USA...

[Ibanezrocks!]

Well tomorrow is a special moment for all usaers.

The voting!

Well tell me tomorrow for who you voted.

:D

[victorious]

if i were american i vote peace(i don't know kerry but i know bush is the worst president in the world).bush is the biggest loser in the usa i think.i am really sorry for somebody who loves george w. bush,but i always say what i think.he killed innocent children in the afghanistan and iraq after 11 september.he mobilized lots of young male as a soldier and iraq people killed decimate (american soldiers).there are lots of american mother who is still crying for their sons.(if you watch michael moore's documentary-film,you'll understand what i mean :? )i don't know,i really don't know what is the future of our world.however i know something,if that future will made by george w. bush,the earth will lost its control. :?:

PEACE AT HOME,PEACE IN THE WORLD
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[Enigma™]

This thread is going to be VERY closely watched.

A few ground rules -
It's okay to post your own personal opinion HOWEVER:
Dont' state things as facts. "Everyone KNOWS Bush/Kerry blah blah" is WRONG.
Back things up with FACT. Michael Moore's opinion is interesting none-the-less but is VERY biased. Get more facts.
Don't insult others for believing one is better than the other. If I think Bush was better *I don't but that's a moot point right now* I'm sure I have my reasons. Don't personally attack me for it.

In general be nice. If you aren't - I'll lock the thread and any following threads along the same lines. We might be able to get it right the first time, but this is our only shot.

Good luck :)

[victorious]

sorry for my writting.I just wanted to say my irrititaion about bush!! for the other time I will be more careful...

[Airspeed]

This is just my personal opinion. I believe that Bush messed up by going to war based on WMD (that may or may not exist/SYRIA???). I wish people would wake up and have a heart for all of the people that Saddam murdered during his many years as dictator. Bush should have compared Saddam to Hitler and removed him based on humanitarian reasons alone. And has anyone noticed that as Bush and Kerry are campaigning there is very little mention of the tens of thousands of murdered Christians in the Sudan. If we are going to police the world then what about North Korea or Cuba. In my opinion people and freedom are more important than tax cuts/hikes, government run health care, free hand outs for the poor, Vietnam war records, 20 years of flip-flops, Republican/Democrat labels ect. To much focus on two men and not enough focus on humanity. I'm not with any party and I approve this message. :wink:

[hephiroth]

Personally, I think Bush has done a very poor job in office and really didn't handle the Saddam/Iraq/Afghanistan thing in a very tactful or professional matter. It just seemed like he didn't make sure of HIS facts (like Enigma wants us to do :wink: ) before sending a lot of troops into a long and dangerous situation.

I don't know how well Kerry would do if he wins, but from what I've seen, he's got a better head on his shoulders than Bush, so I'm casting my vote his way. At least then there's a CHANCE for something better because Bush has had his 4 years to demonstrate his abilities, and it seems like he's left many sorely disappointed.

And who's that Libertarian candidate, Badernik? I hadn't heard his name until I got my absentee ballot (had to vote by mail cuz I'm away at college and registered at home)

-Jeff-

[ToneFusion]

I don't think Bush is a "great" president, but I do believe he wants this country to be safe. So many people talk about how he's a terrible president but yet from what I've seen, he's tried very hard and succeeded in many ways in accomplishing what he said he would.....stop terrorism. No, terrorism is still a huge problem, but when Bin Laden makes a threat to the states of the US that those who vote for Kerry will be spared his wrath and those states that vote for Bush will be destroyed, so to speak, I'd say Bush is doing something right.

[Monk]

This vote is very important. Bush, started out fine, but decended very quickly into horrible patterns. Afghanstan had international support, Iraq did not. His performance just after 9/11 was wonderful, his last year has not. Bush has managed to forget about everything else that makes this country run and has focused too deeply into the war on terror. I'm afraid if Bush continues to be president he will sink the US economy. It's not a fact, just an opinion.

I'm not very big on Kerry. He seems intellegent, but may not be up for what lies ahead. I would vote for third party candidates, but the nation only knows two people in this election. Casting my vote for a third party is like shining light in a black hole. Futile. I'm sure others may disagree with my opinion, but I'm going off of statistics. 47 percent will vote Bush, no question. They will not change their vote. the rest may be swayed but we have to assume at least 40% will vote Kerry. with only 13% left, statistically, the third party doesn't stand a chance. If the general public were aware of the 3rd party candidate, they may sway that way, but the last election left a bitter taste in voters mouths with Nader.

In retrospect, I am not a large Kerry supporter but I know if I vote for him my voice against Bush will be heard. If I vote for a third party my voice will not be heard at all. Unfortunately, this race is about as lopsided to the dems and reps as it gets. Stinks too. I would like to see Nadar with at least a fighting chance. :(

[Irish]

I will be voting for Bush. The man says he's going to do something and does it, he's committed to action, and he actively removes terrorist leaders (Bin Laden, Hussein). That and the fact that he's my Commander in Chief, and I will go wherever I am needed. I recently had the honor of seeing him in person, and nothing has filled me with a greater sense of pride.

[Nolan]

I voted Kerry


I must add however that this is because Bush is bad then that kerry is good.
In the beginning I likde Kerry more, but I have to admit that I find him to change his opinions just to win elections.

Bush is more of a guy to stand behind his ideas (as bad as they may seem'.

Coen

[Nick]

well...most (if not all) governments all around the world whether they are in power or in opposition are bad at what they do.

i can only speak for the uk here as i have a far better idea of whats going on than in america or rest of europe, anyway, labour currently in power with blair, has made this country a mess however the opposition do not look like a party to lead a country.

just the way the world is, choose the people who are less likely to make a mess

as for america, if i was over there, i would vote kerry, just to get bush out of office. but thats going on the recent war of terrorism and how badly its been handled and how the world is less safer than it was say 10 years ago. and also how blair has gone along with him without asking the people who live here in uk first, but thats down to blair to be fair.

i dont know much about how america is run and what bush has or hasn't done or what has improved or got worse, so i cant make a fair judgement on who i would prefer...but on the other hand, bush seems like a maniac contempt on dominating every country on this planet.

i could go on...but then you would all fall asleep.

[Liquid Shadow]

there are lots of american mother who is still crying for their sons.

What about the mothers and wives and children of everybody who died after the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

It's understandable that mothers are crying for their sons who died in the war, but that's what happens in war. They knew their sons were enlisted in the armed forces and that they were deployed to Iraq. They know that their sons died fighting for their country. On the other hand, some familes of the victims of 9/11 have to live with the fact that they never got to say goodbye before their loved ones were killed. They were innocent civilians who died, not soldiers going into battle. There is a massive difference between the two situations, and you cannot say that Bush is a bad president because soldiers died.


You can say that he is a bad president because he went into an unjustified war (which is my opinion on it). Weapons of mass destruction? Oh yeah...them. We never found any, and Bush admitted it. Wasn't that the reason for going to war in the first place? No, it was because we were attacked. Was it? Didn't Osama attack us? Then why did you say you aren't worried about him?

People call Kerry a flip-flop, but in reality he hasn't changed his mind all that much, especially in comparison to Bush. In many cases, there are huge oversimplifications that go on when people try to paint Kerry as a flip-flop. OMG HE CANNOT MAEK UP HIS MIND ON TEH WAR. No, that's Bush. Kerry firmly believed that Saddam was a threat, but felt we rushed into war with him. Bush went into war and changed his reasons as he saw appropriate (aka cover his ass). Kerry still remembers that Osama attacked us, not Saddam. He had to correct our president on that in the first debate. Think about that.



www.bush-flipflop.com

Aside from the "There will NOT be an all volunteer army" one (which was a simple mistake he made...he corrected himself right after they cut the video off), those are a few examples of our current illustrious leader making up his mind, which he claims his opponent cannot do.




Something else to think about...before the 2000 election, there was no national defecit. Here we are 4 years later, and we are HALF A TRILLION dollars in debt. Anybody willing to make it a full trillion? You know who to vote for.




I'm not quite old enough to vote yet (damn :?) but I think you can figure out who I'm for. I like the man leading my country (the man who is in charge of the most powerful nation in the world) to at least be able to pronounce nuclear. :roll:



BTW, has anybody found any other internets out there? All this time I have been using just this one, but apparently there are more.

www.rumorsontheinternets.com

:lol:

[Mr. Make Believe]

Although not a US resident, I would vote for Kerry.
Bush have done and probably will do what he thinks is best for the US.
After following the debates and seeing many documanteries about both persons I believe Kerry would be more international orrientated. That's probably not what many of the US residents care much about (Not being insulting here, since the US is a selfsupporting independible state it's logical it's residents are not that international orientated. Most of the US residents are not confronted with international situations that much. Both compaigns for the precidency are mainly about national aspects whcih is very understandable.) but the safety in the world is more important than the safety in 'just' the US since safety in the world will result in more safety for any country including the US.

After the first and second worldwar the UN was formed to prefent anything like the both horrible worldwars to happen again. When Bush decided to go to Iraq he did not had any approval of the UN at that point. By completely denieing the will of the united nations Bush showed the world that when your country is big enough and powerfull enough you can do wathever you want. The power of the UN, which is formed to work for and to maintain peace in the world, was completely buried the moment Bush ignored the UN's will. Although the US has signed the UN treaty he broke the US' obligations that occured when the treaty was signed. It's unbelievable that something like that happened. How would you feel if you hired somebody to repair your synth and he doesn't fullfil his side of the obligation?? And realising we're talking about something a lot bigger here just makes it unbelievable to me it ever happened.

The US is the biggest and most powerfull country in the world. But as roine stolt would say:"there is more to this world than Bush sees with his eyes"

If Kerry would do better.. Who knows, we'll have to see or we will never know. Looking at Kerry's past political activities and his military past makes me believe that kerry is more aware of the importance of international safety and will take more time and will take a better look at the pros and the cons on a descision that will have a huge effect on the rest of the world.

I believe that someone, who tells the world that his desicions are based on evidence that eventually never even excisted and ignores the relevance and the importance of a international organisation as the UN and showed us that signing a treaty doesn't mean you have to stick to your part of the deal and you can ignore the obligations you have to fullfil , is NOT the right person to be the leader of the biggest and most powerfull country in the world.

Clinton got a lot of critic from the US people because he lied about having sex with his secretary. Lying isn't the best thing to do as a president, but it was about having sex.. Having sex is not a part of the job definition of presidency if you ask me.
Bush lies about the evidance that resulted in him deciding to go to war. Deciding to go to war is part of the job definition of presidency.
Both lied, one about havin sex the other about going to war.. Clinton had to leave... and what will happen to Bush??????

[ChrisMcCoy]

:idea:
If one good thing comes from this election, I believe it will be the increase in registered voters, and the increased turnout at the polls. No matter who is elected, and no matter who you vote for, it's most important to make your voice heard and cast your vote for the candidate of your choice. :idea:

[Ibanezrocks!]

I voted Kerry


I must add however that this is because Bush is bad then that kerry is good.
In the beginning I likde Kerry more, but I have to admit that I find him to change his opinions just to win elections.

Bush is more of a guy to stand behind his ideas (as bad as they may seem'.

Coen

In amerika coen? :roll:

You all here have very good reasons to vote for somebody...

but i see that the most people here like kerry the most.
I think both guys have good ideas but i will stop shinking about it now cause i will never vote in that land
and if i could it would take a couple of years so...

[Caio]

I think it's very funny to read comments on democracy,elections,Presidents of the U.S.A. from people who live in countries where democracy, human rights,etc. don't exist at all...

I mean, start those things in your country, and then you can judge the others... Especially if your country wants to join the European Union.

[Awake]

I will choose my words carefully, because no matter how closely I've studied American politics, and no matter how involved I am, it remains the case that I've only lived here for less than a year, and I don't get to vote. In some ways, that's a good thing, because it gives me perspective, and in some ways, that's a bad thing, because it deprives me of experiential context. And in any case, your forefathers didn't fight the revolutionary war just for their descendents to take political advice from some goddamned limey. ;)

However, with that in mind, here's my take on it.

The congressional element of this Fall's election presents a microcosm of the problem facing a conservative-minded voter in America this election. When the Congressional Republican Party has reduced Congress to a sideshow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54798-2004Mar12¬Found=true), and offered policies of big spending and big government to the point that even the Cato Institute has howled disapproval (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html), policies most conservatives find antithetical to their own views, what is the appropriate response? When one has already written letters and used every means short of the ballot box to show disaffection with this drift in policy, what is the next step? Yet, what choice do we have? Should we slay the dragon of big-spending conservatives in Congress by voting to replace them with big spending liberals? The better option would have been to replace them as candidates in the primaries, but that chance is now gone; its poster child was Senator Arlen Spector, who still retained his nomination despite strong opposition and despite his holding views that many constituents view with such distate as to vote for a third party.

We will each, of course, find different ways of resolving this quandry; of making a choice and defending that choice to ourselves. The resolution, I think, will largely in proportion to how keenly we each feel that this is a problem.

This is, in a way, the same problem we face over George W. Bush. What are we to make of this President? In so many ways, his handling of the last four years has been flawed, even when well-intentioned.

It is my opinion that he made the right decision in liberating Afghanistan, but I agree with several members of the Senate, on both sides of the Aisle, who have voiced dismay at Bush's decision, in Senator Kerry's phrase, at "outsourcing the job" of hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden.

Conclusion - Afghanistan: right policy, wrong implementation.

So, inevitably, to Iraq. In my opinion, liberating Iraq has been the right thing to do since our perfidious refusal to support the Shi'ite uprising after the first Gulf War. It has the unresolved question, the undone entry on our "to do" list for too long. The policy of the United States since 1998 was regime change, a policy passed by a Republican House, and signed by a Democrat President; yet the means of achieving that policy - sanctions - was not working. In fact, they were making the humanitarian problem worse. A policy is composed of two factors: an goal, and a means. When a policy is not working, a choice must be made: either the goal must be changed or the means must be changed. The Bush administration was absolutely correct to identify the policy goal as being right, it was correct to identify that the means were inadequate to the task, and they were correct, in my view, to conclude that only external military force was the only way to achieve the policy.

However, the Bush regime did not authorize military action to liberate Iraq. They have touted this as an achievement in hindsight, and I have no doubt that it was a factor in their calculation; but I rather tend to think that the liberation of Iraq was a mixture of genuine belief in the supposed weapons of mass destruction, and Wolfowitz's ideological determination that liberating Iraq was the cornerstone of a new American hegemony. This may seem a matter of mere semantics; after all, is the incumbent reality not that, no matter what the original intent, the removal of Saddam's hold over the Iraqi people has been the consequence of the actions taken by America and Britain?

It might seem so, but so much has gone wrong in Iraq that simply should not have gone wrong, one has to rather conclude that the fragmented and heterogeneous line of reasoning that lead to war also had a hand in why things have gone wrong. More than anything else, the blame for Iraq rests squarely at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld. It was Rumsfeld whose vision of a light, mobile war and a hands-off aftermath sent us in with too few troops to police the country after the liberation. It was at Rumsfeld's instigation that the State Department's immense and precient study into how to run post-war Iraq - which did not envisage a hands-off aftermath - was never to see the light of day. It was Rumsfeld who removed any who disagreed with his views on the numbers of troops needed after the war, including Generals Shinseki or White (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/interviews/white.html). It was Rumsfeld who set the tone inside the Pentagon which at very best failed to discouraged the Abu Ghraib activities, and at worst, mandated them. Of all the diverse problems that have arisen in Iraq, it is hard to conceive of any way in which they would have been less pronounced had it not been for the presence of the current Secretary and Under-Secretary of Defence, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

Bush, however, stands by his men. In any other circumstance, this would be an admirable character trait. But in business and politics, it is unforgivable. Bush has an MBA, and many reports have indicated that he runs the country much as a CEO would run his company. This is not an inherently bad thing; but when a CEO looks at a department head and his deputy, and sees that their department has woefully underperformed, entirely as a result of the attempt of that department head to impose what he regards as best practice, a good CEO makes a judgement call. He must either have that department head change his ways, or he must remove the department head. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon is a dismal failure. This is not because Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are incompetent - far from it. They are, however, fundamentally in error in how they have run the Pentagon, and many of our failures in Iraq stem from this. Bush, however, shows no sign of attempting to reform or remove the pair; if anything, with Powell's departure, they are likely to carry even more sway in a second term. This is unacceptable; if a department head is dragging down the company, and the CEO is too attatched to his lieutenant to fire him, then the shareholders have but one course of action - fire them both.

Conclusion - Iraq: right policy, wrong implementation.

Bush's tax cuts have a firm grounding, but were aimed not at consumers, the real engine of the economy, but at those who have the most in society. Tax cuts: right policy, wrong implementation. Worse still, on issues such as trade with China and outsourcing, Bush has shown at best indifference, and at worst outright complicity, in what Pat Buchanan has called "suicide by free trade (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/buchanan.html)". On stem cells, Bush has the right idea, but an astonishing percentage of educated Americans are still unaware that there is an alternative if adult stem cells; stem cell research is not "take it or leave it", and yet, Bush has allowed those who favour stem cell research to frame the issue as such.

Yet another reason for Bush's involuntary early retirement is the poisonous effect his Presidency has had on the way that government does business. We mentioned earlier the decline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54798-2004Mar12¬Found=true) of Congress' role in government (by which one may read, the arrogation of power by the executive branch), but - as David Greenberg has noted (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.greenberg.html) - the Bush administration has shown a worrying preponderance towards institutional arrogance, centralization, consolidation - and, in short, big government. It has been widely reported that institutional bickering - we could use a more dignified adjective here, but I tend to think the implied scorn is deserved - led to the Pentagon's decision to completely ignore an exhaustive State Department study which not only predicted this turn of events in Iraq, but gave solutions and a firm roadmap of how to preclude such a course. They show no sign of contrition, no sign that they understand that their blunders have turned a righteous cause into a ghastly mistake, and no sign that they have any idea how to bring us back on course.


What is to be done? What, really, is the alternative? The only firm commitments that Kerry has ever made are those to causes which I take strong issue with. Kerry is firmly pro free trade; he views abortion as murder, but will take no option to stop it. Beyond these issues, he seems incapable of coming to a firm, principle-driven conclusion on any subject. It is often said that Bush is incapable of seeing the complexity of the world; by contrast, Kerry will invent complexity in situations where there is none.

A Kerry Presidency would not be the end of the world, but it would seek to achieve things that most of the intended audience of this article would find hard to stomach. It is possible that the fundamental balance of the Supreme Court could be the single most important, unsung issue of this campaign; it is within reason to say that we could find as many as four vacancies on the bench in the next four years, through illness or retirement. Kerry has made his intentions clear: should he be able to do so, he will pack the court with those who support Roe v. Wade. However, to do so, he must have the support of the Senate, which is likely to remain in Republican hands. Between the defection of Senator Jeffords in June 2001 and the 2002 Midterm elections, a Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed several appointments to the Bench by President Bush. There cannot and must not be complicity on the part of a Republican-controlled Senate in the eventuality of Kerry attempting to appoint such justices.

However, there are other things which are clear. No matter what problems we may have with Kerry, he has the ability to admit a mistake and to change his mind when the facts change. He has shown a keen appreciation of the need for a balanced budget, supporting both pay-as-you-go rules and a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. If conservatism is about nothing else, it should be about stopping government from mortaging our children's future; if saddling every man woman and child in this country with over $24,000 of debt (a number which grows daily (http://www.federalbudget.com/)) from the moment they are born. This is the very definition of tyranny; the Republican Lincoln did not seek to overthrow slavery of part of America's population just in order for the Republicans Regan and Bush to enslave all Americans to America's creditors. This is nothing short of a betrayal of the heritage of this grand old party.

Restrained by a jealously active Republican-controlled Congress, a Kerry Presidency might help reign in the disaster that is unfolding in Iraq, the disaster that is unfolding in the Federal Budget, the disaster taht continues to unfold in Israel, and better manage the impending problems facing the United States: the death throes of the North Korean regime, and the bringing into the world community of a nuclear-armed Iran.

As with how to restore Republican values to the Congress, what to do next Tuesday, when standing alone at a desk, ballot in one hand and pencil in the other, is a matter of personal choice. My solution must be to reluctantly, and with no shortage of qualifying remarks, endorse John Kerry.

[Junnart83]

Very deep (and valuable) analysis, Awake!!!

You could prove to be a veeeeery good USA President for future years!