I'm voting for Bush!

hear, hear, well spoken Bruce!

I'm voting for Kerry because I feel like cancelling some random idiot's vote out.

I don't think I'm going to vote for either of them. I may vote "None of the above" like I did in 2000, because I don't like *any* of the candidates.

--B

I'm voting for Kerry because I feel like cancelling some random idiot's vote out.

That might be necessary, as I'm sure some Democrats out there will probably accidentally vote for Buchanan again, even if he isn't on the ballot.

I don't think I'm going to vote for either of them. I may vote "None of the above" like I did in 2000, because I don't like *any* of the candidates.

I've thought about voting for myself, but I'm not 35 yet, so I'm not eligible to be President.

im not sure i understand several of the reasons listed. specifically #s 3 & 9 both of which allude to kerry being power hungry. what's that all about?

as to indecision and arnold schwartzegger, i was forced to endure several months of arnold's statements, campaign ads and speeches. he was only indecisive in two areas, one of those for only 2 days (he was clearly unable to decide how many women hed assaulted, whether hed open hearings into that question and eventually if hed even seen any of those whining chicks before). throughout the campaign he seemed unable to decide how to pronounce 'california'.

he was emphatic on all other issues...emphatically determined to insure he had some nifty plans without revealing what they entailed. .

Reply #3 By: Mr_Frog - 5/16/2004 12:06:39 AM I don't think I'm going to vote for either of them. I may vote "None of the above" like I did in 2000, because I don't like *any* of the candidates.

If you are going to the write in option anyway, write someone in who has the qualities that you feel are missing from these canidates. It won't help in this election, but maybe, somewhere, someone will see it and think "You know, that's not bad. Maybe we should run someone like that next time."

I can dream, can't I?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO EVIL AND DECADENT ANYMORE THAT THEY ARE TAKING THIS NATION TO DOOM. LEADERS ARE, MORE OR LESS FIGUREHEADS. THE REAL POWER LIES IN WHERE THE PEOPLE TAKE THE COUNTRY. AND IT APPEARS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING THE WAY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. WITHIN 10 YEARS, YOU WILL SEE MORE TROUBLE THAN YOU COULD EVER IMAGINE.

yeah but if the guy i vote for wins, at least i dont have to blame nero or marcus aurelius

It's not surprising why Saint Ying has negative points. .

Bush is equally indecisive on a wide variety of issues, such as:

1. Was he a pot-smoking coke-snorter or wasn't he? (No answer offered.)
2. Did he show up for his military service, or didn't he? (answers conflict)
3. Did Saddam Hussein have WMD, or didn't he? (answer varies)
4. Was Saddam Hussein a threat in any way to the US, or wasn't he? (answer varies)
5. Was Iraq complicit in 9/11, or wasn't it? (answer varies)
6. Is Bush, as he claims, a true Christian and follower of Jesus Christ, or does he grin from ear-to-ear and speak proudly when he talks about the record-setting number of state-sponsored executions he approved as governor of Texas? (answers conflict)
7. Does the "Clear Skies Initiative" weaken air pollution controls, or strengthen them? (no answer given)
8. Is the Democrats' tax-and-spend policy more or less fiscally irresponsible than Bush's "don't-tax-but-spend-anyway" policy? (no answer given)
9. Is the God that Bush claims to speak with the same God that told him that Saddam had WMD and that the US is on the side of justice? If so, is it really God, or is it Ardra?
10. Does Bush believe in the Constitution, or does he believe that dissenters should be restricted to small police-approved locations a half-mile away from any political event? (answers conflict)
11. Should we go to war with countries that thumb their noses at the United Nations, or should we BE a country that thumbs our nose at the United Nations? (answers conflict)

--Josh

My top reason for voting for Bush...

1. I don't want to spend my days rocking back and forth in a mandrassa reading the Koran.

Josh - that's the best you can do?

1. It's irrelevant as an issue for determining the President in a post-Clinton era.

2. He did. Answers don't conflict. He got an honorable discharge. End of story.

3. While that is an issue, that isn't an example of flip flopping.

4. Yes. He was. Bush has never stated differently.

5. No, Iraq wasn't. Bush has never stated differently.

6. Bush has addressed this and it's not a campaign issue anyway. Kerry claims to be Catholic but is pro-choice. Both are non-issues.

7. This isn't an example of flip-flopping.

8. This is an issue but not one of flip-flopping. He has his opinion which is that during times of recession, which we were in one, the government should lower taxes and increase spending to stir the economy. You and I may not agree with it but it is his stated position on the matter.

9. This is just petty.

10. Please let us know where in the constitution it states that people can protest right at ground 0 of a given event. Feel free to re-read the first amendment.

11. Please feel free to show the UN resolution that condemns or disapproves of the coalition removal of Saddam.

Really it's no wonder the Democrats keep losing. Even I coudl put together a better anti-Bush list than this.

Anthony,

Oddly enough, that's why I wouldn't vote FOR Bush (not that voting for Kerry is an exciting prospect).

Kerry is an unknown in many regards, but he appears far less liable to claim theocratic superiority as Bush often has. Bush has claimed a divine knowledge - that he has God's support for various actions -- several times. This is the kind of thinking that seeks to impose one person's religion on the masses: Bush will work to make abortion illegal for everybody because abortion is against his personal religious doctrine; Bush will work towards a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because it is against his personal religious doctrine, etc..

Kerry, on the other hand, has not claimed he has God whispering in his ear.

We sometimes forget that America was founded as an ESCAPE from theocracy. Now we're relaxing our standards and allowing theocracy back into the country. History tells us where that will lead, but we, as a nation, are very poor students of history.

You're a lot more likely to end up forced to read the Koran -- or some other religious doctrine -- if a religious zealot is elected.

--Josh

As a borderline atheist (I'm agnostic) I somehow manage to not get the heevie-geevies that Bush is religious.

But I will say this, I'd rather someone believe that there is a high power than himself than someone who thinks THEY themselves are the higher power. That is the feeling I get from Kerry - that he believes he is superior to everyone else and must lead us sheep.

I've met protest organizers over the years and they all seem to have one thing in common - a superiority complex over the masses. Given his record and history, it's pretty clear that Kerry, if elected, would try to change things "for our own good" .  I've seen plenty of left-wingers here on JoeUser proudly state that the reason they need "control" is because the rest of us are too "ignorant" to do the "right thing". 

No thanks. I'll take the guy who believes in God over the guy who has a God complex.

It's irrelevant as an issue for determining the President in a post-Clinton era.

How so? It seemed to be utterly relevant to the Republican when Clinton was running; now that Clinton's no longer running, it's not relevant? How hypocritical. Apparently issues of character are only issues of character as long as Republicans want them to be, and thereafter, they're relevant.

. He did. Answers don't conflict. He got an honorable discharge. End of story.

No. The question was not, "Did he receive an honorable discharge, or didn't he?" (If it had been, you'd be correct.) The question was, did he show up? His CO says he did not. Even the papers released by the White House did not actually answer this question.

While that is an issue, that isn't an example of flip flopping.

I didn't say flip-flopping; I said indecisive. Considering that Bush is actually quoted as saying that WMD *had* been found, it is indeed indecisive to later clarify by saying that weapons had not been found, but a biological laboratory had been, and then later to have it further clarified that what had been found was a laboratory that COULD have been used for creating biological weapons, but with no evidence that it HAD been. Then he said that evidence had been found of WMD *programs.* There are a number of different conflicting answers in there, none of them decisive, authoritative, or accurate.

Yes. He was. Bush has never stated differently.

Hussein may have been many things, but a threat to the US? It has not been borne out by the evidence. His army was not. His weapons were not. Additionally, Bush's claims about the actual threat from Hussein have changed many times. Prior to the war, it was because Hussein had WMD, was buying uranium, etc.. As those charges have been proved false, the argument morphed into a more vague "support of terrorism" (which has also since been discredited). Now it's because he was a bad, bad man.

No, Iraq wasn't. Bush has never stated differently.

When's the last time you read Bush's March 2002 address to the nation? I believe it is facetious to read (or hear) it and insist that no connection at all is being drawn between Iraq and 9/11.

Bush has addressed this and it's not a campaign issue anyway. Kerry claims to be Catholic but is pro-choice. Both are non-issues.

I never said it was an election issue. However, the argument was that Kerry is indecisive. This is an area in which Bush says one thing and does another. That is hardly decisive. And please note that I didn't deny that Kerry is indecisive; I only indicated that Bush is.

This isn't an example of flip-flopping.

True, I suppose -- it's an example of deliberate misleading. Many apologies.

This is just petty.

I would say that claiming you have God's support for your mission is rather a big deal for the leader of the free world. I question all zealots. Sorry if you find that petty.

Please let us know where in the constitution it states that people can protest right at ground 0 of a given event. Feel free to re-read the first amendment.

I'm astonished that anyone would defend the notion of Free Speech Zones. Even the American Conservative has called this a "Federal attack(s) on freedom of speech." Link

Really it's no wonder the Democrats keep losing. Even I coudl put together a better anti-Bush list than this.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent, and as such, it's the votes of people like me who'll determine the outcome of the upcoming election. I'm no Kerry fan. Nor a Nader fan, if that's your suspicion.

--Josh

Draginol,

In this case, though, Bush is not just "a guy who believes in God." He's a guy who believes that God endorses his decisions.

Kerry possibly may also believe this, but to my knowledge, only Bush regularly acts on it.

--Josh

what--besides the very dubious generalization based on your experience with protest organizers--would lead a reasonable objective person to conclude that kerry has a "superiority complex over the masses"? (ive never heard of such a thing. given the history of the bush administration--specifically such things as the patriot act which commits the cardinal violation of conservative values by limiting rights compounded by the proposed marriage amendment--its going to be difficult for kerry to exercise more control

as far as people being too ignorant to do the right thing, considering george's somewhat spotty academic record, that he would be the last person to impose so many strict criteria on educators.

as far as flipflops go, explain why the tax cut that wasnt negotiable was negotiated, why bush said there would be a un vote prior to the invasion of iraq, why the global war on terrorism has been reduced to the war on terrorisim only in iraq and afghanistan. im willing to bet that hes goint to flop on rumsfeld in the very near future--truly a shame because rummy needs to be there to keep reminding the american people that pride goes before a fall

on second reflection, i think i might be able to imagine the organizers of anti-abortion protests exhibiting an attitude of moral superiority
also george lincoln rockwell and david duke altho im not sure that a klan rally qualifies..

You're a lot more likely to end up forced to read the Koran -- or some other religious doctrine -- if a religious zealot is elected.

It looks like you are trying to draw equivalence between Osama Bin Laden and George Bush. You think Bush’s religious belief is zealotry comparable to Al Qaida. That is a radical theory; do you believe that Bush Knew, or engineered 911?

My top reason for voting for Bush...

1. I don't want to spend my days rocking back and forth in a mandrassa reading the Koran.

that's the funniest thing ive read all weekend (and im not being sarcastic or anything but sincerely entertained)

way cool anthony

How so? It seemed to be utterly relevant to the Republican when Clinton was running; now that Clinton's no longer running, it's not relevant? How hypocritical. Apparently issues of character are only issues of character as long as Republicans want them to be, and thereafter, they're relevant.

You are presuming that just because "the Republicans" made this an issue with Clinton, that the Draginol ALSO made this an issue with Clinton. You are claiming that he is being hypocritical for actions he may not have even taken part in. Can you support that Draginol is being personally hypocritical?

Considering that Bush is actually quoted as saying that WMD *had* been found, it is indeed indecisive to later clarify by saying that weapons had not been found,

Saying something exists or doesn't exists isn't a matter of making a decision, it's a matter of being factually correct or incorrect. I don't have to make a decision to state that there's a computer monitor in front of me. If it's there, I'm correct. If it's not, I'm incorrect or lying, but it doesn't reflect my ability to simply make decisions.

This is an area in which Bush says one thing and does another. That is hardly decisive.

Again, that is not necessarily indicative of decision-making. It may be an issue of honesty and integrity, but not of decision-making ability. If you can demonstrate Bush pursuing a course of action then changing to a different course of action and then perhaps changing to another course of action, you MAY be able to establish some decision-making issues. Saying one thing and doing another is a poor argument for questioning his decisiveness.

VES

I'm not allowed to vote.

If I could vote, however, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Kerry.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

Why aren't you allowed to vote, Dharma?

Why aren't you allowed to vote, Dharma?

Because I'm not a citizen. I still have British citizenship. If I were allowed to have dual citizenship I'd have taken the US exam before now...but her Maj. doesn't like her subjects double-dipping and would make me give up citizenship of the UK. Because Dave's still in the military we decided it would be best to wait until he retires for me to take US citizenship....however, I'm starting to think that I want to be a part of this democracy. I live here, I pay taxes here, therefore I'd like to at least feel like I have a say in what goes on. So, at some point in the next few months I'm probably going to pay the INS another exorbitant amount of dough and tell the British government to kiss my butt.

Josh:

Your assertion is that Bush is indecisionate. Yet virtually all your points have nothing to do with Bush being indecisionate. And what's worse, most of your (ahem) "points" are dated left-wing propaganda.

1) Bush being a crack-head or a heroine dealer or whatever you imagine has nothing to do with him being indecisionate or not. Also, I don't appreciate you calling me a "hypocrite". Please show me a single post where I made an issue of Clinton's alleged drug abuse. It seems to me that the Democrats are being the hypocrites -- they supported Clinton who was a drug user and flagrantly dodged the draft and yet suddenly these things are big deals to them. I challenge you to find a single post by me where I said Clinton was unqualified to be President becaue of either of those issues.

2) Your fantasy-scenario of Bush doing cocaine instead of showing up for national guard duty has nothing to do with being indecisionate or not.

3) Perhaps you should read the state of the union speech. I've written on this countless times elsewhere so I won't go over it again. Either way, it's not an example of Bush being indecisionate.

4) You made the assertion that Bush didn't value the constitution and your basis for that assertion was that Bush doesn't let protesters get "close enough" to the thing they're protesting. That's a pretty weak argument. If you and your liberal friends find that a compelling argument, please, by all means, repeat it loudly over and over.

5) You're about as "independent" as Rush Limbaugh is. Spare us claims to the contrary.

If you want to make a list of "Reasons I think Bush is a bad bad man" go right ahead. But you have a long way to go to make an even mild case that Bush is indecisionate.

Democrats are much better off with the argument that Bush is SO decisive that he doesn't adjust for changing circumstances. I think that would have a lot more traction.

And no, I don't think Bush being religious is a big deal. In fact, the louder Kerry and his supporters make an issue out of that, the more they damage themselves. This may come as a shock but MOST Americans, particularly the ones who vote, are religious to a greater degree than most people on political forums realize.