Convince me to vote for Kerry

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


PAX, you assume that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Right?

I do not believe that any person other than George Bush would have been able to gather the notion in their brain and garner the support/power to carry out such a plan.

[Pax]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Cuz dead people are incapable of wishing. They are inanimate objects, and completely without the power of thought.

I'm speaking more of a regret before dying. As if there votes or the votes of others are directly related to their death. Hindsight. Not wishing, to get into any religous or afterlife discussion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pax

Che,
Even if you are a Communist, why not pool your power were it will gain you the most. Isn't that what communism is all about. Sharing resources.

If everyone voted their conscience instead of their fears, this would be a much better country. Vote for what you want, not against what you fear. Until more people of principle take a stand against our current political system, we will never have anything but mediocre politicians pandering to the basest of our fears. It has to start somewhere and sometime. It should have long before now.

The problem with voting your fears is there is always something to be afraid of. You never get to a point when it is "safe" to go for what you want. It's never the "right" time to start a business, have a child, or vote for what you believe in. You simply have to do it and make it the right time.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MrFun
Because Kerry would make a better president than Bush.

See, I just don't see that. I have listened to kerry and he just has not given me any real reasons why he would be better than Bush.

[Pax]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If everyone voted their conscience instead of their fears, this would be a much better country. Vote for what you want, not against what you fear. Until more people of principle take a stand against our current political system, we will never have anything but mediocre politicians pandering to the basest of our fears. It has to start somewhere and sometime. It should have long before now.

The problem with voting your fears is there is always something to be afraid of. You never get to a point when it is "safe" to go for what you want. It's never the "right" time to start a business, have a child, or vote for what you believe in. You simply have to do it and make it the right time.

You're absolutely right. People should not vote out of fear. I don't think people should necessarily vote strictly by conscience or morals. I think that they should also use their brain. Take the example of North Vietnam. They infiltrated the Viet Cong, changing it from a democratic organization into a communist one. Simultaneously, bringing about the change that they wanted to occur. A communsist unified Vietnam. If your goal is for Communism to spread then you would need more than conscience and principles. You need a sound political strategy.

[Q Classic]

See, I just don't see that. I have listened to kerry and he just has not given me any real reasons why he would be better than Bush.

I agree, but Bush has also failed to convince me he deserves a second term.

I haven't listened much to Badnarik, but he's already impressed me on two counts: he's evaded taxes (which means he is, at least in some aspects, a true believer in his party's ideals, even if i personally think it's irresponsible), and he's promised to debate or get arrested--and got himself arrested.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by The diplomat
See, I just don't see that. I have listened to kerry and he just has not given me any real reasons why he would be better than Bush.

At being honest, at being fiscally responsible, at diplomacy, at representing the needs of the people against the needs of corporations, at listening to criticism, at understanding the problems the working class is having, and at many other things Kerry would make a better President.

Somehow I don't think people actually listen and pay attention to what has gone on and what is going on.

This current administration said that a memo entitled "Bin Laden intent on attack within United States" somehow didn't mean that Bin Laden wanted to attack within the United States (that was a pre-9/11 memo and one of the warning signs).

The current administration will take a statement the opponent says, like Global Test (meaning you should give good reasons for your actions, pass the test of honesty/rationality) and removes the context of the 38-word sentence it was in, adds their own different context, and pretends that is what Kerry said. Kerry has done nothing as bad as this.

The current Administration wants to privitize part of Social Security, but we have no money to do so (the money that is coming in is being used to pay for current benefits). This plan, by many estimates, could cost over 2-trillian dollars, and there is no Bush-plan in sight on how to pay for it. Of course, Bush doesn't care about paying for things.

This is an administration that initially opposed the creation of the department of Homeland Security.

This is an administration that ignored intel that Iraq had no WMDs and refused to let the Weapon Inspectors, who were begging for the time to finish their job, have the time they needed.

This is an administration that pulled troops out of Afghanistan and let Warlords rule large parts of the country, whilst not having enough troops to properly go after Bin Laden.

This is an administration that tries to twist the facts to say Bin Laden and Saddam had some sort of collaboration going on, when all the analysis of the intel says the opposite. They even force people to take back statements to the contrary, such as Rumsfeld's.

This is an administration that asks scientists wether or not they support the president and his policies before letting them join comittees and the like. No other administration has ever done this.

This is an administration that gives the wealthy a huge tax cut, then has Bush lie and claim most of the cut went to the middle class.

This is an administration that initially refused to testify to the 9/11 commission. A commission whose purpose was to find out how to avoid things like 9/11 in the future. They only bowed after a great deal of political pressure was applied.

This is an administration that cannot control its fiscal spending. The president has never vetoed a bill and doesn't seem inclined to do anything to stop massive spending increases. The surplus gave us a potentially great way to handle the future social security crises, but he decided to spend it on other things instead of the necessary future. All this while his party has controlled the house and senate.

This administration is horrible, and anyone that thinks Kerry's will be just as bad doesn't realize how horrible the current one is.

-Drachasor

[Richelieu]

Bush
Cheney
Rumsfeld

[Ramo]

Ashcroft

[DrGerry]

Well.... maybe Mother Earth can survive about 4 or 5 billon years




without Bush

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Go anwser the questions I posed you in your thread about liberalism.

Your questions are ridiculous and fallacious.


Second, I'm not going to take any questions seriously that come from the mouth of someone who maliciously lumps liberalism with communism in the spirit of McCarthyism. Either you are hopelessly ignorant about what liberalism is, or you are maliciously and deliberately distorting what liberalism is.



Thank you, and have a bad day.

[Drachasor]

A side note on liberalism:

European Liberalism != American Liberalism

The former is more akin to Liberatrianism.

They both share social freedom, but in America "liberal" has changed to *closer* to Socialism on economic issues.

Closer is relative, and doesn't mean it is the same. Even a big liberal in the US is not a socialist.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
I do not believe that any person other than George Bush would have been able to gather the notion in their brain and garner the support/power to carry out such a plan.

Somewhat agree. Gore would never have lifted a finger about Iraq. When he was VP, Clinton threatened to use force if Saddam did not allow the inspections to continue unobstructed. But, as we saw, that was an empty threat.

Empty threat. Perfectly describes Gore.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


Your questions are ridiculous and fallacious.


Second, I'm not going to take any questions seriously that come from the mouth of someone who maliciously lumps liberalism with communism in the spirit of McCarthyism. Either you are hopelessly ignorant about what liberalism is, or you are maliciously and deliberately distorting what liberalism is.

Thank you, and have a bad day.

I think the liberals in the US today are socialists in the main, true.

I just never thought you were a socialist, Mr. Fun. That is why I question why you are proud to be a liberal.

[Ned]

Drach, finally.