who ya voting for?

[Darky]

How many nations mess with Israel? They have terrorists, real bad, but no nation has stepped up any time I can remember and threatened them. Why? They're a tiny nation with little dog syndrome. You mess with them, they strike back 10 times worse. I remember when they used to send attack choppers to blow something up in the Palestinian neighborhood every now and then in retaliation for the suicide bombers. But they quit due to pressure from us, and the rest of the world.
If we'd gone to Rwanda you'd say we're trying to change them and there'd be more accusations of warmongering. Besides we can't be everywhere. People say we're overextended now, and we're only fighting in 2 countries.
Why am I voting for Bush? Because I believe he'll stand up and defend our nations interests, he actually has the balls to depart from what the UN says if he thinks it'll benefit the US. Kerry has a happy picture of other nations helping us in Irq with no word as to how he'd accomplish that goal. Other nations want no part in this. Bush tried and when he saw no one would come in and help out, he did what he thought he had to. Why don't I like Kerry? His Vietnam background he likes to throw around and brag that he's a war hero. What war hero throws that around? I've known more than a few men who fought in Vietnam and none of them will even talk about what they did. They'll mention their buddies but won't speak of their own accomplishments.

 

[Darky]

How many people were murdered by Saddam over the years of his reign? Oh and by the way, we had around 40 nations that supported us, 40 who signed on with the Coalition of the Willing. Germany has ground troops in Iraq now, after they spoke against the whole idea in the beginning. Bush has been working other nations and slowly more are coming in to help out.

 

[casm]

Please, someone... Give me a good reason to vote for Bush or Kerry.

Because there are no third-party candidates who stand a realistic chance of getting into office. It may not be a *good* reason, but it's the reason why I'm voting the way I am.

And yes, I know that's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy right there, but until people figure out that you don't always have to vote for the same two parties, we're going to be stuck with them.

 

[jrsxj98]

Let me pick on that one a bit... how many you think are directly related to Bush taking office and how many are a fallout from the previous administration? Things are not as simple to say that from this date on it's Bush's administration fault.

Because Bush has proved that he would rather outsource our jobs, and ship them to forgien countrys. Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever.

 

[jrsxj98]

Let's see, I'm voting for Kerry. "Why?!" some of you may ask. To me, very simple.

Iraq - didn't need to go there, the world is MORE dangerous because of our intervention, cost us over 1000 lives and counting, cost us over $200 billion and counting, no exit strategy, no political solution, no oil flowing from Iraq, Halliburton gets no bid contracts, world hates us.

Economy - net loss of over 900,000 jobs since Bush took office, insignificantly lower federal taxes for most Americans, higher state and local taxes for all Americans, less services, 40 million uninsured for health, most jobs "created" in the last three and a half years do not pay even 60% of what the jobs lost paid, exporting jobs overseas (with government incentives), no energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil - domestic drilling is not a long-term solution. Did it occur to anyone that an alternative source for oil could allow us to be independent of the Middle East for energy?

Terrorism - Osama Bin "Forgotten" in favor of flag-waving over Saddam. There is and was NEVER any link between the two but we were sold a bill of goods to justify invasion. End result has been greater number of potential terrorist threats than existed before 9/11 and a loss of intenational co-operation in our efforts. America looks bad these days.

Education - "No child left behind" legislation merely creates unfunded mandates (picked up by your local school district via increased property taxes) which make teachers teach to test performance rather than actually teaching kids to think.

Health Care - can be helped with improved employment so many more can get group coverage. Prescription drug law passed only to fatten pockets of drug companies. Most seniors who need medicines to stay alive will pay more out of pocket than before. How about allowing for foreign imports to lower prices and create competition?

Tax code - benefits existing wealth and does not reward work. Nothing has "trickled down" to the workers. The only reward the average american gets for earning more money is paying more taxes. How about his one? Did you know that FICA taxes for social security stop at around the first $70,000 in earnings? That means that for everyone making more than that, all of the money they make beyond the $70,000 or so is NOT subject to FICA tax?! Middle class is discriminated against in this tax, It should be extended to no matter how much you make to relieve some of the burden from average taxpayers. The american economy only gets moving when AVERAGE PEOPLE HAVE DISPOSABLE INCOME to spend.

Oh well, enough. Please notice I did not even get into personal attacks when forming m opinion - it is unecessary. Just ask yourself this simple question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" I bet enough people aren't .

Amen Brother. couldn't have said it better my self....

 

[casm]

Because Bush has proved that he would rather outsource our jobs, and ship them to forgien countrys.

OK, maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a decision made by industry, not the president. At what point is government to regulate enterprise? I agree that outsourcing jobs to India, Mexico, the Philippines, etc. is a problem, but how exactly is the president responsible for this?

Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever.

I'm not so sure about that - seeing as how I lost my job in the last few days of the Clinton administration and spent a year-and-a-half unemployed after that, from my perspective it seems as though the previous administration created a lot of these issues, not the current one.

 

[CW]

Wow. Wasn't there that thing called the great depression? I am pretty sure times were slightly worse economicaly then.

 

[Ronbo]

W.

 

[steve01XJ]

How many nations mess with Israel? They have terrorists, real bad, but no nation has stepped up any time I can remember and threatened them. Why? They're a tiny nation with little dog syndrome. You mess with them, they strike back 10 times worse. I remember when they used to send attack choppers to blow something up in the Palestinian neighborhood every now and then in retaliation for the suicide bombers. But they quit due to pressure from us, and the rest of the world.
If we'd gone to Rwanda you'd say we're trying to change them and there'd be more accusations of warmongering. Besides we can't be everywhere. People say we're overextended now, and we're only fighting in 2 countries.
Why am I voting for Bush? Because I believe he'll stand up and defend our nations interests, he actually has the balls to depart from what the UN says if he thinks it'll benefit the US. Kerry has a happy picture of other nations helping us in Irq with no word as to how he'd accomplish that goal. Other nations want no part in this. Bush tried and when he saw no one would come in and help out, he did what he thought he had to. Why don't I like Kerry? His Vietnam background he likes to throw around and brag that he's a war hero. What war hero throws that around? I've known more than a few men who fought in Vietnam and none of them will even talk about what they did. They'll mention their buddies but won't speak of their own accomplishments.

I still have not seen where invading Iraq advances or protects any US interests. If it was because Saddam was a murderer, then we should have gone to Rwanda before anywhere else. I do not advocate either intervention. If we can't be everywhere, then why Iraq? You missed my point. To justify our intervention there must be a clear and present danger to the US. There was none in Iraq or Rwanda. Just becasue we saber rattle and stick to our guns does not mean we are right. This is what the issue is all about - was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do.

 

[Darky]

I'd say yes. I'd say there was reason to believe he had WMDs. Why would Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out repeatedly? Have you thought of the possibility of them being in Syria now? A lot of troops and people and all kinds of stuff have slipped across the border to Syria, stuff's flowing the other way as well. Hell, there's lots of empty desert to bury stuff. I saw pictures of Iraqi MiGs that were quite literally buried in the sands. The shots were of the jets being excavated.

 

[Osprey413]

The reason Sadam ever had WMD in the first place is because we gave them to him. I think to ultimately stop the threat we should go to the root of the problem. The US hands out weapons like candy.

 

[JohnJohn]

Exactly.

Just curious, how is a vote 'wasted' if it's mine to use how I want?

:twak:

ECKSJAY: If you're a true Libertarian I am like minded, but “if wishes were horses all beggars would ride”. I call myself a realist Libertarian. I know it's never going to happen so I support what actually will. W.

ps assumtions made according to your signature, nothing else.

 

[Captain Ron]

Every time I hear this and similar statements I keep remembering how WWII came about. It was due to fear of war and decision not to do anything while a despot ruled and tested his boundaries on many fronts. Only when it was too late teh big powers chose to act with really big losses both in human lifes and in $$.

Careful there Kej, characterzations like that are too simple to have much fact in them.

Umm I believe there were a good half a dozen countries that supported US. There are still quite a few that have troops there alongside americans (granted not as many but still).

Not to minimized allied participation, but here's a look at the sacrifices since the end of major hostilities.

KIA:

US=1059
UK=68
OTHER=70

Does it look a little lopsided like this?

As of early July, this year...

More than 30 countries have contributed troops to the multinational forces in Iraq.

The US is overwhelmingly the biggest foreign contributor, followed by the UK, Italy and Poland.

Numbers fluctuate as troops are rotated in and out of the country. On 19 July 2004 there were about 133,000 foreign troops in Iraq, of whom about 112,000 were American. Any major engagement with insurgents is run by US forces, except in the south-east, where British forces take the lead.

Baghdad Area of Operations:
About 30,000 foreign soldiers, most from the US 1st Cavalry Division. There are 32 Estonians in the Abu Ghraib district of the city.

Baghdad is also the location of the multinational force headquarters.

Multinational Brigade North (also known as Task Force Olympia):
About 20,000 soldiers, of whom 11,500 are Iraqi security forces (national guard, border patrol and army).

The remaining 8,500 are nearly all American (mostly Third Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (my son is in this group)). There is also an Albanian commando company.

In August 2004, South Korea is due to start deploying 3,000 new troops in Irbil. Most of the 700 South Koreans already in the country have been based in the south-east, but about half are now, reportedly, being redeployed to Irbil.

(Sources: Multinational Brigade North; Globalsecurity.org)

North-Central Area of Operations:
The US 1st Infantry is augmented by contingents from:
Georgia (150)
Latvia (about 40)
Moldova (30)
Macedonia (30)

Western Area of Operations:
The US 1st Marine Division is augmented by contingents from:
Azerbaijan (150)
Tonga (45)

Multinational Division Centre-South:
Poland (2,350)
Ukraine (1,550)
Thailand (450)
Bulgaria (420)
Hungary (290)
Romania (200)
Mongolia (140
Latvia (110)
Slovakia (110)
Lithuania (50)

(Source: Multinational Division Centre-South website, figures dated 16 June 2004, when the Philippines still had 90 troops in the division. They were withdrawn ahead of schedule on 19 July 2004.)

Multinational Division South-East:
UK (8,300, mainly 1st Mechanised Brigade)
Italy (2,800)
The Netherlands (1,300)
Japan (500)
Romania (500)
Denmark (400)
Norway (130, in the process of leaving)
Portugal (124)
Czech Republic (90)
Lithuania (60)
New Zealand (60)

(Source: MND SE spokesman, 7 July 2004)

Others:
The numbers above usually do not include troops involved in logistical support, for example South Korean engineers and medics, or Estonian cargo handlers.

Australia has 850 troops in and around Iraq, mainly carrying out specialist functions such as air traffic control, air transport, aerial maritime patrols and maritime interception.

Singapore has also supplied a transport aircraft, a tank-carrying landing ship and police for training purposes - in total some 200 troops and police.

Some countries have significant numbers of soldiers at headquarters in Baghdad, and on warships or in air bases near Iraq. About 1,150 UK servicemen and women fall into this category. Spain withdrew its 1,300 troops in April. Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Norway and Kazakhstan have either withdrawn their forces, or are in the process of doing so.

(Source: BBC 7 July 2004)

How many people were murdered by Saddam over the years of his reign? Oh and by the way, we had around 40 nations that supported us, 40 who signed on with the Coalition of the Willing. Germany has ground troops in Iraq now, after they spoke against the whole idea in the beginning. Bush has been working other nations and slowly more are coming in to help out.

Most reasonable people agree that this is a US effort. By definition, it is a coalition, but hard pressed to be one in exectution. Do a search, most of these countries are there for a bigger reason than just "100% Support of the US cause".

W.

Hope this helps...

On topic, undecided

--ron

 

[Ronbo]

Because Bush has proved that he would rather outsource our jobs, and ship them to forgien countrys. Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever.

Did you notice that five of the top ten wealthiest people in the world are 'Waltons'? How did they get there? Americans vote with their wallets, we put them there. We want cheap, we get cheap, we get jobs shipped overseas. Ever blame your neighbors?

Do you even know the unemployment rate?

U.S. Department of Labor statistics: http://stats.bls.gov/

Jan 1994 to Dec 2000 average = 4.96% unemployment
Jan 2001 to Aug 2004 average = 5.55% unemployment

The worst year under Clinton(1994) averaged 6.1% unemployment
The worst year under WBush(2003) averaged 6.0% unemployment

 

[Osprey413]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? That says that clinton's presidency had less unemployment than bush's.

 

[OT]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? That says that clinton's presidency had less unemployment than bush's.

4.96% = 7 years
5.55% = 3.5 years

It took Clinton almost 2 terms to get the average that he ended up with.

W's administration has been repairing the late years of the Clinton admin. for only almost one term while engaged in war.

Wait and see in four and a half years and I'll bet W's 2 term average drops below 4.75%.

 

[Ronbo]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? That says that clinton's presidency had less unemployment than bush's.

I know exactly what it says. I presented the facts, not hype. The "Unemployment has reach a record level for any presidental administration ever." statement is false.
The worst year in the last eleven was 1994.

 

[Ronbo]

New John Kerry: "And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq." - 9/30/04

Old John Kerry: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." 9/6/02 Op-Ed The New York Times.

 

[Ramsey]

i dont like the double talking bastardo either, but some people do change. in this case though, i highly doubt he has changed his beliefs. i dont want a "go with the flow" president

 

[Beezil]

i dont like the double talking bastardo either, but some people do change. in this case though, i highly doubt he has changed his beliefs. i dont want a "go with the flow" president

The World is a rapidly changing place. I have more faith in those that can recognize and embrace change, and adapt to change by refocusing attention, opinion, emotion and response, rather than those who cannot, who boldly and arrogantly continue through a course, irresponsibly disregarding a new set of parameters.

change is good.