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!

I don't live in the states, and I'm not old enough to vote, but if I did I would vote for Nader, and this is simply because neither of the other two candidates are worth it.  People don't vote for Nader because they expect him to win, they do so because if he gets enough votes he gets more funding, and could eventually be able to run against the big guys.  Plus it's a matter of principle.  I'd sooner shoot myself in the foot than vote for Bush, just because I agree with pretty much nothing he's done since he's been the president, but I think the fact that Kerry is going to lose to Bush alone shows that he shouldn't be the president.  If he couldn't beat a guy who has constantly been under fire from the American public for the majority of his time in office and was prime to be destroyed in this election, do you really want him running the country?  If it were Howard Dean running for the democrats, he'd have my vote in a second.  I just refuse to give my vote to a man who's platform for being elected seems to pretty much be "I have three purple hearts".

Just my opinion though.

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!

Democrat=elitist socialist who will tell me what is good for me as they obviously know better than I. It means ridiculous tax rates to support a bunch of programs I do not agree with or care about quite frankly.

Republicans=less government. Less tax rates and let us take care of ourselves..not big brother!!!

I have NEVER accepted a government handout and NEVER will!

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.

Garion81 wrote: 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.

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

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.

gdub411 wrote: Democrat=elitist socialist who will tell me what is good for me as they obviously know better than I. It means ridiculous tax rates to support a bunch of programs I do not agree with or care about quite frankly. Republicans=less government. Less tax rates and let us take care of ourselves..not big brother!!! I have NEVER accepted a government handout and NEVER will!

And you think everyone should follow your line do you?

These programs you talk about, are they social welfare programs?

You think that these are intrinsically wrong because they dont encourage the less well-off, ie the poor and starving, to stand on their own two feet.You should be ashamed of yourself.

You support a party that believes that the only minority it should help out is the Billionaires. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You support a party who would have you rot in hell if the gay vote didnt count.You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Democrats might have Multimillionaires in its ranks but at least they profess some kind of social conscience.This is called "having your heart in the right place" which whilst it has come to mean something negative ie "you f***ed up, but YHIITRP" means you started off with good intentions. The only good intentions the Republicans have is to make the "very,very,rich" infinitely richer and to inveigle people like you, the reasonably well off,to vote for them.They do this by creating snobbery. They do this by turning the least well off, the underprivaleged, into demons;criminals who will steal your hard earned possesions,or mug you in the street. Of course, this person will be black.Naturally all blacks are drug addicts, so dont deserve help.You vote for the Republicans and they will protect you!

Capitalism relies on there being very rich people and very poor people, but this doesn't mean it is right.A system based on fear and loathing can never be right.

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.

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.

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.

REED LOVER:You support a party who would have you rot in hell if the gay vote didnt count.You should be ashamed of yourself

Dick Cheney has a daughter who is gay and he hasn't condemned her to hell. I could fall in line with most of the other gay people and vote democratic but I have to weigh my gay needs to all the other issues at hand. I think I would be MORE selfish if I said to hell with everything else... I want gay marriage...sorry...I am not going to do that

Fine...let us tax all the rich until they are middle class. Then tell me, where is the incentive to succeed? Don't give some mamby pamby philosophical B.S either. Quite simply it is Money. It always comes down to money.

The socialistic(or should I say communistic-My god Stalin and Lenin won after all in Europe) veiwpoints tell me this Reed Lover: Let us All punish success and reward failure...sorry but that is retarded logic

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.....

gdub411 wrote: REED LOVER:You support a party who would have you rot in hell if the gay vote didnt count.You should be ashamed of yourself Dick Cheney has a daughter who is gay and he hasn't condemned her to hell. I could fall in line with most of the other gay people and vote democratic but I have to weigh my gay needs to all the other issues at hand. I think I would be MORE selfish if I said to hell with everything else... I want gay marriage...sorry...I am not going to do that Fine...let us tax all the rich until they are middle class. Then tell me, where is the incentive to succeed? Don't give some mamby pamby philosophical B.S either. Quite simply it is Money. It always comes down to money. The socialistic(or should I say communistic-My god Stalin and Lenin won after all in Europe) veiwpoints tell me this Reed Lover: Let us All punish success and reward failure...sorry but that is retarded logic

Like a Jew voting Adolf Hitler or a turkey voting for Christmas.

You sell your soul for a few tax breaks and presume everyone will applaud.Dont you see it is not about success it is about privelage! Where is the success of being born into money-it is a roll of genetic dice not something you can decide to do! They've brainwashed you into accepting crumbs from the table. Come on tell me.How much better off a year are you under the Republicans than the Democrats? I dare you to astound us with this fiscal saving from heaven.

When the gas chambers open will you be able to claim you are one of the elite? I doubt it somehow. How many private clubs could you get into? ( if you wanted to that is) How many black balls before you got the message?

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

Reed Lover [/QUOTE wrote: Like a Jew voting Adolf Hitler or a turkey voting for Christmas. You sell your soul for a few tax breaks and presume everyone will applaud.Dont you see it is not about success it is about privelage! Where is the success of being born into money-it is a roll of genetic dice not something you can decide to do! They've brainwashed you into accepting crumbs from the table. Come on tell me.How much better off a year are you under the Republicans than the Democrats? I dare you to astound us with this fiscal saving from heaven. When the gas chambers open will you be able to claim you are one of the elite? I doubt it somehow. How many private clubs could you get into? ( if you wanted to that is) How many black balls before you got the message?

Like a Jew voting Adolf Hitler or a turkey voting for Christmas.

You sell your soul for a few tax breaks and presume everyone will applaud.Dont you see it is not about success it is about privelage! Where is the success of being born into money-it is a roll of genetic dice not something you can decide to do! They've brainwashed you into accepting crumbs from the table. Come on tell me.How much better off a year are you under the Republicans than the Democrats? I dare you to astound us with this fiscal saving from heaven.

When the gas chambers open will you be able to claim you are one of the elite? I doubt it somehow. How many private clubs could you get into? ( if you wanted to that is) How many black balls before you got the message?

[/QUOTE]

Umm are you saying the Rebpuclicans are equal to Nazis? Wow.

Reed, I respect you but you are not close. Further more your view would be considered extreme to the left in this country.  Americans for the most part are wary of government. Policemen don't belong in our homes or in our wallets you might say.  Socialism has been attempted and overwhelmingly thrown off in this country just as communism has pretty much died around the world. Democrats will never try that again if they hope to stay together as a party.  America's support of Ronald Reagan made sure of that.  Yes, there is need for social programs but not to the extent it is in England or other countries like that. America still believes that people can help themselves among themselves without involving the government.  That is where churches come in and the good people who attend them and believe in the thought that we must help our fellow man. There are other people who don't attend church and they believe the same thing. I am not talking about the religious right which is a political organization and is on the far right. You will find most Americans to be in the middle a little right or left but not too far apart.  

Republicans may not want gay marriages but I can't see them getting a constitutional amendment to get gays thrown in hell!  That is our last saving grace is the Constitution and at the least the willingness of those in power to bow to it's finality. As long as they do that we are OK.  When they start tampering with the bill of rights whether through gun control, free speach, freedom of religion or search and seizure we are in trouble. We stop being a society where we do have choices.

Gdub- which party was in power for the Patriot Act? (the single biggest attempt to infringe the Bill of Rights and personal privacy in the last two decades) In a related question, which party did you say best represented American's wariness of government?

which President was in power for the shameful and too-quickly forgotten Iran-Contra affair? (oh, the honest and incorruptible one, right)

between democracy and socialism, which form of government applies to the top countries year in and year out rated by standard of health care, lowest crime rate, lowest unemployment and highest general standard of living?

and the difference between communism and socialism is a much greater one than that between Republican and Democratic parties.

I'm sure you can provide a more reasoned way to back up your opinions; as a frequent defender of the country I love, I'd hate to think that the international readers of this forum are being mistakenly led to regard we Americans as typically reactionary, greedy, and poorly-educated. Well, any more than they do already, anyway.

Garion81 wrote: Reed Lover Like a Jew voting Adolf Hitler or a turkey voting for Christmas. You sell your soul for a few tax breaks and presume everyone will applaud.Dont you see it is not about success it is about privelage! Where is the success of being born into money-it is a roll of genetic dice not something you can decide to do! They've brainwashed you into accepting crumbs from the table. Come on tell me.How much better off a year are you under the Republicans than the Democrats? I dare you to astound us with this fiscal saving from heaven. When the gas chambers open will you be able to claim you are one of the elite? I doubt it somehow. How many private clubs could you get into? ( if you wanted to that is) How many black balls before you got the message? [/QUOTE wrote: Umm are you saying the Rebpuclicans are equal to Nazis? Wow.   Reed, I respect you but you are not close. Further more your view would be considered extreme to the left in this country.  Americans for the most part are wary of government. Policemen don't belong in our homes or in our wallets you might say.  Socialism has been attempted and overwhelmingly thrown off in this country just as communism has pretty much died around the world. Democrats will never try that again if they hope to stay together as a party.  America's support of Ronald Reagan made sure of that.  Yes, there is need for social programs but not to the extent it is in England or other countries like that. America still believes that people can help themselves among themselves without involving the government.  That is where churches come in and the good people who attend them and believe in the thought that we must help our fellow man. There are other people who don't attend church and they believe the same thing. I am not talking about the religious right which is a political organization and is on the far right. You will find most Americans to be in the middle a little right or left but not too far apart.     Republicans may not want gay marriages but I can't see them getting a constitutional amendment to get gays thrown in hell!  That is our last saving grace is the Constitution and at the least the willingness of those in power to bow to it's finality. As long as they do that we are OK.  When they start tampering with the bill of rights whether through gun control, free speach, freedom of religion or search and seizure we are in trouble. We stop being a society where we do have choices.

Umm are you saying the Rebpuclicans are equal to Nazis? Wow.

Reed, I respect you but you are not close. Further more your view would be considered extreme to the left in this country.  Americans for the most part are wary of government. Policemen don't belong in our homes or in our wallets you might say.  Socialism has been attempted and overwhelmingly thrown off in this country just as communism has pretty much died around the world. Democrats will never try that again if they hope to stay together as a party.  America's support of Ronald Reagan made sure of that.  Yes, there is need for social programs but not to the extent it is in England or other countries like that. America still believes that people can help themselves among themselves without involving the government.  That is where churches come in and the good people who attend them and believe in the thought that we must help our fellow man. There are other people who don't attend church and they believe the same thing. I am not talking about the religious right which is a political organization and is on the far right. You will find most Americans to be in the middle a little right or left but not too far apart.  

Republicans may not want gay marriages but I can't see them getting a constitutional amendment to get gays thrown in hell!  That is our last saving grace is the Constitution and at the least the willingness of those in power to bow to it's finality. As long as they do that we are OK.  When they start tampering with the bill of rights whether through gun control, free speach, freedom of religion or search and seizure we are in trouble. We stop being a society where we do have choices.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be late answering this Brian.

I promised not to talk politics or religion from 1st of October.

So I cant possibly say what a load of old cobblers it is to suggest that the church should look after the poor.

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: Democrat=elitist socialist who will tell me what is good for me as they obviously know better than I. It means ridiculous tax rates to support a bunch of programs I do not agree with or care about quite frankly. Republicans=less government. Less tax rates and let us take care of ourselves..not big brother!!! I have NEVER accepted a government handout and NEVER will! And you think everyone should follow your line do you? These programs you talk about, are they social welfare programs? You think that these are intrinsically wrong because they dont encourage the less well-off, ie the poor and starving, to stand on their own two feet.You should be ashamed of yourself. You support a party that believes that the only minority it should help out is the Billionaires. You should be ashamed of yourself. You support a party who would have you rot in hell if the gay vote didnt count.You should be ashamed of yourself. The Democrats might have Multimillionaires in its ranks but at least they profess some kind of social conscience.This is called "having your heart in the right place" which whilst it has come to mean something negative ie "you f***ed up, but YHIITRP" means you started off with good intentions. The only good intentions the Republicans have is to make the "very,very,rich" infinitely richer and to inveigle people like you, the reasonably well off,to vote for them.They do this by creating snobbery. They do this by turning the least well off, the underprivaleged, into demons;criminals who will steal your hard earned possesions,or mug you in the street. Of course, this person will be black.Naturally all blacks are drug addicts, so dont deserve help.You vote for the Republicans and they will protect you! Capitalism relies on there being very rich people and very poor people, but this doesn't mean it is right.A system based on fear and loathing can never be right.

Now I'm really confused. I agree with you entirely RL, but aren't those demonised underprivileged the same "great unwashed" of which you spoke?

James...we can go on and on bantering who has been more corrupt. I could tell many damning things about Clinton and LBJ as well but why? So all the Europeans can point their finger at us and shout their self righteous BS some more?

What should have Bush done? How would you have handled it? On a daily basis I do not feel like my rights are being infringed on....do you? I am sure it was a difficult choice for the president, but one he felt was necessary. If someone has a better answer please step up.

I may not have as many flowery words available in my arsenal as you but believe me...I watch enough news, listen to enough talk radio, and read enough newspaper/internet articles to form an informed opinion on matters. The average american couldn't tell you what the difference between conservatism or liberism is. I hear the ignorance on TV all the time. I watched MTV and heard a bunch of mindless twits exclaim " I don't know , as long as it isn't Bush." They couldn't even tell you who the vice president or who Kerry's running mate is.

I would never presume to be as knowledgable or as articulate as you, I have read enough of your posts to realize you are a very intelligent man...but I am light years ahead of the average american on the subject of politics. So rejoice all you Europeans....there are alot of uneducated americans!!!!! Hoorah!!!!!!

but...whether you like it or not...we are still the richest and most powerful country on the planet and every other country ought to thank their lucky stars that the US government never adopted an expansionist mentality since the Spanish- American War. 

I would have no problem with the Welfare System if the money went to those who were really needy. Many people on welfare really don't need to be and are milking a system that has too many loop-holes.

Scenario: Several years ago I was in bad straits. I ran into an entanglement with the IRS and owed them quite a bit of money. They garnished my wages down to $107.17/week. You try to live on that!! I went and got myself another job. Now I was REALLY bad off in those days and didn't have a car. Living in the suburbs of Chicago there were few places that I could apply at within walking distance. I got a job the only place I could have...a grocery store...as a bagger(very demeaning, but I did it because I had to...I know alot of people who are unemployed because they won't lower their standards..I say tough luck then you lazy bum.)

When I was working there I would notice these people coming to shop who would pay for all their groceries with food stamps, with 3 kids in tow and a 4th on the way(Welfare Mothers make Better Lovers), get into their brand new cars and whiz away over to the subsidize housing nearby..These degenerates are the carrien of society and my tax dollars shouldn't have to go to these vultures. This didn't just happen here and there..this happened all the time. I don't know any figures but I am willing to bet there are more people who are on welfare who don't need it than there are who do. I am not greedy. I just feel people need to owe up to their own responsibilities as I do. Be a cog in society...not a cancer.

Well done Greg

I know it sounds patronising to say that but after weeks of prodding you have finally explained yourself. Bravo! I may not agree with you but now,at least I can understand your point of view.!

Hey Reed Lover...did you read my comment to James...especially the last part(heh,heh)

but...whether you like it or not...we are still the richest and most powerful country on the planet and every other country ought to thank their lucky stars that the US government never adopted an expansionist mentality since the Spanish- American War

So you didn't mind this comment , Tony?

James, such words of wisdom, especially on the subject of American expansionism. Exporting "democracy" to people who never asked for it and then shooting them if they don't play ball seems like expansionism to me. Iraq is quickly becoming the new Vietnam, and my own dear Britain has blood on its hands too, so please US buddies, don't feel the need to be defensive on my behalf. Blair is obviously far more intelligent than Bush, but this only makes it more embarassing. One is no longer surprised at Bush's stupidity, its become his trademark, but Blair really has no excuse. He's an educated man who should have known better than to ally himself with such an ignoramous.

emdiar wrote: James, such words of wisdom, especially on the subject of American expansionism. Exporting "democracy" to people who never asked for it and then shooting them if they don't play ball seems like expansionism to me. Iraq is quickly becoming the new Vietnam, and my own dear Britain has blood on its hands too, so please US buddies, don't feel the need to be defensive on my behalf. Blair is obviously far more intelligent than Bush, but this only makes it more embarassing. One is no longer surprised at Bush's stupidity, its become his trademark, but Blair really has no excuse. He's an educated man who should have known better than to ally himself with such an ignoramous.

1st of all Bush graduated at Harvard and was a jet pilot...the man isn't stupid..is he articulate?...no, not at all.

2nd..it's funny how the world pays attention to a small minority of radicals more than the majority of people in Iraq.  Constantly I hear stories of soldiers who come back surprised by the negative media coverage in Iraq. These soldiers will let you know that most people in Iraq are glad we're there and slowly rstoring order and rebuilding their country. I think a better picture will be painted on the situation in years to come. Time always has a way of sorting out what really happen. I think when it is all said and done it will be regarded in a better light.

Have you ever played any of those detailed wargames where they have thousands of pieces and move around on hexagons? In WWII games Germany will start with 13 infantry rated as 6-3.(6=combat value,3=movement) So far our forces would have lost about the equalivent of 1 strengh point of 1 of those units. In a military standpoint they have been nearly ineffective against us.

These terrorists know though that western civilization(Europe and America) doesn't have the stomach for war and their theory is being reinforced by the huge public outcry heard here in Europe and America. This fuels their aggression and encourages them to launch more attacks knowing that Western Civilization has grown soft. Look no further than Somalia for evidence of that. While they do not care if they lose a million in their cause(because like it or not..they view this as a Holy War against the Western devils) we cannot stomach to lose even one.

If we pull out of Iraq it will be considered a victory for them and they will continue to launch aggression against us. We must continue to bring the war against them.

gdub411 wrote:   1st of all Bush graduated at Harvard and was a jet pilot...the man isn't stupid..is he articulate?...no, not at all.

Bush floated through Harvard on his family's influence. That's more than just casual rumor, it's the assertion of at least one of his professors:

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/16/tsurumi/ - http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/16/tsurumi/

Anyway, if an Ivy League education is an indicator of superior intelligence, then an amazing number of our political representatives are geniuses...including Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton (that towering intellect ) and John Kerry...who left Yale to volunteer in Vietnam (unlike our current VP, who left Yale in favor of the University of Wyoming when his grades began to be an embarassment).

You know I usually really hate these political threads... where most of you guys just spout your own ignorance, while slamming most politicians for theirs... but just a couple of things...

Bush graduated from Yale, then Harvard for his Masters.  You could float thru Yale maybe, but you don't float thru Harvard...

Second, you can slam Clinton for his exploits... and his lack of good judgement, but I'm sorry, you can't slam him for not being smart.  Look at where he came from and what he's accomplished... he's actually a very intelligent man.

Who am I voting for:... well I look at it as better to vote for the evil I don't know rather than the evil I do... that way, there's at least some hope that there might be light at the end of our tunnel.

Indeed Clinton was very smart, a road scholar, and damned charismatic...I'll give him that.

Who was bashing Clinton's intelligence?

Ah!!! Yes...now I remember.

Some people get off on hearing themselves talk(or write in this case)

j/k James

and some get off alone in cars, or with rock stars...

I don't need to be criticized for expressing and defending my opinion with a few extra words in my vocabulary. I'm just sadly realizing now that a clear and reasoned debate is less important around here than personal jabs cloaked in supposed humor; I can give it as well as take it, but it's not my idea of a good time. How about you folks go back to high school? I hear there are some more nerds that need to be put in their place, like you did with me.

oh james, so sorry.. I didn't realize how sensitive you were to humor.  But I'm a little perplexed about the not needing to be criticized for expressing and defending your opinion... on reading back most of this thread.. that's exactly what most of the conversations are.  So are you telling me that you can be criticized without humor... but can't take it with humor..??

I just would like to know for future reference.

and BTW.. I don't just get off with rock stars... but they do up the thrill level a great deal..

James Wrote:and some get off alone in cars, or with rock stars...

Well the latter was obviously addressed at TF so I'll deal with the former.

You have obviously read my most embarrassing moment.,and then took a leap of logic and decided "No way was he with anyone, he must have been alone"...so that was a jab at me. Earlier in this thread you called me uneducated and uninformed. Now you never once put a joking face at it so I'll take it as a serious slam(that's 2 against me)

I said you like to listen to yourself talk(or in this case write)..with a j/k...that's one against you , but only because you defined the humor as a disguised insult. Either way it was the only slam I have ever dealt you.

Now I have complimented you twice on this forum by saying you were articulate and intelligent..and I'll give you another by saying I saw your picture with your pooches and you are a handsome man(that is not a come on so please do not be all homophobic about this)

I have yet to see any compliment coming your way...nor do I expect one either...but since you seem interested in who's slamming who more I am bringing it up.

So lets keep score:

Greg Complimenting James=3

James Complimenting Greg=0

Greg Insulting James=1

James Insulting Greg=2

It seems to me like I'm the one who should have his panties all in a bundle..hmm

....but I don't so lets hug and make out..er..I mean  up...even though you hate my favorite band (Vdgg and the Great One..Peter Hammill)

James Lee wrote: and some get off alone in cars, or with rock stars... I don't need to be criticized for expressing and defending my opinion with a few extra words in my vocabulary. I'm just sadly realizing now that a clear and reasoned debate is less important around here than personal jabs cloaked in supposed humor; I can give it as well as take it, but it's not my idea of a good time. How about you folks go back to high school? I hear there are some more nerds that need to be put in their place, like you did with me.

Must try and keep up-to-date with theses threads! James, where did this come from? No need to highlight our 2 friends dodgy lifestyles just because you cant get through their thick skulls

I've only been on this forum since July so have missed a lot of what "might have gone before" and cant be bothered reading all the way back to January. I myself have tried to point out some glaring holes in some peoples arguments, and add humour but it just doesnt work. As a Brit I find that my attempts at wit and good-natured sarcasm/banter are completely lost on you guys from the "Comedy Third World". Mind you the funniest thing I have read all year is the claim in this thread that Dubya is not a dumb beast! Your fellow country-persons are lovely people and if they dont want to believe that your foremost educational institutions would give Dubya a free ride then that's their perogative.No money or privelage involved.

What next? Corn Circles?

No doubt the Pixie will jump in and tell us that the fact that Corn Circles are created by aliens is incontravertable and is widely predicted in The Bible Code and Nostradamus. Gdub will tell us that it is his inalienable right to believe in Corn Circles and Threefates will enlighten us that she was once ET's Road Manager and he told her that they were encrypted lyrics for Greg Lake's next solo album!

What next? Corn Circles?

No doubt the Pixie will jump in and tell us that the fact that Corn Circles are created by aliens is incontravertable and is widely predicted in The Bible Code and Nostradamus. Gdub will tell us that it is his inalienable right to believe in Corn Circles and Threefates will enlighten us that she was once ET's Road Manager and he told her that they were encrypted lyrics for Greg Lake's next solo album!

that is definately the funniest thing you have ever written...usually I just don't get that British humor but this is rich

by the way....I believe it is crop circles.....I have listened to Coast to Coast where this is a frequent topic...god I love the wackos on that show.

By the way...what the heck is up with that garbage movie England spat at us..28 Days Later...after I saw that peice of cr## I told the person i was with " Damn Brits trying to be all Hollywood., just stick to music"

and what was up with that ending where they roll out that banner that says  "Hello"....silly

Ah, 28 Days Later erm sorry for that one! Have you noticed that nearly all movies (not just British) that have more than a few British actors in them look naff? I prefer good old Hollywood production values for my quota of gore.

Mind you have you seen The Village? What a load of old twaddle that is!

It definately took a different twist that I am not altogether sure if I liked or disliked..I just left that movie in a hazy puzzlement.

Personally I am looking forward to The Grudge and White Noise this month....can't wait

gdub411 wrote: It definately took a different twist that I am not altogether sure if I liked or disliked..I just left that movie in a hazy puzzlement. Personally I am looking forward to The Grudge and White Noise this month....can't wait

Have you seen "Saw" (the movie that is!)

No...I never heard of that one.

Guess who I am listening to right now on the Radio: I'll give you a hint....talent on loan from god....................................The Great Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: I erred, ladies and gentlemen, there's two papers in Las Vegas. It's the Las Vegas Review Journal is the conservative paper. It's Las Vegas Sun that's run by one of Clinton's buddies. That's the leftist paper out there. The leftist paper has not editorialized in favor of Bush last night so I need to correct that. Telephone number is 800-282-2882. All right. Here's John Kerry last night defending his positions on Iraq.

KERRY: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor because I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I've had one position, one consistent position.

RUSH: Okay. John Kerry said one position, one consistent position. We have put together a montage of John Kerry's different positions on Iraq.

KERRY: Left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future of more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.

KERRY: Yes, I would have voted for the authority.

KERRY: It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

KERRY: I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein.

KERRY: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

KERRY: I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone and I supported the notion of removing him.

KERRY: Those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected President of the United States.

KERRY: To abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq, that's irresponsible.

DAVID LETTERMAN: If you had been elected to President in 2000, November of 2000, would we be in Iraq now.

KERRY: No.

RUSH: That's John Kerry. If you can detect a consistent position out of any of that, then you're a better person than I, because there isn't a consistent position. He's all over the place, all over Iraq. As he is on so many other things. He really stepped in a number of things last night.

this isn't the kind of leadership I want in the White House

Reed Lover wrote: [QUOTE=James Lee] Threefates will enlighten us that she was once ET's Road Manager and he told her that they were encrypted lyrics for Greg Lake's next solo album!

Not a chance.  ET was way to short and not enough hair.  I have my standards!!  And if referring to encrypted lyrics.. that would of been Jon Anderson, not Greg!

can you feel the love tonight?

For Gdub:

I might have to Wallpaper That one