (including myself and many others who originally supported the war) agreed that going to Iraq was the best thing AT THE TIME. Common sense tells me most politicians want to appeal to their constituents and I'm sure some of them also believed that the evidence/intelligence was fairly credible.

FAST FORWARD.

We (politicians and people in general) know a lot more about the whole thing now and recognize it for the clusterfuck that it is. Yeah, that shit's going to change some opinions. And politicians will continue to appeal to their constituents IF THESE OPINIONS CHANGE. So get your head out of your ass an understand the sad reality of politics before throwing meaningless quotes around. A lot of people changed their mind after everything that has been revealed about Iraq, some politicians did it of their own accord and others did it, yes, to appeal to voters. Funny, considering all this, that the Bush administration and religious right still won't realize the error of their ways.

That's outright partisan hypocrisy. How could it be that Bush lied, but every Democratic politican who said the same exact thing is excused because he or she was just mislead including all of those comments which come from years before Bush was even in the Whitehouse? Keep in mind many of these politicians including both Clintons still say they support the war. Don't try to project John Kerry/Ted Kennedy's embarassing flip flopping or Al Gore's nonsensical rage onto the entire Democratic party. We can't have a President who either sends troops to war and then cuts funding to them when he changes his mind or is too afraid to ever commit to military action against another nation. American voters understand this and that's why John Kerry is seen as so weak on foreign policy and national security.

 

[Jim Bowie]

how is it a vote away from Kerry if someone that votes for Nader wasn't going to vote anyway?

it doesn't make sense, it's a vote from both Kerry and Bush since neither was going to get the vote anyway...

Thing was, efralope, Raoul Duke was planning on voting. He changed his mind on Kerry and decided to vote Nader. I wrote this as a response to him. F- reading comprehension.

 

[Teddman]

There's really no use in voting for third party candidates as long as the electoral college is still in place.

 

[Alcibiades]

These were the first two statements:

" I can't bring myself to vote for John Kerry"

"I'm certainly not going to vote for Bush."

Now, the way I see it, either he stays home or votes 3rd party or leaves Presidential blank and votes Democrat/other down the ticket...

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

"You can still disagree with the way the war was waged, but calling Bush a liar is unproductive nonsense."

Yes, this is not a time for pessimism and rage........

Or so bush told me