ChuckV986

I don't think Doug has a chance in Jersey anyways. I don't think NJ has ever voted for anyone who isn't pro-choice. Definitely one of the most consistantly Liberal states in the Union.

Too easy

bacardi, cola, and yeundling=fun. went out the the dorms tinight, it was worth the trip. 18=legal, and acceptable when yoiu're in your lower 20s :D

We need a "Rock On" emoticon. Frist is another guy I'd be happy to vote for. The good ones never run, though.

On Dean: At least he stands for SOMETHING. My biggest issue with the Dems in the recent past is that they've been completley spineless. If they had put a guy like Lieberman up against Bush, I think Bush would have gone down pretty hard (despite the rednecks that would disqualify him by name) provided his party would back him up with something worthwhile to say. I don't think the Republicans have been going in the right direction either. The only pres canidate of their's I've liked in the recent past was McCain. Not only did he have the right stance on the issues, but he blew Bush out of the water intellectually. He has a history of getting things done, and he's someone whose leadership descisions I'd be inclined to have some faith in, even if I didn't agree 100% from where I was sitting. The same cannot be said of W, nor any of the wastes of hot air that the Dems have thrown at him

Getting OT with the happy Marriage stuff here, hehe. I understand the objections the title of "Marriage", I think civil unions are an accpetable solution for all parties. On the topic of poor Terri: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/ Just look at the CTs. She's a vegetable. Let the poor woman die in peace, this isn't the public's business. It's been through SO many courts so many times, I don't see how there could be any doubts left... Is starving her to death while she's too high on morphine to feel any pain the best solution? Nope, but euthanasia is illegal. The only benefit of this being made public is that I think it's made many people write a living will. I know I did.

Missile Defense: NOT gonna happen, whether or not Canada has anything to do with it, so it's kinda a moot point. After 0 sucessful tests, I highly doubt congress will spend the money it will take to implement it.

I think the both of them are idiots, heh. I voted for the canidate I thought would be less incompetent in office. Simple as that. Little to do with policies as a whole, I don't really line up with either of them exactly.

Saying "monkey this national preserve, we need oil!" Sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Generally, I don't like to make very many generalizations... but the majority of people who aren't "pro-environement" just aren't educated on the issues. Which isn't to say that compromises don't ocassionally need to be made for the sake of economic pragmatism, but looking at the big picture, we're moving in the wrong direction in the environment, and it kinda astounds me that more people don't realise that it's a bad thing, just as serious a threat as nuclear proliferation or international terrorism, that should be dealt with in a no bull stuff manner.

Touche. I'm sure you get my point though.

I'd buy the allies of convenience excuse.... if there were any evidence to support it.

Back on topic. I get serached a good 50% of the time I fly, I don't have a problem with it. I know how threatening well dressed young white males are To be honest, I have no problem with that kind of profiling so long as it doesn't lead to restriction of rights or segregation. I don't really see why anyone would. Given that the VAST, VAST majority of the terrorists threatening us are of middle-eastern decent, I don't see a probem with a little profiling when it comes to air plane searches. I don't see where the objection is? I don't think anyone save a very ignorant few think that every muslim or arab is a terrorist. But I think most can agree that the majority of terrorists are muslim and/or arab.

People are silly. Anyone who doesn't think going in like we did was a big boo-boo is silly too. See CIA report that says we CREATED more terrorists than we defeated by poking Iraq up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan13.html Yeah, Sadam had to go for humanitarian reasons. But there are MUCH bigger humanitarian problems in our world then Sadam. There were also MUCH bigger threats to our Nat'l security. It was an oops. WMDs and ties to Al Quaeda were the reasons for going in. They were stuff reasons. Is that a problem? IMO, yeah. When it comes to what my peers are dying for, I apreciate being told the truth. Any person with half a brain could dismiss the Al Quaeda connections imediately. WMDs? I always doubted it, and I always thought that it wasn't worth it to go to war, because I figured that something like what's happening now would take place. Just like the CIA did when they put the intelligence reports suggesting that we'd face massive oposition and possible civil war if we created a power void without half a million people on the ground. You know, the reports W had on his desk before the war. Obviously it was an oops. Anyone who denies that is silly, like I said. But that isn't what should we be discussing. The real question is, what do we do now that we're there?

Very true. I don't any informed person could come to the conclusion that he's evil. Truth be told, the vast majority of those who voted for Kerry are just like *shrug* "Oh well, could be worse."

I have an uncle that works at AP, and I gave him a call to see how things were looking. He believes that we will know the winner by the morning of November 5, given the way exit polls are looking, but he wouldn't tell me which way they were looking so strong, heh. He just said "well, it looks like half the supposed country is in for a surprise, because these numbers are looking pretty strong for one side, and not so strong for the other. Additionally, it looks like we're going to see the best voter turn-out since '92." Just thought that might interest y'all. It looks like everyone will have plenty of arguing or gloating tomorrow morning. I just wish the tease would have told me which way things are looking to be skewed, but I have my guess based on his comment on the turn-out... Then again, I don't think anyone can really make a qualified guess on this one. We'll have to see.

Not that it matters in NJ anyway, lol. People impressionable to be talked out of voting for someone after theyve made up their mind because you sent them to some obviously biased website probably shouldnt be voting, heh. If I sent you to someplace like moveon or another obviously biased sight that talks about all of Bush's monkey-ups, would it change your vote? Hopefully not. Actually, hopefully you've already voted, I know I did. Took me all of 30 seconds too because I actually knew who everyone on the ballot was, and what they stood for. I split an even 50/50 Repub/Dem. Kerry for pres, Fergusson for cong., dems for freeholders, repubs for sherrif, and all the local positions. I have CNN on now, it's really sad to see the lawsuits flying already... makes me sick. Course with all the "poll-watchers" and whatnot on both sides, it's hard to feel secure in some places. Glad I'm not in a swing-state. I'm flying out for London in a few hours...hopefully I'll be able to get results by the time I land. I'm Europe for 2 weeks, so I at least hope that I'll know who won by the time I get back, heh.

I hear you, someone lifted the Fergusson sign off of my front yard... Though someone stole my neighboors Kerry sign, so I guess it goes both ways.

Nice post. And I think it is sad that more people don't take advantage of their rights. I think many don't realise that they can have a say in what they government does.

I agree. This story would be a non-story if we weren't a few days away from the election Beautiful car by the way!

Ok 1. Sadam was connected with 9/11 2. Sadam was connected with Al Quaeda 3. How about the lie in the 3rd presidential debate saying that he would never "use the US army for nation building." Iraq was a military enforced regime change followed by an extensive nation building operation. 4. We went to war in Iraq based on the best intelligence available at the time. What about the CIA report on Bush's desk talking about the Anarchy that would result if we ousted Sadam via force? 5. The war in Iraq is going well. What? I don't think that statement is remotely defensive. 6. Read this: http://www.georgewbush.com/Record/Environment.aspx And then join me in saying "What?" I can't think of a president who's been weaker on the Environment. A very close friend of mine is in a senior position at Argaon Nat'l labs, and was part of serveral groups of scientists that BEGED the president to do SOMETHING about Kyoto and Global Warming. They also gave him numerous other lectures on other scientific issues, which he chose to ignore. All of the positive environmental initiatives he speaks of on his site had nothing to do with him, and a lot to do with a lot of hard work in the congress. I don't think he said anything truthful about the Healthy Forests iniative, based on every scientist I've ever talked to. 7. Trying to make himself sound pro-stem cell research.... Right. I just don't understand his position. If embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, what moral person could possibly support not using them to potential save people's lives. 8. The myth of the Clinton recession. We know it isn't your fault that the tech bubble popped W, at least every informed person does, but trying to blame it on Clinton instead of talking about what actually happens makes you look uninformed on the economy. 9. He did a good job on healthcare. Tell that to the millions of people who lost healthcare under his administration... Prescription Drug Benefit=good idea, implemented in an ok way, that has nothing to do with Bush. He just signed it. 10. I'm strong on terrorism, Kerry is weak. Huh? When did Kerry ever say that. I've never heard him say anything about terrorism that doesn't indicate that he'll do anything but be strong on terrorism. 11. Any attempt to defend his fiscal policy as conservative or responsible... I don't think I even need to write much for that one. 12. "Missile Defense"=big waste of money, not good idea. Any qualified scientist will tell you the same thing. It costs a lot, is not reliable, and only encourages other countries to develop the same thing, or technology to counter it. MAD=good thing. 13. From his site: "We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world’s great powers." ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Anyone care to tell me how that statement is remotely defensible? That's all I care to write right now without reseraching. I didn't understand that statement. And just to clarify, I understand those who refuse to vote for Kerry. But selecting a 3rd party canidate is a better option imo. I'm actually considering doing that, or writing someone in. Why? The more of Kerry I see, the less I like him, heh. And it's not like my vote matters anyway. I live in NJ and Kerry will win regardless.

Didn't I say that's what I thought No, I'm not saying that others are saying it. I'm saying that Bush and his cronies did say it. Enough that at one point right before the war started I remember a poll showing some 75% of Americans believed Sadam was connected with 9/11. The only people I've ever heard say that the Bush administration never tried to imply a connection between Sadam and 9/11 or Sadam and Al Quaeda are people that are checked out of reality, or people that are so far skewed to Bush's side that they will believe what ever he or his support groups say without question. I can remember having litterally dozens of arguments with people right before the war started about the Al Quaeda Sadam thing, or the Sadam 9/11 thing. I'd say something like "I really don't think we should be going into this war right now, at least not before Afghanistan is cleaned up. We'll just loose soldiers, and probably create a new generation of Iraqis hating the US if we don't kill them all. Just a bad idea before we get some more people on our side to bolster our numbers. Occupying a country takes a lot of troops." then, the person I was talking to would say something like "But Sadam helped to plan 9/11, and he could very well be hiding bin Laden in his country." then I'd reply with "*crickets.....*". At first I didn't know how to respond to people, then I just got sick of people's sheepish nature and stupidity. I started just calling people brainwashed fools I got so sick of it. No one thinks for themselves. No-one trying to link Al Quaeda/9-11 and Sadam? Where you out of the country for the 6 months before the war? Stoned? Just not paying attention? Or are you just repeating the line the Bush and his cronies give out without question, either believing it to be true, or thinking everyone you talk to will too stupid to remember what the truth is? It won't work on me. I was just livid that Bush dared to cheapen 9/11 by using for his own idiotic and shortsighted political purposes that I've held it against him and kept it in mind ever since. I was just so scared by the people I talked to, and the polls I saw that indicated that most of the country actually believed the nitwit! It'd be like people believing Al Gore actually did create the internet just because he said so. Or Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Except people actually did buy that...until they later found out the truth. A lot like the President now. He got caught lying about Sadam and 9/11, or even WMDs and the reason we went to war if you want to go that far, only now he's tried to reverse his position and get people to buy that. And a lot of stupid people are, I'm sorry to say. I don't see why it is that Bush can get away with truly flip-flopping, but Kerry gets jumped on for relatively minor political changes. It's probably because Kerry did a piss-poor job of running his campaign at first, so Bush's people thought they'd jump on the chance to sling mud at him, and discredit him before he could show Bush to be a lying, manipulative, unintelligent but oft likeable guy that unfortunately often finds himself in over his head. To be honest, I don't even think he's respnonsible for my charges of being lying or manipultive. I think that has more to do with his handlers. Because that's what the guy is when you come down to it. I think I'd much rather have him as a friend than Kerry. But the fact that the majority of Americans, again and again, believe his out-and-out lies and gross distortions/manipulations of the facts, with dire consequences tell me that keeping him in the White House is downright dangerous. If all you have to do is say "9/11" in the same paragraph as something for people to believe that they're connected, then I don't see why he couldn't connect any Arab nation in the world to it. Besides the one that actually had the most to do with it in terms of $$ and people commited, of course. That scares me, understandably I think. If someone is obviously lying and trying to manipulate people, and you're laughing at his stupidity while everyone around is nodding their heads in aggreement, it gets very frustrating, and soon starts looking like some sort of horror movie, or an episode of the Twilight Zone where everyone is brainwashed and stuck in some alternative reality, and nothing you do will bring them back to Earth, where they should be. If you really honestly believe that Bush never tried to link Sadam and 9/11 or Sadam and Al Quaeda I'll spend a few hours later on searching through the Archives of CNN, or the NYT, or even Fox News (despite how openly biased they are, I'd be willing to bet money that they'd have something.....). But do you honestly believe that? You seem like a pretty smart guy, and I'd find it quite disturbing if an intelligent person actually believed all of the stuff that Bush and co. are spewing out, praying that the American public will believe...for if they don't, they'll surely be out of jobs in a hurry. Though I guess we'll see on tuesday who's smart enough to see through Bush's lies and attempted (and unfortunately successful) manipulations and who isn't. Because no matter how much you dislike Kerry, you'd have to be stupid to vote for a guy like Bush, at least in my opinion. I've never found an intelligent person who could honestly tell me why they thought that: a. He'll do a better job next time. or b. He'll do something different next time. or c. Obviously he was like the best President ever!!111!!1 And he's done nothing wrong. And I want him to do the same genious things he did last time all over again! And he's way better than that evil Clinton who ushered the country into an era of peace and prosperity and saw me personally get richer than I've ever been. Just because polls STILL show that 80% of the country would vote for him over Bush or Kerry doesn't mean that he was obviously a much better president than Bush could ever dream of being unless you're so far to the right that you think Pat Bucannan is liberal. But I'm going to HATE Clinton because he was so big and bad and did so much wrong for this country, and Bush is better. What do you mean Clinton doesn't have anything to do with it? I thought he was supposed to be evil.... Isn't that what you guys said in the last election? OOOOOHHHH. Different election..... I'm sorry, I didn't know. In that case, what should I talk about? Kerry filp-flopping? Ok. Sorry for the long rant. It just really gets to me when people belive Bush's OBVIOUS lies. I just don't understand it. It's like we're a nation full of zombies or something. It really really scares me that he can lie through his teeth about anything and turn it to his favor. If the democrats weren't such pussies they'd crucify him. I mean really, the republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about getting a BJ, you'd think the democrats would have the back bone to impeach Bush given all the lies he told that landed us in Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, the waste of hundreds of billions of dolalrs, and the deaths of untold tens of thousands of Iraqis.

I agree that it's a whole lot of nothing. I heard the NBC was actually not going to release the story until Sunday....yikes. But point #3, what are you trying to get at? Al Quaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. Granted it's a common misconception, but I had to comment on it. One of my biggest problems with the way that this war was conducted was all the lies at the begining about Al Quaeda and 9/11 being connected to Sadam. Sadly, 40someodd% of Americans still belive it. My guess would be that you meant that the Al Quaeda that were attracted to the anarchical state of Iraq could have taken the remaining 99%+, but I just thought I'd clarify given the sensitivity of issue. At least on my part.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I'm sure enemies of the US LOVE having GW as our president. The entire world besides half the American population HATES his guts. He's stupid, he runs his mouth, and he says some stupid things about his religion that can really get people up in arms. Though honestly, the main reason they probably said that is to get under GW's skin, because they do absolutely hate his guts. They're hoping he'll say something like what you said in the above quote, which would be tantamount to political suicide. I'm sure his strategists won't let him though. I did laugh at that pretty hard. Mainly because those are two of the biggest problems I have with the guy, lol. That might be going a bit too far...

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Maybe you mean both canidates lie? That's true. Something can't be proven true if it's wrong. That's just a plain and simple contradiction. You can mislead people into thinking something is true if it is false. Are you trying to say that factcheck.org is somehow biased? I don't see how you can.... Or are you trying to say that clearly all the Vietnam era accusations against Kerry are I'm dumb, and people just believe them because a bunch of privately funded liars have spent enough time trying to prove them true? How about this. Read this: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html Disprove anything they say. Why is blaming Bush's monkey ups on him foolish? I think he should be responsible for his monkey-ups, just like you and I. He commited troops too early, not in enough numbers, and without a real plan to secure the country. More people died than should have as a result. That's his monkey-up. I can understand someone who saw their best freind's head blown off next to them in a war that seemed pointless to them, or certainly not worth the life of a loved-one, being angry. You're right, I should have worded that better. Out of the people I've talked to in the military, at least 50% of them are voting for Kerry, but only a couple because they've had close friends die. Others have other reasons. Maybe that's because of the area I live in *shrug*

First: Do you know what Fact Check is? Given your response, I doubt it. And no, books written by prominent conservative authors, or right wing mags/news papers don't count as more reliable. Second: Well duh, and thank god. Not that many Americans anyway. Do you have a point? I'm perfectly ok with disscussing my points with you. But please, try to disscuss the points. Don't think Fact Check is reliable? Tell me why not. Don't think seeing your best friend killed due to Bush's monkey-ups is a valid reason to vote against him? Tell me why not.