If the election was today - who would I vote for? and why? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Liquor Dealer · 12-12-2003, 08:10 AM

If today was election day who would I vote for? Those of you who know me know that I have very strong leanings toward the Republican party but, I vote for the person and not the party. Would I vote for George Bush and is he the best of the choices I could make?

Bush has done several things that I really don't care for and because of these things I have looked very seriously (and will continue to look) at all of those who are candidates and those who might jump in at the last minute.

Dean - Howard Dean is way way way to far left at the moment for me to give serious consideration to at this time. I know that at this time he is courting the extreme left and the ultra-liberal vote. I am sure he will come back toward the center a bit if he is the candidate because I don't think any candidate can count on receiving all of the party's vote - any candidate is going to have to have at least part of the other partys votes and the votes of those who consider themselves to be neither Democrat or Republican and it really makes no difference at this point what name they follow. Dean appears to be the man to beat at trhe moment - by election time this might not hold true but right now, he seems to have the momentum. Gore has endorsed Dean and Dean has accepted that endorsement. In my opinion, Dean should have told him thanks, but no thanks. I have no more of an idea what the real game that the Clintons and Gore are playing than anyone else has. I have no idea why Democrats are cowtowing to either one of them. But, at this point that too is irrelevant. I would not vote for Dean without Gore's endorsement and Gore's endoresement and Dean's acceptance of it put them in the same shoe. This takes Dean off my short list.

General Clark - I have no idea what he stands for and I'm not sure he knows either. He seems very Clintonlike and I don't care for Clinton at all. Clark seems to flipflop depending on who his audience is - I want to know where he stands period. Not what he is saying at this instancefor public consumption. I don't think I could vote for Clark.

Joseph Leiberman - This man appears to be an honest and a good person. He appears capable, knowledgeable, willing and able to become a good president. Is he electable? I don't think so. I am in no way anti-semitic but I don't think a person of the Jewish faith could be a successful president at this time. The current and ongoing problems in the Middle-East, in my opinion, would make it impossible for him to deal effectively with them in foreign affairs. Is Joe Leiberman a man that I could vote for - Yes he is, but, I don't think he can be elected or even become the candidate and if he were elected he might not be able to survive in office.

The Clintons - While not an announced candidate they are definitely in the running. Not just no but hell no! It makes no difference who's name is on the ballot you get them both. Enough was already way to much of them. I think Hillary is a political joke played on the state of New York. They've had absolutely no representation from her in the Senate - she represents the State of Clinton and that has absolutely nothing to do with New York. Can a woman be elected president? I think so. Would I vote for a woman? Sure, if the right woman was running for the office. There are many females who are very capable of running this country - perhaps better than some of the men who have tried - but, could a female, at this time, be a successful president? I really don't think so and for basically the same reasons I gave for Leiberman - the Middle-East. The perception those in the Middle-east have of women would make it all but impossible for a woman to be accepted in their minds as an equal - much less as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

Gephardt - I believe that, in my opinion, this is the only Democrat I could support at this time. I don't know much about him but like what I've seen. He is knowledgeable, experienced, and appears to be an honest and decent man. I believe that these are traits a president must have to be accepted and effective. Would I vote for Dick Gephardt - under the right conditions I could see myself doing this.

George Bush - As I said at the beginning of this rant - I am not 100% happy with George Bush. I like George Bush. George Bush speaks the same language as I do and while some of you dislike or do not understand Texan, I do understand exactly what he is saying and I think if you listen to what he is saying you will also understand. You may not like what you hear but you will understand - he means exactly what he says - there is no hidden meaning, there are on insinuations, there should be nothing at all that can be misinterpreted - he means exactly what he says. Is saying exactly what you mean good in politics? In foreign affairs? In diplomacy? No! It probably isn't. It's a cryin' assed shame, but saying exactly what you mean doesn't work as well in these areas as does double speak - politicalese and dimplomaticese seem to be what is required. Tell them what they want to hear and can interpret in any manner that makes them feel good at the moment.

George Bush has been a good president. There is no one, anywhere on earth, that does not know that if he says he's going to slap you you're going to be slapped. Is this good in my opinion? Yes it is. Is this bad in my opinion? Yes it is. Can you have it both ways? I don't think so. Which is the best of the two? I think I would much rather him be what he is than be wishy-washy like Clinton. If Clinton had balls much of the difficulties we now have would have already have been dealt with.

I do have a real problem with Bushes courting of the extereme religious factions. I have absolutely nothing against anyone's religion and consider myself to be a Christian but this has nothing to do with government - it is a personal thing - it is a way of living - a code of conduct - personal rules --- I have nothing against his religious belief influencing how he conducts himself - his morals - the way he lives - his honesty and his sincereity. I do not believe that George Bush will lie to anyone. Many of you will take exception with this statement but I honestly believe it to be true. He has perhaps made honest decisions based upon false or flawed information but I don't beleive he has purposely mislead anyone.

If the election were to be held today I probably would vote to reelect him president for the reasons I have given above. Your turn.

Ustwo · 12-12-2003, 08:53 AM

I don't have much time so I'll be brief.

Bush has pissed me off with his creeping socialism, (as compared to the overt kind) and I'm not happy with it. In the long run this won't even help the Republicans much as it has pissed off part of the base, and all the dems will do is say we need MORE hand outs to buy the votes back.

That being said there is NO democrat canidate who I would trust with national security, and for that matter only a couple I would trust to watch my pets. Right now that is the most important issue in the world (national security, not my pets) and I am pleased with GWB on that count. As such he gets my vote, its to important right now.

As for the dems the only one I'd vote for is Liberman and only if it was the 'true' Liberman, the one that was around before the 2000 election. He had a pretty moderate stand, and was willing to do things against the party like like school vouchers. After he was the VP canidate he tossed all that out for the left wing line.

I have to disagree with your opinon of Gephardt. He is way to deep into the unions and a liar to boot. His favorite thing to talk about is his dad being a union driver and how his dad would tell him how important the union was etc etc. Only thing is the rest of his family says his dad hated his job and hated being forced to be in a union to do it. Gephardt has many stories like that, that don't hold up. He also whined about the tax cuts and how it was only for the rich (like hell, I'm not rich and I got 600 back, thanks George) blah blah blah. Then when the economy perked up he said it was due to what the democrats put in the tax bill. He is a double speaking, flip flopping, asshat.

lurkette · 12-12-2003, 09:40 AM

I don't really like anybody who's running.

I wish John McCain were running. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but I really respect him and I think he's a good leader with a good grasp on long-term planning and systems thinking.

I sure as hell am not going to vote for Bush and his Four Horsemen (don't EVEN get me started), so I'm leaning toward either Clark or Dean.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-12-2003, 09:46 AM

I'm not big on Gephardt. Here's part of the reason:

Gephardt's abysmal attendance record link.

From Link

Quote:

since the first of the year, he has missed 84 percent of the votes in the House of Representatives, showing up for fewer than one vote out of every five.

Gephardt did not do the honest thing and resign if he wasn't planning to show up for work. Instead, he let us continue to pay his salary of $154,700. At more than $5,000 per vote, the American people might find him a trifle expensive.

Show up for work! This is shameful for any government worker. I would love to show up 16% of the time at work.

Dean is too left for my tastes, but I think he'll start to center himself more and more as the race goes on. I like Lieberman. I don't know much about Kerry but he seems alright for now. He hasn't been in the spotlight as much as Dean anymore.

If the election were today I would re-elect Bush. I'm upset with a few things he's done. I didn't like the lead up to the war, but I am glad that he is in command now. I'm much more comfortable with our national security in his hands than one of the other candidates.

I'm still swayable though. None of these candidates have spoken to me yet (figuratively of course), but there is still time.

Liquor Dealer · 12-12-2003, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
I'm not big on Gephardt. Here's part of the reason:

Gephardt's abysmal attendance record link.

From Link

Show up for work! This is shameful for any government worker. I would love to show up 16% of the time at work.

Dean is too left for my tastes, but I think he'll start to center himself more and more as the race goes on. I like Lieberman. I don't know much about Kerry but he seems alright for now. He hasn't been in the spotlight as much as Dean anymore.

If the election were today I would re-elect Bush. I'm upset with a few things he's done. I didn't like the lead up to the war, but I am glad that he is in command now. I'm much more comfortable with our national security in his hands than one of the other candidates.

I'm still swayable though. None of these candidates have spoken to me yet (figuratively of course), but there is still time.

I would imagine that if you were to look into this none of the candidates who now hold public office are taking care of business - they're all out running for office but don't blame only those running for national office - the rest are busy running for re-election. I really believe that term limits - or a restriction of when anyone can start "running" for an office should be established by law and anyone who violates it be removed from office and banned from politics. 30 days before election day. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. This would probably provide us with a working government instead of the parttime garbage we have under the current system.

maximusveritas · 12-12-2003, 10:15 AM

None of the Democratic candidates really speak to me, but I'm used to that at this point. I still think any of them, with the possible exception of Lieberman, would be better than our current president. So I'll probably vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination.
Like most Americans, I was willing to give President Bush a chance after his election and again after 9-11. I won't get fooled again.

lordjeebus · 12-12-2003, 10:42 AM

Kucinich is the only candidate I'm interested in, but I know that he has zero chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

EDIT: Forgot to mention why. I generally agree with his stand on issues, plus I feel that he's the only genuine (as in someone who'll say what he really thinks) Democrat who's running.

I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate because I really don't trust Cheney and pals.

I voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian) in 2000 because of his isolationist foreign policy and anti-drugwar principles (although I disagree with a lot of his ideas) but at the time I did not have my current fear of the Bush Administration and didn't really have a preference between Gore and Bush.

TequilaJr · 12-12-2003, 10:44 AM

If the vote were today, I'd definitely vote for Bush, but this is really only because of my sheer dislike for all the rest of the candidates. I really wish McCain's hat was in the ring, as I think he's the best man for the job. Maybe in 2008, he will be.

Moskie · 12-12-2003, 10:57 AM

Hm, very tough call.

Last election (the first I was of voting age for), I made it a point to vote third-party, due to my distaste for a two-party system. Lots of my friends have chastized me for helping Bush win, but my defense is that Gore won my state, damn it! That's all that could have been done from my perspective. I might do the same this election, depending on the forecast of who will win my state (Maryland). If it's a toss-up or looking bad for the Democrats, I will definately vote Democrat. If the Democratic candidate is definately going to take Maryland... I might see what else there is to offer.

Now, as for who I would pick specifically... I think a Dean/Clark ticket would get my vote. Dean has kinda been overly ultra-left and anti-bush, but part of me thinks its rhetoric to get people riled up. I don't think he would be like that as much as the election nears (or during a term as president). And I think Clark would make an excellent VP.

Superbelt · 12-12-2003, 11:10 AM

Please stop calling Dean too far left.

He is not far left.

He has been and continues to be endorsed by the NRA. Far from a Leftie goal. He has received high marks as governor by the Cato Institute for his ability to run a fiscally sound government.
He was in favor of the Afghanistan war. He saw it as necessary.

He will come Clinton Center. And he will win, with my vote.

mml · 12-12-2003, 12:06 PM

The only way Bush could get my vote is if hell froze over and/or Kucinich got the Democratic Nomination. I really like Kerry, but he is running a piss poor campaign. Dean is not as much of a lefty as he is being painted, but I just don't like him. Gephardt is a good man, and I think he would make a good (not great) president. Lieberman is a solid candidate, but I do believe he would have a difficult time winning. Clark is someone I really like as an individual, but I am still trying to sort out where he stands on the issues. Ultimately, I will vote for the Democrat and I guess I am hoping that it will be Kerry. Of them all, I think he would be the best president. He has solid foriegn policy credentials as well as extensive domestic policy experience. He is well respected by members of both parites and has a centrist track record. I just think he is a lousy campaigner.

dy156 · 12-12-2003, 01:19 PM

If I didn't know it before, I realize now that my political views are pretty closely aligned with Liquor Dealer's. I too have been a little irritated with Bush, but would still vote for him, as of now, as the lesser of several evils. I disagree with some of his foriegn policy, the prescription drug benefit plan, and don't like the fact that he and those around him believe in a market solution to everything but tort reform. However, I think he would do a better job of leading the country, leave the country in better shape than any other candidate, would appoint better judges (if they could ever get confirmed) and I trust him to handle some unforseen crisis better than the others.

In defense of Gephardt, he's the minority leader, and as such, I bet he and his staff are doing a hell of a job representing his district, even if he's not there for many votes, which don't really matter. I used to work for the U.S. House, and although that voting record is really low, or it would have been when I was there, I don't think that is a valid criticism of the job he's doing or whether he's earning his pay.

I wish I knew more about Edwards. As a successful trial lawyer for 20 years, he has a head start in my book, but I don't know much about his positions.

Lebell · 12-12-2003, 02:25 PM

So far, none of the candidates ring my bell either.

Dean is the only dem candidate that I can even conceive of voting for, but he has as much baggage as Bush does.

I suppose I should look at who the Libertarians are fielding, even though it's a throwaway vote.

Liquor Dealer · 12-12-2003, 03:32 PM

I won't go for a throw away vote - I'm going to make mine count one way or the other but I will at least take the lesser of two evils. I've voted wrong a couple of times and had to live with it for four years and yes, I realize that the only place my vote probably counts is in my own mind. No matter who the two are - one will always outweigh the other in some form or fashion.

Ustwo · 12-12-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I won't go for a throw away vote - I'm going to make mine count one way or the other but I will at least take the lesser of two evils. I've voted wrong a couple of times and had to live with it for four years and yes, I realize that the only place my vote probably counts is in my own mind. No matter who the two are - one will always outweigh the other in some form or fashion.

The whole thing might be moot anyways....

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13258.htm

Quote:

December 12, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state.

Superbelt · 12-12-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

December 12, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state.

Big deal, Republicans almost always win New Hampshire anyway. Bush won it in 2000 as well.

Ustwo · 12-12-2003, 03:58 PM

Bush won NH by 1%.

So a 2-1 victory would be a big deal.

Superbelt · 12-12-2003, 05:33 PM

And Dean is still minimally known.

The only people who pay attention to primaries are those who vote in them. In this case, politically active democrats.

Most everyone else still doesn't know him from Adam, so when you pit an unknown democrat against Bush, of course Bush wins.

Wait till Bush and Dean have to take part in a couple debates. Bush is, at best, a sub-par debater. Dean knows his issues inside out and is an excellent attack dog when it comes to a debate.
Gore, for some reason just sat back and sighed every time Bush said something asinine. Dean will not, we have seen that in his debates already, and it will cost Bush dearly.

Ustwo · 12-12-2003, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

Most everyone else still doesn't know him from Adam, so when you pit an unknown democrat against Bush, of course Bush wins.

vrs......

Quote:

In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent.

So I'm not sure your 'who is Dean' theory holds water here.

Quote:

Wait till Bush and Dean have to take part in a couple debates. Bush is, at best, a sub-par debater. Dean knows his issues inside out and is an excellent attack dog when it comes to a debate.

Dean is also known for shooting his mouth off and saying really stupid things, like his comments about the south.

Quote:

Gore, for some reason just sat back and sighed every time Bush said something asinine. Dean will not, we have seen that in his debates already, and it will cost Bush dearly.

I'm sure you would like to think so, but only asinine things I recall were some of Gores obvious lies which were quickly shown to be just that. Don't forget Bush has been president for the last 4 years, that experience will count for something come debate time. Bush is a horrible public speaker as politicians go, but that will be less of a factor now then it was then.

rogue49 · 12-12-2003, 08:37 PM

I don't mind Republicans, I've voted for them before.
But I don't like Bush...so that's out.

I don't like Gephardt -career politician
I don't like Dean - seems slick
I've always liked Leiberman - hell, I even voted him in when I lived in CT...
but he doesn't have the charisma to win.
And I like Kerry, but he's like Leiberman...just doesn't have it.
The rest are jokes.

Of the ones who might have a chance, I like Clark
Balanced, strong, straight-forward, efficient.
I like what I've read about him, and I really think the only reason he is on the Dem ticket is
because the GOP is locked up by GW.
Otherwise, he'd be a centrist Republican.

The only issue I see with him is first he started late,
and two, he's not so hot playing politics...to honest for his own good.
He's the least of all evils, so I'd vote for him.
Problem is I can't vote in the Dem primaries because I'm Independent,
and I think he's lost the momentum he once had.

And I doubt the Libertarians are going to put up a significant candidate. (which I'd love to see)

Superbelt · 12-12-2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

I'm sure you would like to think so, but only asinine things I recall were some of Gores obvious lies which were quickly shown to be just that. Don't forget Bush has been president for the last 4 years, that experience will count for something come debate time. Bush is a horrible public speaker as politicians go, but that will be less of a factor now then it was then.

What lies?

sailor · 12-12-2003, 09:06 PM

Dean. I dont think he is too far left at all, most of his views parallel mine, and after someone as right as Bush, I think the country needs someone on the left to swing the country back to the middle. He also doesnt strike me as as big of a sleazebag as most of the other candidates.

So far, Clark seems to be a fine candidate as well, but I dont know much about his stances.

Ustwo · 12-12-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

"[R]ight out of the box, the vice president began hedging the truth." --Boston Globe.

"At the first opportunity, he lied." --New York Post

That most erudite of Democrats, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once noted, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts." Apparently, based on his debate performance last Tuesday night, Albert Gore has decided there is "no controlling legal authority" concerning facts.

Gore repeatedly took credit for the economy. Bush missed a grand opportunity to pick up a tried and true line from Ronald Reagan: "There he goes again. Albert, you didn't invent the economy." Gore said that the country had a triple dip recession in 1992, but the current economic expansion began, by all reputable economic estimates, in March 1991, almost two years before he took office.

Fact: Even Gore's own budget office (June 28, 1999 OMB Mid-Session Review) states, "The economic expansion that began in April 1991...."

Gore said that he would balance the budget.

Fact: The nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that Gore's total spending in the first five years of his administration totals $2.2 trillion (three times Bush's $712 billion.) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the same period, the general revenue and Social Security surpluses will be a total of $1.4 trillion. Gore's "balanced budget" creates more deficit spending than Mr. Bush proposes in total new spending.

Gore said that he wants to cut taxes for middle class families.

Fact: In 1992, the Clinton-Gore campaign said it "includes $104 billion in tax cuts over four years for the middle class, the working poor, and corporations that make smart investments to create jobs." But after taking office, Gore cast the tie breaking vote on the largest tax increase in U.S. history, including $115 billion in higher personal income taxes, $31 billion in higher gasoline taxes, $25 billion in higher taxes on Social Security benefits, and $29 billion in more Medicare taxes. (Congressional Budget Office)

Gore said that Governor Bush spends more on the wealthiest 1% of Americans than on education, health care, drugs, and defense combined.

Fact: The largest percentage cuts in Mr. Bush's tax plan go to those with the lowest incomes: A family of four making $35,000 would get a 100% cut in their income tax, about $1,500. A family of four making $50,000 would get a 50% cut in their income tax, about $2,000. A family of four making $75,000 would get a 25% cut in their income tax, about $2,500. Under the Bush plan, "the wealthiest 1%" actually pay a larger percentage of total taxes than they do now. The share of income taxes paid by people making over $100,000 will rise to 64.1% from 61.9%. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the Bush tax plan will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over 2001-10, about 25% of the $4.6 trillion estimated surplus under current tax rates.

Gore said, "I have actually not questioned Bush's experience. I have questioned his proposals."

Fact: In a recent New York Times article, Gore said of Bush, "Does he have the experience to be president?"

Gore crowed that he fought for welfare reform.

Fact: Bill Clinton, Al Gore smiling at his side, vetoed welfare reform not once, but twice. After public opinion swung in favor of welfare reform, Clinton-Gore signed it into law only then to provide all manner of "exemptions." Gore had no role at all in welfare reform!

Gore said that he would take on big oil companies.

Fact: Al Gore has a long personal and financial history with Occidental Petroleum, the same company that was involved in the Love Canal contamination, which Gore once claimed to have led the fight to clean up.

Gore said that he wants to free the U.S. from "Big Oil" and OPEC.

Fact: Dependence on foreign oil increased under Clinton-Gore, with imports up 34% since 1992, while U.S. production, due in large measure to absurd Clintonista environmental and land management regulations, has decreased 18% -- to the lowest level since 1954.

Gore said that Mr. Bush's budget takes $1 trillion out of Social Security.

Fact: Economic Security 2000 (ES 2000) found that "Gore's accounting defies credibility. From 2015 to 2037, there's a missing $4.3 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, because the money has been spent and is a debt, an IOU. Then, from 2038 to 2054, there's a missing $6.069 trillion."

Gore said that passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill would be his first act as President. Bush hit back hard: "You know, this man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, [Gore] said he cosponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign fund-raising bill, but he wasn't in the Senate with Senator Feingold. ... I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of a campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue."

Fact: Gore has collected more campaign donations from lobbyists than any other presidential candidate. "The problem with pandering, as Vice President Gore is fast learning, is that once you start, it's hard to kick the habit," says Dana Milbank, senior editor of liberal New Republic. Short of credibility on the issue of campaign finance reform, Gore took a page from Clinton's denials, and tried to divert the issue into one of "character assassination." "I think it's better to spend time attacking America's problems than attacking people personally. I think we need to build our country up instead of tearing somebody else down." Obviously, Gore feels exposed on this issue, and Bush needs to hammer him!

And a footnote on McCain-Feingold: In March, Gore promised, "I would -- my first act as President -- will be to resubmit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate." Of course, that was a different audience.

Gore said that he has always fought for campaign finance reform.

Fact: We checked, and Gore did not mention campaign finance reform in his 1992 speech to the Democratic National Convention or his 1996 speech to the Democratic National Convention, nor in his 1999 speech announcing his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. And, for the record, John McCain said Gore's fundraising tactics constituted "incredible abuses of the institutions of government and every ethical standard."

Other Gory "facts"...

Gore said he worked with President Reagan in support of his defense plans in the 1980s. Even the most nescient political observer knows this claim is a lie.

After being complimented by Mr. Bush for the job the Federal Emergency Management Agency did responding to wildfires in west Texas, Gore claimed that he had personally come to Texas with FEMA director James Witt to visit the stricken areas. Bush looked a bit puzzled by Gore's response -- for good reason.

Fact: Gore did visit the region in the period of time the fires were burning, but not with FEMA helping people out. He was there to attend a fund-raiser at the home of the former head of the Texas trial lawyers -- and for the rest of that story, see "The most ethical administration" above!

On the education issue, Gore, a dedicated water boy for the NEA, argued that some of the "surplus" Mr. Bush was "spending on the richest 1%" should go to schools such as a Sarasota, Florida, high school where a father showed him a picture of his daughter standing in her science class because the room was so overcrowded she had no place to sit.

Fact: The principal of that school, Daniel Kennedy, reports, "It would have been good if the facts had been checked before [Gore] was encouraged to use that information in a national debate. The picture he was referring to was taken maybe the first or second day of school...when we were in the process of leveling classes. And, she did have an opportunity to use a lab stool, which was also available in the classroom. But we were refurbishing that classroom and in the back of that picture, if you look carefully, you can see probably about $100,000 worth of new lab equipment that was waiting to be unpacked, which is one of the reasons the room looked as crowded. ... We have 2,480 students on a practically brand-new campus. In my opinion, it's one of the top high schools in the nation right now. We don't have any portable classrooms. All of our students are in regular classes and we have 900 computers, 600 Internet sites."

Finally, as for the price of prescription medication and the hot-button Medicare issue, there was the saga of Mrs. Winifred Skinner, the 79-year-old widow who picks up cans so she can afford to pay for food after she pays $250 a month for her prescriptions.

Fact: Our friend Scott Hogenson, executive editor of CNS, contacted Mrs. Skinner and found that she does not want federal assistance. "No, no, I don't want the taxpayers to pay for my medicine. I'm a proud person and I want to earn it and I want to do it on my own. I don't accept charity, and I don't get food stamps. I qualify, but I don't get them because I don't want the taxpayers to support me." Sounds like Mrs. Skinner has hitched her wagon to the wrong mascot!

Those lies

ARTelevision · 12-12-2003, 10:14 PM

I'd vote to reelect the President.
I'll do this because he has executed masterfully through one of the most crucial periods in our history.
The choices he's made are the tough necessities from among the limited possibilities presented by rough reality.

If this were an ideal world...but it's not, not even relevant - idealism never is relevant when it comes to making the tough choices that need to be made regarding real politics.

Phaenx · 12-13-2003, 12:39 AM

I would also vote to reelect George Bush. He's not the greatest President ever but he's the best one available. If not him, then Clark I guess. Because I don't really believe he's a Democrat or a liberal, he says so but, meh, he isn't very convincing considering what he said about the current President not so long ago. So if he got into office I wouldn't have to sob like a woman.

smegal · 12-14-2003, 01:05 AM

Dean. Why? Because of the same subject that's been discussed to death and no one wants to hear anymore: there are no weapons of mass destruction...that's a pretty big lie to overlook

Liquor Dealer · 12-14-2003, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smegal
Dean. Why? Because of the same subject that's been discussed to death and no one wants to hear anymore: there are no weapons of mass destruction...that's a pretty big lie to overlook

If nothing else, Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction - just from the shear numbers of people he was responsible for killing. Now that he's in custody a lot more will be known and Dean will be........

Phaenx · 12-14-2003, 08:33 AM

There was plenty of evidence that there was wmd's in Iraq. They even admitted to having anthrax at one point. Hell, even Clinton bombed them for being bitches at one point. There's a lot of talk about Bush being a liar, I think people are still mad about that whole DNA evidence on a fat girls dress thing.

Jesus Pimp · 12-14-2003, 01:38 PM

I hate politcians but if I had to choose I would vote for either Dean or Clark. Both are charismatic, well spoken, and clear on what they want to do for this country. I can't comprehend why anyone would vote for Bush. Bush has no charisma, he can't even give a speech without sounding like a robot. He hasn't done anything for this country. Is the capture of Suddam going to improve the economy, get more jobs for people, solve social issues back at home etc..? Is the capture of Suddam going to stop terrorism? Nope. People have to stop being complacent and help make change in this country.

sixate · 12-14-2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'd vote to reelect the President.
I'll do this because he has executed masterfully through one of the most crucial periods in our history.
The choices he's made are the tough necessities from among the limited possibilities presented by rough reality.

If this were an ideal world...but it's not, not even relevant - idealism never is relevant when it comes to making the tough choices that need to be made regarding real politics.

And we have a winner.

Jesus Pimp · 12-14-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'd vote to reelect the President.
I'll do this because he has executed masterfully through one of the most crucial periods in our history.
The choices he's made are the tough necessities from among the limited possibilities presented by rough reality.

If this were an ideal world...but it's not, not even relevant - idealism never is relevant when it comes to making the tough choices that need to be made regarding real politics.

Yeah but what about the social and economic issues he has neglected to masterfully address at home?

gnort · 12-14-2003, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I won't go for a throw away vote - I'm going to make mine count one way or the other but I will at least take the lesser of two evils. I've voted wrong a couple of times and had to live with it for four years and yes, I realize that the only place my vote probably counts is in my own mind. No matter who the two are - one will always outweigh the other in some form or fashion.

Throw-away vote!!!! I'm registered Green party and I feel in no way that I'm going to "throw my vote away." I vote for the candidate whose beliefs best fit mine. I think that if you're voting for someone just because they are likely to win or because they are running against a certain party then you are voting for the wrong reasons.

I'm not sure who i'd vote for if the election was held today. I'm still researching all the candidates...but I'm definately steering clear of Bush.

sixate · 12-14-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Pimp
Yeah but what about the social and economic issues he has neglected to masterfully address at home?

You must one of those who refuses to accept that economy is on the rise. There have always been social issues which no president has ever fixed, right?

Liquor Dealer · 12-14-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnort
Throw-away vote!!!! I'm registered Green party and I feel in no way that I'm going to "throw my vote away." I vote for the candidate whose beliefs best fit mine. I think that if you're voting for someone just because they are likely to win or because they are running against a certain party then you are voting for the wrong reasons.

I'm not sure who i'd vote for if the election was held today. I'm still researching all the candidates...but I'm definately steering clear of Bush.

Then I'll explain what I mean - you say you will vote for Candidate X (whomever he might be) of the Green Party (and I'm not real sure what that is - we don't live in the East. I will vote for George Bush. That means he received two votes for all practical purposes, mine, and the one you placed somewhere that has no affect on the outcome. Do you get where I'm coming from?

Ustwo · 12-14-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Pimp
Yeah but what about the social and economic issues he has neglected to masterfully address at home?

Which ones would those be?

Jesus Pimp · 12-14-2003, 06:13 PM

Our shitty economy, education, healthcare etc..etc..

Quote:

You must one of those who refuses to accept that economy is on the rise. There have always been social issues which no president has ever fixed, right?

How is it on the rise when so many are still unemployed, companies outsourcing their jobs to india, etc..

sixate · 12-14-2003, 06:25 PM

I was right. You are one of those who refuse to accept the fact that the econmy is on the rise. Thanks for admiting it. Did you not read any news articles that said the economy grew 8.2%? Give it a little more time and it will create more jobs. Then what are all the Bush haters gonna cry about?

gnort · 12-14-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Then I'll explain what I mean - you say you will vote for Candidate X (whomever he might be) of the Green Party (and I'm not real sure what that is - we don't live in the East. I will vote for George Bush. That means he received two votes for all practical purposes, mine, and the one you placed somewhere that has no affect on the outcome. Do you get where I'm coming from?

The Green party has no official candidate yet.

As for the "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Bush" idea...the whole point of voting for a 3rd party candidate isnt to get elected at first. Right now voting for a 3rd party is to try and help the party get 5% of the vote thus giving them federal funding in the next election. This will solidify that party as a major political party. Voting for a 3rd party is a vote to try and eliminate the two party system that we've had to deal with for so long. But anyways, that's what i have to say...

Jesus Pimp · 12-14-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
I was right. You are one of those who refuse to accept the fact that the econmy is on the rise. Thanks for admiting it. Did you not read any news articles that said the economy grew 8.2%? Give it a little more time and it will create more jobs. Then what are all the Bush haters gonna cry about?

Yeah more minimum wage jobs. I read these articles but it's just a percentage on piece of paper. There's no real world proof that it has grown that much. Seeing the amount people, friends, and family with degrees and qualifications up the ass unemployed or recently getting laid off, shows me no indication the economy is getting better. If Bush gets re-elected it's just going to continue to get worst. He'll continue his fight on terror while leaving everyon in the US high and dry.

Ustwo · 12-14-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Pimp
Yeah more minimum wage jobs. I read these articles but it's just a percentage on piece of paper. There's no real world proof that it has grown that much. Seeing the amount people, friends, and family with degrees and qualifications up the ass unemployed or recently getting laid off, shows me no indication the economy is getting better. If Bush gets re-elected it's just going to continue to get worst. He'll continue his fight on terror while leaving everyon in the US high and dry.

All my friends are doing fine. Maybe your's friends need to move or get a marketable degree. In fact the economy around Chicago is booming right now, so perhaps you can tell them to look here.

Also about the only credit I give Bush on the economy is for the tax cut, there is only so much the govt can do to help an economy, but there is a shitload it can do to destroy it.

12-12-2003, 08:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	If the election was today - who would I vote for? and why? If today was election day who would I vote for? Those of you who know me know that I have very strong leanings toward the Republican party but, I vote for the person and not the party. Would I vote for George Bush and is he the best of the choices I could make? Bush has done several things that I really don't care for and because of these things I have looked very seriously (and will continue to look) at all of those who are candidates and those who might jump in at the last minute. Dean - Howard Dean is way way way to far left at the moment for me to give serious consideration to at this time. I know that at this time he is courting the extreme left and the ultra-liberal vote. I am sure he will come back toward the center a bit if he is the candidate because I don't think any candidate can count on receiving all of the party's vote - any candidate is going to have to have at least part of the other partys votes and the votes of those who consider themselves to be neither Democrat or Republican and it really makes no difference at this point what name they follow. Dean appears to be the man to beat at trhe moment - by election time this might not hold true but right now, he seems to have the momentum. Gore has endorsed Dean and Dean has accepted that endorsement. In my opinion, Dean should have told him thanks, but no thanks. I have no more of an idea what the real game that the Clintons and Gore are playing than anyone else has. I have no idea why Democrats are cowtowing to either one of them. But, at this point that too is irrelevant. I would not vote for Dean without Gore's endorsement and Gore's endoresement and Dean's acceptance of it put them in the same shoe. This takes Dean off my short list. General Clark - I have no idea what he stands for and I'm not sure he knows either. He seems very Clintonlike and I don't care for Clinton at all. Clark seems to flipflop depending on who his audience is - I want to know where he stands period. Not what he is saying at this instancefor public consumption. I don't think I could vote for Clark. Joseph Leiberman - This man appears to be an honest and a good person. He appears capable, knowledgeable, willing and able to become a good president. Is he electable? I don't think so. I am in no way anti-semitic but I don't think a person of the Jewish faith could be a successful president at this time. The current and ongoing problems in the Middle-East, in my opinion, would make it impossible for him to deal effectively with them in foreign affairs. Is Joe Leiberman a man that I could vote for - Yes he is, but, I don't think he can be elected or even become the candidate and if he were elected he might not be able to survive in office. The Clintons - While not an announced candidate they are definitely in the running. Not just no but hell no! It makes no difference who's name is on the ballot you get them both. Enough was already way to much of them. I think Hillary is a political joke played on the state of New York. They've had absolutely no representation from her in the Senate - she represents the State of Clinton and that has absolutely nothing to do with New York. Can a woman be elected president? I think so. Would I vote for a woman? Sure, if the right woman was running for the office. There are many females who are very capable of running this country - perhaps better than some of the men who have tried - but, could a female, at this time, be a successful president? I really don't think so and for basically the same reasons I gave for Leiberman - the Middle-East. The perception those in the Middle-east have of women would make it all but impossible for a woman to be accepted in their minds as an equal - much less as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. Gephardt - I believe that, in my opinion, this is the only Democrat I could support at this time. I don't know much about him but like what I've seen. He is knowledgeable, experienced, and appears to be an honest and decent man. I believe that these are traits a president must have to be accepted and effective. Would I vote for Dick Gephardt - under the right conditions I could see myself doing this. George Bush - As I said at the beginning of this rant - I am not 100% happy with George Bush. I like George Bush. George Bush speaks the same language as I do and while some of you dislike or do not understand Texan, I do understand exactly what he is saying and I think if you listen to what he is saying you will also understand. You may not like what you hear but you will understand - he means exactly what he says - there is no hidden meaning, there are on insinuations, there should be nothing at all that can be misinterpreted - he means exactly what he says. Is saying exactly what you mean good in politics? In foreign affairs? In diplomacy? No! It probably isn't. It's a cryin' assed shame, but saying exactly what you mean doesn't work as well in these areas as does double speak - politicalese and dimplomaticese seem to be what is required. Tell them what they want to hear and can interpret in any manner that makes them feel good at the moment. George Bush has been a good president. There is no one, anywhere on earth, that does not know that if he says he's going to slap you you're going to be slapped. Is this good in my opinion? Yes it is. Is this bad in my opinion? Yes it is. Can you have it both ways? I don't think so. Which is the best of the two? I think I would much rather him be what he is than be wishy-washy like Clinton. If Clinton had balls much of the difficulties we now have would have already have been dealt with. I do have a real problem with Bushes courting of the extereme religious factions. I have absolutely nothing against anyone's religion and consider myself to be a Christian but this has nothing to do with government - it is a personal thing - it is a way of living - a code of conduct - personal rules --- I have nothing against his religious belief influencing how he conducts himself - his morals - the way he lives - his honesty and his sincereity. I do not believe that George Bush will lie to anyone. Many of you will take exception with this statement but I honestly believe it to be true. He has perhaps made honest decisions based upon false or flawed information but I don't beleive he has purposely mislead anyone. If the election were to be held today I probably would vote to reelect him president for the reasons I have given above. Your turn. Last edited by Liquor Dealer; 12-12-2003 at 08:29 AM..

12-12-2003, 08:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I don't have much time so I'll be brief. Bush has pissed me off with his creeping socialism, (as compared to the overt kind) and I'm not happy with it. In the long run this won't even help the Republicans much as it has pissed off part of the base, and all the dems will do is say we need MORE hand outs to buy the votes back. That being said there is NO democrat canidate who I would trust with national security, and for that matter only a couple I would trust to watch my pets. Right now that is the most important issue in the world (national security, not my pets) and I am pleased with GWB on that count. As such he gets my vote, its to important right now. As for the dems the only one I'd vote for is Liberman and only if it was the 'true' Liberman, the one that was around before the 2000 election. He had a pretty moderate stand, and was willing to do things against the party like like school vouchers. After he was the VP canidate he tossed all that out for the left wing line. I have to disagree with your opinon of Gephardt. He is way to deep into the unions and a liar to boot. His favorite thing to talk about is his dad being a union driver and how his dad would tell him how important the union was etc etc. Only thing is the rest of his family says his dad hated his job and hated being forced to be in a union to do it. Gephardt has many stories like that, that don't hold up. He also whined about the tax cuts and how it was only for the rich (like hell, I'm not rich and I got 600 back, thanks George) blah blah blah. Then when the economy perked up he said it was due to what the democrats put in the tax bill. He is a double speaking, flip flopping, asshat. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-12-2003, 09:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I don't really like anybody who's running. I wish John McCain were running. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but I really respect him and I think he's a good leader with a good grasp on long-term planning and systems thinking. I sure as hell am not going to vote for Bush and his Four Horsemen (don't EVEN get me started), so I'm leaning toward either Clark or Dean. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

12-12-2003, 10:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	Hm, very tough call. Last election (the first I was of voting age for), I made it a point to vote third-party, due to my distaste for a two-party system. Lots of my friends have chastized me for helping Bush win, but my defense is that Gore won my state, damn it! That's all that could have been done from my perspective. I might do the same this election, depending on the forecast of who will win my state (Maryland). If it's a toss-up or looking bad for the Democrats, I will definately vote Democrat. If the Democratic candidate is definately going to take Maryland... I might see what else there is to offer. Now, as for who I would pick specifically... I think a Dean/Clark ticket would get my vote. Dean has kinda been overly ultra-left and anti-bush, but part of me thinks its rhetoric to get people riled up. I don't think he would be like that as much as the election nears (or during a term as president). And I think Clark would make an excellent VP. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

12-12-2003, 12:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	The only way Bush could get my vote is if hell froze over and/or Kucinich got the Democratic Nomination. I really like Kerry, but he is running a piss poor campaign. Dean is not as much of a lefty as he is being painted, but I just don't like him. Gephardt is a good man, and I think he would make a good (not great) president. Lieberman is a solid candidate, but I do believe he would have a difficult time winning. Clark is someone I really like as an individual, but I am still trying to sort out where he stands on the issues. Ultimately, I will vote for the Democrat and I guess I am hoping that it will be Kerry. Of them all, I think he would be the best president. He has solid foriegn policy credentials as well as extensive domestic policy experience. He is well respected by members of both parites and has a centrist track record. I just think he is a lousy campaigner. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

12-12-2003, 10:15 AM	#6 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	None of the Democratic candidates really speak to me, but I'm used to that at this point. I still think any of them, with the possible exception of Lieberman, would be better than our current president. So I'll probably vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. Like most Americans, I was willing to give President Bush a chance after his election and again after 9-11. I won't get fooled again.

12-12-2003, 10:42 AM	#7 (permalink)
lordjeebus ‚±‚Ìˆó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚© Location: College	Kucinich is the only candidate I'm interested in, but I know that he has zero chance of getting the Democratic nomination. EDIT: Forgot to mention why. I generally agree with his stand on issues, plus I feel that he's the only genuine (as in someone who'll say what he really thinks) Democrat who's running. I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate because I really don't trust Cheney and pals. I voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian) in 2000 because of his isolationist foreign policy and anti-drugwar principles (although I disagree with a lot of his ideas) but at the time I did not have my current fear of the Bush Administration and didn't really have a preference between Gore and Bush.

12-12-2003, 10:44 AM	#8 (permalink)
TequilaJr Crazy	If the vote were today, I'd definitely vote for Bush, but this is really only because of my sheer dislike for all the rest of the candidates. I really wish McCain's hat was in the ring, as I think he's the best man for the job. Maybe in 2008, he will be.

12-12-2003, 11:10 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Please stop calling Dean too far left. He is not far left. He has been and continues to be endorsed by the NRA. Far from a Leftie goal. He has received high marks as governor by the Cato Institute for his ability to run a fiscally sound government. He was in favor of the Afghanistan war. He saw it as necessary. He will come Clinton Center. And he will win, with my vote.

12-12-2003, 01:19 PM	#12 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	If I didn't know it before, I realize now that my political views are pretty closely aligned with Liquor Dealer's. I too have been a little irritated with Bush, but would still vote for him, as of now, as the lesser of several evils. I disagree with some of his foriegn policy, the prescription drug benefit plan, and don't like the fact that he and those around him believe in a market solution to everything but tort reform. However, I think he would do a better job of leading the country, leave the country in better shape than any other candidate, would appoint better judges (if they could ever get confirmed) and I trust him to handle some unforseen crisis better than the others. In defense of Gephardt, he's the minority leader, and as such, I bet he and his staff are doing a hell of a job representing his district, even if he's not there for many votes, which don't really matter. I used to work for the U.S. House, and although that voting record is really low, or it would have been when I was there, I don't think that is a valid criticism of the job he's doing or whether he's earning his pay. I wish I knew more about Edwards. As a successful trial lawyer for 20 years, he has a head start in my book, but I don't know much about his positions.

12-12-2003, 02:25 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	So far, none of the candidates ring my bell either. Dean is the only dem candidate that I can even conceive of voting for, but he has as much baggage as Bush does. I suppose I should look at who the Libertarians are fielding, even though it's a throwaway vote. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-12-2003, 03:32 PM	#14 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I won't go for a throw away vote - I'm going to make mine count one way or the other but I will at least take the lesser of two evils. I've voted wrong a couple of times and had to live with it for four years and yes, I realize that the only place my vote probably counts is in my own mind. No matter who the two are - one will always outweigh the other in some form or fashion.

12-12-2003, 03:58 PM	#17 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Bush won NH by 1%. So a 2-1 victory would be a big deal. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-12-2003, 05:33 PM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And Dean is still minimally known. The only people who pay attention to primaries are those who vote in them. In this case, politically active democrats. Most everyone else still doesn't know him from Adam, so when you pit an unknown democrat against Bush, of course Bush wins. Wait till Bush and Dean have to take part in a couple debates. Bush is, at best, a sub-par debater. Dean knows his issues inside out and is an excellent attack dog when it comes to a debate. Gore, for some reason just sat back and sighed every time Bush said something asinine. Dean will not, we have seen that in his debates already, and it will cost Bush dearly. Last edited by Superbelt; 12-12-2003 at 05:36 PM..

12-12-2003, 08:37 PM	#20 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	I don't mind Republicans, I've voted for them before. But I don't like Bush...so that's out. I don't like Gephardt -career politician I don't like Dean - seems slick I've always liked Leiberman - hell, I even voted him in when I lived in CT... but he doesn't have the charisma to win. And I like Kerry, but he's like Leiberman...just doesn't have it. The rest are jokes. Of the ones who might have a chance, I like Clark Balanced, strong, straight-forward, efficient. I like what I've read about him, and I really think the only reason he is on the Dem ticket is because the GOP is locked up by GW. Otherwise, he'd be a centrist Republican. The only issue I see with him is first he started late, and two, he's not so hot playing politics...to honest for his own good. He's the least of all evils, so I'd vote for him. Problem is I can't vote in the Dem primaries because I'm Independent, and I think he's lost the momentum he once had. And I doubt the Libertarians are going to put up a significant candidate. (which I'd love to see) Last edited by rogue49; 12-12-2003 at 08:41 PM..

12-12-2003, 09:06 PM	#22 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	Dean. I dont think he is too far left at all, most of his views parallel mine, and after someone as right as Bush, I think the country needs someone on the left to swing the country back to the middle. He also doesnt strike me as as big of a sleazebag as most of the other candidates. So far, Clark seems to be a fine candidate as well, but I dont know much about his stances. __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato Last edited by sailor; 12-12-2003 at 09:09 PM..

12-12-2003, 10:14 PM	#24 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'd vote to reelect the President. I'll do this because he has executed masterfully through one of the most crucial periods in our history. The choices he's made are the tough necessities from among the limited possibilities presented by rough reality. If this were an ideal world...but it's not, not even relevant - idealism never is relevant when it comes to making the tough choices that need to be made regarding real politics. __________________ create evolution

12-13-2003, 12:39 AM	#25 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I would also vote to reelect George Bush. He's not the greatest President ever but he's the best one available. If not him, then Clark I guess. Because I don't really believe he's a Democrat or a liberal, he says so but, meh, he isn't very convincing considering what he said about the current President not so long ago. So if he got into office I wouldn't have to sob like a woman. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-14-2003, 01:05 AM	#26 (permalink)
smegal Crazy	Dean. Why? Because of the same subject that's been discussed to death and no one wants to hear anymore: there are no weapons of mass destruction...that's a pretty big lie to overlook

12-14-2003, 08:33 AM	#28 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	There was plenty of evidence that there was wmd's in Iraq. They even admitted to having anthrax at one point. Hell, even Clinton bombed them for being bitches at one point. There's a lot of talk about Bush being a liar, I think people are still mad about that whole DNA evidence on a fat girls dress thing. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-14-2003, 01:38 PM	#29 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	I hate politcians but if I had to choose I would vote for either Dean or Clark. Both are charismatic, well spoken, and clear on what they want to do for this country. I can't comprehend why anyone would vote for Bush. Bush has no charisma, he can't even give a speech without sounding like a robot. He hasn't done anything for this country. Is the capture of Suddam going to improve the economy, get more jobs for people, solve social issues back at home etc..? Is the capture of Suddam going to stop terrorism? Nope. People have to stop being complacent and help make change in this country. __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard. Last edited by Jesus Pimp; 12-14-2003 at 02:22 PM..

12-14-2003, 06:25 PM	#37 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	I was right. You are one of those who refuse to accept the fact that the econmy is on the rise. Thanks for admiting it. Did you not read any news articles that said the economy grew 8.2%? Give it a little more time and it will create more jobs. Then what are all the Bush haters gonna cry about?