Who’re you voting for?

Here's a standard voting poll. I expect 100% on Kerry.

If you vote for Nader, shame! Shame! Do you really expect him to win? You'll just be wasting your vote and giving Kerry one less vote and Bush one more.

I may be too young to vote, but I can still complain! Although I should be able to vote. If Bush is reelected and the draft restarted, I'll be old enough by the end of his term. I do NOT want to go to Iraq!

Anyway......vote here!

We are about to have an election here in Australia..and i geuss its the same in the United States as it is here.......

WHO IS THE BEST OF A BAD BUNCH!?

If you dont know the difference between Democrats and Republicans you wouldnt deserve The Vote!

Its easy for me:

Democrat=social conscience=British Labour Party

Republican=F**** You if you are not wealthy=British Tory Party.

As an atheist I find it interesting how many Christians vote Republican or Tory.

In the bible it says "The meek shall inherit the Earth" and "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter God's kingdom"

These things should not be negotiable for practising Christians.Go figure!

Politics? Relegion?  Let me jump right on in....

First of all Republicans and Democrats or any other political party in the world has one goal get power/ keep power. Once in office for the most part they vote or legislate or judge by the polls. Unless someone or some orginisation should give them lots of money to get elected then that agenda is now on top. I would never identify with anyone of them except maybe the libratarians who's goal is to eliminate as much government as possible. 

As for the bible quotes:

"The meek will inherit the earth" is quoted out of a serman Jesus gave to his followers corncerning their behaviour and about WHEN God's kindgdom comes to earth.

"It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven."  You need to finsih the thought

The disciples asked "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus replied "With man it is not possible but with God all things are possible."

I don't wish to debate those further just wanted to point out the whole thoughts behind them. The fundamentilist Christians and Catholics  usually side with the Republicans because they have been, up to this point, anti-abortion.

gdub411 wrote: [QUOTE] how incredibly narrow viewed you are Mr Penguin..I think it might be a little broader than just abortion...normally I would now go into a tirade about lack of moral clarity in the dems but I am too politically correct to behave so. About the power statement....sadly I cannot prove you wrong there although I would like to think one of my heroes...Mr Ronald Reagan...was above ambition and just wanted to do what he thought was the right thing

Well I am not Mr. Penguin I am just Garion or Brian if you will. 

 Narrow minded in the sense of brevity but I do believe that abortion is how the affiliation started historicaly.  The Republicans do tend to stand on the moral clause but I think that is dangerous for any politicain to say we stand for values because if they slip and fall it damages the whole party.  Before you argue that point does not to some degree Bill Clinton's lack of judgement and morals have an affect on how you view the Democratic party in general?  Can there not be Chriastians or moralists in the Democratic party?

I think the issue we need to think of is that politicans cannot enforce moral values on the rest of society.  Jesus was right when he said we have to change within ourselves.  That kind of change causes other change including social.  I understand your point and I am sorry to seem so cinical but it is how I feel.

It's all a big show, isn't it?

I was caught up in the campaign hysteria for the same reason as many people: Bush really should be voted out. Let's forget about the fact that he was not elected by the majority, even by the votes that were actually made and counted. Forget about the fact that prior to becoming President he was distinguished mainly by his criminal behavior and smug sense of entitlement. Forget about the fact that his political appointees are, without exception, inadequate for their positions and chosen to fulfil political favors and support his ideology. Forget about the fact that he probably can neither spell nor say the word "ideology". The plain truth is: he should be voted out for exploiting the national sorrow and enflaming our sense of revenge to the point where we allowed him to launch an attack against a nation without having any real evidence that they were directly involved with 9/11...and even now that the real facts of the matter are available, he continues to send Americans to die without the slightest admission of fault or regret.

Kerry: probably the only real choice, which is sad...as has been stated, he is almost as deeply enmeshed in the Standard Operating Procedure of US government (and business) as Bush; his main attraction is that he isn't Bush, which I suppose is enough for most people. He's smarter that GWB, and more stable morally and emotionally...but compared to a rude, spoiled thug, it's all relative- you could also say he has more personality than Al Gore, or more fidelity than Clinton...

Nader. Why do people look at elections like it's a horse race? As if voting for the man with a better chance of winning is more worthwhile than voting for reason and hope...if by some longshot Nader takes enough votes away from Kerry to cost him the election, then Kerry doesn't deserve to win. If the Democrats' best choice for president can't generate enough interest and respect to defeat Bush (whom much of the country wants out to begin with, regardless of the alternative) then the Dems aren't doing enough. Or maybe they don't really want to win. I hear snide dismissal of Nader all over, and yet there's enough concern about his support to think that his likely single-digit percentage of votes will keep Kerry from defeating our least popular president since Nixon.

"A lack of moral clarity"...please elaborate. I want to hear how a rude, spoiled borderline-moron has an admirable moral compass. Pehaps you can also explain why such a moral man is willing to murder our nation's young men and women on the basis of proven distortions of the truth and outright lies. I'd also like to hear how a specific concept of morality has direct bearing on a nation comprised of a multitude of cultural outlooks and spiritual orientations. And when you are finished, explain how the "let us take care of ourselves" ideal reconciles with the attitude that government should have the power to legislate what we can and cannot do with our own bodies...based on an archaic puritan mode of thinking that should have died out long before it became twisted into the current hypocritical perversion that is the religious right (who has done so much damage to common views on religion that even decent religious people suffer from the resulting predjudice). I can understand how you might come to feel that Mr. Bush is superior to you, but what makes you think that the rest of us can't find a better alternative?

In the end, we'll get the president we deserve. Whoever it is. People will continue to suffer and wrongs will go unpunished, rich kids will get exemptions from fighting wars that  they profess to believe in...and then go on to ride their family's influence through ivy-league universities. The interests of multinational business will still make the decisions that really matter in closed conferences while we're watching reality TV. No matter who we choose, we lose. The next four years are going to be dark times no matter who is at the helm.

I shouldn't even be talking about this- I should be DOING something. I don't have a lot of answers, and I can't even claim complete certainty about the answers I do have. I've done a bit of issue-related activism- it's easier to get behind specifics than people, although the usual personality traps come into play even there. What more can an outcast idealistic sad little patriot do? I could never be president. I don't even think I could hold a position in local government once the background checks came in... But I would be ecstatic to be able to work for a candidacy that inspired people, rather than simply provided a less disgraceful alternative. So my stance remains the way it was months ago: Nader, or maybe not at all. Hopeless hope is better than immoral moralizing.

Reed Lover wrote: The only way to become President is to play the game.It is too idealistic (even for me) to believe that you cant be enmeshed in the procedure of govenment to be an effective leader and legislator. You gotta be in the system to fight it.

That is like Lawyers who are idealistic in the begining, in the end they are broken down and chewed up by the machine.  Government by it's very nature must grow to surrive. No one has had the answer in history to stop it. American "democracy" consists of two parties and 500 elected Federal officals. The rest are appointed or hired.  How I ask can you affect change in that kind of system?  I really would like to hope for a change but I am really afraid that after a year of John Kerry we will be hoping for Bush again (at least we know his evil) and we cannot get Arnnie in the White House.     Anyway hopefully before election day I can shrug off this dispair and find something to hope for.

Kerry is not THE answer. Personally, I see Kerry as serving the purpose of the "Oh Well, we tried,but ...... Hillary in '08!"

Seriously, is Kerry the BEST they could do? Not by a long shot. Career politicians are as effective as Steve Martin's "optigrab" (how's that for obscure?), six years of service and we're all crosseyed. Dipsticks all, fishing in the pork barrell. Term Limits and close the PAC funds.

Grrrrrr.....

Fine..you convinced me... I am going to quit my job claim myself as heterosexually challenged and recieve government hand outs like money, free housing, food stamps and sponge on the hard working tax payers instead

Reed...I don't want suffering(well maybe a little-because I must confess my heart is Black) and I see the social "conciousness"/concerns you have and can even empathise a bit...unfortunately life has taught me reality is harsh and those idealistic viewpoints are simply unreachable.Example:

Do you REAlly think the cancer society is out for our own good? Not me..if a cure was developed there goes their pot of gold. They will never  develope a cure because where's the money in that....

I could go on but I think you get my point. I have to take care of myself 1st because society isn't going to. My interests rest in me and my daughter...to hell with the rest of the world