Who Will You Vote For..?
 

On Nov. 2nd who will you vote for...?

Here's a link to help you in your decision making process.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html[/url]
:grouphug:

I think we all know who Sammy Baugh Fan will vote for. He's made an effort to let all of us know...

I have a bad feeling we're going to see more of the same from 2000. Shady activity, people turned away at the polls, etc.

Well, I'm voting for Kerry & not because I like him so much, but because I really HATE Bush & his corrupt connections with the Middle East.

Watch Michael Moores movie F-911 & judge for yourself.....

My fiance's uncle was saying the other day he can't understand how someone from his generation can look at Iraq and NOT see Vietnam all over again.

It's depressing as hell to think this idiot could have 4 more years to mess things up.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]My fiance's uncle was saying the other day he can't understand how someone from his generation can look at Iraq and NOT see Vietnam all over again.

It's depressing as hell to think this idiot could have 4 more years to mess things up.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

First off let's try to keep this thread respectful.

[QUOTE=ChounsMan]Watch Michael Moores movie F-911 & judge for yourself.....[/QUOTE]

Or watch [URL=http://www.fahrenhype911.com]Fahrenhype 9/11[/URL] and get both sides and then judge for yourself. Turns out, you can actually make just as many (if not more) crooked connections between the middle East and Jonh Kerry (and Michael Moore believe it or not!) as you can to Bush. It's not safe to trust *only* Michael Moore's views. Ron Silver (a staunch democrat) said that if he used Michael Moore's own methods and collected enough tape on him, he could make Moore look like an anorexic right-winger. That should tell you right there about the kind of techniques he, as a filmaker, employs.

ChounsMan, I know you have strong personal feelings about this and I respect that, but I don't agree with you, and will be voting for Bush. I voted for him the first time around and will vote for him again. I think that he is the right person to lead this country right now. I do not like all of his social policies, but I am 100% behind his ideas on how to fight terror.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]My fiance's uncle was saying the other day he can't understand how someone from his generation can look at Iraq and NOT see Vietnam all over again.

It's depressing as hell to think this idiot could have 4 more years to mess things up.[/QUOTE]
Vietnam is not the only war that we have faught, and thus more than one history lesson exists. In 1937, the country chose to leave Hitler alone. In 1945 we wished we had gone after him when he was minscule in comparison to what he had become. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of, what we consider, his own people. He tortured little kids in front of their parents in order to teach the parents a lesson. He was a bad person and he hated the US. Maybe he had not put the 2 together yet, but it was inevitable. What would you have said if the President had chosen not to go into Iraq and then two months later we were attacked by an Iraqi produce weapon here on our own land? You would have ridiculed Bush because the likes of John Kerry said we must take action.

We must keep the war off our own land, or we will see catostrophic acts that we are not accustomed to seeing here. Maybe we did bring it upon ourselves to a certain extent, but we must now fight it.

I've got news for you folks. The election has already been [URL=http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1227747.htm]decided[/URL]

[QUOTE=smootsmack]I've got news for you folks. The election has already been [URL=http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1227747.htm]decided[/URL][/QUOTE]
Haha. You're one of the most easygoing guys on here, and I'm glad when you do stuff like this.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]First off let's try to keep this thread respectful.



Or watch [URL=http://www.fahrenhype911.com]Fahrenhype 9/11[/URL] and get both sides and then judge for yourself. Turns out, you can actually make just as many (if not more) crooked connections between the middle East and Jonh Kerry (and Michael Moore believe it or not!) as you can to Bush. It's not safe to trust *only* Michael Moore's views. Ron Silver (a staunch democrat) said that if he used Michael Moore's own methods and collected enough tape on him, he could make Moore look like an anorexic right-winger. That should tell you right there about the kind of techniques he, as a filmaker, employs.

ChounsMan, I know you have strong personal feelings about this and I respect that, but I don't agree with you, and will be voting for Bush. I voted for him the first time around and will vote for him again. I think that he is the right person to lead this country right now. I do not like all of his social policies, but I am 100% behind his ideas on how to fight terror.[/QUOTE]

1 WORD DESCRIBES YOUR VIEW..... [B]AFFECTED[/B]

You have become affected with what this admin. has fed & breed you to believe & understand.
IRAQ is another Vietnam & this country is going down the !@#$%* because of what & who GW & his Admin. have ties too.
Did you know that GW wanted to go into IRAQ first, but was told it was not the right move initially, so we invaded Afganistan first, just to justify why we wanted IRAQ.... OIL $Trillion$ of dollars worth. We have already taken the oil fields. How sad is this admin. :(

It all boils down to $$.

A lot of companies are making HUGE profits off this war, a lot of companies that are tied to this administration in some form. If anyone denies that they are seriously smoking something and I'd love a hit off that delusional stuff. Maybe it would help ease the pain of how blatantly corrupt things are.

I'm not saying Kerry is the answer to everything, but the greed and corruption of this current administration is right in our faces, yet some people choose to look the other way in the name of fighting terror.

This is the exact same thing we delt with in the cold war and the so called "ever present threat of communism".

The fear factor this administration is pushing is criminal, and I really feel sorry for those that buy into it.

[QUOTE]The fear factor this administration is pushing is criminal, and I really feel sorry for those that buy into it.[/QUOTE]

The weak buy into this thought process. It's sooo sad too... :o

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]It all boils down to $$.

A lot of companies are making HUGE profits off this war, a lot of companies that are tied to this administration in some form. If anyone denies that they are seriously smoking something and I'd love a hit off that delusional stuff. Maybe it would help ease the pain of how blatantly corrupt things are.

I'm not saying Kerry is the answer to everything, but the greed and corruption of this current administration is right in our faces, yet some people choose to look the other way in the name of fighting terror.

This is the exact same thing we delt with in the cold war and the so called "ever present threat of communism".

The fear factor this administration is pushing is criminal, and I really feel sorry for those that buy into it.[/QUOTE]

I vote Matty for President.......

Will you finally legalize it if you get elected?

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I'm not saying Kerry is the answer to everything, but the greed and corruption of this current administration is right in our faces, yet some people choose to look the other way in the name of fighting terror.[/QUOTE]

Can you give examples of the greed and corruption?

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]
The fear factor this administration is pushing is criminal, and I really feel sorry for those that buy into it.[/QUOTE]

And also an example of the fear factor, please.

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]I vote Matty for President.......

Will you finally legalize it if you get elected?[/QUOTE]
I would definitely legalize. Legalize it, tax the hell out of it and wipe out the debt in no time. It would also save us big time $$ on all we spend on putting people in prison for selling it.

One can only dream...

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I would definitely legalize. Legalize it, tax the hell out of it and wipe out the debt in no time. It would also save us big time $$ on all we spend on putting people in prison for selling it.

One can only dream...[/QUOTE]
Ha, I'm not really against legalizing it either. I wouldn't use it, though. The effects wouldn't be bad after the initial 'let's get high' period in america after it becomes legalized.

[QUOTE]Can you give examples of the greed and corruption?[/QUOTE]

Example(s):
Did you know the extent of the relationship between [URL=http://www.boxden.com/slumz/showthread.php?t=44283]Taliban & Chaney, Bush [/URL] Jr., & Sr. prior to 911...?
They were all business partners, and may still be. Did you know that Bush Sr. is the only ex-Pres. that recv's CIA briefings, for what, why...?
Just because he's the ex-head of the CIA does not mean anything. He retired when he became Pres.

The Majority of the Bush Sr. & Jr. Admin. have at one time been business partners in several major money corp. in & overseas. Hell check out ENRON & Haliburton. Both corporations are linked to the Saudis & Bush/Cheney.

Did you know John Ashcroft lost an election to a [URL=http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/senate.missouri/]dead man[/URL], but was then appointed to the White House as Attorney General.

If you need more examples, I'd be happy to comply....

For your first link, if you read the 2nd sentence it says "among the figures Bush dealt with indirectly when he ran oil companies". Keyword being indirectly. You and I both deal with the Saudis indirectly. I didn't see anything in there about the Taliban, which you say Bush & Co were in business with.

I'd would hope that ec-CIA/FBI/NSA chiefs are briefed from time to time. It makes sense.

Enron supported Bush in TX, true. They also gave $420k to democrats in hopes that they would support the Kyoto bill during the Clinton administration. Anyone notice that while Clinton was in office, Enron was doing all of its dirty deeds, and then when Bush come in they get found out about???

A link can be made between the Saudis, that is even closer to one to the Bushes, to Michael Moore/George Soros/John Kerry/MoveOn.org.

Yes, I knew about Ashcroft's past. What does this have to do with his appointment to the head of the DOJ?

Keep 'em coming. This is fun. I'll get to them when I can. (...school and all...)

I added a poll so now we can actually post our selection, then see how it compares to the actual results next week

For this site, I'm guessing it will end up being in favor of Kerry atleast 2-1.

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]I think we all know who Sammy Baugh Fan will vote for. He's made an effort to let all of us know...[/QUOTE]

GIBBS/BUGLE `04
Return to Glory

Yeah, I'll be voting for President Bush for sure and proud of it.

I support the War.
I don't like Abortion.
I don't want the Biblical definition of Marriage changed for gays.
I want to see Judges not insert their Opinions in Laws.
I like a small government that stays out of my business.
I want my business not over taxed by the Government.

Don't even get me started as why I would never vote for Kerry.

peace and go vote

mike

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan]GIBBS/BUGLE `04
Return to Glory

Yeah, I'll be voting for President Bush for sure and proud of it.

I support the War.
I don't like Abortion.
I don't want the Biblical definition of Marriage changed for gays.
I want to see Judges not insert their Opinions in Laws.
I like a small government that stays out of my business.
I want my business not over taxed by the Government.

Don't even get me started as why I would never vote for Kerry.

peace and go vote

mike[/QUOTE]

So you don't care that Bush is just going to drive this country down into the dirt. Look at the gas prices this year, hello!!! :nono:

Support the war...? We shouldn't even be there & where are the WOMD...?

to be cont..... tomorrow

I'd like to know where the WOMD's are too. Can the Bush-backers at least admit they were dead wrong on that?? They went to war on assumed information.

Iraq is a complete mess. The insurgents are going to fight back for years and years, they're not going to give up, we're playing right into their game. We need to clean things up the best we can and get the hell out. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

If Iraq was such a "threat", why are we not going after North Korea with the same fervor?? They appear to be the much more viable and realistic threat. I guess there's not enough oil in that part of the world. LOL

matty, i honestly believe there were many many many mistakes in iraq, but i can't see how it could possibly be for oil... right now that money is paying for part of the reconstruction (which sucks cause its proceeds are going to US corporations which is kinda tainted), but afterwards it'll go straight to the Iraqee Gov, the UN etc would go apeshit otherwise... hopefully the US is smart enough to realize tacking on a huge war debt to a "liberated" country is the best way to ensure another war...

we're not staying out of N korea cause they don't have oil, we're staying out cause there's billions of chinese within walking distance, and the last timed we tried it the results weren't very good. The only country with real power over N korea right now is china (which pays to keep their government running and are a much closer threat)...

if you think iraq was dumb (in hindsight, lots and lots of people have no idea how wars are waged or whats involved apparently, cause the opinion polls sure have flipped), korea would be much much worse...

personally i tend to vote conservative cause i don't like taxes and i like independence (ie, not a fan of social welfare plans or even social security), but on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, or legalizing prostitution could care less... i'm very much against forcing ideals onto others.

This is a pretty cool place to check out [URL=http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php]campaign commercials[/URL] from 1952 to 2004.

It's amazing how much they've changed over the years.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I'd like to know where the WOMD's are too. Can the Bush-backers at least admit they were dead wrong on that?? They went to war on assumed information.

Iraq is a complete mess. The insurgents are going to fight back for years and years, they're not going to give up, we're playing right into their game. We need to clean things up the best we can and get the hell out. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

If Iraq was such a "threat", why are we not going after North Korea with the same fervor?? They appear to be the much more viable and realistic threat. I guess there's not enough oil in that part of the world. LOL[/QUOTE]


Okay, getting in late and, as always, will never address everything everyone can possibly raise. But, I'll give it a go...

WMD's in Iraq: At some point prior to involving the UN, Bush believed that Saddam constituted a significant threat to the USA. After that point, war (for Bush) became inevitable and information/evidence that contradicted that conclusion was dismissed. Evidence which supported the WMD theory was subjected to little if any scrutiny. With that said, there was little doubt in the world community (France, Russia, Germany and Russia to name a few) that Iraq had WMD's. The debate was never really whether Saddam was developing them but, rather, at what stage of development were they and what should be done to stop Iraq from proceeding - In fact, during the lead up to war, the International Atomic Counsel asserted that Iraq could have nuclear capacity within (worst case scenario) six months.

After Bush accepted that he had to goto the UN, it was clear that the main european countries arguing for delay were the same countries illegally profiting from the UN's oil for food program (France, Russia). Also, rather than full disclosure and cooperation (which would have revealed the lack of WMD's and compliance with prior UN mandates), Iraq chose to delay and obfuscate. For anyone inclined to believe in the evil intent of Saddam, such actions only buttressed the idea that he was contravening UN sanctions and attempting to gain time.

Yes. Bush was dead wrong on WMD's. So was the world. At the time of the US invasion, no major country doubted their existence. Instead, many nations who were profiting from the status quo argued for its continuation. Bush disagreed with the UN's continuing appeasement of Saddam and acted to preempt the possible (and at the time, seen by all as likely) development and deployment of WMD's by a country that had:1) Demonstrated the willingness to deploy WMD's in a battlefield setting; 2) Had used the WMD's on its own population; and 3) Had demonstrated the willingness to launch unprovoked offensives on US allies and US interests.

I believe the war was a judgment call by Bush made based on his belief that SH would, sooner rather than later, become a threat to both the stability of the Middle East and to the US allies and interests (oil, Isreal, and strategic military bases) in the region.

As for me, I have mixed feelings on the entrance into the war. I believe Bush rushed into it and, rather, should have continued to try and get the UN to do more than talk about Saddam. I do not believe, however, that the war was entered into for the purpose of profiteering by Bush's corporate allies or for any other hidden evil agenda. Bush may have been rash but, IMO, he did not act out of malice or greed.

Postwar Iraq: In hindsight, it is easy to say we should have anticipated the million things that have gone wrong. At the same time, it does appear (to me at least) that their are enough reports of normalcy coming from Iraq to indicate that, for a country with little or no infrastructure, little or no history of secular democracy, and little or no history of true religious tolerance (i.e. not the Baathist tolerance which was basically intolerant to all religions), Iraq is making progress. This country is being built, literally, from the ground up. The rewards for a strong stable democratic Iraq in the Middle East are immeasurable.

As for the comparison - sorry, Iraq is not Vietnam. In that both involved an isurgent movement, they are similar. But that is about it. In Vietnam, the US backed a corrupt, anti-communist regime (which the US had essentially installed) that was in turn fending off an invasion from a neighboring country. The local insurgency was supported in part by the local communist party but received its main support from the invading army. Further, the local insurgency was effectively destroyed in the 1968 TET offensive and never again was a significant force in the war. The South Vietnamese government only lost the war after the political fall-out from the TET offensive forced US ground troops to be w/drawn allowing the North Vietnamese Army to defeat the poorly led and unmotivated South Vietnamese regular army. It was the NVA, not the VietCong that took Saigon.

In Vietnam, the insurgency failed in the field and lost its military battle after 3 years of significant US troop involvement.

The situation in Iraqis more akin to Post WWII Germany but a) without the backing of a truly powerful multinational alliance and b) with a much more diverse and divided population. In each case, the invading power (us) attempted/is attempting to build a nation. Post WWII Germany had been subject to tyranny for just only about one generation and did have a history, although nascent, of liberal democracy. Unlike Iraq, it was generally a homogenous population. Additionally, unlike Iraq, Germany's post war insurgents defended a discredited ideaology that had no foreign support. These significant differences create a more difficult nation building problem. Undoubtedly, some of these could have been better anticipated. At the same time, given the international community's lack of knowledge of day to day Iraqi life, the depth of the infrastructure problems could not be known by anyone until access was gained by ridding Iraq of Saddam.

It will be a long hard row in Iraq. Bush's decisions have made us responsible for the building of a nation. Regardless of how we got there, and at this point, failure would be close to catastrophic. I firmly believe that the failure to establish a solid secular democracy in Iraq will lead to the complete destabilization of the Mid East and terrorist attacks on US soil.

Finally, and although not its origin, the war on terror is now being fought in Iraq. It's an "away game" we need to unequivocally win.

I believe Bush understands these points and Kerry simply does not.

Korea - Unlike Iraq, N.Korea has only rattled its saber. It has and continues to use its nuclear capacity as a bargaining chip BUT it has yet to demonstrate its willingness to use them. Since the Korean War and unlike Iraq, NK has simply not demonstrated either the will or the economic power to create war on its neighbors. Different threats require different tactics. In that vein Bush has pursued the multi nation diplomatic course to diplomatically and economically isolate NK and force concessions from it without the need for invasion.

There are a lot of assertions contained in my post which I believe are backed up from primary source materials. As I am at work and needed to leave 5 minutes ago, I apologize for the lack of citation. But, bottom line, the boss (my wife) told me to get my ass home and, in THAT discussion, I have no vote.

Now with my disclaimer attached, blast away.

great post JR ;)

just like to point out as far as vietnam, we won militarily... it was a war where we weren't allowed to take out supply trails, weren't allowed to stop border crossings, weren't willing to fight (draftees forced to fight), etc...

When we went in i really thought it was rushed because bush had a vendetta against saddam (who tried to kill his father)... but i really believe he wanted to get rid of saddam for because of some moral sense of righteousness than any nefarious intents...

unlike korea, saddam had killed massive amounts of its own civillian population (with a potential WoMD (chemical gas), had invaded foreign countries, and had tried to kill foreign leaders... there were places in iraq that terrorist camps could exist, they (at one point) had a very very large military for the population and a massive system of secret police and toture, and had continued to buy military gear and support against sanctions... human rights and sanctions violations aside, they did possess a legitimate military threat to all neighboring countries...

they problem we have now is that rebuilding an occupied country is hard, especially without the support of the local population (and besides japan and the phillipines (both supportive populations), our track record is BAD)... and if we pull out now, there's a huge chance of anarchy followed by either another tyrant or a militant islamic state, both vitriolic in their hatred of the US... (ie, will have gone from bad to worse)... its not like we can just pull out and pretend it never happened.

JR said it all.i can only add very little.Bush.whether you like him or not,has strong morals and is aesy to read.we all know were he stands on all issues.kerry,on the other hand,can't make up his mind on anything.he totally supported the war in Irac untill he won the democratic nomination to be pres.like JR said there is no greed by the bush administration but there is plenty by the ones who did not give support ( Germany,France etc..) to say that Bush invaded and put americans in harms way just for control of oil is not only rediculis,it's down right stupid.

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]I vote Matty for President.......

Will you finally legalize it if you get elected?[/QUOTE]
:iamwithst :food-smil

Already voted. Bush helped this country about as much as Spurrier helped the Skins.

[quote]I like a small government that stays out of my business.[/quote]

Big fan of the Patriot act I see.

I'll try to post a longer, well thought out post (Yeah, Im shocked too!) when I'm not rocking a fever of 101!

Oh, by the way Cpayne. I know last time we talked politics, you hadn't seen F. 9/11 and refused to. Have you, or have you just watched Farenhype 9/11 and blindly arguing for that like you're accusing others of doing the other way around?

patriot act TIA etc is all crap, but i see nothing that would make me believe kerry would be any better on those fronts either... and that's been the problem i've been having... the things i personally care about that bush sucks at (science/tech laws, privacy), aren't really addressed (since for most people they're very minor issues sadly), and kerry hasn't done anything to make me think he'd be any better.

Whatever, it's all crap, let's bench them all, fire them and start again....

It's certainly going to be another rebuilding season in America.

Bush is going to drive this country to war again & to the ground after that. He has already requested an addl [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/26/iraq.spending.ap/index.html]75 bil[/URL] for the dept. of defense (DOD). What do you think this money is being spent on...? Special interests groups linked to the Presidents Admin. will indirectly see this money.

Did you know that the Saudis have 1 trillion dollars in our banks & if they ever decided to remove it our economy would be shattered. Call it what you want, but I call it extortion.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Big fan of the Patriot act I see.

I'll try to post a longer, well thought out post (Yeah, Im shocked too!) when I'm not rocking a fever of 101!

Oh, by the way Cpayne. I know last time we talked politics, you hadn't seen F. 9/11 and refused to. Have you, or have you just watched Farenhype 9/11 and blindly arguing for that like you're accusing others of doing the other way around?[/QUOTE]

See post #31 in this
[URL=http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=1625]thread[/URL].
I never once refused to see it. That's putting words in my mouth that I never said.

I'll gladly watch it if you own it and will lend it to me. I am not going to pay to see it, though. That's what I've said all along. I'll let you barrow Fahrenhype 9/11, too - if you like.

[QUOTE=ChounsMan]Did you know that the Saudis have 1 trillion dollars in our banks & if they ever decided to remove it our economy would be shattered. Call it what you want, but I call it extortion.[/QUOTE]

That 1 trillon figure is a bit high. The highest estimates are in the $860 billion range (most estimates are in the $400-$600 billion range), which is less than 7% of total foreign investments in the US. Yes, pulling 7% of foreign investments out would hurt, but I don't think it would shatter our economy.

cpayne, pulling out 7% would more than just hurt our economy.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]cpayne, pulling out 7% would more than just hurt our economy.[/QUOTE]
Shatter it though? When I think of our economy being shattered, I think of it being unrecoverable. I think we could recover from 7%. 7% is a high number with their investments being a rather high number at $860 billion. Like I said, most estimates are in the $400-600 billion range, which would put their investments in the range of 3.25-4.8% of total US foreign investments.

The $860 billion figure comes from the book(House of Bush, House of Saud) of the author (Craig Unger) michael moore interviews. The book lists two sources, one of which actually has that figure.

I'm not saying it would shatter the economy, I just thought you were underestimating how much 7% of the economy really is.