[Politics Poll]Who will win?

[Grandmaster]

Well in my humble opinion, the average American Joe is losing out here. You guys have two major parties to choose from, and both parties suck. In essence both parties want the same thing, so it's really like having to bodies with one head. Both candidates suck.

America really needs a third, even fourth major party...

 

[Sazar]

It simply amazes me just how dis-illusioned some of you fine folks really are. Let me get to that here in a min.

Reguarding the candinents. How it is that the thought of Kerry in office doesn't scare the life out you is beyond me. And you can try and explaine it a million ways to sunday but the facts don't change. Kerry don't know if he is comming or going. There is not 1, not 1 thing he has made a firm decision on. Hell some things he has gone back and forth on so many times HE doesn't even no where he supposedly stands on the topic! Kerry is lined up to be the global whiping boy of all time. If he gets into office, and if there is a god, please help us all!

if only you knew about bush's flip-flops the only reason bush is attacking kerry on the "flip-flop" issue is coz rove doesn't want the american public to recount bush's own failings and massive deviations from what he stated he would do...

the difference? bush is the leader of the nation and his flip-flops directly affect the nations security, the people of this nation and our allies... I think thats a heck of a lot more dangerous than anything kerry may have said or done...

Kerry takes the "popular at the time" position on an issue, then waits to see what the public stand is on that issue. If it is not inline with he current position, he quickly changes it, and has a whole list of reasons why.

again... this is different from other politicians how? bush couldn't sell the invasion of iraq domestically based on the premise of wmd's and the like so he tacked on the freedom of the people by the time he presented his state of the union address to popularise the issue...

Kerry's service record, god gag me with a fork already. I am not even going to go into all the mud slinging parts of this debatical, lets just take 1 item that Kerry himself purported. I love this statement "I served in Cambodia". Two weeks later, when it comes to light that Kerry was never in Cambodia, he says "Well, I was near Cambodia". Jesus christ, does that mean I can claim residency in Michigan, no I don't live there, but I am near it.
Ohh and lets not forget, 3 purple hearts! The man is so stupid that he can't figure out the enemy is shooting at him! A small hint Kerry "DUCK!"

kerry was @ most 50 miles from the border... if you read the reports on the day in question kerry may very well have been in the waters of cambodia per the reports... there were covert operations running in and out of cambodian territorial waters...

as is kerry served his country during a time of war in a hostile territory... it is easy for people to question that... I am not...

I would love for kerry to release all his records but thats not my perogative...

The man is high on himself, and I wish I could get my hands on what he is smoking!

in what context is he high?

Kerry has only said 1 thing that I like, and that was he wants to cut tax breaks and incentives to companies that take their operations overseas. That is the only damn thing he has going for him in my mind.

he has a better plan for healthcare and a better plan for reducing the budget deficit and a better plan for education...

Kerry wants to fight a "More sensitive war on terror", WTF?!? I can see it now, a bill by Kerry for $4.8 billion for bullets coated with Percoset so it don't hurt the enemy as much. WTF ever Kerry, Pull the **** beads out of your *** and smell what your shoveling!

both bush and cheney said the same thing... therefore by insinuation the GOP is doubly as sugar-coated and by implication kerry is the better man for the job coz both bush and cheney are pulling stuff out of their behinds and smelling them???

Now don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to say that Bush is greatest thing for a president

ah but thats exactly what you are saying

nowhere have you listed anything in this post about bush that is remotely negative and yet there is plenty of Rovian diatribe to bash kerry... most of it merit-less...

because he is not. But by comparision to Kerry, at least Bush stands by his decisions, right or wrong. At least you know where Bush will be when the wind changes dirrection, right were he was. At least with Bush you know he is not going to bend to international pressure from self serving countries cause they might lose money on arms sales. And we won't see a bill for 200 billion boxes of kleenex in any type of conflict.

bush doesn't stand by his decisions... what he said he would do in iraq he has already changed his mind on many times... he has alienated allies who could have helped the united states avoid taking on the financial burden for the invasion and the manpower to aid in post-war efforts...

the "catastrophic success" would not have had to be so "catastrophic" had he just not been so bone-headed...

there is a difference between being firm and staying the course and being an idiot and doing whats wrong coz you don't want to lose face...

Is Bush the right choice for the US, no not really, but Kerry damn sure isn't! Where is a good option C when you need it!

the first thing I kinda agree on... cept IMO kerry is a better option than bush simply because kerry has not had a chance to f*ck things up like bush has done...

Now, back to my first topic that I told you I would come back to. For some reason ppl think that the president has some dirrect control or major influence on stock market, economy, and yes even the employment markets.

WRONG, try again.

no... the president does not have an option to control the market directly... but the president does preside over polcies, taxation and trade agreements and the like that have an effect on the economy and by implication the stock market... further the level of confidence the people have is reflected in the stock market...

For the religious of you folks remember the saying "The greatest thing the devil ever did was to make ppl belive he didn't exist". Well guess what folks, the devil is CONGRESS! That is right, Congress! Congress is what truely runs the country, the president is just the idol of the instituion. But his powers, are very limited. The real power is held in congress. I challenge everyone to turn on C-Span at some point and watch a congress session where they pass and vote on bills. The first thing you will notice is that, over half are not even present, of those that are there are asleep with an aide there to vote for them (or to wake them and tell them to vote however the aide views things to go), and the third thing you will see is that 90% of them look to be about 150 years old and are not even sure of where they are much less what there doing there.

Now I don't know about all of you but every election there is a box on the ballot that says "Would you like to elect a new congress into office?" I have ALWAYS checked that box, and everyone I have EVER talked to has said they checked that box. So why has there never been a new congress elected?

You want to see things get better in this country, do what ever you can to get a new congress elected! A congress that does not know Moses personally!

Sorry to say folks, but untill that day arrives, things will hardly change in this country reguardless of who is president.

I don't want a new congress or anything of the like...

I want the consitution re-written to remove all the flub added over the years that do nothing to the average joe and all the bogus red-tape and the rest of the crap taken out of it so that we dont' need to have a government so large or a taxation rate so high or a litigation level so retarded...

both the dems and reps do the same damn thing and its unlikely to change in the near future...

 

[Sazar]

Well in my humble opinion, the average American Joe is losing out here. You guys have two major parties to choose from, and both parties suck. In essence both parties want the same thing, so it's really like having to bodies with one head. Both candidates suck.

America really needs a third, even fourth major party...

yes but its not going to happen...

the dems and reps both have way too much to lose...

if there were other parties as big as em they would get a smaller piece of the pie... I mean ffs... $100million each (approx) for a flippin convention?

why the hell for...

 

[gonaads]

Well between Numbskull X and Numbskull Y with X being the incumbent ATM. I would take my chances with Y, someone new. That is the problem with most when stuck between two bad choices. They with stay with the established bad choice.


Now what if the new bad choice is somewhat better... still bad but not as.

I seriously do not think it can get worse than what is in office now. When yer at the bottom of the barrel you are always lookin up even if all the rest are pretty low.

 

[Sazar]

thats pretty much how I look at it gonaads...

 

[Grandmaster]

yes but its not going to happen...

the dems and reps both have way too much to lose...

if there were other parties as big as em they would get a smaller piece of the pie... I mean ffs... $100million each (approx) for a flippin convention?

why the hell for...

Oh I know it's not going to happen...unless there is some sort of miracle. In that sense the US isn't much of a democracy =/

 

[albybum]

Kerry has made stands and offered opinions. Just because you do not see them on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Abortion/Right to Choose

George Bush holds that the abortion issue is about the taking of life and so wants to limit the number of abortions that occur.

John Kerry's position is that abortion is a matter of a woman's right to choose and is strongly pro-choice.


Affirmative Action


President Bush believes in the value of diversity but holds that affirmative action programs that rely on quotas or racial preferences are inherently divisive and stifles achievement based on merit.

Senator Kerry has been critical of affirmative action but takes a “mend it, don’t end it” approach to the program. He believes it provides an important impetus for improving fairness and diversity in our society.


Amending the Constitution - Defining Marriage


Bush supports DOMA and has stated he would support an amendment to the constitution supporting traditional marriage

One of 14 senators who opposed DOMA, Kerry believes same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.



Education Reform

President Bush believes the "No Child Left Behind" Act he signed in 2002 has started working, and vows to increase accountability and resources to keep it going.

Senator Kerry firmly believes "No Child Left Behind" is a failed policy, and has said that public education needs sweeping reform and full resources with "no questions asked."


Civil Unions for same-sex couples

While Bush has announced his support for a Federal Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman, he has also stated he would support civil unions.

Senator Kerry has said marriage should be limited to a man and woman, but would support civil unions that grant the same rights.


Education vouchers

President Bush supports choice for parents with kids in failing schools.

Senator Kerry opposes school vouchers because he believes it will drain scarce funding from public schools. He supports efforts to increase resources to public schools.


Ending Iraqi Occupation;
Turn Governance Over to NATO

The Bush Administration believes the US needs to continue efforts in Iraq until the region is stable. He has repeatedly stated that the U.S. is holding to the June 2004 timeframe for turning over control of the country to the Iraqis.


While Kerry voted in favor of the war resolution supporting the use of force, he has denounced the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He believes the UN should take a much more prominent leadership role in Iraq.


Federally-funded Health Care

Bush supports a free-market approach to health care with less government involvement. Bush supports litigation reform and heath care improvement programs to accomplish this.


Kerry believes that heath care should be a right and not merely a privilege. He supports federal programs that will extend health care coverage to uninsured Americans.


Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming


Bush has pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto protocol. Favors market incentives to address environmental issues.


Kerry favors U.S. participation in the international program with some adjustments.


Privatizing Social Security

President Bush believes that by privatizing social security, individual Americans take more ownership in their retirement.

Senator Kerry believes that privatizing social security is risky and would not improve the system.


Reducing the Number of Jobs Outsourced
to International Companies


Bush is opposed to Federal intervention on outsourcing. Believes corporate tax cuts will spur American job creation.

Kerry favors implementing Federal tax policies that would reduce the benefit of outsourcing jobs overseas.


Securing US Borders Through Tighter Immigration Policies

Bush believes in secure borders but promotes a 'temporary worker program' allowing potential immigrants to work in the US legally. Bush opposes amnesty.

John Kerry holds a "Fairness and Security" policy that would secure our borders while promoting legal immigration.


The Jobs and Growth Act
President Bush believes the program is working, and wants to see the tax cuts "for every American" become permanent.


Senator Kerry believes the Jobs and Growth Act favors tax cuts for the wealthy. Kerry wants to see tax cuts primarily for the middle class.


The Patriot Act


Bush supports the Patriot Act and believes it empowers U.S. security organizations to fight terror. He currently is working to urge congress to renew the act.


Kerry believes that elements of the Patriot Act are sound, but believes it infringes too much on personal liberty. He would work to have it replaced.


Tighter Gun Control Regulations


President Bush believes that current laws are sufficient and need to be better enforced. He supports gun control locks, assault weapons ban, and instant background checks rather than waiting periods for handgun purchases

Senator Kerry advocates mandatory background checks and supports the Brady Bill. He would like to see stronger laws regulating gun sales on the internet and at trade shows and supports mandatory gun locks.


Trade and NAFTA


George Bush supports NAFTA while keeping American interests and safety as the highest priority

John Kerry believes that NAFTA can be supported while protecting American jobs. He believes that NAFTA can work but that trade agreements should be heavily reviewed


All items parsed from http://www.acrosstheaisle.com/Common/candidates.aspx

a non-partisan website

 

[fitz]

Just thought I'd add a little levity to the "discussion" *cough* arguement *cough* *cough*

Sign up now for your own $200 Bush Bill!
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....=6127704&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNews&section=news

 

[LoctOut]

it's easy to tell from these posts who is actually reading stuff and who is listening to the political propagandists.

 

[gonaads]

All I can say is go out and vote November 2, 2004. Let your voice be heard.

Plain and simple.

All you across the pond, just wait for the fallout.

 

[ThePatriot]

My take...and this comes from mostly a military point of view. I have been lead and I have been a leader in the US Army, and I just don't think Kerry has the stuff. I have my reservations about Bush also, but overall he has been consistent in his leadership and his decisions. Kerry has been too wishy washy for my liking. Throw on top of that the very poor judgement he made years ago in his decision to condemn all Vietnam Vets and make the life of those still imprisoned there exponentially worse...well...it just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

 

[Sazar]

My take...and this comes from mostly a military point of view. I have been lead and I have been a leader in the US Army, and I just don't think Kerry has the stuff. I have my reservations about Bush also, but overall he has been consistent in his leadership and his decisions. Kerry has been too wishy washy for my liking. Throw on top of that the very poor judgement he made years ago in his decision to condemn all Vietnam Vets and make the life of those still imprisoned there exponentially worse...well...it just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

he condemned, if you read the transcript of the little speech he gave, the leadership who sent the men to vietnam... he held them culpable and said they were responsible...

as before and as I have said repeatedly... because karl rove says kerry is a flip-flopper does not make him so... undoubtedly he has changed his mind on various things but not in the manner portrayed by the GOP...

in contrast consider the stance of bush wrt various pertinent issues before and after he took office... and regularly throughout his presidency he has preached one thing and done the other...

pertaining to the people in vietnam... by implication are you suggesting that due to the rumsfeld endorsed abuses during interogations at abu ghraib american soldiers are suffering exponentially in iraq today?

I am curious because as before I have seen no reason for bush to continue in power... and as a result the next choice would logically be kerry...

 

[Son Goku]

no... the president does not have an option to control the market directly... but the president does preside over polcies, taxation and trade agreements and the like that have an effect on the economy and by implication the stock market... further the level of confidence the people have is reflected in the stock market...

Although I agree with much that you have said, when it comes to the setting of ecconomic policy, the president is many times seen as the hero or the culprit. I do understand that aspect of public perception. However, the power of the purse was largely given to Congress, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1914 put other powers in the hands of the Federal Reserve. Taxation is one of them areas where Congress votes on. Yes Bush pushed through tax cut after tax cut, but he was pushing this through Congress. I seem to remember one of those times where Congress was looking for a smaller tax cut, but the President was like "no, no, no...it will be this..." The setting of the budget is another area...

Now as I'm sure you're aware, certain powers such as printing/minting money (given to Congress in article 1 of the Constitution) along with other matters such as setting interest rates, influence over the money supply, etc had been passed to the Fed in 1914.

I don't want a new congress or anything of the like...

I want the consitution re-written to remove all the flub added over the years that do nothing to the average joe and all the bogus red-tape and the rest of the crap taken out of it so that we dont' need to have a government so large or a taxation rate so high or a litigation level so retarded...

both the dems and reps do the same damn thing and its unlikely to change in the near future...

One area where this has come up, and breaking away from the Constitution (as written) is wrt the Congressional veto. In the Constitution, only the Executive is supposed to have the veto power, and Congress is supposed to exercise it's influence by precisely defined laws that tell the Executive how it can and can not use the delegations of Legislative power (the implied powers clause).

What started happening in like the 1930s or so (and along with the expantion of the Executive Branch) was that bills were passed that would give the Executive broad delegations of legislative power, without any clear definition of how the power is to be used. In turn, Congress reserved for itself a Legislative veto (which has since been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Chada vs. INS). In this, just one chamber, or even one small committee could unilaterlaly veto presidential actions in using the grants of power.

After the Chada vs. INS decision, neither the Executive nor the Legislative wanted to comply (the Executive was happy with the broad grants of power, with no specification on how to use it). Congress was happy with the veto power, though ironically they might have had more say if they tried to restrict presidential use of such delegations of power through precisely defined laws specifying what it is for and what is or is not permissable in the use of this grant of power.

As to the thread's question...I'm voting againt Bush. It isn't that I have a "love affair" with Kerry. Not at all. I do consider Bush (and more to the point in many cases, many in his administration) to be the "greater of evils". As to Rove, I'm convinced Karl Rove is an amoralist.

 

[Xie]

I would first like to say nice posts to both albybum & Sazar. I think it really comes down to who is the lesser of the two evils? A crazy mad man, Jesus freak, hell bent on taking away US Citizens rights or the guy that hasn't been President yet and could go either way? Myself I'll be voting against a known evil. Voting for Bush again would be like voting Hitler into power knowing that he is going to take over the world.

 

[ThePatriot]

he condemned, if you read the transcript of the little speech he gave, the leadership who sent the men to vietnam... he held them culpable and said they were responsible...

as before and as I have said repeatedly... because karl rove says kerry is a flip-flopper does not make him so... undoubtedly he has changed his mind on various things but not in the manner portrayed by the GOP...

in contrast consider the stance of bush wrt various pertinent issues before and after he took office... and regularly throughout his presidency he has preached one thing and done the other...

pertaining to the people in vietnam... by implication are you suggesting that due to the rumsfeld endorsed abuses during interogations at abu ghraib american soldiers are suffering exponentially in iraq today?

I am curious because as before I have seen no reason for bush to continue in power... and as a result the next choice would logically be kerry...

He can condemn the leadership all he wants, but in the end he grouped all Amercan Soldiers into one not-so-pretty picture...that was far, far from the truth...which connects with your fourth paragraph. It pains me greatly, as I have served with many of the men and women still in Uniform today, that they are stereotyped as perverted, sadistical tortureres. From first-hand knowledge I can guarantee anyone out there it is just not so. I was there, I was one of them, that is not our Military now, nor was it then, yet both groups suffer as a whole. I will not debate here the right or wrong of what was done in Abu Ghraib, I will only say that not having been in the Uniform and on the ground, don't even pretend to know what was going through anyones mind there. You can't. The only thing I can say is, many of the members of OSNN, or any group for that matter, may go over the line, even a line they themselves drew, if suddenly in control of someone who was days or even hours earlier trying to take your life. Maybe they succeeded in taking your buddies life, your Commanding Officers life. Maybe a butt-pyramid or some fugly chick pointing at your family jewels (no offense, Jewelzz) and smiling was blown waaaay out of proportion. Now, outright torture, thats just plain wrong...and ineffective. Any Soldier will tell you that they have been trained to lie under duress to the best of their ability. Many former pows will tell you they have lied to their interrogators.

Your second paragraph...Kerry is a flip-flopper not because Rove says so, but because I do. I make my own decisions based on what I read and hear. I realise that's not the way everyone sees it, but by God, that's what makes Freedom so wonderful, isn't it?

All politicians are flip-floppers, it's the nature of the beast...I just think Kerry does it a whole lot more than Bush.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see someone else besides these two. I have reservations about both, I just have less reservations with Bush.

I don't see any reason for him not to stay in power. I don't see him as the "Hitler" that some do. I see him as strong enough to make the tough decisions and stick with them even when confronted with great pressure to change. I, along with many others believe he is on the right course. And he is staying that course. It's not a particularly pretty course at times, nor an easy one, but if seen through to fruition I think the outcome will be worth it.

I know very well that we're paying for this course in blood. That is blood of my friends, relatives and former comrades. I don't take that lightly, and I assure you the majority of them feel the same way.

Whew....sorry for being so long winded! Had to put my 2 cents in....actually, looks more like I put 4 1/2 cents in...

 

[rotjong]

Very well stated opinions, ThePatriot.

I, like others, dislike Kerry for many reasons. I find it funny that whenever someone thinks Kerry is a "flip flopper" then they automatically must have been brainwashed or hoodwinked by Rove. I know who Rove is but my opinions of Kerry have nothing to do with Rove.

My opinions are those based upon what I have personally witnessed in interviews and from many other sources.

People are, of course, entitled to their opinions and all people will never agree.

rotjong

 

[Maveric169]

Kerry has made stands and offered opinions. Just because you do not see them on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean they aren't out there.



All items parsed from http://www.acrosstheaisle.com/Common/candidates.aspx

a non-partisan website

The only bad part of all these things you listed Kerry is for, go back 6 months and see whre he stood on ALL of them. Most likey the exact opposite. Give it another 6 months, who knows where he will stand.

I would take my chances that Bush makes a poor decision and stands by it, then changes his mind every 3 months on it.

What do we do if Kerry is president, and N. Korea decides to rattle it's nuclear saber again. I just can't see Kerry doing a good job at handling that senario. I can just imagine the nightmare of Kerry "reforming" our role in Iraq. (reguardless of weather we should be there or not) The fact is we are there, and we need to see it through and address it head on and get the job done. Kerry has stated he wants the US out of Iraq, like yesterday. Great, pull out of an unstable situation, and let the chips fall where they may, scary.

Many of you state that Kerry has great plans for reforming this country, I haven't heard that. All I have heard is "I am going to change this, and it will be better than Bush". But he has yet to say how he plans on accomplishing these "better than Bush" agenda items.

And yes, I think Bush has made alot of errors. At the same time it is easy for me to say they are errors as I have the advantage of hindsite. So it is easy to to point out all the mistakes and the "shoud have done", "could have done" things.

The unfortunate part is that every president has always been either strong on the homefront and weak on forgien affairs, or vice versa. None have ever been good at both. We know that Bush is pretty good at dealing with foreign affairs, but has been weak at dealing with the home front. The real questions are, is he really weak on the home front issues or is it that 9/11 has changed the agenda, and he is just bad at balancing both?

From the stand points that many of the Pro Kerry camp here have stated you're leading the impression that Kerry is strong on the home front, which will mean that he is going suck at foriegn affairs.

Now given the current state of world, the instablility of the middle east, the current threat of N. Korea, as well as Pakistan (you can throw that into the middle east I guess, I listed it sperate as there a up and comming Nuclear power wannabe). Do you really want a weak foreing affairs leader?
I sure don't. Nor do I want to take the chance that Kerry is.

 

[muzikool]

I'm not going to get into it, but I will say this: If you were legally able to vote in the 2000 election, and you did not, then I don't want to read a single word from you about Bush's performance as President... good or bad. That's all.

 

[Sazar]

He can condemn the leadership all he wants, but in the end he grouped all Amercan Soldiers into one not-so-pretty picture...that was far, far from the truth...which connects with your fourth paragraph.

my issue is with the way that what he said is portrayed...

I do not agree with what he said and the time he said it but it does bother me that what he said, what he based it on and what he meant is not discussed... instead a verdict is given that he demoralised troops single-handedly and grouped them all together...

if you read the transcript as well as the events as they occurred then you will see he based his comments off of what veterans themselves had said just a few days before... he prefaced his comments to the committee based on what those men said...

It pains me greatly, as I have served with many of the men and women still in Uniform today, that they are stereotyped as perverted, sadistical tortureres. From first-hand knowledge I can guarantee anyone out there it is just not so. I was there, I was one of them, that is not our Military now, nor was it then, yet both groups suffer as a whole. I will not debate here the right or wrong of what was done in Abu Ghraib, I will only say that not having been in the Uniform and on the ground, don't even pretend to know what was going through anyones mind there. You can't. The only thing I can say is, many of the members of OSNN, or any group for that matter, may go over the line, even a line they themselves drew, if suddenly in control of someone who was days or even hours earlier trying to take your life. Maybe they succeeded in taking your buddies life, your Commanding Officers life. Maybe a butt-pyramid or some fugly chick pointing at your family jewels (no offense, Jewelzz) and smiling was blown waaaay out of proportion. Now, outright torture, thats just plain wrong...and ineffective. Any Soldier will tell you that they have been trained to lie under duress to the best of their ability. Many former pows will tell you they have lied to their interrogators.

abu ghraib occurred... it was brushed under the carpet by the bush admin and rummy in particular... in the context i presented it, it was a simple question... if kerry's comments out of context lead one to portray him negatively as has been shown in this thread than does rumsfeld (and by implication, bush) not bear the exact same responsibility?

its a very simple premise... if one is level charges against one person in a particular manner than they should not discard the clear evidence pointing @ the other person either...

wrt abu ghraib... do I think its a big deal or am I surprised? no... I am not...

do I think that all soldiers are guilty of these actions? no... obviously not...

however this was a pre-meditated set of actions as proven by the reports on the matter released by the people overseeing the investigation... rumsfeld himself has been corrected by his very own aides while trying to spin the responsibility away from himself.... people were tortured during interogation by some of the soldiers there...

I don't think it was blown out of proportion at all... the mere fact that this is suggested shows to me that the white house has done a very good job in damage control and covering up the details of the activities as they occured... this was not a few bad apples... this was several bad apples working in conjunction under feith suggested/rumsfeld approved loose guidelines hand in hand with interogators...

Your second paragraph...Kerry is a flip-flopper not because Rove says so, but because I do. I make my own decisions based on what I read and hear. I realise that's not the way everyone sees it, but by God, that's what makes Freedom so wonderful, isn't it?

yes... and I am free to suggest that karl rove is the mastermind behind the flip-flop analogies simply because that is the way he operates...

he questioned mcCain's mental capabilities and strengths while he ran for the republican nomination... his fingerprints were all over the insinuation that mcCain had fathered an illegitimate black child... its a classic case of hit hard with insinuations without ever having to deny anything and its his calling card...

kerry waffles... undoubtedly... bush waffles more so... and karl rove is the scum @ the bottom of the barrel on the lowest rungs of unscrupulous characters in america...

All politicians are flip-floppers, it's the nature of the beast...I just think Kerry does it a whole lot more than Bush.

you are entitled to your opinion... from how i see it... bush's flip-flops have led to a lot more heart-ache and a lot more security concerns than anything kerry has done...

In a perfect world, I'd like to see someone else besides these two. I have reservations about both, I just have less reservations with Bush.

I have seen what bush can do... it is not pleasant...

i do find it ironic that bush is once again flipping the switch on to run as a compasionate conservative... and there will be enough people who believe that to vote for him to put him back in office based on that lie... and that makes me sad...

I don't see any reason for him not to stay in power. I don't see him as the "Hitler" that some do. I see him as strong enough to make the tough decisions and stick with them even when confronted with great pressure to change. I, along with many others believe he is on the right course. And he is staying that course. It's not a particularly pretty course at times, nor an easy one, but if seen through to fruition I think the outcome will be worth it.

I am still waiting for bush to resume the war on terror that he so boldly proclaimed post 9/11... I am still waiting for him to pursue osama bin laden as he said he would rather than claiming as he recently did that osama was no longer a priority... i want him to help out in afghanistan to help a fair set of elections to be held as he should be doing instead of bogging the brave men and women of america in iraq where they should never have been to begin with... i am waiting for bush to explain to me exactly what he intends to do wrt Iran and North Korea and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia after the precedence he has established... I am waiting for bush to explain to me what he is going to do about the budget deficit... I am waiting for bush to explain to me why same-sex couples are a 3rd class citizenry in this nation that is renowned for freedom... i am waiting for bush to explain why AIDS cases in america are spiking even after he has spent more money than any other president in history on AIDS, could it have anything to do with his policies on abstinence first programs getting money first and foremost?

I am waiting as I have been waiting since the first months of 2001 for bush to do what he said and mean it...

he hasn't... hence in my opinion he needs to move over...

I know very well that we're paying for this course in blood. That is blood of my friends, relatives and former comrades. I don't take that lightly, and I assure you the majority of them feel the same way.

my wife's family is full of veterans stretching back to the world wars.. my side of the family has several career officers as well... I know full well they will not question their commander in chief... that does not mean I cannot, nor does it mean that he can discount any form of accountability and expect everything to go his way...

bush has to apologize to the families of the victims of 9/11 for his actions in iraq... invading a soverign nation while letting the murderers of their family effectively go scot-free in afghanistan and regroup and carry out further attacks... adding victims in afghanistan, iraq and spain to their list of conquests...

words are great... the RNC will portray bush as a strong man and kerry as a sniveling idiot...

but facts show that bush has many many flaws and failures he needs to deal with before he white-washes it all over with his "we have turned the corner" and "compasionate conservatism" PR bullsh!t...

kerry is not a good candidate... I am loathe to vote for him myself... but to anyone who IS voting... I just cannot see why in the world you would vote for a man as flawed as bush again when you have seen what he will do and is capable of...

we don't know what kerry will do but it cannot possibly be worse than what bush has shown us so far...

Whew....sorry for being so long winded! Had to put my 2 cents in....actually, looks more like I put 4 1/2 cents in...

thats fine... i am not exactly into short posts myself...

 

[Sazar]

I'm not going to get into it, but I will say this: If you were legally able to vote in the 2000 election, and you did not, then I don't want to read a single word from you about Bush's performance as President... good or bad. That's all.

people should be free to express their opinions one way or another...

disagreements are great... it leads to dialogue...

telling people to keep quiet if they didn't vote in 2000 is disingenious...

I voted mcCain and thats it... gore was not my candidate, bush was definitely not my candidate and nader is an idiot

now is it wrong for me to express my opinion about bush because I did not have an option to vote for that espoused the values and stood for the issues I believed in in 2000?

I hope not