What the Election Comes Down To

[lazs2]

I think you are making too much out of it.  I think most voters are voting on single issues that affect them personaly... if you are a teacher you would fear vochers say, and vote for someone like kerrie who you could trust to be in your poicket.

If you were a gun owner and believed in the second amendment, you would want to have someone like Bush who is in the pocket of the NRA.

If you are a liberal you would want kerrie and more taxes and socialism

If you are a conservative you would want Bush and less taxes and less government programs.

lazs

[AKIron]

I'm tired of hearing Bush called a divider or polarizer. Clinton pissed many of us off to the extreme and yes caused some visible division, even drove the wedge that is still dividing us. However, it wasn't to the extreme that seems apparent today. This isn't Bush's fault though. The difference is that many of us conservatives weren't the loud mouth have-it-my-way-at-all-costs blow hards making all the racket today. Of course you are free to disagree.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Nash
I aint even gonna touch that one. - Funked

Oh like... the rest of us aren't making tulips of ourselves?

You running for school Omnibudsman?

(Funked: "thars something damning I want to say, but by just suggesting that there is a damning thing, my job is done".)

Jump in, the waters fine.

I thought the "if" part was pretty funny.
It's just that you are under such a big dogpile that I thought I'd just do a drive-by instead of jumping on the pile.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Dinger
First off, as many leaders of what they themselves refer to as organizations to throw off the yoke of american imperialism, and what the rest of us call terrorist organizations, say, W has been great for recruitment.
Their cause for war is the claim that the United States and Israel seek to wipe out Islam and steal the natural resources with which the Middle East is cursed.
No US president has come anywhere near W in terms of making this claim seem valid, both in its religious and economic parts.
you can argue that W.'s invasion of Iraq was not guided by Christian apocalypticism or corporate greed, and you may be right, but that's not how it's being perceived.

So, whatever else you might say, W. is better at encouraging terrorist groups to recruit and to organize against the US.

Personally, I don't see kicking his dumb bellybutton out of office as "backing down" or "giving in" to the wishes of terrorists. Frankly, Al-Q and the rest want someone like Bush in power. It makes their extremist position seem not so extreme.
And if you've got a quarrel with a neighbor who's convinced you want to damage his property, you don't apologize for something you don't want and don't desire to do, but you don't let your kids throw rocks through his windows either. It's not "backing down" to tell that kid to stop and lock him in the basement for crimes against humanity.  There's a right way and a wrong way to solve problems, after all.

please explain to me clinton and the escalation of terrorism attacks against the us? clinton was everyones buddy and sensitive to all. you lack fundamental understanding about how things work in the more barbaric parts of the world. "anything but a hard target is-a target". this is a reality in the middle east and other places that ill bet you have never been to. you are very reasonable i think. most of the people that are a threat to western culture are not.

[Torque]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I thought the "if" part was pretty funny.
It's just that you are under such a big dogpile that I thought I'd just do a drive-by instead of jumping on the pile.

hehehe

[vorticon]

if i could vote, and if i could vote in america, id drop a match into the ballot box, thus rendering the entire election invalid, causing both major parties to self destruct in a massive witch hunt.

[lasersailor184]

I think it would be pretty hard to judge the election by what the latest things each candidate has said.

Kerry has changed it so many times that we don't know to what or when he will change it again.


However, as of right now, Kerry is saying the exact same thing Bush is.

[john9001]

Originally posted by MrCoffee
That he freed a country that didnt want to be free, didnt ask to be free

thats about the stupidest thing i have ever heard, "people don't want to be free", speak for yourself, you must be a poli-sci major at Berkley.

people risk their lives to be free, and some even die trying to be free.

you are a poor misguided fool, get out of my country.

[OIO]

B.

Simply put because if K. becomes said symbol, he'll be just that a symbol.

Symbols do not break dictatorships, do not break extremist regimes, does not change economies (which in turn change societies at the sociological level).

The USA was a symbol of freedom for all oppressed peoples during the cold war. Nothing came out of being a symbol. it was economical and military issues that brought upon the fall of the berlin wall, the breakup of the USSR.

Symbols? they make students living in oppressive regimes stage up impressive demostrations where they ask for their rights as human beings.. then get rolled over by tanks and machine gunned. Tianamen (sp?) square ring a bell?

Want to SEE what REALLY works?

Take a look at the attempted coup in russia a couple years back. Russia had been under a free government and the ol' communist era leaders (including KGB) wanted to get control back... army tanks and troops sent by those men to remove the free gov. from power.

The Russian PEOPLE stopped it. Once the concept of freedom puts a step in the door people wont give it up. And this only happened because economic/military from the USA, not some stupid symbol, that broke the USSR's back.

and i need more coffee.