ChuckV986

Obviously he isn't, that's the point. Bush's figured are massively inflated...that's the point.

Kerry is eliminating the tax-cut for everyone that makes over $200k a year. Bush argues against it on the basis that it would hurt 900,000. Kerry's point was that under Bush's definition, Bush himself counts as a small business because of the 87 bucks he made. If you tighten the definition to people who actually have employees, it's 400,000 and change. Point being Bush's figures are overblown. That's to be expected though, it's politics.

I think pro-choice is the true "conservative" view. Conservativeism promotes the least amount of government intervention in one's personal life possible. 'nuff said there I think as it relates to the issue of abortion.

He made $87. Kerry's point was that under the definition that the Bush campaign is using, that counts as a small business that would be 'hurt' by Kerry's tax plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html Looks like both of them are rather full of it, lol.

Yeah, I think it was HPTJoe that posted that on the vptuning forums.

Ok, this one I have to comment on There's not period there.... Kerry said something to the effect of "The winning of the war was brilliant, but the handling of Iraq after the war was over was terrible" Do you think it wasn't? Don't you think we should have finished off bin Laden, of one of 37 (IIRC) nations that were more capable of producing and delivering a WMD to USA before we went after Iraq? Don't you think we should have thought up a plan of what to do about the anarchy we were creating before we reduced the nation to chaos? And Bush did know what would happen, or at least he should have, given all the CIA reports on his table indicating exactly what would happen. So? How is that a demonstration of a flip-flop? Come on now.... Let's be honest. No one really loves the guy, but all of this is just spin. Besides this But there are literally BOOKS, calenders, etc full of such idiotic and nonsensical statements that Bush has made. If that's how you vote, you might want to consider picking up a few of those "Bushism" books before you decide who's made more contradictory or idiotc statements ;)

To clarify, I pulled up dictionary definitions for both conservative and liberal, thats what the numbered points are. I added modern day context below that. I said I didn't apply the first dictionary definition of conservative, at least not to myself. The reason I'm voting for Kerry isn't because of issues. If you look at their policies, there aren't many HUGE differences. I just really have very little faith in Bush's judgement. But you're right, a true Republican I am definitely not. Registered Independant, though given your analysis I guess it's safe to say Independant with slight liberal leanings. I generally vote Republican because I just don't like very many Democrats, and most of them are too far out for my tastes...I find there are far more moderate Republicans than moderate Democrats. Haha, I like that response. I agree with you 100% there... It's a shame that there aren't many politicans like that today. McCain is a prime example of one IMO, I really like him. I was SO angry when he didn't get the 2000 nomination. He would have stomped all over Gore, and I think it's just shameful that he didn't stomp all over Bush and really doesn't speak too well of the Republican party, IMO. I agree, I like the IDEALS of the Republican party better, but they aren't followed. Bush certainly doesn't. The real problem is that I really can't stand the radical members of either party... I've heard the same thing, they all say something needed to be done just from a humanitarian point of view...but many of them aren't 100% about the way we went about doing it. That's the only BIG problem I ever had with Clinton. I always thought he was stupid for not wiping them out when he had the chance... Bush is absolutely right for pursuing an aggressive policy, what we did in Iraq wasn't really helpful, in my opinion. Iraq didn't attack us... I'm curious to see how all these allegations of coruption with France and what-not play out though. I'm not so sure about the criticisms of Kerry's resolve.... But we'll see if he's elected. I don't think any president in this day and age could afford to be soft, and I think he can see that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. Bottom line, as I've said before is that I want some better canidates out there. I'd really like to see John McCain running Joe Biden in this election. If that was the case, I think I'd have to think hard about who to vote for, but not because both the canidates are so terrible that I'd have to decide who was worse. The last election where I liked the canidate was Clinton/Bush in '92. I was pretty disapointed when Perot stole that election from Bush. I really wonder how different things would be today if that election had gone the other way... Would 9/11 have happened?

Silly question. What definitions are you using? Liberal: 1. politics progressive views: a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters 2. politics political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property 3. economics free-market economics: an economic theory in favor of free competition and minimal government regulation Could also mean broad minded. Could also mean a member of the Democratic party with today altered definition. Conservative: 1. reluctance to accept change: unwillingness or slowness to accept change or new ideas 2. right-wing political viewpoint: a right-of-center political philosophy based on a tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change and to preserve the status quo 3. desire to preserve current societal structure: an ideology that views the existing form of society as worthy of preservation Could also mean unwilling to accept change, or a member of the Republican party. I believe in definitons 1-3 of liberal, but I'm certainly not a Democrat. I believe in 2-3 of conservative, but I'm not really a Republican either. I usually vote Republican, but I also vote Democrat from time to time. 'Republican' policies I tend to favor: -Finances -Military -Abortion to a degree...don't feel its really my business seeing as I'm a man -Pro-states, pro-constitution 'Democratic' policies I tend to favor: -Environment. That's a big one for me. -General social policies....they're generally more...socially responsible. -Civil liberties -Gun-control. Not anti-gun, but I think we need some reform here... What would you call me?

Hahaha, that's so true. I've always noticed that, it's always bothered me. All those polls show at least a 2:1 lead for Kerry in performance in the debate. Put it this way, I was undecided before the debate, and after it I'm voting for Kerry. I really haven't seen any significant contradictions out of Kerry, I think that's pretty much just Bush's spin to try to turn the election into an examination of Kerry instead of examination of the (rather sub-par) job he's done the last 4 years. Edwards isn't terribly impressive, I agree with you. It's interesting that Cheney is the "brains" of the operation on the Republican ticket, but Kerry is the "brains" of the Dem ticket, all relatively speaking of course. I would have to say I think just the oposite is true. You know most Americans still think Sadam had something to do with 9/11? You're right that Americans are pretty accepting of whatever they're fed. Very inciteful. I think that's the truth of it right there.

I think it was a tough call. I thought Edwards did better in the first half, but Cheney out and out owned him in the second half. I think Cheney clearly did better though. For that matter, I think his performance really humbled W's. I heard one R Senator comment today (can't remember who off the top of my head), "Cheney's performance compared to Bush kinda makes one wonder why he isn't on the top of the ticket." He's clearly got his stuff together a lot better than Bush does... And I thought the way he handled the gay-marriage question was very classy too. Overall I think the poles will end up showing something like 45/35 Cheney/Edwards. He certainly impressed me much more than Edwards, and more than Bush for that matter. He didn't impress me more than Kerry in the Bush Kerry debate, but that's largely because I didn't have very high expectations for him and he really delivered.

I agree. I think he repeated it so many times because Kerry never really stood up to it, but Bush wanted him to. He unquestionably over did it though... I think Kerry meant over the course of 4 years, though his language is kind decpetive. He also could have meant increasing the funding for special forces 2 fold. Your average American isn't smart enough to know that the President can't just push a button and have more highly elite troops magically appear, so this kind of stuff flies.

I wasn't decided going into the debate, definitely voting for Kerry now. I knew Bush was dumb, but I didn't remember how dumb. I did double takes at half of what the man said... Sentances strung together that were unrelated and nonsensical. I think his only point the entire debate was "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.", and I'm sorry but you're going to have to do better than that to impress me... I didn't hear nuclear disarmament of the US, I did hear non-proliferation... He said he'd cancel the project for bunker-buster tactical nukes, not that'd he'd disarm the US. Kerry's far from a saint though. Come on guys, give us some decent canidates... I'm going to vote, but I'll feel slightly dirty doing it... Why not Joe Biden instead of Kerry? That guys got a good head on his shoulders, he's got good ideas, he's got strong convictions, and I think he'd make a much better pres than either Bush or Kerry. McCain anyone? That would be a no-brainer for me over any canidate in the past 10 years. On the bin laden point, he complained about us not using the full brunt of our armed forces to whipe him off the map when we had him cornered. That's kinda different than wanting some assistance when we're stuck trying to control the chaos that now is Iraq. He didn't vote against body armor, he voted against an $87 billion expenditure bill that had A LOT of other stuff in it besides body armor. In the congress, all kinds of stuff gets lumped together to create huge mega bills with a bunch of useless crap in them that no one really wants. That's why there's such a strong argument for the line-item veto. Cuban-missle crisis: His reference was to bring up a quote from the then French PM saying that he didn't even NEED photographic evidence to back us, the word of the president of the US was enough. This was to show how far we've fallen as far as our global friend are concerned. Been to Europe recently? I haven't experienced any animosity towards me personally, but the vast vast majority of Europeans can't understand how anyone could ever vote for a guy like Bush. The only way I could explain it to them was by saying "Look at the alternative. Al Gore?He's hardly a good canidate for the job." On the ground in Iraq: I think he could do better. Especially over the past few weeks, I've been very dissatisfied with the way things have been going over there... Carter and Clinton gave N. Korea nukes? Since when? I've NEVER heard anything to even suggest that... It's not fair to blame it on Bush, but it's spin. What was fair is that there were 43 countries more capable of delivering a WMD to the US than Iraq, but we went for them. We knew N. Korea (an 'Axis of Evil') country had a strong nuclear program, they were waving it in our faces, and we also knew they were devolping missiles that could reach the west coast. So we choose to go for....Iraq? On the talks: If you look at the facts, China WANTS us to engage in bi-lateral confrenses with N. Korea. It's nice to have them as back-up, and it's in their best interestests for us to be successful, but if they, N.K.'s neighboor, want us to engage in bi-lateral talks with them, don't you think that they might feel it'd be more successful than other forms of negotiation? His inclusionary attitude towards China wasn't about the direct negotations, but rather as another leverage point on N.K. I didn't catch that, but I agree all those stupid adds saying GWB=Draft are pointless bunk. Unfortunately, I think many Americans are stupid enough to swallow it. Haha, stupid expression I agree. But surely you see his point? It wasn't that we need to act in deference of foreign will. Rather it was that in the past whenever we have taken preemptive action it has been backed by a large multi-national coalition because it was so obviously the right thing to do. In this case, we rushed in without taking the time to establish a coalition, but more importantly, the validity of our actions is questionable. If a color blind man runs a red light and causes a major traffic accident, would he be right in defending himself by saying that he shouldn't have acted in deference to the other traffic because he saw green even though it was actually red? He didn't betray anyone, and he didn't lie. The testimony he gave to congress was an account of what he was told be other veterans, he never made accusations against any other individuals. Those accusations against him in the silly Swift Boat adds are completely baseless and have been entirely de-bunked some 6 months ago. Even prominant Republicans condemned the ads. I thought he made a good point with that. W still won't admit that we was wrong, he's too stuborn or ignorant. I good leader needs to be able to accept their mistakes and learn from them. I'm pretty hawkish, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. W was a huge alcoholic and coke fiend as well as a draft-dodger back in the day. I don't hold that against him. People grow and mature. I certainly hope I'm more intelligent, mature, and wise in 30 years than I am now. With any luck, I'll still be alive then Overall, I guess I just disagree with your assessment, though that's what makes horse races, and that's what makes this country great. To be fair, I did go in undecided but biased against Bush, and I think you went in decided to vote for him. I'm sure that changes the way we both interpret thing significantly. I hardly love Kerry. But I really don't like Bush...at all, and the debate really gave me a lot more confidence in Kerry than I had going in, and reminded me of what an incompetent ignoramus W is. Historically, I've preffered Republicans, I just don't like W. Give me George senior or Reagan ANY day of the week over either of these two jokers... Bottom line, these guys aren't the best the country has to offer...at all. The question we have to ask is WHY the parties aren't producing canidates that we want to vote for, but rather canidates that we feel like we have to vote for either out of party allegiance, or because we HATE the other guy so much. We shouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils, we should choose between two of the best and the brightest that are both obviously completely capable, but differ on the issues. PS: I must say, the debate turned out to be much more interesting overall than I thought it would. I expected it to really suck.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252 Analysis of his tyrade with all the missing pieces of info thrown in. Like the fact that George Bush senior called for the cancelation of the B2...

That wasn't my point. His proposal is just that, a proposal. Here's the truth of it all. There some dispute on the exact numbers, but they would fall between 640mil and 1.2 bil a year. Here you go:

I would have too. I just would have waited for a concrete plan regarding the post-war anarchy. The same holds true for W. I fault them both equally for that. I really don't have any issues with his repairing our relationships with allies inorder to relieve American troops from grueling peace-keeping duties. I agree. Kerry should address in full his voting record. That's a definite concern I have. I'm still looking for a way to find the exact #s, and see how they compare to other Senators. That, I disagree with. I have really seen nothing to suggest that he is at all radical. If anything, he's pretty darn moderate. Look at Dean for comparison. I agreee, he needs to address that if he wants to earn my vote. Like I said before, I really want to find somewhere that I can check up on those exact numbers, and see how they compare to other members of the Senate. Do you know any such source? A good disscussion is GREAT. Really shows what is so great about our country. Everyone has different ideas about how things should be done, and are often passionate about them. We are free to disagree, exchange information and ideas, and have our own passionate opinions. But at the end of the day, we're all countrymen and we're all on the same team. Activist judges are a fact of our judicial system. Judges have long been given A LOT of breadth in just how the 'interpret' the law. This dates back for hundreds, and hundreds of years. Usually when they do something really out of line, their descision gets squashed. But other times, they inact much needed changes to long-standing old-fashioned laws that benefit us as a whole. The legislative system moves so slowly that if a little judicial activism didn't take place now and again when needed, things wouldn't change nearly as quickly when they need to. The good thing about judicial activism is that when something needs to be looked at, chances are it will be, because it will end up infront of a judge at some point. The bad thing is that radical sweeping changes can be made, and not always for the better. I leave that up to the legistlature to decide. I'm certainly not smart enough, and don't have enough information to make that kind of call all on my own. Kerry's proposal is just that, a proposal. If the majority of our representitives feels it needs re-working to fit perfectly, it will be reworked. The purpose of the Congress is to argue about this kind of stuff, and quivel over numbers. Generally they do a pretty good job of coming out with reasonable stuff.

I agree. My point is fiscally he looks pretty conservative based on what he presents, and that's something that I like in a canidate. If you read what Kerry presents vs. what Bush presents, Kerry actually comes of as more conservative fiscally speaking. Clinton was much, much better, I agree. Only thing I didn't like about Clinton, really, was that he was way too wimpy on the military. Probably my favorite Democrat of all time.

Yeah, some things need the governments money. Like poor dying old people without the money to take care of themselves...

Check out the factcheck.org links I posted, very enlightening. Not suprisingly, all those accusations against Kerry have pretty much nothing to back them up. Not that what happened 35 years ago really matters that much anyway. I mean, 35 years ago exactly, Bush was probably doing a line, or finishing off the remains of a handle of cheap Vodka. W was a coke addict, an alcoholic, and used his position of priveledge to get out of the draft, and stay in the Nat'l guard despite repeated misconduct. No way I could EVER vote for this guy. The anybody but Kerry crowd picked the wrong guy. Anyone But Bush '04!!! It easily works both ways. I think people are just desperate to find something wrong wtih Kerry, so they bring up useless information from 30-35 years ago and twist it against him. The same can easily be done for anyone alive in that time period, I think most kids made a few mistakes. One could easily paint W as an alcoholic, deserter, and a coke fiend....in the past. Is that who he is now? No. Kerry isn't some anti-war radical anymore either. And I think anyone can admire the fact that he objected to the war, was in privledged position just like Bush, but unlike Bush he didn't get out of the draft. He went, served his nation to the best of his ability, and then, when he came back, fought against the war he just served in as hard as he could.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

That's also the opinion of every soldier that I've talked to that's been on the ground there. The actual war went pretty darn well I think. It's what's happened afterwards that I'm not happy about. Of course it isn't just the President's responsibility, but ultimately he is the one who signs his name on the paper. Democrats are absolutely famous for spending. Historically speaking, Republicans have been much more fiscally responsible (every administration before Clintion, imo), and I've always favored them. That's not the case with GW, as I see it. Not just Kyoto. Which we should have signed I think. I'm also unconvinced about Global Warming, seen plenty of good arguments on either side. But I feel it's better to err on the side of caution when we don't know enough to make a definitive conclusion, and acting brashly could have seriously detrimental consequences in the future. Environemntally, I applaud him for putting more money towards alternative energy sources, but as always there's room for improvement there. His clean-air rollbacks were not a good move. Pushing for drilling in Alaska wasn't either, without even looking at the possible environmental implications. The money it would take to set up operations there, and a build a pipe-line to carry to oil to the US would easily offset any gains, based on the numbers I remember seeing. He hasn't really done anything positive for the environment in his administration, and this alone is enough for me to chasitse him. I don't consider myself a wacko, I look at things in practical terms. I don't think anyone on this board drives a Prius That said, I think people and politicians really generally don't get it. We live here. 75% of our oxygen comes from coral reefs, some of the most endangered habitats on the planet, and any polution we pump into the environment will only hurt us in the long run, because we're just as subject to its effects as any other living thing. If we keep poluting, we're going to start killing off life forms that may seem insignificant (like coral, which is already dying at a dizzying rate. If anyone scuba dives recreationally, I'm sure they know that), but infact are critical to our continued ability to survive. Nope, but I know a few people that do, and they're all much much more anti-Bush than I am, and the majority of them are what you'd call left-wing-nuts. I question his descision making abilities because I've seen him make some pretty bad ones. Iraq for starters. Stem-cell research is another big one that comes to mind. Though I'm kinda biased on that issue. I've lost two family members over the past two year to Parkinson's, and another is badly stricken. It's a terrible, debilitating disease, and not funding reserach that has the definite possibility to cure it is a terrible descision in my opinion. The No Child Left Behind act is another example of poor descision making/planning in my opinion. I won't get into the nitty-gritty of it now, but if you disagree I'd be glad to. I looked in a couple different dictionaries to check this one out, and I don't see the words "man" or "woman" in there anywhere. I see "partners" and "spouse". I don't think this one should even be an issue. It's a religious ceremony. If Chuches don't want to marry gay couple, they shouldn't be forced to. If a Church wants to marry gay couples, they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. It's not the governments place to tinker with religion, not in this country anyway. If your religious beliefs are against Gay marriage, then I completely understand your stance, that's an argument I have no problem buying. But at any rate, it was innaporpriate to even attempt to assert governmental authority over religion, and certainly innapropriate to propose that ammendment without a provision allowing for civil unions. Otherwise there are just too many people it would have the potential to hurt. You're right, Clinton was way too soft. I've always noted that. The problem with pissing off the rest of the world is that we still need them. We're all connected, and while we shouldn't bow down to other countries, there's a lot to be said for compromise. I don't think France or Germany ever would have considered attacking the US, and they know we would never attack them so I doubt that they fear us. You're absolutely right that a 0-tolerance policy for terrorists like bin Laden should have been adopted years ago. There's no excuse for him not being squished under Clinton's hand, and I've been saying that for years now. That said, I don't blame Clinton for 9/11. He had no idea what al Quaeda was capable of, no one did, including Geroge W, and his father. I really don't see how we're in a better position diplomatically now than we were 4 years ago. One absolutely should not bow to his enemies, but there's no reason to spite one's friends, either. I didn't say he was a perfect politican, I said he was intelligent. I think a lot of people mininterpret is "flip-flops". A truly intelligent, enlightened person will try to look at an issue from all sides, recognize that there is no "one" answer, and continually change their position as new information becomes available. Unfortunately, that isn't what the people want. They want someone who will stick to their guns, and hold their position to the bitter end. I haven't really seen anything to suggest that Kerry isn't smart. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ I think his plans are all layed out pretty clearly there. He isn't on every side of the issue at any given time, he changes his position over time. I really don't see that as a flaw, I see that as flexibility. I think Kerry is pretty strong on defence. If he wasn't I wouldn't be considering voting for him. Pretty important issue, IMO. That's why I dislike our two-party setup. I'm registered independant, because I really don't agree with either party on everything. I tend to like moderates, and Kerry is pretty moderate, in my opinion. I'll be interested to see. I'm not soundly decided yet, though I am leaning towards Kerry because of my distaste for Bush. He certainly needs to grow more of a back-bone, and learn to add some more zing. I wouldn't count on him getting his jerk handed to him, but I'll be interested to see. That's very true, and that's his #1 strength IMO. He's very clear, very to the point, and his ideas are all very clearly defined. Though I must say, the point he made in the last debates that I liked the best was one about nation-building, and why it wasn't what our military should be engaged in... That's prety much exactly what we're doing in Iraq now. Iraq is something anyone could go on about for ages. Last service-man I talked to said: "We've made clear progress in some areas, and I really feel good helping some of these people out. But in other areas, I don't feel safe walking down the street without a lot of armed support with me. Some areas have gone backwards over the past few months. We'll be in there for 20 years, and we'll keep loosing at least one man a day, I garuntee it. Something definitely needed to be done, but I don't know if we were the ones to do it, especially without any help from the rest of the world. I got the sense that we really didn't have a plan of what to do after we won the war. Everyone was kind of just like 'Woo! We kicked their asses! What now?'." Sorry, I got a little off track there. I agree, that was stupid on his part. I don't think many people really care too much about what happened in a war 30 years ago. I doubt the swiftboat veterans will really hurt Kerry, and I doubt that Bush's Nat'l Guard records, real or fake, will hurt him. I absolutely agree with you. He should be talking about what good he has done for the country, what mistakes he made, and what how he plans to apply what he learned from his experience there to running the Nation. So far he hasn't done that. I want to see the same from W, applied to his last 4 years. Specifically: -How he's going to clean up Iraq. It's his war, he must have a plan, right? -What he's going to do about the defecit without a major tax-hike. -How he plans on patching things up with the rest of the world. -Environement. This is an issue for me, and I really want to hear what he has to say. -I'd like to hear a proposal for a new-and-improved assault weapons ban. As for the economy, I'm sure it'll bounce back. And he doesn't have that much control over it anyway. I agree. He needs to get his act together. As for Dean, I almost wish he won the primary. It would have been a lot of fun. I'd never vote for him, he's way to left-wing, and way too angry, but I admired the guy. He was a Democrat that had a back-bone, and that's not something you see. If Kerry had more of a back-bone, I think he would be by far the best for the job out of any of the other contenders. He's pretty moderate, and I like that. He's hawkish (within moderation), he's pro-environment, and economically, he's pretty darn conservative. Those are all qualities I want in our president. Read his economic policy: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/ It sounds almost like what a traditional Republican would propose. Rewards for companies that encourage domestic growth, tax cuts for those with the most impact on our economy, strict budgetary limits for the governement, and giving government money to the businesses that are the future of the American economy. If the guy got his act together, and put all these points out there with some authority, I think he's someone most Americans could agree with, or at the very least live with on pretty much every issue. He needs to stand up and say "I don't flip-flop. I change my assessment of the best course of action based on new information. I want this, this, this and this. I've learned this, this, this and this in my service of the American people. I'm going to apply it like this, to fix this, this, and this." but he isn't doing that, and it bothers me. You may be right, and he might just be stupid, and I may have terribly misread him. I think he has the typical Democrat flaw of trying to please too many people, and is very open to changing his opinion if he sees reason too. That's a good thing in office, but it doesn't lend people a sense of security on the campaign trail. Like I said, I'm still undecided, but I'm leaning towards Kerry. GW has just never impressed me. My late grandfather, who was a registered Republican for his entire life said of GW "I just don't think he's got the right stuff.". Even prominent Republicans blow off those ads as rubish. On Kerry as a verteran: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244 About his fellow veteran and "crew members" condemning him: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231 WMDs: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222 Basically says he didn't lie, but he was misinformed and jumped to conclusions. Not really his fault, and I hope the problems that lead to that are going to be fixed. I encourage all to check out this website: http://www.factcheck.org/ It's truly un-biased, their sources are good, and they cut through a lot of the stuff on both sides of the fence. It's refreshing to see them one day slam Zel Miller for making false accusations about Kerry voting against key military equipment, and the next slam Kerry for exagurating the cost of the war.

I don't have a better way. But I sure as well wouldn't have brought us into war until I had thought of one. Obviously now that we're there, we can't leave any time soon. That would do much more harm. I don't think he's terrible, he could have done a much worse job. What I don't like about him: -Taking us into Iraq unprepared. -Too much spending. -Terrible environmental policy. I think this is just most people not realizing that we live on this planet, and what we do affects it. We don't have another one yet, though we should start looking, I think, cuz this one's going down the tubes. -I don't have confidence in his descision making abilities, and intellectually he doesn't really impress me. -The anti-gay-marriage ammendment was a really dumb idea. I know he only did it to appease his more conservative supporters, knowing it would never pass, but seriously. Rewriting the constitution to limit rights instead of expanding them is just a bad idea in general, imo. -Not a very good diplomat, imo. We had the support of the whole world after 9/11, and look where we are now. I don't think he's the worst president ever, but I certainly don't think he's a good one either. He could have handled the economic situation MUCH worse (not like the president really has that much influence over that anyway...), and the way he responded imediately following 9/11 was certainly commendable. I've just never really been in support of too much he's done throughout his term, and he hasn't really impressed me in the least. I also really liked McCain, and I was pretty disapointed that Bush beat him out. I really could care less about him beating Gore, I always thought they were both pretty unimpressive. Kerry at least is definitely intelligent, something I can't really say I'm sure about with W. He may not be the best man for the job, but I think he's better than Bush. Though I'll be very interested to see the debates. I don't like the way either of them are running their campaigns. All the stupid attacks on each other's military reccords are pretty pointless.

I understand that. I don't look at it as the governement protecting me from myself, but protecting me from the people in our country who couldn't accept what's really going on. My issues with the Iraq war don't really have to do with the gov't lying. (Though it's obvious that they did, they should probably just admit to it and tell us why. Though I don't know if Kerry is competent enough as a politician to call them on it, so maybe not) My issues with Iraq have to do with the way W went about waging the war. From what I can see, he had no plan whatsoever as to what we should do after the war to: Secure the peace, get our now alienated friends back on our sides to help relieve us, or keep American soldier from dying purposelessly in the turmoil that would inevitably follow. After the war, we pretty much just locked down the country, and gave the Iraqi people another reason to try to kill us, and then just sat back and tried to fight them off as they blew us up left and right. I don't know what they were thinking. Every solider I talked to that was on the ground in Iraq complained about the lack of planning as to what to do post-war, and poor descision making that got their friends killed. All of them told me that they wanted Bush out of office after seeing their friends killed due to his poor planning. That's the heart of the issue. We know how to win wars quickly, but we aren't an army that's built for nation building. I remember W himself speaking in one of the debates back before he was elected about how he would never use our army for nation building. Wrong. Trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 was a really iconsiderate move in my opinion too. Everyone I know that lost family in the attacks is now strongly anti-Bush just because of this one issue. He used their family member's deaths to lie to the American people, somehow convincing people that Sadam was tied to 9/11, to further increase support for his war. People are so stupid I can't abide it! How could ANYONE think that Sadam was tied with 9/11. The two are SO FAR unrelated it's rediculous! Fact: bin Laden HATED Sadam. He HATED him. Sadam was the imoral, secular leader of a Muslim country that forced his subjects to supress their religion. He killed other Muslims for the fun of it. What started his whole crusade against the US was the first Gulf war. He was angry that the US used Sadam to get onto Arab lands, failed to destroy the evil man they came to destroy, and then stayed in Saudi Arabia afterwards to "keep the peace". He saw it as a manipulation on the US's part to get troops on Muslim soil. He had NOTHING to do with Sadam, and Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. It's really something that I'm sick of hearing. Everytime I see one of those CNN poles "44% of people still believe Sadam is connected to 9/11" I want to hit something. The stupidity of the American people is overwhelming. That's why it's ok for the Gov't to lie a lil' bit, but my objection to W's war doesn't have to do with lying, so much as poor planning. It's obvious he has no idea how to run a country, or make war-time descisions. Bin Laden got away, after we had him surrounded. 'Nuff said there. We've lost 5x as many solider in Iraq after the end of the war, and made the contry less safe for anyone in it, and no more safe for us, because Sadam never posed any sort of threat to us in the first place. He had no real military strength. He cost us American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars unnecessarily. Lying about the Sadam-9/11 connection was a bad idea too. That bothers me. Thousands of people lost family in that incident, and USING their family members death for a twisted political purpose is just plain wrong, end of story. That's why everyone I know who lost family in 9/11 is going to vote against Bush, and why everyone I know who was on the ground in Iraq is going to vote against Bush. I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet. I really don't like W. He's not smart, he's demonstrated an inability to make good descisions. Politically, he's way too radical for me. I'll take a good old fashioned republican, or Bill Clinton thank you very much, none of this new age neo-con left-wing-radicals in the Republican party. I don't know about Kerry yet though. He'll have to impress me. I'll probably vote for him no matter what, because I honestly fear for the world if the current brainless radical gets put back in, and I'd rather not throw away my vote, but we'll have to see.

I'll watch it. If it's anything like like Ferenheight 9/11 it'll be amusing at worst. They might even have some solid points in it. Moore certainly did, though a lot of it was scewed beyond all reason and I'd bet the same will be true here. Some Right-wing Repub. film makers should get out there and make another documentary. I don't really care for one-sided arguments.

I have a small problem... Couldn't log in with my old name (ChuckV). Said my name wasn't iniated, and it needed to send me email. Only it wouldn't send me the e-mail...