ChuckV986

That's a big Bush talking point. For his career, Kerry has over 95% attendance. Find me any senator running a campaign that has had anything even resembling good attendance. Yeah, he has 4:1 support based on polls. But I've talked to plenty that plan on voting against Bush (big difference between that and for Kerry, heh...) after seeing a best-friend killed due to his poor planning. I agree, I'm sick of people hyping this up. I think they only introduced that bill to give Kerry some more ammo, heh. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that he lied. Prove it. Find me a source more reliable than Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html Yeah, all the claims are kind of interesting, but they really dont hold water. What's wrong wtih speaking out against the war and the way it was conducted after you were there? I admire what he did. It takes balls to speak out against a war you just fought in. I like all of those, so that's not really an issue ;)

DUUUUHHHH. Because Bush tried to throw those two terms out there to get people on his side for the war. That was my point, and I disaprove of that, really deceptive.

I get that. I've spent a lot of time over in Western Europe, and they've got it very nice over there too, there are many things I like better about Western Europe. But in the end, I think America is the best place for me to live.

Greenspan has also repeatedly warned that the ballooning defeciet will be detrimental to our economy if we don't cut gov't spending.

The question you have to ask yourself is: "Even with someone I don't like at the helm, is America not still the greatest country in the World?" When you consider our cost of life combined with our standard of living, we've got it pretty nice here. It's much easier to accumulate wealth in the US than any other Western nation. I couldn't see myself leaving the country unless some-one really off the wall was somehow elected. I was thinking of leaving before the last election, haha. I was scared that one of them might win.... I couldn't even bring myself to vote in that one. They were just both such terrible canidates, I would have felt dirty voting for either one of them That said, part of my family already bought plane tickets to Germany fearing a second Bush term... They think that if Bush is re-elected, more major monkey-ups on his part are inevitable, and might even lead to a catastrophic attack against the US. They've always kinda been nervous nellies... I tried to talk them into US VI, but no luck. I don't think many people will actually leave, but they feel "That man is an absolute threat to my safety. He's insane, he's stupid, and he thinks he can just push people around, and blow them up, and they won't push back. He's going to keep randomly attacking countries for made up reasons, he's a retarded Texas Cowboy, and I don't want to be here when the back-lash happens." I think most people are, heh... Unfortunately for me being under 30 I'm in the prime age-group for draftees. I seriously doubt it will happen though, no matter who gets ellected... The anger that would generate in the American people would be immense. That said I've got close friends in Canada, Australia, Germany, the VI, and Britian who have all offered me a place to stay. They all believe that there will be a draft if Bush stays in office, but I've tried to comfort them. Something like that would just NEVER get through the legistlature.

Like he said, those figures are kind of deceptive... We have still lost nearly a million jobs (somewhere in teh high 800s, IIRC) net since the president took office. First president since Hoover to manage that one... And Keynsian Economic Theory is just that, a theory. The last time a president implemented it fully, instead of listening to the advice of economic experts around the country (like Greenspan...) it took us more than 10 years to pay off the debt. Yep, Reagan. He was definitely a good president, but his fiscal policy was not what I expected from a Republican....It took Bush and Clinton to reverse the massive amounts of debt that he created.

Lol. I just might write in ..... ? who knows

Wow, that sucked. Accidentally did a select all, and pressed the 'r' key...that sucked. I've been meaning to, I imagine it will probably be mostly skewed, but it could easily be an interesting read none the less. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html VERY thorough debunking of all of the accusations against Kerry from a group as unbiased as they come. The Kerry-bashing started with Nixon. He funded a group to attempt to turn the momentum against Kerrry and his anti-war friends. Did you see the PBS special on Bush and Kerry's past? It was a really interesting watch, and that's covered pretty thoroughly their. I already have the audio file, it's pretty hilarious. Why is him changing his position over the course of 2-3 years an issue? I'd be ok with that if Bush was always right...but he's not. Kerry has had a pretty successful 20 year senate career. If he was that bad, why would that be the case? How can you say that if you're even slightly unbiased. In EVERY speach I saw Bush made leading up to the Iraq war, he threw in a reference to 9/11. Do you remember the suggestions that intelligence had located "Al Quaeda" camps in Iraq? I really let people have it when they brought that up back before we went to war. It's possible that they never DIRECTLY said that Sadam was linked to 9/11, so they could weasel out of it later, but it was implied so many times that it made me ill. Not that they suggested it, but that the idiot public bought it. Why do you think over 50% of people by the last poll I saw STILL think Sadam had something to do with 9/11? I mean, obviously it's so logical. The immoral leader that forcibly secularized an Islamic country, and killed his Islamic people to get there would be an obvious ally for a bunch of radical militant Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadists, right? Not. I'm sorry for the thick sarcasm, but the suggestion that Bush never tried to connect 9/11 and Sadam is just absolutely ludicrous to me. There was nothing wrong with deposing Sadam. There was something wrong with not waiting until we knew how to go about the nation building (which Bush was supposedly SO opposed to in the debates with Gore...) that would have to follow, leaving the country in a state of anarchy, and us at a loss of what to do. When did I say that? What? I don't even know how to respond to that, it just doesn't make sense. Yeah, I know all that. When did I ever say deposing Sadam was a bad thing? It wasn't. Not thinking of something to do with the following anarchy was.

Very true, but I don't like the idea of a national ID system... it just feels like it would bring us one step closer to a police state.

I'm kinda glad it didn't pass. More government is never good, IMO. What might be a halfway decent idea is implement the "6-points" method from NJ to get a licence nationwide. Basically you need multiple different forms of ID, and not the standard stuff either. You need birth cert, pass port, bank statement, and something else, don't remember exactly what.

Show it to me. Sadam was not threat to the US in his contained state. And the UN was correct, so what's your point again? I think making any tie between Sadam and Al Quaeda or 9/11 is decpetive at best. Yeah, he needed to be cleaned up, but I think we undeniably went about it in the wrong way. If we had gone about it in the right way, we wouldnt have 4x as many casualties after "the war" was over, compare to the actual "war" iteslf. You were pretty close on that one. Pretty hilarious movie, and that was a great line. The Moore suicide bomber part might have been funnier though

If we do we'll just be stupid and arm the Iraqis (again) to go after them (again) just like last time, I'm afraid.

I still have yet to see any real evidence for any of the Vietnam stuff. As far as I'm concerned, it's Bush spin until I see an unbiased third party like Fact Check blast Kerry's service reccord. Even McCain (who is indubitably a real war hero) has repeatedly stated that Kerry served nobely and honorably in defence of his nation in Vietnam... I don't think it gets much more straight forward than that. 1: No, he does what he thinks is right. Not what most people think is right. Why do you think he's behind by double digits on most issues in the polls? That's especially pathetic when you look at his oposition, heh. 2: No he doesn't, he thinks Iraq had something to do with it. His monkey-ups there have given Al Quaeda lots of new recruits. Last number I heard was in the millions, but I don't remember it exactly. I do not trust him to continue after his blunders. I want change, and I don't see anything to suggest Kerry won't be at least as good as Bush, and I don't see how he could be worse. 3: I agree for the most part, but I perfer a fiscally conservative approach... 4-6: You're kidding, right? When I watch his speaches, everything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie, a flip-flop, or a GROSS distortion of what Kerry actually said. It's really sad to see people cheering and booing on que to his lies. 'We never went to Iraq because of WMDs! It was to free the Iraqi people!', 'I never said Sadam was connected to 9/11!', 'Kerry wouldnt fight the war on terror because he said that I conducted the war on Iraq in the wrong way, grossly misused assets available, and didn't plan for anything that hapened afterwards despite CIA reports on his desk! What a wussy liberal! And he said he feels we need to reduce terrorism to a point where it's nothing more than a harmless nuiscance! Who would want that?!?! He just doesn't get it. He wants to hunt down terrorists where-ever they are and kill them until they are nothing more than a harmles nusicane...' I dunno if you've heard these speaches hes made, but they just make me laugh. It really sucks that people are stupid enough to swallow it. Of course the same accusations can be flung against Kerry, my point is that Bush or his supporters are not ones to fling accusations like 'flip-flopper', 'incosistant', or 'demagogue'. Yeah, I guess you could call me a Kerry supporter, but really I'm not. I'm just anti-Bush. I'm worried the country/world won't be able to survive another 4 years with him at the helm, we need change. And unfortunately Kerry is the only other option. 7: I don't see how that's relevant. There's no way to judge Kerry on that, he's never been in executive office. And if his record is so terrible, why would people keep electing him? If you look at his career, he has about 95% attendance, and he keeps all of his promises to the people that elect him. I guess that's a given though, you don't have a 20-year senate career if you're a bad senator. 8: I agree. 9: I agree. Speaking personally, I only bring up Bush's past alcoholism and coke abuse when people talk about Kerry's past. Does what happened 35 years ago matter? I don't think his "finding Christ" is terribly encouraging either... Religion can be a great thing or a terrible thing. In many cases, I feel that it just ends up being devisive force, instead of one that speads the practice of the oft beneficial morals it preaches. Look at the Crusades, or the current spree of Isalmic terrorism around the world. I really don't find Bush's devoutness the least bit comforting given all this.

Haha, I feel the exact same way, but about Bush. I just don't see voting for him as a viable option. Too bad there isn't a real third party...

I'm planning on watching it, I've herad some good things about it. Dunno if it will be as funny as farenheight 911, that was a comical movie, but it might have more substance to it.

My thing with embryonic stem-cell research is this: If they embryos from abortions are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for something useful?

That's pretty hilarious Joe. You always seem to come up with good stuff. I've seen some really funny mock-Bush adds, but this is the first good one I've heard for Kerry.

Really? It was my understanding that those missiles were still in testing.

Unfortunately, I don't think Bush's policy has been much better...I mean they actually have the bombs now. I'd like to see something MUCH tougher done about N. Korea. Time to demand disarmament from them, IMO. They can't yet hit us with Nukes, but we could turn them into a smoldering crater in a heart-beat. Therefore, we have all the leverage in negotiation, much more so than China. On Iran, we need to nip that in the bud. If they really want Nuclear power, that's fine. I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with either NATO or the UN overseeing their little project, and making sure to do a very thorough job of seeing that they stay within the boundries that they should... Otherwise, shut that program down. Forcefully disasemble their program, and impose sanctions, along with keeping a VERY close eye on what goes into and out of the country. On that first article, I think those claims are kind of silly. They remind me a lot of the charges Moore makes that Bush's policy towards Saudi Arabia is due to the fact that the Saudi royal family extensively funds his families businesses, and their US proxies extensively fund his campaign. I still trust his intentions when it comes to the Saudis, and I'm sure that if it came down to it he'd do what he thought was best to do.

That I would argue with on a few historical levels... First off, the origin of Western Civilization can be traced back to the Romans, and the Greeks before them. They were extremely secular, contrary to popular belief... All of OUR ideas of religious acceptance can be traced back to the Romans, who really had next to no religious requirements, and infact 'inducted' the local gods of the conquered into their religion. The conquered were supposed to intern add the Roman gods to their pantheon of gods, but this wasnt really enforced. The state church was really just a way to collect donations. Christianity, in its early stages, actually brought the western world back a few hundred years... Later on, it polarized Europe and led to many of the differences we still see today...Things were pretty well settled down by the time the US was founded. And contrary to popular belief, this country's founding had very little to do with religious freedom. Actually, all of the early colonies besides Mass colony (which interestingly enough, WAS a democracy, based around the community church), were founded for profit, trade, and searching for rescources, NOT religious freedom. Even New England rapidly moved away from a religiously BASED government after increasingly different religous views of neighbooring colonies forced them to accept something different. The whole religious freedom line is one commonly given in old-time history classes, but any modern text-book or college professor will tell you a very different story. The majority of the principles of early America were not shaped by Christianity, they were shaped by capitalism, and to a degree a sense of community much like the early Greeks. In writing the constitution, our founding fathers looked at the governmental principles of the Republican Romans, and also threw in the best aspects of other existing forms of government to create The Representitive Republic. It's actually pretty similar to the system that the Romans used with great efficiency for many years. But they also threw in checks and balances, etc to correct the flaws with the Roman system...I'm not going to go too far into Constitutional history though, no point. I just like playing Devil's Advocate, and the whole idea that Christianity and the Pilgrims are responsible for the creation of the US, which is really completely off base. The Imperialistic economic policy of Great Britian is the reason that the Colonies came to be. If the Pilgrims were so persecuted and hated, why would the King, the one supposeduly persecuting them, give them a Royal charter for their colony? Economic gain, plain and simple. On the other hand, I absolutely agree about the state of morals in our society today... I really don't know why... Violent crime is up, our prisons are filling, and the average age of ciminals is dropping.

Normally I would agree, but a very close friend is a prominent member of Reeve's foundation. I spoke with her about it, and she told me that he was infact a personal friend of Kerry, and she had no problem with it. She is also a staunch Republican, planning on voting for Bush...

What it means is that it will affect fewer small businesses than Bush's numbers suggest. Not individuals. To be honest, I'd really like a fiscal conservative in the White House. I don't think either of them really are, and that bothers me.

What's your opinion of RU-486? That doesn't actually kill the zygote, it just causes the uterine lining to be shed, expelling the zygote.

Is the all? If so I have to disagree given that Liberalism made Western Society what it is today. Without it we'd still be involved in deadly religious wars and the US would have never come into existance. I think we live in the best country in the world...but the idea of our found father's were downright Radical at there times, equivalent to the views of the most liberal of individuals today. Sometimes, a liberal stand in order to bring about the change of a flaw in society. That said, modern Liberalism is a completely different story... They often take it way too far, and there are other ideas associated with 'liberalism' that actually have nothing to do with a progressive or rapid-change oriented political stance. I would argue that the human tendancy to hurt others to one's own gain is the root of all evil.

A pregnancy is a tremendous drian on a mother, it requires her to continue. Is it HER right to choose whether or not to use HER bio-energy/body/etc to keep the pregnancy going, or the child's?