It's your final chance

[1234-5678 0]

Bottom line is, in the debates and through his campaign, the guy has showed me absolutely nothing. Sure, he seems somewhat knowledgable, but there is no fire there, no passion, no charisma. Bush, with his mistakes and all, at least there's emotion there, while with Kerry, it's not emotion, it's almost going through the motions.

I don't want to vote for Bush, I think the country could do much better. But I don't think Kerry is the man. This is the place to explain to me why he is.

[2GOLD 0]

He has a plan....it's a good plan...a solid plan.

 

Christ, I've been searching for five weeks for a reason to vote for John Kerry and he gave me nothing. It's really sad.

 

I'm open as well. Last chance, sell me on Kerry cause he sure as hell didn't sell me.

[cbacon 0]

Simple. The Bush Administration is leading your country, and the world in general down a very scary path.

 

Do some background research. Main points to be taken into consideration:

 

- Was the war in Iraq really beneficial to the security of the people of the United States? Was Iraq really a threat to the American people? Or just another example to expand global hegemony? How much tax payers money has to be lost for this? How many of the 1100+ troops does it take to secure these needs? How many of the 15,000+ of many innocent Iraqi civilians will it take? How has GWB eased terrorist tensions?

 

- Why is it, after 3 years, that this administration has not caught OBL? Despite having technology that can see us mow our lawns from outer space?

 

- The Bush Adminstration is following is turning your society into that of an Orwellian one with such measures including the Patriot Act

 

- The exploitation of American fears in post-9/11 society has ushered in a new age of paranoia in order to secure this administrations goals.

 

Now, Kerry may not be the strongest choice the Democrats could have used, but this article sums up the situation and the candidates differences nicely:

 

Published on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Why, Despite Everything, John Kerry Must Win

by Stephen Zunes

 

 

On this website and elsewhere, I have written nearly a dozen articles in recent months criticizing the policies advocated by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. However, given that the only other realistic choice is George W. Bush, I am desperately hoping that Kerry will win next week’s election.

 

I will not personally be voting for Kerry, since I am a resident of California, which is expected to go solidly for the Democratic ticket. I intend to vote for the Green Party presidential nominee David Cobb, who is campaigning only in states where either Kerry or Bush are expected to win handily and is consciously avoiding swing states out of the risk of tilting the balance to the Republicans.

 

However, if I lived in a swing state, I would be casting my vote for Kerry and I am encouraging those who live in swing states to do the same.

 

This comes despite the very poor choice the Democratic Party made in selecting Kerry as their nominee.

 

The Democrats’ Poor Choice

 

In selecting Kerry over a half dozen imperfect but nevertheless anti-war challengers, the Democratic Party gave millions of Americans – who knew from the start that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, that it was illegal, that it was based upon lies, and that it would end up being just the kind of disaster that it has become – no one to vote for.

 

Even though Kerry was briefed in 2002 by Scott Ritter, the former head weapons inspector for UNSCOM, that Iraq had already been disarmed, he stood up on the Senate floor and claimed that Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons arsenal was more dangerous than in 1991. He even insisted that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program right after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had been completely dismantled. He voted against a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq if the United Nations Security Council permitted such force under the UN Charter and instead voted for a resolution authorizing the President Bush to invade that oil-rich country unilaterally in violation of the UN Charter. He continues to support the U.S. occupation of that country, despite the large scale killings of civilians and abuse of prisoners by American forces.

 

Furthermore, through his vigorous defense of Israel’s occupation policies in the occupied territories – including the separation wall, the expansion of illegal settlements, the extrajudicial killings of suspected Palestinian militants, and rampant human rights violations – and ruling out substantive negotiations with Palestinian leaders, Kerry has demonstrated his belief that the way to peace and security is not through negotiations and compromise, but through conquest, occupation, colonization and repression. Even though most Americans – including most Jewish Americans – believe that the United States should not give such unconditional support of the policies of Israel’s right-wing government, Kerry’s backing for the Israeli occupation has been on even stronger terms than that of President Bush, thereby making himself the most right-wing presidential candidate either major party has ever nominated on this key foreign policy issue.

 

Kerry’s calls for strict sanctions and possible military force against Iran and Syria over their alleged weapons programs that pale in comparison to the longstanding nuclear, chemical and biological arsenals of U.S. allies in the same region demonstrates his contempt for multilateral law-based approaches to arms control and his belief that the United States unilaterally has the right to impose its double-standards on weapons procurement by force.

 

Kerry’s outspoken criticism of the International Court of Justice for its nearly-unanimous ruling that the Fourth Geneva Convention must be applied to countries engaged in belligerent occupation has shown his contempt for international law.

 

Nominating John Kerry for president was nothing less than an assault against core Democratic constituencies: liberals of my father’s generation who lived through and fought in World War II and saw the creation of the United Nations, which explicitly forbids such wars of aggression as the invasion of Iraq; progressives of my own generation who volunteered in the McCarthy and McGovern campaigns, and whose political consciousness was shaped by opposition to a previous immoral U.S. counter-insurgency war; grassroots Democratic Party organizers of all generations, an overwhelming majority of whom oppose the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; and, working class and minority voters, who will disproportionately pay the price for the Iraq war in terms of lives lost and programs cut.

 

Despite claims to the contrary, Kerry was hardly the most “electable” candidate the Democrats could have nominated. If, for example, Howard Dean was the nominee, the debate during the fall campaign would have been centered around Bush’s disastrous policy on Iraq, not the Democratic nominee’s real and alleged “flip-flopping.” Regarding Israel and Palestine, Dean would have attracted the support of the majority of Americans – including most Jewish Americans – who are pro-Israel but believe that the United States should play a more even-handed role in the peace process. With foreign policy, for the first time in many years, being the primary concern of voters, a moderately liberal nominee like Dean would have forced real policy issues to the forefront, giving the Democrats the advantage. Instead, by nominating Kerry – who shares Bush’s belief in American unilateralism and the right of the United States and its allies to invade and occupy other nations – the primary focus of the campaign has been on personality, “character,” and “leadership,” which have played to the advantage of the Republicans.

 

Though Ralph Nader will get far less votes than he did in the 2000 election, his principled stands against Bush and Kerry’s militarism will still attract thousands of anti-war voters on the left which could make the difference in Wisconsin and other swing states, many of whom would have been willing to vote for the Democratic nominee if he had been anti-war. The growing number of conservative anti-war voters, many of whom would have been willing to vote Democratic if the nominee had been anti-war, will now vote Republican anyway.

 

Unfortunately, it was Kerry and the similarly hawkish John Edwards who ended up getting on the Democratic ticket. And, unfortunately, in order to defeat Bush and Cheney, we must make sure that these Democratic Party nominees are elected.

 

The Choice on Foreign Policy

 

Despite promising to myself that I would never support someone who helped lead American into this imbroglio in Iraq or who defends war criminals like Ariel Sharon, a recent conversation with a colleague at the University of San Francisco helped me change my mind.

 

In response to my ranting about Kerry’s attacks on the World Court, his support for spending even more tax dollars on the already-bloated Pentagon budget, and his defense of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the U.S. occupation of Iraq, my colleague shared his agreement with all my concerns, but noted, “At least he believes in evolution!”

 

This underscores a crucial point: although Kerry certainly shares Bush’s militarist and imperialist mindset, he is a reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable man, who is less prone to act on impulse or blind ideological faith. He is more likely to listen to the concerns of the international community. He is more likely to understand the complexities of a given situation rather than simply see it in quasi-religious terms of “good” versus “evil.”

 

For example, though Kerry currently says he will not withdraw American troops from Iraq for at least another four years, he is more likely than Bush to recognize the need to pull out if it is clear that there is no better alternative. Though Iraq is such a mess now that it is unlikely that Kerry will be any more successful than Bush in getting other countries to contribute troops, he would almost certainly be more willing to allow the United Nations to take more leadership than Bush has allowed in attempting to resolve the conflict and build a more stable and democratic Iraq.

 

Despite Kerry’s strident opposition to the peace efforts of Israeli centrists and progressives, he does not share the millennialist theology so influential in Republican circles that sees an expansionist Israel as necessary for the Second Coming of Christ. As a result, despite Kerry’s seemingly pathological hatred of Palestinian Arabs, he is more likely to challenge Israeli expansionists like Sharon and to eventually recognize that Israeli security can never be assured as long as the Palestinians are denied their right to truly viable state of their own.

 

Finally, Kerry – despite his over-emphasis on military solutions to the threat of terrorism – would be far more likely than Bush to appreciate what concerns motivate the rise of the dangerous reactionary brand of Islamism that has spawned the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and like-minded groups. He is less likely to give blind support for Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and more likely to encourage sustainable development programs and grassroots democratic initiatives that give people in Islamic societies hope for creating a more just society through nonviolent means.

 

The Choice on Domestic Policy

 

Another incident which clarified the need to elect Kerry came a few weeks ago while talking with a neighbor of mine, a physician at Planned Parenthood. She was describing her concern that – should Bush be reelected and thereby tip the balance in an aging Supreme Court – many of her coworkers around the country would have to go underground in order to perform abortions. Despite my strong personal opposition to abortion in most cases and some philosophical and political disagreements with much of the “pro-choice” movement, I do recognize what a disaster it would be if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The look of genuine fear and worry on her face said more to me of why John Kerry must win next Tuesday than the millions of dollars of slick ads the Democrats have put on television.

 

(It is interesting to note that, after years of steady decline, abortion rates in the United States have actually gone up under the Bush administration, likely a result of growing poverty and unemployment – which makes the prospects of unplanned parenthood more daunting – and regulations regarding “sex education” in the schools that stress unrealistic demands of chastity rather than knowledge about contraception.)

 

Indeed, unlike foreign policy – where I focus most of my research, teaching and punditry – there really are some crucial differences between Bush and Kerry.

 

Foremost is environmental policy: Despite that the three debates were virtually devoid of any questions about the environment, this is probably the single most important issue facing this country and the world today. Few members of Congress have a stronger environmental record than John Kerry. By contrast, no administration – even that of Reagan and the infamous Interior Secretary James Watt – has had a record on the environment as deleterious as that of the current Bush Administration, one that has largely escaped the attention it has deserved these past four years through the distraction of war and terrorism.

 

Also of critical importance is the issue of civil liberties: as disappointing as Kerry’s record has been (particularly in recent years), it is far superior to that of the Bush Administration. The more civil liberties are restricted, the more difficult it will be to change government policies on anything.

 

To rein in the record budget deficits that will otherwise cripple the U.S. government and the economy as a whole for decades to dome and place an enormous burden on future generations, Kerry has promised to rescind tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, demonstrating his awareness of the need for fiscal responsibility.

 

In protecting the rights of consumers, in slowing the monopolization of the mass media, in supporting funding for education, mass transit, public housing, and health care, there is no question that – while hardly adequate – a Kerry administration would be far superior to that of the Bush administration.

 

The Office of the President

 

There are other important reasons that John Kerry must win next Tuesday:

 

Outside of Iraq, most Americans visiting abroad note that people tend to distinguish between the American people and the American government. This is made easier by the fact that President Bush was not the top vote-getter in the 2000 election; he became president only because of the combination of an archaic eighteenth century electoral system and vote fraud in a decisive state. If Bush does honestly win the popular vote, however, the American people as a whole will have to deal with a much greater sense of responsibility for what the Bush administration does over the next four years.

 

Another reason Bush must be defeated is that the attacks his campaign has waged against Kerry have been so outrageous they must not be allowed to succeed. This has been the dirtiest presidential election in modern times. While historically most attacks have come from the challenger, this year includes the unprecedented phenomenon of the vast majority of attacks coming from the incumbent’s campaign. Though there are many valid criticisms of Kerry, much of what is heard from the Bush campaign has been misleading and deceptive, ranging from deliberately taking quotes out of context to challenging the credibility of his exemplary military record.

 

Finally, given the power of the United States government, the U.S. president is capable of doing both an enormous amount of good as well as an enormous amount of harm. Even small differences between the two major party candidates can mean very big differences to millions of people, including life and death.

 

Whether one supports or opposes Kerry’s political views, the fact is that he is one of the most knowledgeable, experienced, intelligent, and competent major political figures in the country. It has been decades since someone with a better aptitude for president of the United States has been nominated by either party. Bush – even putting aside his right-wing ideology – is easily the least qualified person to ever hold the office in modern times. Even if one were to take the cynical view that there is essentially no difference between the two in terms of foreign and domestic policy, Kerry should be elected simply because he is far more qualified for the job.

 

We must insure that John Kerry win this election. We then must insure that he actually does pursue policies that really are better than those of President Bush.

 

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

 

All in all, Kerry must win. For the sake of humanity. George W. Bush sold you out.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Bottom line is, in the debates and through his campaign, the guy has showed me absolutely nothing. Sure, he seems somewhat knowledgable, but there is no fire there, no passion, no charisma. Bush, with his mistakes and all, at least there's emotion there, while with Kerry, it's not emotion, it's almost going through the motions.

I don't want to vote for Bush, I think the country could do much better. But I don't think Kerry is the man. This is the place to explain to me why he is.

 

Emotions don't really factor into the job of President too much. Making sound decisions is more important. Although, if you want something involving emotion or composure, then i'll mention this to you. Kerry seems to be the type that isn't fazed by pressure too often. It happens after the experiences which he's went though, in war and at home.

 

Over the last four years, have you been better off, or worse off?

 

I've been searching for five weeks for a reason to vote for John Kerry and he gave me nothing. It's really sad.

 

I'm open as well. Last chance, sell me on Kerry cause he sure as hell didn't sell me.

 

I'm not sure which issues matter to you, so I would be shooting in the dark if I threw out some reasons to vote Kerry

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Well there's your big reason to not vote for Kerry right there. If C-Bacon is selling it it can't be a good idea.

[Slayer 0]

He's Not-Bush

 

...at least that's what everyone else says

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

He served in Vietnam...

[1234-5678 0]

Then came home and betrayed his fellow soldiers. Or at least, that's what those commercials say...............

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Then came home and betrayed his fellow soldiers. Or at least, that's what those commercials say...............

And the commercials have their own agenda with their twisting of reality.

 

Jaxl, Are there any issues which you'd vote on above all other things?

[1234-5678 0]

Then came home and betrayed his fellow soldiers. Or at least, that's what those commercials say...............

And the commercials have their own agenda with their twisting of reality.

 

Jaxl, Are there any issues which you'd vote on above all other things?

Now that I think about it, not really. Although Bush's religious/conservative/censorship shit that Stern is always chirping about has me sorta turned off.

[Guest Anglesault]

He has a plan....it's a good plan...a solid plan.

Has anyone figured out what it is yet?

[CBright7831 0]

Like it or not, John Kerry will be the new President of the United States.

 

Bush fucked up by going to Iraq.

 

And now his presidency is going to END because of it.

 

He had the American people in the palm of his hand after 9-11. He could have been re-eelected had he not fucked up and gone to Iraq.

 

It's over, Bush.

 

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Then came home and betrayed his fellow soldiers. Or at least, that's what those commercials say...............

And the commercials have their own agenda with their twisting of reality.

 

Jaxl, Are there any issues which you'd vote on above all other things?

Now that I think about it, not really. Although Bush's religious/conservative/censorship shit that Stern is always chirping about has me sorta turned off.

the weird thing with Bush and all that is that I don't think he goes to church often on Sundays.

 

He's a bit worse, a person who presents himself as religious, yet what does he do? the word for that is "hypocrite", if I recall correctly.

 

Then again, i'm the type that also recognizes that legislating morality is doomed to failure. Basically, laws from Washington have less of an effect on issues like Abortion, Teenage Sex, and so on than people taking action with their friends and family. A lot of this is about responsibility. That just isn't legislated.

 

When it comes to banning Partial-Birth Abortion, Kerry was right to vote against it. The oath he took obligated him to do it. The PBA bans without an exemption for the mothers health have consistantly been struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the courts. In his own way, he tried to protect the constitution.

[2GOLD 0]

He has a plan....it's a good plan...a solid plan.

Has anyone figured out what it is yet?

 

I think it involves Nazi Gold and a Giant Asian Robot named Hindo

[TheBigSwigg 0]

the weird thing with Bush and all that is that I don't think he goes to church often on Sundays.

 

He's a bit worse, a person who presents himself as religious, yet what does he do? the word for that is "hypocrite", if I recall correctly.

 

Then again, i'm the type that also recognizes that legislating morality is doomed to failure. Basically, laws from Washington have less of an effect on issues like Abortion, Teenage Sex, and so on than people taking action with their friends and family. A lot of this is about responsibility. That just isn't legislated.

I agree. Leglislating morality is ineffective and offensive. If the government is to tell us what's morally right and wrong, who's telling the government?

 

Also, Bush's "talking with a higher power" excuses piss me off. As a Christian, I can see him manipulating the "Conservative Christian" using such logic.

 

As for voting for Kerry:

 

I think "he's not Bush" is lame. Vote for Nader then. Vote Libertarian. He's not Bush is not an option. I'm voting for Kerry because I don't want Social Security privatized; because he seems to understand that the world needs to respect us not because we have bigger guns, but because we are a "noble" country; because he's not using his faith to manipulate voters to vote for him. I have a slew of other reasons, but not enough time.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Then came home and betrayed his fellow soldiers. Or at least, that's what those commercials say...............

And the commercials have their own agenda with their twisting of reality.

 

Jaxl, Are there any issues which you'd vote on above all other things?

Now that I think about it, not really. Although Bush's religious/conservative/censorship shit that Stern is always chirping about has me sorta turned off.

I wouldn't listen to Stern. He's trying to make himself a martry. He received almost 2 million in fines from the FCC under Clinton. Trust me Bush and Clinton didn't give a shit about Howard Stern.

[Guest MikeSC]

the weird thing with Bush and all that is that I don't think he goes to church often on Sundays.

 

He's a bit worse, a person who presents himself as religious, yet what does he do? the word for that is "hypocrite", if I recall correctly.

So, because Bush doesn't make a public spectacle of himself going to churches --- as Democrats have done for years now --- he isn't really Christian? Interesting.

Then again, i'm the type that also recognizes that legislating morality is doomed to failure. Basically, laws from Washington have less of an effect on issues like Abortion, Teenage Sex, and so on than people taking action with their friends and family. A lot of this is about responsibility. That just isn't legislated.

 

When it comes to banning Partial-Birth Abortion, Kerry was right to vote against it. The oath he took obligated him to do it. The PBA bans without an exemption for the mothers health have consistantly been struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the courts. In his own way, he tried to protect the constitution.

I'll go ahead and say it --- there is NO medical problem that a PBA will alleviate. Not one.

 

And feel free to try and prove me wrong.

 

There is not a medical condition that birthing all but the head of a child can possibly fix.

 

The "medical necessity" crap is a backdoor to keeping infanticide legal.

-=Mike

[Guest Steel_Fury]

I would vote for Kerry if...

 

I was a poor (by American standards) person who depended on the federal government for a living, didn't have any asperations to improve my lot in life, was able bodied, and had no self esteem.

 

I thought liberalism benefitted the general populace more than conservatism.

 

I really hated America.

 

I was a union worker who's salary was based on the federal minimum wage and that's the only issue I cared about.

 

I was a really awful teacher who wanted to protect my job.

 

I hated W for "stealing" the election and was blind to logic and let emotions rule my decisions.

 

I loves me that Heinz ketchup so much that I am banking on it replacing govt. cheese.

 

I was a very self centered trial lawer.

 

----

 

So, if any of those apply to you, (I hope not) I would vote Kerry.

[Dangerous A 0]

You know how you've been hearing the whole "let your vote be your voice" spiel now for what seems like the last decade, well, do just that.

 

BigSwigg was onto something in that if you don't believe in either candidate (like I do) then don't vote for them. Vote for someone else then. Sure, your candidate isn't going to win because of rampant bi-partisanship, but at least you can say, "hey, I didn't put that Fucker/Bush/Kerry in office, I voted for someone else". and feel ok about it.

 

I don't plan on voting for either Bush or Kerry. Neither do anything for me. Still not sure who I'll vote for. Is Lil Jon 35? If so, he gets my vote. If the 2 major parties are gonna put jokes out for candidates, I figure I'll throw out a joke vote.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You know how you've been hearing the whole "let your vote be your voice" spiel now for what seems like the last decade, well, do just that.

 

BigSwigg was onto something in that if you don't believe in either candidate (like I do) then don't vote for them. Vote for someone else then. Sure, your candidate isn't going to win because of rampant bi-partisanship, but at least you can say, "hey, I didn't put that Fucker/Bush/Kerry in office, I voted for someone else". and feel ok about it.

 

I don't plan on voting for either Bush or Kerry. Neither do anything for me. Still not sure who I'll vote for. Is Lil Jon 35? If so, he gets my vote. If the 2 major parties are gonna put jokes out for candidates, I figure I'll throw out a joke vote.

Alot of folks would hear you say that and come with: "Oh but you are just WASTING your vote" by going 3rd party or joke vote. Which it true, but not true enough that it matters. If voting for the two leading candidates leaves you feeling like you'd have to hold your nose????? Don't do it. John Kerry is a dolt and Bush is a criminal so fuck em. Neither guy can produce a safer world at this point cuz they are never going to be able to kill all peoples who would be enemies of this country. Forget negotiations. Those days have passed. So therefore I cannot vote for either Bush (no surprise) OR Kerry. Fuck them.

[Dangerous A 0]

Bottom line is if you don't like either Dem or Rep candidate, there is no shame in not voting for one of them. If you are of the line of thinking "anyone but Bush" then Kerry would be your vote. If you liked what you saw of Dubya the last 4 years and want more of it, then vote Bush. But if you don't like what you see out of either man, fuck em both and write in who you think would make a good president or look into the Liberterian, Green, or Independent party's candidates to see if you are more in tune to what they are all about. Then cast your vote. Educate yourself and then make a decision. Read both sides of issues and see where you stand on them. This isn't rocket science.

 

At the end of the day, I just don't feel good about either candidate, which is why neither Kerry or Bush get my vote. I don't believe in the picking of lesser evils mentality when it comes to elections. I'm not saying that I need to agree with every single issue that these candidates are all about, but I need to at least feel good about what direction the candidate will take the country in. Bush has royally fucked the Iraq thing up so much IMO that he doesn't get my vote. Kerry doesn't inspire me at all and still has yet to really come out and say what he's all about. He's basically milking this "I'm better than Bush" card then trying to state to me what he wants to do about anything. IMO, Kerry is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much and not enough to get DA's vote. I'd love to vote for the Liberterian party candidate since that is where I lean politically, but I admit I really don't know enough about Michael Badnarik to vote for the guy yet. I'm considering not voting for the president and instead, focus on voting for things that impact me more directly like local measures and propositions.

[The Czech Republic 0]

You know I really wish we had a bigger, stronger, Libertarian Party. If they could sort of mainstream themselves away from the fringier people of society and take a platform of what the Republicans ought to be but haven't been, I think they could make some inroads, insofar as a third party can in America.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I myself wish for a 4 or 5 party system in the US. I lean left, but I disagree with several tenets of the Democratic party.

[Guest Cerebus]

You know I really wish we had a bigger, stronger, Libertarian Party. If they could sort of mainstream themselves away from the fringier people of society and take a platform of what the Republicans ought to be but haven't been, I think they could make some inroads, insofar as a third party can in America.

I wouldn't be too unhappy with it but for whatever reason, only wackos and extremists join third parties. I don't know whether its our political culture or just that 3rd parties are, by nature, extreme and thus exclusive to the more moderate of the populace.

[Guest BDC]

I sincerely do NOT want a multiparty system. You talk about gridlock now, consider the actions of multiparty legislatures.

[Guest MikeSC]

You know I really wish we had a bigger, stronger, Libertarian Party. If they could sort of mainstream themselves away from the fringier people of society and take a platform of what the Republicans ought to be but haven't been, I think they could make some inroads, insofar as a third party can in America.

I wouldn't be too unhappy with it but for whatever reason, only wackos and extremists join third parties. I don't know whether its our political culture or just that 3rd parties are, by nature, extreme and thus exclusive to the more moderate of the populace.

Agreed. People wonder why the Libertarians are fringe kooks? Look at the idiots they run for office. Bednarik is too embarrassing a candidate to actually vote for.

-=Mike

[Guest Stranger]

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted another 9/11 to happen seeing as he was sitting on a ranch ignoring reports of impending terrorist attacks in 2001. Not to mention the fact that while we were under attack he sat reading about a goat and then took photos for 20 minutes.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted the economy to grow worse and worse.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I was wealthy and could sit comfortably on my ass enjoying my tax cut.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I was a religious nut who felt the country should be governed theocratically rather than democratically.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I was ignorant to the existence of other countries on this planet who disagreed with our motives and our reckless endangerement of civilians and soldiers in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted America to conquer other nations like Nazi Germany did in the 1930's and 40's.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted people with cureable illnesses to keep suffering and innevitably die because of his innability to respect science and medicine and let them do their jobs.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted our environmental efforts to plumet throwing 30 years of work down the drain.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted to keep relying on other nations for their oil rather then expanding the technological capabilities to produce new sources of energy and apply them in every day life.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted to be stripped of my civil and constitutional rights.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted everything I watched or read to be censored and dictated vaguely by government officials who were never voted into their positions.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted the country to be as divided as it's been since the Iraq war started.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I was opposed to homosexuals being entitled to the same rights of you or me or anybody else in this country because of the simple fact that they are human beings not unlike ourselves.

 

I'd vote for Bush if I wanted to repeat the same mistakes from history over and over again.

 

I'd vote for Bush but thankfully I'm not going to because I know better.

[2GOLD 0]

That above post almost made me want to vote for Bush for the sheer stupidity of it.

 

But I'm still voting Zod. I still cannot in good faith vote for Bush or Kerry or any of the third party candiates without feeling like I'll need to shower for two hours after I vote just to feel clean again.

[Guest Stranger]

Wow Republicans are blind. Kerry may have flip flopped as a senator but you know what he did...he changed his mind. Why? Because the origional plan was NOT working! You are all right that Bush is consistent, Consistently WRONG! He has not made 1 correct decision in office! He is an idiot in every sense of the word. Completely LIED and went to war for NO reason. Listen you Republicans seem like a stupid bunch after all your leader cannot say nuclear correctly and he was caught waving at Stevie Wonder. You like this guy because even though he is wrong as hell he believes in everything he is doing but the problem is he is still WRONG! The truth is Kerry can't do worse then Bush because he is not as retarded! So with all of you Bush followers being decendants of Helen Keller here is what I want you to do because this is how you benifit America on November 2nd. STAY HOME! You want to help America then do not vote! Masterbate all day, get drunk, get stoned I don't care just stay home and do not vote so that America can get a man with a brain in the office of President!

[The Czech Republic 0]

You should've stayed a stranger.