Top Ten Reason I should vote for....

[Tab]

Bush or Kerry.... I am going to skip over the inarticulate ones and those who just copied links.

 

[conjur]

Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy
2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration
3) Won't trample civil rights
4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.
5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise
6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion
7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions
8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them
9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush
10) He's not Bush!

 

[tnilC]

conjurOnTheSpot

 

[Feldenak]

Limiting yourself to just Bush or Kerry?

 

[kylebisme]

Well, if you are going to vote, you might as well vote for someone who could possibly win.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: conjur
Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy

So he is going to eliminate the Federal Reserve? I'll believe it when I see it.

2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration

I don't know what that is, but since Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of the richest 500 people in the nation, we would definately be able to classify his administration as a plutocracy.

3) Won't trample civil rights

So he is going to get rid of the IRS? Not from what he has said, in fact he wants to increase income taxes.

4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.

Hmm, then why did he say he is going to increase the number of military personnel?

5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise

Actually, it is not a matter of compromise. It is a matter of gridlock. Studies have shown that when the Congress and the Presidency are controlled by opposite parties, the amount of government spending goes down.

6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion

HuH?? If that is true then why was Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik banned from the presidential debates? Kerry did not say that he thought they should be in them as far as I know, and I am certain he knew that they wanted to be a part of them.

7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions

Haha, and we are supposed to believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry doesn't have a whole host of corporate pals she would like to see Kerry pander to? What a hoot.

8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them

The presidency has never been an office that one should respect. In fact, it has mainly just been an office of despotism. Kerry will not change this fact one iota. More on this here.

9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush

Devastation to environmental regulations is a bad thing? Not to me it isn't.

10) He's not Bush!

Neither are a number of other crackpots. Bottom line: Bush and Kerry are just about equally bad choices, any major difference that one believes exists between them is illusion and smoke and mirrors.

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur
Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy

So he is going to eliminate the Federal Reserve? I'll believe it when I see it.

2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration

I don't know what that is, but since Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of the richest 500 people in the nation, we would definately be able to classify his administration as a plutocracy.

3) Won't trample civil rights

So he is going to get rid of the IRS? Not from what he has said, in fact he wants to increase income taxes.

4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.

Hmm, then why did he say he is going to increase the number of military personnel?

5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise

Actually, it is not a matter of compromise. It is a matter of gridlock. Studies have shown that when the Congress and the Presidency are controlled by opposite parties, the amount of government spending goes down.

6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion

HuH?? If that is true then why was Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik banned from the presidential debates? Kerry did not say that he thought they should be in them as far as I know, and I am certain he knew that they wanted to be a part of them.

7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions

Haha, and we are supposed to believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry doesn't have a whole host of corporate pals she would like to see Kerry pander to? What a hoot.

8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them

The presidency has never been an office that one should respect. In fact, it has mainly just been an office of despotism. Kerry will not change this fact one iota. More on this here.

9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush

Devastation to environmental regulations is a bad thing? Not to me it isn't.

10) He's not Bush!

Neither are a number of other crackpots. Bottom line: Bush and Kerry are just about equally bad choices, any major difference that one believes exists between them is illusion and smoke and mirrors.

Nice post troll, although your agruments are flawed out of ignorance you missed the point of the OP.

 

[Forsythe]

Dissipate, you really cracked me up with your sig: Why socialism is morally indefensible.
I fell of my chair dude!
And btw, your arguments are flawed at best! You're just trying to make arguments against it, but you aren't. Your making yourself seem silly.

 

[DrDrakeRomoray]

Its only silly to people who aren't capable of comprehending.

 

[Pliablemoose]

1. The War on Terror. Big mistakes were made in this Iraq War by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Ambassador Bremer. More mistakes will be made. Bush is wrong to hype expectations of his Wilsonian wishful thinking that Iraq is going to become a Constitutional democracy and have the rule of law by 2005. Yet, Bush understands we are in a world war and it is better to fight it in Iraq than in America. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein made America safer ? even with civil war in Iraq.

2. Partial-Birth Abortion. Bush signed the law banning this barbaric infanticide. Bush will fight the Liberal judges who overturned the law to the Supreme Court.

3. The U.S. Supreme Court. There is a 50-50 chance that Bush will appoint pro-life, strict construction, Constitutionalist Supreme Court judges. If he goes wobbly and nominates Henry Gonzales for his ethnicity more than his values, the Republican Party will be split in two when Sen. Hillary Clinton runs in 08. Half a chance for just justices is better than none.

4. Taxes. Bush, graduate of Harvard Business School (side bar: exactly how many stupid people do they graduate each year?), understands capitalism. Capitalism beats Socialism, including the parasitic Socialism promoted by Democrats. Taxes kill jobs. The Bush Tax cuts, even ? pretend - if they were ONLY for the rich, create jobs, widespread wealth and more tax revenues. Every American family gets a tax cut with Bush.

5. Family and Marriage. Bush supports the Constitutional Amendment to defend marriage for man and woman. Anything less threatens the family. Only an Amendment stops priest-king judges from making up law. If homosexual marriage becomes law Christian speech, like saying homosexuality is sin, will be persecuted as a hate crime.

6. Social Security. Bush will create an ownership society with personal investment in our own retirement. Today?s Seniors keep the promises made. Tomorrow?s Seniors will get a better deal than today?s 1.9% return. The Ponzi Scheme will be fixed so the Baby Boom generation doesn?t break it.

7. Illegal Immigration. Bush has four more years to do a gut check. Elements in Bush?s Party might convince him of the folly his pandering weakness. Maybe.

8. Conservative Enough. After a feeding frenzy of new spending, this year?s budget is a one percent increase ? only ? in non-defense discretionary spending. Good Federal judges are being nominated, even if the Republican Senators are too timid to get force an up or down vote.

9. Trust. Bush is an honorable man.

10. Good Man. Bush repented and recanted his youthful failings and wrongs. He has lived uprightly for many years. He is a faithful husband of one wife and good, loving father.

11. To really piss off the liberals

(this is a copy & paste job, Pliablemoose does not approve of the contents of this message )

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur
Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy

So he is going to eliminate the Federal Reserve? I'll believe it when I see it.

This is a matter of thought!

2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration

I don't know what that is, but since Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of the richest 500 people in the nation, we would definately be able to classify his administration as a plutocracy.

Why would we be able to classify his administration as that just because she is rich? I don't see any reason for the "definently"!

3) Won't trample civil rights

So he is going to get rid of the IRS? Not from what he has said, in fact he wants to increase income taxes.

The IRS doesn't trample civil rights. They make sure everybody has them!

4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.

Hmm, then why did he say he is going to increase the number of military personnel?

Now wtf thinks a bigger army = invading countries??? They can be used for fighting poverty! Jeg like other countries around the world uses socaial support, you americans have the army. Because your afraid of social support. But i think that's bs, i doubt he will increase the army.

5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise

Actually, it is not a matter of compromise. It is a matter of gridlock. Studies have shown that when the Congress and the Presidency are controlled by opposite parties, the amount of government spending goes down.

Is government spending allways supposed to go down? You do not emntion what areas go down!

6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion

HuH?? If that is true then why was Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik banned from the presidential debates? Kerry did not say that he thought they should be in them as far as I know, and I am certain he knew that they wanted to be a part of them.

The debates are arranged by a private company, Kerry doesn't have anything to say about this. And the only reason Bush would wan't Nader in the debate would be because he's snatch votes from kerry!

7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions

Haha, and we are supposed to believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry doesn't have a whole host of corporate pals she would like to see Kerry pander to? What a hoot.

What are you talking about? Countries with right-leaning governments are proned to have corruption. And why would he follow her advise? Generally, right-wing ppl, and extreme left-wing ppl are corrupted. That's a good ol' fact. Besides, whether you believe this or not, Kerry doesn't have direct relations to the oil-buisness, such as Bush. Other than that, it's just speculation

8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them

The presidency has never been an office that one should respect. In fact, it has mainly just been an office of despotism. Kerry will not change this fact one iota. More on this here.

He will, of that i'm sure. I'm from denmark, nobody here concurs with bush' appreciation of the world. Just the opposit as you might imagine. By far the most leaders of the world dislike bush! Because he is, simply put, a rightwing crackpot!

9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush

Devastation to environmental regulations is a bad thing? Not to me it isn't.

Hell, i guess you don't care about the kids you might one day have, or they're decendants. Generally it's a good idea to take care of the enviroment, if offcourse you like the forests and stuff.

10) He's not Bush!

Neither are a number of other crackpots. Bottom line: Bush and Kerry are just about equally bad choices, any major difference that one believes exists between them is illusion and smoke and mirrors.

Wrong if you ask the enviroment, practically every intellectual in the world, nearly all world leaders... And even you should know that if you're saying there is no major difference between them you're outright stupid. Besides, i'm sure Kerry's Iq is more or less Bush's Iq²

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Limiting yourself to just Bush or Kerry?

A vote for anyone other than Kerry=vote for Bush. Period. People shouldn't delude themselves into thinking otherwise.
Vote for Kerry-He's not Bush.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Bush or Kerry.... I am going to skip over the inarticulate ones and those who just copied links.

bush's one great strength that gives him a sizeable political advantage over kerry is his demonstrated
will to act against the collective impotence of the world community. bush cured, for once at least, the
torpor that had settled among world leadership to tolerate evil provided the evil-doers maintained a
facade of diplomacy. what bush did is not new. but the fact he did it went against a zeitgist of
malaise and vile inaction which allowed the world's most hideous regimes to strut about without
fear of retribution.

with bush you know that 'talk' requires certain pre-conditions to be effective before relying on it
with the confidence it wil succeed. he will not run through diplomatic motions like a respectable
marrionette to act the same warm and fuzzy routine that people are most comfortable with but
makes nothing better and glosses over a sad litany of unmentionables.

bush may have moved too fast because others were just accustomed to just standing around
with their hands in their pockets. they became angry when their standing around no longer
became comfortable. all other points between the two are tit-for-tat or just a wash, personally.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur
Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy

So he is going to eliminate the Federal Reserve? I'll believe it when I see it.

This is a matter of thought!

A matter of thought? No, this is a matter of fact. The Federal Reserve has secret meetings on a regular basis.

2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration

I don't know what that is, but since Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of the richest 500 people in the nation, we would definately be able to classify his administration as a plutocracy.

Why would we be able to classify his administration as that just because she is rich? I don't see any reason for the "definently"!

Plutocracy is simply defined as rule by the rich, hence, Kerry's administration would automatically be a plutocracy, just as Bush's administration is right now.

3) Won't trample civil rights

So he is going to get rid of the IRS? Not from what he has said, in fact he wants to increase income taxes.

The IRS doesn't trample civil rights. They make sure everybody has them!

Expropriating a huge amount of private property from people insures their civil rights? Ha, try to sell me another one. This is like the mob going to someone's store and forcing them to pay up for "protection."

4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.

Hmm, then why did he say he is going to increase the number of military personnel?

Now wtf thinks a bigger army = invading countries??? They can be used for fighting poverty! Jeg like other countries around the world uses socaial support, you americans have the army. Because your afraid of social support. But i think that's bs, i doubt he will increase the army.

Fighting poverty with guns?! Great, let's shoot all the poor people!

5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise

Actually, it is not a matter of compromise. It is a matter of gridlock. Studies have shown that when the Congress and the Presidency are controlled by opposite parties, the amount of government spending goes down.

Is government spending allways supposed to go down? You do not emntion what areas go down!

Absolutely, it should go down until it no longer exists.

6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion

HuH?? If that is true then why was Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik banned from the presidential debates? Kerry did not say that he thought they should be in them as far as I know, and I am certain he knew that they wanted to be a part of them.

The debates are arranged by a private company, Kerry doesn't have anything to say about this. And the only reason Bush would wan't Nader in the debate would be because he's snatch votes from kerry!

Kerry, being one of the debators could have told the private company that he wanted Badnarik and Nader to be a part of them. Of course, he didn't do that, because he doesn't want any real debate or dissent. Bush is a nice easy target for him to knock down. On the other hand, Badnarik and Nader probably would have handed his butt to him.

7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions

Haha, and we are supposed to believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry doesn't have a whole host of corporate pals she would like to see Kerry pander to? What a hoot.

What are you talking about? Countries with right-leaning governments are proned to have corruption. And why would he follow her advise? Generally, right-wing ppl, and extreme left-wing ppl are corrupted. That's a good ol' fact. Besides, whether you believe this or not, Kerry doesn't have direct relations to the oil-buisness, such as Bush. Other than that, it's just speculation

Let's see, why would Kerry follow Teresa's advice? Hmm, maybe because she has been financing his campaign the whole time?! Virtually everyone in government is corrupted in some way. Kerry would certainly not be any exception.

8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them

The presidency has never been an office that one should respect. In fact, it has mainly just been an office of despotism. Kerry will not change this fact one iota. More on this here.

He will, of that i'm sure. I'm from denmark, nobody here concurs with bush' appreciation of the world. Just the opposit as you might imagine. By far the most leaders of the world dislike bush! Because he is, simply put, a rightwing crackpot!

He has grown the welfare state, and government in general more than any other modern president. He certainly is no right winger.

9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush

Devastation to environmental regulations is a bad thing? Not to me it isn't.

Hell, i guess you don't care about the kids you might one day have, or they're decendants. Generally it's a good idea to take care of the enviroment, if offcourse you like the forests and stuff.

The environment would be better off in private hands anyways. Environmental regulations are just more bureaucratic red tape that costs businesses billions of dollars a year.

10) He's not Bush!

Neither are a number of other crackpots. Bottom line: Bush and Kerry are just about equally bad choices, any major difference that one believes exists between them is illusion and smoke and mirrors.

Wrong if you ask the enviroment, practically every intellectual in the world, nearly all world leaders... And even you should know that if you're saying there is no major difference between them you're outright stupid. Besides, i'm sure Kerry's Iq is more or less Bush's Iq²

Yeah, the same intellectuals who still pray to the god Democracy? I'm outright stupid because I do not believe there is any difference between two candidates who will virtually do nothing to change government as I know it? Under 4 more years of Bush the fundamental aspects of big government will not change, and nor will they change under 4 years of Kerry. So frankly, I couldn't give a damn which one of these morons gets elected.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: conjur
Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy
2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration
3) Won't trample civil rights
4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.
5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise
6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion
7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions
8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them
9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush
10) He's not Bush!

im starting to wonder... are you really a think tank of 37 people or do you just already have these things set up ...

 

[Infohawk]

Kerry:

10) His vice-president won't be evil incarnate
09) He won't attempt to build a new death star
08) He won't pander to religious fanatics
07) He won't attempt to build an administration modeled on the ones in Orwell's 1984
06) He won't destroy the English language
05) He won't attack Mexico when Japan attacks us
04) He won't attempt to come off as a tough guy when he was actually a cheerleader
03) He's not an idiot
02) He's doesn't like fascism
01) He is not a chimpanzee.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: conjur
Kerry:

1) Won't run the government behind a veil of secrecy
2) Won't run a pseudo-theocratic administration
3) Won't trample civil rights
4) Won't invade sovereign nations unless he's DAMN sure the intelligence is valid and justifiable.
5) Is the opposite party as Congress leading to more forced compromise
6) Will actually encourage debate, dissent, and "reality-based" discussion
7) Will NOT appoint corporate pals and lobbyists to all Cabinet or other key positions
8) Will bring respect back to the White House and work with leaders of other countries instead of shunning and ridiculing them
9) Will correct the devastation done to environmental regulations and initiatives under Bush
10) He's not Bush!

im starting to wonder... are you really a think tank of 37 people or do you just already have these things set up ...

That was just off the top of my head. I could have done better with more time.

 

[43st]

Take note that Conservatives can't even make a list... all they can do is attack your list. I wonder where the Republican party would be if hatred wasn't a plank in their platform?

 

[PatboyX]

conjur's first point actually stopped me while reading. i figured it would be the same-old list of complaints.
but in the past few months ive become more and more frustrated with the mystery that the bush administation thrives in. great #1 point.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
conjur's first point actually stopped me while reading. i figured it would be the same-old list of complaints.
but in the past few months ive become more and more frustrated with the mystery that the bush administation thrives in. great #1 point.

Have you seen this?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091904W.shtml

Secrecy in the Bush Administration
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman

Someone made a thread about this (might have even be me...hell...can't remember :laugh: ) anyway, search isn't working right up here or I'd post a link to it.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Limiting yourself to just Bush or Kerry?

A vote for anyone other than Kerry=vote for Bush. Period. People shouldn't delude themselves into thinking otherwise.
Vote for Kerry-He's not Bush.

I still believe in our system of government, I will vote for the candidate that best represents my political compass (Badnarik if you must know).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I will vote for the candidate that best represents my political compass (Badnarik if you must know).

Good for you for supporting a so-called hopeless third-party candidate. I never understood the rationale that you shouldn't vote for an underdog because it's "throwing your vote away". :roll: Whatever. If a candidate is closer to your political beliefs, support him/her anyway, regardless of the (irrelevant) polls.

 

[PingSpike]

I agree with Feldenak and Mursilis. People are entitled to vote for whomever they choose, and ideally whomever is most in line with their values. Now, maybe if the press actually gave lipservice to the third party candidates we would have better than a 2 party system.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: tnilC
conjurOnTheSpot

:beer:

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Thera
Take note that Conservatives can't even make a list... all they can do is attack your list. I wonder where the Republican party would be if hatred wasn't a plank in their platform?

Theres not much to argue about when we're not even sure which position Kerry is on today.... I'll figure it out when I hear the news tonight and hear him say things that rebutted his speeches yesterday.