Opinions and facts be darned!

mikester · 09-09-2004, 08:51 AM

I'm feeling a little active this morning.

Alright - this ought to be fun.

My question is this;

Why won't you vote for Bush or Why won't you vote for Kerry?

Simple answers please and I'd like to be light no the debate of these issues - I just want to know why or why for either guy. I figure these reasons we each hold evident might be very healthy food for thought. I don't want to argue these points I just want to know what are your points one way or the other.

Me:

One reason I absolutely don't think I can vote for Bush is because I do not want him to be successful in his appointment of conservative justices.

There you go...

jm951 · 09-09-2004, 09:20 AM

Ok, I'll bite.

Being a conservative, I have no problems with conservative judicial appointments as the liberal appointees have made it a point to "find" rights that aren't expressly spelled out and to make law from the bench usurping the role of the legislature. That's just the tip of that iceberg.

I'm voting for Bush because of a couple of things. First off, he's far more conservative than Kerry/Malpractice Edwards. Second, I don't like Kerry's voting record in the Senate on nearly every vote I've read up on. I'm pro Life, Kerry is pro Death for inconvenient children. Third, Kerry cozied up to the North Vietnamese government while we were still at war with them. In any other time, this would have been considered treason and resulted in either jail or execution. Kerry skated because of liberals controlling the country and Kerry was thier golden boy, still is. Kerry is pro gun control. Don't bother with his rehtoric, look at how he votes, he's left of Kennedy, Feingold, et al.

What I like about Bush- he makes a decision and sticks with it and isn't blown around by the focus group de jour. That means he is guaranteed to be unpopular with somebody all the time. He's loyal to his people, loyalty is a quality sadly lacking in modern society. I like the fact he had the wheaties to stand up to SH, regardless of the WMD (a red herring) issue. Bottom line is SH violated the Cease Fire repeatedly and was still actively seeking more weapons of all types. That's why our "allies" got so mad, France, Germany, Russia, China and others were on the take with the Oil for Food scam. With allies like these, just who IS our friend? All this was happening prior to 9/11, so it isn't a new thing. SH has been documented in supporting terrorists, not 9/11 mind you, but with Abu Nidal and other connections, he had to be removed. Remeber that W said we will hunt down and punish the terrorists and the countries that support them. Wonder why NK, Iran, and others howled about that? I think they protesteth too much.

To be fair, what I don't like about Bush- our borders need to be sealed from all illegal immigration. This won't happen because of fear of offending the Hispanic vote, but they vote heavily D anyway so what's the problem W, they ain't voting for you! There are elements of NAFTA I don't like, like no protection against dumping by foreign competitors, resulting in loss of US jobs.

Overall, neither candidate is perfect, just that I think W comes out waaay on the positive side. As I see it, it's Hanoi John and the Malpractice Kid or W, the guy who does what he says on national security.

Moses · 09-09-2004, 09:45 AM

At this time in history, I think the Islamic/terrorist threat is the single greatest danger we face.

We have two choices; hit them hard and hope they eventually leave you alone, or placate them. Neither choice is great, but I'll chose plan "A".

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Moses
We have two choices; hit them hard and hope they eventually leave you alone, or placate them. Neither choice is great, but I'll chose plan "A".

There's no way in hell plan "A" will work, unless you're prepared to annihilate everyone who even remotely smells Arab. Period. This is what we liberal pussies have been trying to tell you psycho right wing chickenhawk nutjobs, and you just won't listen.

jm951 · 09-09-2004, 09:54 AM

350- So we should just sit here and let the Jihad types kill anyone they please without thought to any retaliation at all? Are you advocating doing nothing while they kill our citizens?

Moses · 09-09-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
There's no way in hell plan "A" will work, unless you're prepared to annihilate everyone who even remotely smells Arab. Period. This is what we liberal pussies have been trying to tell you psycho right wing chickenhawk nutjobs, and you just won't listen.

You forget I'm a left-of-center chickenhawk nutjob!

Actually, I think the "Moses Plan" would actually be fairly effective and cost effective! Details later.

Z-man · Z-man's Garage

I agree with most of President Bush's stance. That's why I'll vote for him. The biggest issue I have with him is his stance against stem cell research. As a diabetic, I have to believe that there may be a cure to my disease via stem cell experimentation.

Sure, the war hasn't gone the way we were all hoping. I don't think it ever does.

Now, what about Kerry? Well, I have a difficult time guaging his stance, due to the fact that at best, he is vague in some major issues. He himself has been heard saying, "I voted FOR it before I voted AGAINST it."

Bush's stance is much more clearly defined than Kerry's. I agree with most of what he believes in. That's why he's got my vote.

-Z-man.

mikester · 09-09-2004, 10:19 AM

Again...not looking for debate - just the points.

Maybe it's too much to ask that we contain ourselves.

Burnin' oil · 09-09-2004, 10:56 AM

I'm voting for myself as a write-in. Although I do not agree with all my positions and am somewhat critical of my past, I feel that my views more accurately reflect my views than the other candidates, not to mention the fact that NONE of the other candidates have taken a position on zombie invasions, which is clearly our greatest threat

jm951 · 09-09-2004, 11:14 AM

That's discrimination against zombies, after all, they're just here doing work that normal Americans won't do.

dd74 · 09-09-2004, 11:17 AM

I'm voting for the Italian porn star who gives her news conferences with them-a-swinging...

Oh, does that mean I have to move to Italy?

slope-nz · 09-09-2004, 11:44 AM

Opinion, I'm a vote for kerry. I've never voted for a Dem. in my life but I feel that George W. has taken us in the wrong direction the last 4 years. #1, We the US went to war with Iraq for all the right reasons only to find out that none of these reasons were real. The position of the US in the midlle east is now worse than befor we went to war. GW's position of why we should have fought this war has changed many times sence the facts have come out. ( no WMD's no terrorist links, ect) As much as we the US didn't like the goverment in Iraq this was a sovern goverment that the US topled.I grew up thinking that the US might finish a war ,but we would never start one.For this action we have pushed away our frends around the world,we are now a super bully. #2 GW has run rampent in abusing the people of this nation for the sake of big bucks for his cronies,hallaberton,pharmical comp's are just a coupla that come to mind quickly.#3 GW has made a lot of fanfair over legastation that sounds good but has a hollow ring with out proper funding,like "no child left behind',home land security,The list gos on if you look. #4 I don't like the way GW weres his religon on his sleave,not everyone is a christen, and basing polital decesions on these beleafs has no part in goverment. Yes, we need stem cell research. As for Kerry, his saving grace is there wont be a "none of the above" place on the ballet .Iguess what I've tryed to say is that if GW is running on his record of the last 4 years why would we want to reelect him. Randy

island911 · 09-09-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Z-man
I agree with most of President Bush's stance. That's why I'll vote for him. The biggest issue I have with him is his stance against stem cell research.
. . .

President Bush's stance is FOR stem cell research, other than Embryonic stem cell research.

. .. A big difference. Stem cells exist in many places besides embryos.

Could you imagine if, way back, organ transfer research was based on an argument of Embryonic harvesting? . ..as those embryos would be much more "pure" than those taken from those silly motorcyclist who wrapped themselves around telephone poles.

Oh, I'm voting for Bush, cuz Mul strongly suggested so.

btw, pls re-instate Mul. . .and then ban Lynn & supre for their huge campaign to bait the guy. ("bring pressure onto". . .whatever)

Z-man · Z-man's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
President Bush's stance is FOR stem cell research, other than Embryonic stem cell research.

. .. A big difference. Stem cells exist in many places besides embryos.

Could you imagine if, way back, organ transfer research was based on an argument of Embryonic harvesting? . ..as those embryos would be much more "pure" than those taken from those silly motorcyclist who wrapped themselves around telephone poles.

Oh, I'm voting for Bush, cuz Mul strongly suggested so.

btw, pls re-instate Mul. . .and then ban Lynn & supre for their huge campaign to bait the guy. ("bring pressure onto". . .whatever)

True. I should have clarified about embryonic stem cell research. Still, I wish he weren't against that.

Regarding Mul: I have not heard from him regarding his banning...
-Z.

vash · vash's Garage

i am voting for kerry. all because Jesus isnt talking to him, and telling him how to run the country. i think we should have kicked the living crap out of the terrorist that hit us that day, but we should have stayed out of Iraq. dont put a bunch of oil men in charge of attacking a land full of oil. too much of a conflict of interest for me to stay comfy. and now that the mission is accomplished, Iraq is in hell. we have no way out. kerry just has a schitty personalility, but last i checked that doesnt make you a sucky prez.

cliff

Moses · 09-09-2004, 01:13 PM

What did I miss? Mul got banned? When? Why?

dd74 · 09-09-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moses
What did I miss? Mul got banned? When? Why?

Happened last Thursday. Mull pushed it too hard with Denis, and blew his motor.

I miss Mull though.

cowtown · 09-09-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Burnin' oil
I'm voting for myself as a write-in. Although I do not agree with all my positions and am somewhat critical of my past, I feel that my views more accurately reflect my views than the other candidates

Burnin, you made me laugh out loud at work. I'm voting for you too.

928ram · 09-09-2004, 02:01 PM

The Dems had a chance to nominate a real candidate who was capable of being president; they chose not too.

As for Kerry's platform I see no evidence that he would improve anything in this country; on the contrary, his ideas promise to stagnate the economy, extend the Iraq war, give up the terrorism war, ruin health care, send more jobs overseas, and in general ruin this country with the N.E. liberal "big dig" policies that he's famous for-bad for all of us.

Bush on the other hand had a better agenda and a real direction for this country and all of us-good for all of us; Kerry seems to have absolutely no grasp on what it takes to actually be president.

On the stem-cell thing, I caught a news blurb the other day that suggested embrionic-level research (in animals) showed a severe incidence of cancers as opposed to mature stem cells; don't recall who was doing the research, might be worth a google.