Which Fool Should I Vote For? Bush or Kerry?

Repzoo44, I'm not saying that Bush is the best thing since sliced bread. Quite the contrary. However, American politics is generally about choosing the "lesser of two evils." Gore definitely wasn't the lesser of two evils in 2000, and Kerry is definitely alot worse.

Now then, Mr Meredith, the disrespectful manner in which you are addressing me provides a good example of the atrocious behavior of which I spoke. You may address me as either Ken or Mr Harbart.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you bleed just like every other animal on this planet. Unfortunately we're no more "special" than the next ape.

Show me another species that can rival the accomplishments of humans.

For some reason, I feel it is safe to assume you're not a fan of the Theory of Evolution and its many supporting spin-offs. Oh, and don't forget the fossils... They're a heart breaker.

You assume too much.

I'm confident we'll, meaning the environmentally friendly, none-Bushiacs, will be in control soon. Bush is big oil and there's no way even our fellow right-winger Harbart can deny it.

Taxes will rise, Constitutionally affirmed rights will be suppressed, and we'll be governed by a nanny state. Liberal rule is far from the utopia that you seem to feel it would be.

is your marriage threatened by gay couples loving each other and having the government, into which they also pay taxes, recognize that love? If so, I suggest counseling.

Hmmm...since I am not a revisionist, and don't feel that there exists any "right" to have same-sex marriage sanctioned by the government, I need counseling. Okie dokie.

Also, don't try to shove the "affirmative action is discrimination" crap in our faces.

It's the plain and simple truth. It also directly counters your assertion that Democrats are champions of civil rights. How is it that a party can tout themselves as pro-civil rights while firmly embracing racial and sexual discrimination? I will also restate that voting records from 1933 to present demonstrate that every major civil rights legislation during that time period enjoyed far better support from Republicans than Democrats.

Bush isn't just in line with the right; he's in bed with it.

Bush's actions have pushed more of the far right to the Libertarian & Constitutionalist parties than you seem to realize.
Patriot Act,
TSA,
expanding the size of the Federal government and its intrusions into daily affairs,
stating that he'd sign an extension of the so-called AWB,
his willingness to sign any bills that hit his desk,
amnesty for illegal aliens.

Perhaps you missed that little snippet on how it's very likely that the Libertarians will be to Bush what the Greens were to Gore in 2000.

Atrocious way in which we act?!? I just love how you make these hard statements without the slightest explanations. Atrocious is the bigotry and ignorance that runs all too common among conservatives.

Let's see...there's the poster boy for the left, Michael Moore. Domestic terrorist organizations such as ALF and ELF, which can be described as being far left-of-center. I just loved the Moveon.org genius in Las Vegas who spat in a moviegoers face and then physically assaulted him as he was attempting to call the police. What did the victim do to warrant being spat on and assaulted- stated that Kerry wasn't a better choice than Bush. Or how about those misunderstood liberals at democraticunderground.com who stated , on the day of his death, that they would gladly line up to urinate on Ronald Reagan's grave.

It wasn't until the Democrats became the party that supported civil rights that the South began its move toward the Republican party, so that should tell you something. Where was slavery? Where was the Scopes Monkey trial?

And for the third time, the voting record from 1933 to present contradicts your assertion.

Historically, the South was carried by the Democrats because the Republican party was the party of Lincoln, reconstruction, and carpetbaggers. The shift of the South to Republicans had nothing to do with civil rights. As I have already stated three times, every major civil rights legislation from 1933 onward enjoyed greater support from Republicans than it did Democrats.

Here's a bit of trivia for you... the Southern Manifesto, which decried the SCOTUS Brown v Board of Education ruling was authored by a Democrat.

Where was slavery? Througout the entire U.S., of course. As a matter of fact, the Republican party was formed in opposition to the spread of slavery to the western territories. Next question?

Funny that you mention Scopes and try to tie it to the "Republican stronghold" of the South. During the 1920s, the South was known as the "Solid South" due to it's overwhelmingly Democratic political affiliation.

Brian, "morally superior" is a relative term. They're all politicians for cryin' out loud. When talking about political parties, "less oppressive" might be a better term to use.

I could actually care less whether a particular candidate has a (R) or (D) beside their name on the ballot. The individual and his views matter far more than his party affiliation.

I'll tell Cheney to stop dropping f-bombs just as soon as you let Kerry know that calling Secret Service agents "son of a bitch" and physically pushing his way to the head of a line to rent a snowboard isn't kosher, either.

Does Kerry have a brain in his head? Doubtful. As much as I detest Bill Clinton, he was far preferable to Kerry. Clinton didn't flip-flop on a daily basis. Kerry's stance on the issues, as well as his actions circa Vietnam, show that he lacks a backbone.

Likewise, Kerry's disregard for those parts of the Bill of Rights that he disagrees with is particularly irksome.

His stance on national defense is reckless at best. Because of Kerry and others like him, the US is in real danger of falling behind. Just recently, we had our asses handed to us by India's air force in an air-to-air combat exercise. I'll be quite blunt when I state that we're still dealing with the fallout from Clinton's mismanagement of the military. It's rather telling when a combat search and rescue unit has an aircraft that's only been able to fly once in the past two years because we've had to cannibalize parts off it just to keep other planes partly mission capable.

His stance on taxes isn't exactly the greatest, either. Kerry's all about tax, spend, and spend some more.

Mr. Ken,

Yes, the South was a Democratic stronghold in the 30s, but the fight for civil rights didn't go full force until the later half of the 20th century, when the South began moving away from the Dems. I know you love talking about the past, but I'd like to look at the present. We can all agree that the political parties of this country have shifted their ideologies a great deal throughout history.

I'm voting in 2004 for John Kerry, because I agree with the progressive politics of the Democratic Party of TODAY. The Republican Party has consistently shown in RECENT history that it is not the party for the progressive, nor is the GOP the party for the minority.

No history lesson or political trivia can change what the Republican Party is today. Regardless of how misguided affirmative action is, it had good intentions. I'd like to see the good intentions of the Republican discrimination upon homosexual citizens. I'd like to see exactly how this damned war in Iraq is really benefiting this country.

The truth is, we can both point at zealots on either side of the political spectrum, but it comes down to looking at the big picture. The Republican Party has had its chance, and it clearly failed to be a party for the people.

-Irresponsibly cutting taxes while increasing spending, deficit building (just like Reagan),

-Crippling important scientific research (stem-cell),

-Openly discriminating based on religious beliefs and attempting to put those beliefs into the constitution (which will fail, but the effort is what is atrocious),

-Pulling out of the Kyoto treaty in an attempt to cater to big business (Republicans are bad for your health.)

Mr. Harbart,

Please stop reveling in the past and tell me why the above things make the Grand Old Party seem to be a little out of touch with the needs of the people, the country, and the planet? If a "nanny state" is a country that avoids shooting first and asking questions later, that's just fine with me.

It is smart to learn from the past, but you must also learn from the present. Look at the parties of today, not what they did 50 years ago.

Mark
My Astronomy Home

Mark, don't forget reserving the right to "suspend" the Geneva Convention whenever we want to beat information out of prisoners. Ah, screw the beatings let's just make them perform sex acts on each other and the send pics home to our friends. Commander in chief my ass.

Ken, I understand the party mentality. Both candidates suck plain and simple. Of all the Dem. candidates, Kerry was my last choice. But he's still a far cry better than Bush. And I'm lost about the Viet Nam thing. As far I know he went, maybe more than once, and recieved 3 purple hearts while there. When he got back he protested against our being there and the adm. policies, but hey he went, so he can protest all he wants in my book. Bush was AWOL from NG.

Bush's "no child left behind" is the most damaging thing to happen to public schools ever in my lifetime. Yes, he's right, every child can learn. But not every child can learn in a classroom w/ 35 other kids. Not every child can learn Algebra, some do well to balance a checkbook. And while NCLB has demanded we (teachers) do a better job, it's provided no funding, no material other than more standardized testing, and no training other than a course which tells us about just one more we can be sued by parents if their kid is a complete jerk-off, oh well it didn't really even provide the funding for that, that money had to come from the districts as well. That's the problem with Bush, he talks a good game, but he doesn't want to pay for anything. In that, he is the consumate Republican.

Bush's tax cuts will have their effects long after he leaves office. Let's see here, let's cut taxes twice! And then let's go spend a couple hundred billion in Iraq on our reelection campai...err no I mean our search for weapons of mass destruction...(what's that? we can't find any!, You mean those hundreds of weapons inspectors were right?!?!..) ...err I mean our hunt for Saddam.... (what we can't find him either).... err ok let's call it our "Regime Change" operation. Hey look, we found Saddam hiding in a hole! Alright! Damn I guess we changed that one too early.

Put Colin Powell on the Republican ticket and I'll vote for him. But Bush is doing more harm than good, plain and simple. We will be cleaning up Bush's mess for decades to come.

Well, I just saw the documentary. Im curious if any of you Bush folks plan on seeing it. I understand its anti-bush but Im interested in any thoughts you may have about it. Some of the things in it are unreal and I cant believe they are not more widely known and talked about.

EP

I saw the movie back on its opening night, and I left it with an even deeper resolve to do what I can to get Bush out of Washington. That said, I dare not say that I couldn't understand a swinger or conservative leaving the theater with a certain amount of ambivalence.

Regardless of what the conservative attack dogs might attempt to dig up on this movie, I believe it is no doubt a powerful tool that will not go unnoticed. Bush will certainly wish this documentary had never existed.

Mark
My Astronomy Home

Some of the things in it are unreal

More unreal than you realize.

Regardless of what the conservative attack dogs might attempt to dig up on this movie

So, countering Moore's deceptions and outright lies with fact makes one an "attack dog"? His intellectual dishonesty isn't a matter of opinion; it's a well publicized fact.

Mr. Harbart, Are you suggesting that this documentary is a work of fiction? I know its anti-Bush and some of the things in it I thought were skewed. However, are you denying the connections between Bush, the Saudis/Bin Ladens, Taliban, Halliburton, Carlyle Group, and other members of the administration? I am honestly open and interested in any explanations to them. I dont take Moores word as gospel, but I just dont see how all of it could be made up.

EP

He admits his movie is a satire and his own hate bush film.
moore is anti american as they come.
He takes a shred of truth and plays you the viewer as a fool.
making fun of bushes vaction time is childish at most.

He has been a known anti american from the moment he made his first film.

Canadian Bacon with alan alda see it and you will understand how this guy operates.

I see if you have a gm car thats makes you connected to gm
Big deal.

Its funny most diehard democrats I have talked to even laugh its a comedy at best or a bad election commercial thats it.
or a kid with a chip on his shoulders.
so its not to be taken seriously at best a good laugh!
Ken they need stupidity points ha ha ha

Bud,

I don't know how to respond to that. It seems you do enough damage yourself.

ha ha ha.....ha

Mark