[Bog]

I am voting this year, and taking this responsibility very seriously. I've been reading as much as I can from the UK about the parties and process involved. At the moment, I'm leaning strongly towards voting for the "Anyone Who Isn't George W. Bush" Party.

Now, before I get slammed for even thinking of voting for Kerry - please hear me out.

To my eyes, President Bush II has not used his first period in office in any way that inspires confidence in me. His has been a term of prevarication, of backpeddaling, and of issue-ducking whilst using the Great Blanket of National Threat as a panacea against criticism.

I'm as horrified and appalled at the events of 2001 as anyone else here, but it seems like it's all gone horribly, horribly wrong since then. My family's got a tradition of Service, my elder sibling is a serviceman, even if for another country (the UK. Long story). But our current Commander-in-Chief and his cabinet chill me to the core with their narrow vision and, frankly, ham-handedness.

I'm willing to be wrong, and I'm willing to listen to why I'm wrong.

Why am I wrong?

[Lone_Gunman]

If you dislike Bush, you will hate Kerry.

That said, I won't be voting for either.

[Bog]

That said, I won't be voting for either.

Yes, but I've got to vote for someone man! That's the thing. I see to have a bunch of Appalling Choices before me. I can't even *find* such a thing as a Libertarian Candidate.

[pittspilot]

Are you a handgun owner? A gun owner?

The you may be interested to know that Kerry has voted 100% with supporting the Brady campaigns positions (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?ssr=MA)

That means things like banning grandfathered standard capacity magazines, charging for NIC usage, requiring a lock with every purchase, the AWB, and every other gun banning idea that has come down the pike.

How anyone who is a gun owner or enthusiast can be a Kerry supporter amazes me. He is Chucky Schumer, except less charisma. He makes Al Gore seem like a breath of fresh air. Our 2nd Amendment rights will not survive 8 years of this man, period. If Kerry gets elected, he will get to nominate at least 3 new judges to the Supreme Court (and I am low-balling), replacing at least one moderate, and one conservative. He will make sure to get a new AWB.

I understand that gun owners are not that thrilled with Bush, but Kerry will make us look back on the good old Clinton years with nostalgia. Imagine sitting around clutching our registered, 30 day wait period, single shot assault, 22 lr, with integral locking mechanism that you may not keep loaded, firearms. I can hardly wait to go underground, can't you?

If you are a 2nd Amendment absolutist, this election is easy. The damage Kerry will do will take decades to undo.

[Bog]

The damage Kerry will do will take decades to undo.

Okay, well yes - Kerry is No Good for RKBA. Eight years under that sort of regime would be Pretty Damned Bad.

But... and I know I'm going to get slaughtered for this one, because this is primarily an RKBA BBS, but hear me out... But.

Bush is, by all accounts, leading the planet into Hell. He's got not the least whit of knowledge of foreign affairs, nor of diplomacy, and his Information Age policy would appear to class just about everyone with a modem as an MP3 Dowloading Drug Terrorist.

Are there any other options that I can look at?

[pittspilot]

Pretty damned bad is an understatement.

"Bush is, by all accounts, leading the planet into Hell. He's got not the least whit of knowledge of foreign affairs, nor of diplomacy, and his Information Age policy would appear to class just about everyone with a modem as an MP3 Dowloading Drug Terrorist."

I could give you numerous accounts that detail how Bush is attempting to lead us out of hell. We got just a small glimpse of hell on 9/11. Has Bush done everything right? Far from it. But this problem took decades to come to fruition, and it will take decades to undo.

And your statement about foreign affairs is puzzling. Tell me, do you believe that Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Condileeza Rice, Richard Armatige, and the rest of the crew have not the "least whit of knowledge" when combined this group has decades of foreign policy experience. Do you honestly just think that they don't know what they are doing, or do you just disagree with that they are doing?

You have to ask yourself that question honestly. I think that the White House is following a very specific goal, albeit at times incoherently. However, this is a factor of institutional inertia and the lack of political power inherent in our insitutions.

Furthermore, I take that you have a critique of the Patriot Act? Which portions? I understand that the thing is flawed. Did you know that Kerry voted for it and it passed 99-1 in the Senate? Everyone was clamoring for it, the legislation was thrown together, and off it went. Bush appears to be dealing with it the best he can.

Ask yourself, how would you like to fix the Patriot Act. I think the 9/11 hearings have shown that the Chinese wall between domestic and foreign counter-terrorist outfits created some real problems for communications. On the other hand, civil liberties are a concern when empowering these outfits. So wanting to have a fully efficient counter-terrorism infrastructure with full protection of civil liberties is not possible. The two goals compete with one another. Thus we have to compromise. Where should we draw the line? You may disagree, but I hardly think that the Bush Administration has shown that it desires to lock every person with a modem.

Lastly, some people will tell you to vote Libertarian. I was a Libertarian at one point, but was able to overcome it. ;) [flame suit on] The problem is that voting Libertarian is a waste of your vote. [flame suit off] This election may be very very close. And the Libertarians may end up clutching their ballot cards, wondering why Kerry has passed the umpteenth law banning whatever in response to 9/11 number 2, but at least they can tell themselves that they have "principles."

[Bog]

Do you honestly just think that they don't know what they are doing, or do you just disagree with that they are doing?

Having asked myself honestly, I have to say that I disagree with them. There is a strong thread, in that disagreement though that routes from thinking that they don't see the ramifications of their policies.

Perhaps it's just excessive cynicism on my part, perhaps it's because it's difficult to get full news reportáge over here (I'm in the UK) without it being run the UK Political Filters, which are currently swinging from "The US Can Do No Wrong!" to "What Does That Idiot Think He's Doing?" with very little grey area.

Pittspilot, thank you for you post - it's obvious that you feel strongly on this, and that's excactly what I'm trying to get at. I can see that Kerry's a louse, but Bush doesn't seem to measure up to the situation.

I'm honestly asking for viewpoints here, because I beleive that it's a place where people are worth listening to. I have a serious issue with bringing Bush back in, and it would take a lot for me to beleive that he's qualified for the job.

Anyhoo... still listening, still trying to find a handle on this thing.

[orangeninja]

"Okay, well yes - Kerry is No Good for RKBA."

'nuff said. I'm voting Bush. If a Presidential candidate will not recognize your RKBA, then you will be left at the complete whim of the government. I cannot think of a single Bill of Rights topic that was more direct than the 2nd amendment, yet it gets the most hits. Protect your right to enforce the constitution.;) :scrutiny:

[Lone_Gunman]

Our 2nd Amendment rights will not survive 8 years of this man, period.

The Republicans have said that about their opponent in every election I can recall.

In order for Kerry to do away with your 2nd amendment rights, he would have to have a lot of help from the House and Senate, both of which are controlled by the Republicans.

Another fear tactic of the Republicans is continuously chanting that this election will be extremely close. Time may prove me wrong, but I think this election will go better for Bush than last time. Kerry will get CA, MA, a few other liberal states, but I think the electoral vote will largely go to Bush.

The best argument for voting for Bush is that he stinks less than Kerry, and that is a pee poor arguement. Your job as a voter is to vote for who you (and you alone) think would be the best president. Your job is not to try to figure out how everyone else is going to vote and then cast a defensive vote in response.

Also, I am always suspicious of single issue voters, whether the issue be gun rights, abortion, or whatever. These people don't see the big picture. So far, Bush has not trampled the second amendment, but he has shown complete willingness to ignore or debase other parts of the Constitution. Passing gun control is not politically popular for Bush to support at this time, so he doesnt push for any. But if he can step on the first amendment, he can step on the second when the time comes.

[Antlurz]

I've been reading as much as I can from the UK about the parties and process involved.

You answered your own question as to why you feel like you do.

Ron

[Bog]

Antlurz,

Perhaps so, but a big part of what I have seen is, as Lone_Gunman said, a willingness to disregard other civil liberties.

The last few years have degraded my opinion of government, both UK and US, to the point where I see them as machines for keeping their populace in fear whilst squeezing out as many tax points as possible. What difference does it make that you're allowed an unregistered gun if your credit card that you used to buy it is tracked in a central database? What difference does it make that you paid cash for it, if your cellphone conversation to a chum saying "Got myself a nice secondhand CZ-75!" is recorded and flagged?

I'm having a serious problem with all this, and I honestly do see it as a choice between boom today, and boom tomorrow. :(

[Jim March]

If you can't find it in yourself to vote Bush, then vote LP. Or Constitution Party, or whatever...and if that choice is out, write in "Charlton Heston".

Yes, I'm serious about the latter...it will be dead obvious why he got that vote. "Gun owner disgusted with Bush" is the loud and clear message (doesn't matter how you feel about him or the NRA, that's the message that'll get through).

As I see it, the most important message that has to be sent this election, needs to get sent to the Dems: STOP WITH THE GRABBING ALREADY. Follow? That party has got to get off the grabber trip ASAP, then we'll finally have some freakin' *choices* when we get a loser like Dubya in office.

Folks, I would have voted for Dean this year. Swear to God. I'm just personally disgusted enough. Or probably Edwards, I was going to take a closer look had he gone anywhere. But Kerry? I'm disgusted, yes, but I ain't mentally ill.

Lookit: when the GOP put Dubya forward in '00, it was a very good sign. Dubya had signed a shall-issue bill in TX after campaigning with promises to do so, and then signed a nice little cleanup package later. I have no regrets about voting for him back then. I'll have some this year, but I'll still do it, because the Dems must learn to just CUT IT OUT, get the rabid idiots like Feinswine, Schumer and the like under control.

If Kerry wins this year, legislative reform on California gun laws will be set back at least 4 years or more, at the state level. Here's why: California Dems must learn that while their gun-grabbing ways are accepted in CALIFORNIA, that crap won't fly on the national stage. I, as a California lobbyist, need to be able to say the day after the election, "look guys, we keep telling you a hardcore gun-grabber will never make it to the next level, now we have a guy with a 100% Brady/VPC rating going down in crashing flames. Again. Just like Gore. Get a clue, eh?"

If I *can't* say that, if Bush loses, then...oh dear God in heaven are we screwed. We'll see renewed assaults at both state and Fed levels like nothing ever seen. Folks, Clinton wasn't all that bad on guns! Seriously. Reno was a screwball, yes, but....apparantly psychotic AGs are the norm :rolleyes:. But once the Dems lost a pile of legislative seats in '94 after some gun-grabber early in the Clinton reign, Clinton helped put the brakes on a lot of BS at the Fed level. Which matched his behavior in previous offices: he was never a hardcore grabber.

KERRY IS. Got that? He's a dedicated hard-core gun-grabber.

Nothing, and I mean *nothing* is as important as keeping that fool out of office this year.

[Bog]

Okay... let me alter my question.

Is there anyone I can realistically vote for this year who will do a better job of putting out the fires all over the planet that will, now and eventually, bite America and the rest of the Western World where it hurts better than the incumbent party?

And if not - why not?

[TimRB]

"Okay... let me alter my question."

For God's sake, vote for Kerry if you want to. We're all voting for Bush, or some Libertarian candidates, but this is America. You don't need our permission to vote for someone other than Bush.

Tim

[Chris Rhines]

Realistically, as in "has a chance of winning?" No, there isn't. The next POTUS is going to be either a neo-jacobian empire-builder or a left-liberal one-worlder. Not much of a choice, huh?

A morally consistant libertarian would do better than either of the above. No chance of actually taking office, of course, but that's the breaks. Apparently, morality and individual liberty aren't big priorities this election season...

- Chris

[Lone_Gunman]

Is there anyone I can realistically vote for this year who will do a better job of putting out the fires all over the planet that will, now and eventually, bite America and the rest of the Western World where it hurts better than the incumbent party?


No I dont think so, but don't take that as a compliment for the Republicans.

The Republicans will do a better job fighting the war on terror than the democrats, no if and or buts about that.

The problem with Bush and the Republicans is not what they are doing abroad, but what they are doing at home.

[Bog]

*ponders*

I'm not asking permission - that isn't really my way. I know this is America. I'm just trying to find a way to keep it that way, and I don't know what to do - so I'm asking people for their thoughts and their knowledge.

I'll just memedump here.

I honestly don't know what to think. I'm doing my best, and I'm not a small-minded or slow-witted man - but since President Bush got in, the world has caught fire, and it's only getting worse.

Am I blaming too much on one man?

A law, such as a gun control, can be repealed. A war cannot - and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be the new Viet Nam to me, only even worse due to the new Spin Generation.

Ach, damnit. I don't want to vote for a louse. And yet, all I see are roaches

<edit>

The problem with Bush and the Republicans is not what they are doing abroad, but what they are doing at home.

That's why I haven't come home. Despite how much I desperately want to, I don't see that I have one there anymore. I really hope I'm wrong.

[Jim March]

Ummm.

OK, in private EMail, you told me that you were concerned about "the world being set on fire" and you blamed Bush, at least in part.

Hmmm.

OK, let's go back to basics here. What caused 9/11?

It wasn't Bush. It was in the planning stages before he took office. Osama Yo Mama and company had been leading up to it for years, with the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and other incidents that were not adequately responded to by Clinton.

I think ol' Bill deserves a lot of blame.

It's also disturbing to me that a lot of people don't understand the really, really EVIL roots of what's going on among these various middle eastern opponents. Know why Iran is called "Iran"? Because that's what the term "Aryan" translated to in Persian, when the leadership of "Iran" decided to rename the place in an attempt to get friendlier with ol' Adolph.

In similar fashion, the "Ba'ath party" that started in Syria and spread to Iraq had definate Nazi origins. The Nazis also got in heavy with the Arabs of Jerusalem and surrounding areas, training them as behind-the-lines insurgents against the British and relying on their mutual hatred of Jews to cement the alliance. Yasser Arafat is literally a product of that old alliance; his former mentor, the Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi agent flown into Berlin for personal meetings with Hitler.

So these are NOT NICE PEOPLE we're dealing with here.

Not nice at all.

Now, when 9/11 was planned and in the period just after, Osama and company were definately holed up in Afghanistan. No question. They were using it as their global base of terrorism.

That had to be dealt with. Dubya was right on that one.

But then there's Iraq.

Saddam was literally a political descendent of Adolph Hitler, and idolized both him and Stalin. He killed at LEAST 800,000 of his own people via outright murder, and probably a lot more. He *acted* like he had nasty crap, when in fact it turns out his economy was so far in the toilet that underlings just took the money and created false reports of new evil super-weapons that (mostly) didn't exist. (A lot made it into Syria and now we know Sudan of all places...)

Saddam had shown a willingness to invade other countries. We also knew that if he scored anything really nasty, he had a ready-at-hand delivery method available via Osama.

Now we're in a situation where we've got a couple hundred thou troops in Iraq, and every freak in a checkered bedsheet screaming "Allah Akbar" in the region is heading over there and getting stomped like flies in a bugzapper.

Excuse me but, considering the alternatives, this is a bad thing? Come again?

You want these freaks heading HERE instead of "defending Holy Iraqi Arab land to the last breath"?

Dunno man...the choices really truly suck. But once you understand just how godawful nasty the opposition is...well, we're going to end up fighting 'em, OK? We can do it there, or we can do it in downtown Denver or similar.

My take?

God bless the troops.

Which brings us to Kerry. The entire military despises him. You wanna see moral go completely into the toilet? Put Kerry in there.

So he does a pullback. Troops come out of Trashcanistan and Iraq. Great. Both descend into chaos. The lesson to the world: we don't finish what we started.

Then you watch the terrorism start up here in the US, spread out but worse than 9/11 for all that.

----------------

Ba'ath/Nazi links:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp

...and a LOT of others. Use google.

Arafat/"Palestinian"/Nazi connection:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Blumenfeld/Samuel17.htm

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/recruited.html

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

...and MANY more.

Comment here: my father was an eyewitness to this. He was a British army engineer involved in the Suez mess of 1956 (http://novaonline.nvcc.vccs.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Suez56.htm) and personally saw Egyptian dictator Nasser's pro-Hitler propaganda.

--------------

Upshot: Bog, we are *literally* fighting the last Nazis. OK? This is just as serious as the last time we did so. Some people are evil and need killin', it's just that simple.

(The amount of research and googling I knew I'd need for this post is why I didn't want to deal with it in private mail.)

[Waitone]

I honestly don't know what to think. I'm doing my best, and I'm not a small-minded or slow-witted man - but since President Bush got in, the world has caught fire, and it's only getting worse.And every human being that has eaten brussel sprouts has died; without exception. The difference is causal vs corrolation.

Wars are that way. It is a Hollywood myth that wars move from beginning to end without loss, failure, or screwups. The world seems to have lit up because Bush decided to fight back. Islamofascist terrormongers have been taking swings at the west since the mid-1970's. Bush is the only to to have consistently and methodically fought back SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAD NO CHOICE. No president could have ignored 911 like Clinton ignored WTC I. Bush also understands the nature of this conflict. It is war of a type we've not seen. It is war that will be waged on civilians, economic centers, government centers, and civilians. It will be deadly. It will involve mass casualties. It will result in either the survival of the west or its destruction. It will last generations. We can either stick our heads in the sand or we can fight. In the good ol' days we could afford to absorb the first blow then mobilize and fight. Can't do that now. Access to WMD by gangs of thugs and goons makes it essential that the fight take place in their backyard. Bush rightly understands it is impossible to dig a moat around the US.

Bush ain't no prize. I've got many a beef with his contempt for the constitution and bill of rights. I've got major problems with his inabillity to say no to spending. I can't stand his inability to stand for anything. I am outraged at his so-called immigration policy. Domestically Bush is a disaster. That said, for the first time in my life I will be a single issue voter. To me there is nothing approaching the importance of the war on islamofascist terrormongers. Bush is aggressive, proactive, and deadly serious. None of those descriptors can be applied to his counterpart.

I strongly suggest spending time on the internet looking at papers from places other than the UK and Europe. For whatever the reason the continent hates Bush and that is fine as long as there exists concrete reasons. I haven't read of one yet, just a lot of sound and fury about Bush blah, blah, blah.

[mvpel]

We also knew that if he scored anything really nasty, he had a ready-at-hand delivery method available via Osama.

We already know that he'd scored a wide assortment of chemical weapons - he used them against the Iranian army and the Kurdish civilian population in northern Iraq:

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.

"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW. "They also send a clear signal that chemical weapons attacks cannot be launched in the belief that the natural elements will quickly cover up the evidence."

And many of the Democrats who are now crying foul over the location of Iraqi WMD that are likely now in Syria, Sudan, and formerly Lybia, and who are leading the criticism of the war, were right on board with President Bush's current course of action until the moment he actually set out to implement it:

Feb. 25, 1998, Tom DASCHLE: "The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraq’s full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction."

Feb. 25, 1998, Bob KERREY: "Force, either our own or that of dissident Iraqis, will be required to remove this regime. ... Dozens of prisoners are believed to have died in agony during a secret program of military research designed to produce potent NEW weapons of mass destruction."

Mar. 12, 1998, Jesse HELMS: "Secretary Albright sent the message in its purest form: "Saddam does not have a menu of choices, he has one: Iraq must comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions and provide U.N. inspectors with the unfettered access they need to do their job."

(Or else what, Mr Helms? :rolleyes:)

Mar. 12, 1998, Joe BIDEN: "No one should doubt for a moment the resolve of the United States to respond with force, if necessary, to Iraq’s continued flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. ... Time has run out. If Iraq does not comply immediately and unconditionally with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors, I believe that President Clinton will have no choice but to order the use of air power."

(Time actually "ran out" under a Republican president five years later.)


Mar. 12, 1998, Joe LIEBERMAN: "...the threat that Saddam Hussein will use those weapons of mass destruction THAT WE KNOW HE HAS; that he will use the ballistic missile, the delivery system capacity to deliver those weapons of mass destruction that WE KNOW HE HAS IN RUDIMENT AND IS DEVELOPING EVEN FURTHER."

Mar. 12, 1998, written statement by Carl LEVIN: "I want to express my support for President Clinton, in consultation with Congress and consistent with the United States Constitution and laws, taking necessary and appropriate actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."


Sept. 29, 1998, Trent LOTT: "I have been working with a bipartisan group of Senators throughout much of the year to support a change in U.S. policy toward Iraq...It is time to openly state our policy goal is the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power."

Senator Lott introduced what would become the Iraq Liberation Act. Among them only Joe Lieberman has been even remotely consistent in his stance.

Listen to these hypocrites!!! They're politicizing the safety and security of our nation. They're the worst kind of political opportunist, soulless and lacking any manner of moral compass - they have a "moral weathervane" instead.

[TimH]

he would have to have a lot of help from the House and Senate, both of which are controlled by the Republicans.

But for how long?

[Lone_Gunman]

At least 2 more years; I dont think either branch will change hands this election..

[Unlucky]

How does a UK resident, who must have UK citizenship it would seem, get to vote in the US? Kerry isn't president yet, so why are foreigners contemplating voting in our elections?

[Tamara]

At the moment, I'm leaning strongly towards voting for the "Anyone Who Isn't George W. Bush" Party.

I'll be keeping my registration with the "Anyone Who Isn't Bush Or Kerry" Party. Hell, I'd rather see the madcap zaniness of a complete tofuhead like Nader in the White House before either of those two; at least Nader would be funny. :uhoh:

[HBK]

I'm voting for Bush. He's the only option I see. We might never recover from Kerry. The Libertarian candidate is a joke. The Constitution party has no shot. Nader...is a joke as well. I put him right up there with Dennis Kuchinic. They have that whole "give the world a hug" foreign policy going for them. Bush is the only realistic option.

[Tamara]

Despite how much I desperately want to, I don't see that I have one there anymore. I really hope I'm wrong.

Can't think of any states here where you could be arrested for doing a bad Indian waiter impersonation while waiting for your curry. Also, there are no gatsos in most states. We don't have an MI5, either. Yet. :uhoh: :(

Someone told me a joke on the cellie the other day that involved a scoped rifle and the AG. We're both still walking around free, and I'd like to think it has more to do with the lack of the government's ability to listen in, rather than the lack of its desire to do so.

[Bog]

Leaving all other issues aside until I've had a good, hard think about them...

How does a UK resident, who must have UK citizenship it would seem, get to vote in the US?

Right in the first... wrong on the second. I'm a US citizen.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bog, this is going to seem irrelevant; but give a read to Rick Atkinson's "An Army At Dawn" discussing the start of America's involvement in WWII in North Africa.

The reason it is a great read is because it helps give a sense of what it is like to undertake a really momentous task, the scale of the problems involved, and it helps pull back the curtain on some figures that have been mythologized to some extent. When you understand what some of the great leaders of our past faced, some of the errors they made in dealing with those challenges, and the lives lost because of it, it makes you feel a lot of pity for anyone in that office.

More importantly for me, it gave me a good baseline to measure performance against. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Churchill are all widely regarded as great leaders of the 20th century. A quick look at the North African campaign will show you what kind of errors these leaders made trying to grasp that new challenge.

[Bog]

I'm sorry if I seem to be wobbling around my issues here. I'm very conscious that the world is in, politely, absolutely appalling order. I really feel like I've got a once-every-four-years chance to make a difference, however butterfly-wing tiny that difference is.

I know that POTUS is a lousy gig, and all that. I just strongly feel that the current person in the Big Seat is unqualified. It seems that his advisors have an approach to foreign affairs that's on the one hand, thumping the globe with a lump-hammer - whilst on the other saying "But no, we're nice, we're here to help these people... and hanging them out to dry.

Gh0d, even if they'd just ploughed on and said "Right, we've had enough of this, it's time for Pax Americana" I'd have at least maintained some respect for them.

I'm just trying to use this 1-in-200-million franchise I've got to try do maximise the good I can do with it, whilst minimising the damage. You lot here are the best bet, to my eyes, of finding the information I need to do so intelligently.

Thanks again for taking the time to give me info, I'm reading through this stuff as fast as I can.

[one45auto]

All I can say is this - anyone who either; a) doesn't vote or b) votes for anyone other than Bush had better not be on the board the following year whinning about new gun bans or laws because quite frankly you'll have asked for it. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is utterly insane and totally counter-productive. (Just ask Michael Jackson!) Going against Bush on the assumption that a Republican-controlled House and/or Senate will forestall any new legislation overlooks the possibility that the Democrats might regain control of those branches of government as well. Even if they don't, who's to say the Republicans will be able to stand up to them? In the aftermath of another school shooting or office rampage even the staunchest pro-gun politician (on either side) will vote for new laws rather than risk being labeled as unfeeling by their rivals and even if we don't have another tragedy remember how easily Clinton and company manipulated the Republicans into voting for the assault weapons ban? Ever hear of the word "blackmail"? Surely you don't think those 900+ confidential FBI files were simply bedtime reading, do you? Then there's the Supreme Court, and we all know how adept the liberals are at using the judiciary to bypass legislatures. Think of the appointments a Kerry administration would make - radical leftist jurists who think the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard (despite the fact that that entity wasn't created until some 114 years after the Bill Of Rights was drafted) and that gun manufacturers, not criminals, are to blame for crimes. You might as well put the Constitution through the shredder then, or else use it for toilet paper because that's all it'll be good for.

But no - you go right ahead and make your ineffective protest vote or better yet, sit out the election at home while some welfare brood mare, liberal college punk, radical socialist, bed wetting gun-grabber, or terrorist sympathizer/appeaser votes in your place. Then when Kerry is in office and the Democrats finally get around to banning and/or confiscating your favorite toy you can console yourself with the knowledge that at least you voted your conscience - that is if you're not too busy shopping for a post-hole digger and some PVC tubing on e-Bay.....

[mvpel]

It seems that his advisors have an approach to foreign affairs that's on the one hand, thumping the globe with a lump-hammer - whilst on the other saying "But no, we're nice, we're here to help these people... and hanging them out to dry.

Better a lump hammer than a cruise missile up a camel's butt, as Clinton was wont to do.

Because with a lump hammer, world leaders of terrorism, such as Khadaffi, look at the lumps taken by Saddam and the Taliban and fall into line, rather than taking 10 minutes to laugh their a$$es off at how stupid and ineffective the US is under Democrat leadership before going back to their work plotting major terrorist attacks on US interests around the globe.

The Iraqis were hung out to dry by an inordinate deference to the United Nations by Bush I, halting the advance upon the liberation of Kuwait, and many thousands of Iraqi patriots paid the ultimate price for that in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Deference to the UN is an attitude that Kerry would return us to.

The Iraqi soverignty turnover is due on June 1. This is ridiculous speed, given that we spent years in Germany and Japan. We run the risk of the government falling into the hands of foreign or domestic terrorist influence, like Lebanon, unless all the Islamic lunatics from neighboring countries and the Ba'athists are weeded out.

But I'm still holding out the hope that I'll be able to visit Iraq some day, wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt, a floppy hat, and an expensive camera around my neck, clutching a phrasebook in one hand and my children in the other.

[Waitone]

I'm very conscious that the world is in, politely, absolutely appalling order. I really feel like I've got a once-every-four-years chance to make a difference, however butterfly-wing tiny that difference is. You are wrong about once-in-every-four-years thingy. Two years. Think you have two years to make a change. POTUS only one office that if filled. Every two years the entire house and 1/3 of the senate is up for sale. . . . . er, election. You wanna screw things up? Change out the house and // or 1/3 of the senate and things will change.

Only problem is American voters want to throw out someone else's bum. This year I'm voting for maximum grid lock.

[bogie]

Keep in mind that the democrats don't care if you vote for Kerry. They just want you to NOT vote for Bush.

Think about it.

IMHO, it's a case of the lesser of two evils. If we vote for the more dangerous one, we may not get another chance.

[flatrock]

Bog,

Glad to hear you intend to vote, and I'm glad you're taking the responsibility seriously.

I've been reading as much as I can from the UK about the parties and process involved.

The press in the UK is pretty clearly anti-Bush. I agree that getting opinions from outside the US can be useful, but try to get the story from a variety of different sources so you can compare them and hopefully sift through some of the spin.

His has been a term of prevarication, of backpeddaling, and of issue-ducking whilst using the Great Blanket of National Threat as a panacea against criticism.

I don't think I agree with you. What issues has he ducked? He's taken on the threat of terrorism.

He's tried to take action on our horribly messed up immigration laws. I'm not to fond of the actions he's pushing towards, but I don't see him as ducking the issues.

He's trying to address the poor moral standards within our country by trying to encourage the roll of family and religion as stabilizing factors in people's lives.

He inherited an economy that was in recession, and is working to improve the economy.

He addressed the problem of increasing perscription costs ofr older americans, even though his perscription drug plan was not that popular with many in his party.

There's the issue of the patriot act. He saw our country as being at risk because our intelligence community was having trouble gathering and processing intelligence. I think the Patriot Act is the wrong approach to the problem, but I sure don't see him ducking the issue.

When things have gotten rough in Iraq, we haven't turned tail like the UN did when they were attacked. We made it clear that we would stay the course and see through what we started.

prevacation- To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie2. Had to look that one up. :) My vocabulary lesson for the day.

I've never seen a political administration which manages to be completely honest. However, Bush has been far, far more honest than Clinton, and far, far more honest than Kerry.

I sure don't always agree with the actions of Bush, but I think he's honestly a compasionate person who believes in trying to do what he feels is the right thing.

With Kerry, I can't tell what he believes in, because he keeps changing his stance on everything, and keeps trying to put words in other people's mouths. He's been caught in so many lies that I, and changed his stances on so many things that I have no ability to trust him.

He seems to lie as much as Clinton did, but he doesn't have either the chrisma to pull it off, or the history of making occasional stands for issues he truely felt were important even when they were unpopular.

You seem to have come to some very differnt conclusions than I have? Can you give me some examples of Bush's actions that support your feelings about him? Maybe we can both learn something today. :)

[Shooter 2.5]

Vote in such a way as to keep the dem party out of office. That's your number one priority as a gun owning American.

How hard is that? If you don't want gun control, you keep the gun grabbing dem party on the unemployment line.

[Bog]

Another statement on the pile:

While I feel that Bush and his cabinet are unsuited to the job, I have yet to find anyone more worth my vote. Which is d@mned irritating.

[Jim March]

Bog: we agree there.

Now let's talk options: are we going to be able to convince the Republicans to go with some other dude?

No.

Dubya is the incumbent. Can't change that.

Can we convince the Dems to STOP TRYING TO PUSH TOTALITARIAN LUNATICS?

Yup. We sure as hell can.

And unless we do, we won't get any of the choices like we wish like hell we had this year.

Dump Kerry this year, and in four years we'll be in a situation where both parties are decent on the gun issue and we can get on with debates on foreign policy, economics and the like.

Put him in, and we'll *never* have a chance to get to that place ever again.

[ThreadKiller]

Gosh, the US hasn't suffered an attack on our soil since 9/11. Somebody somewhere is doing something right. Isn't that obvious?

It seems like we've got people lined up the world over eagerly awaiting their turn to criticise Bush and Co. And while they offer much criticism, we hear very, very little for workable alternatives. I'd like to be privy to the information the critics have at their disposal. Then perhaps I'd be more likely to view their opinions as fact

As for me, I'm convinced that no POTUS would launch a pre-emptive strike against another country unless he had a damn good reason to do so. Not so close to the election cycle. Not with the high risk of uncontrollable and unforeseen consequences which cold lead to massive political damage. The fight will be what it wants to be, not what you want it to be. No one, no admin could plan for all contingencies.

Everybody thought Iraq had WMD's, even the Dems. Now, armed with superior powers of hindsight, they accuse Bush of lying.

Bush isn't perfect. Frankly I don't recall ever having the opportunity to vote for a perfect candidate. Do they even exist?

It's simple. I like my take home pay. I like my guns. I want to keep both. I'll vote for Bush. He's the only viable candidate for US gun owners.

Tim

[Bog]

Now let's talk options: are we going to be able to convince the Republicans to go with some other dude?

Jim,

Guess I don't see much of a choice. What it seems to boil down to is this:

An America that the rest of the world despises - but can't cross without nuking it into a shallow plain of black glass.

An America that the rest of the world despises - and is unarmed.

Did I miss something?

[Antlurz]

Did I miss something?

Well, when you make totally, absolutely, out of bounds, off the wall irresponsible statements like:

An America that the rest of the world despises - but can't cross without nuking it into a shallow plain of black glass.

..then yes. I would venture you missed more than "something"

Asking serious questions an expecting serious answers is made a bit troublesome when you make statements like that.

I wonder why it is that people still die almost every day in their quest to get here and get a good nipple to hang from?

I've decided you don't really want any answers.. Not when you make totally off the wall incoherent indefensible statements like that.

Ron

[Jim March]

Ron: he's exposed to Brit media. Cut him some slack.

Bog: that's about it, 'cept you're overstating the "rest of the world despises" bit.

Bog, I think there's a point you're not getting yet, and it goes something like this: sometimes the minority view is correct.

What I mean is, in Japan circa 1940, the vast majority of Japanese citizens thought that total mindless dedication to the Emperor was the right and proper thing. A small minority thought that was nuts.

Who was right?

In 1861, most American citizens thought blacks were an inferior subspecies. Go find and read Lincoln's first innaugeral address if you don't believe me. We now know this was nuts.

I could go on for...years. Sometimes ONE MAN knows the truth and everybody else believes lies, see also Gallileo and Copernicus and...well scads more.

The point is, if genuinely American ideals of personal freedom and responsibility are rare in the world, and the rest of the world (esp. the totalitarian-minded Islamo-Fascist world) "despises" us, get used to the idea that that may not be a bad thing.

Ditto the various Euro-weenies that think deliberate helplessness is somehow "sophisticated". It's not. It's idiocy, a collective mental illness found in cultures that have overstayed their relevence and are on the way out. (See also: fall of Rome, which happened when mercenary armies took over defense from armed citizen militias and the citizenry stopped caring about their own arms as weaponscraft was "barbaric" and fit only to be mocked in the arenas.)

OK?

It's REALLY normal for a teen to care a lot about what other people think...sometimes to excess. To be a proper adult voting citizen, you're going to have to start thinking about genuine morality and in some cases, to hell with what anybody thinks so long as you do the right thing to the best of your ability.

[MPFreeman]

The question should be,"What is right, good and true?" Not "What is Popular?"

It seems small to me if a grown man actually cares more about being popular and liked, verses being true, good and right.

In the world of the sheep pen, the sheep don't like the sheep dog because he looks like a wolf. But the sheep don't know that dog is their best and only defense. Meanwhile the sheep coddle and sympothize with the wolves in sheeps clothing. The sheep don't worry about the wolf, that is a job for the berated, unappreciated, filthy, and stupid dog. That is why the sheep disarm and event ways of comforting the flock.

[ThreadKiller]

Jim March, Antlurz and MPFreeman, excellent responses!!

Tim

[Bog]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

Antlurz, I apologise if it looks like I'm mud-slinging. I assure you, I'm not.

I think it's probably best if I read over all the material I've been handed a few times, and just quietly try to make the best decision I can - I asked for extra information that hadn't been run through the UK Spin Filters, and you guys have helped with that a lot.

Regarding adult behaviour: That's exactly my goal. To make an informed, rational decision rather than visceral voting, as it were.

Thanks again.

[mvpel]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-04-25-1.html

... the chief guru of our enemies, Osama bin Laden, holds as the first principle of making war on the U.S. that if you just draw enough blood, and keep it going on long enough, America will lose courage and go down to defeat. As proof, he could cite our withdrawals from Lebanon and Somalia after terrorist attacks there. President Bush really took the wind out of his sails for a while there. But now the American Left is doing its best to make Osama look absolutely right.

...In all likelihood, if he's elected [Kerry] would almost certainly adopt policies that would effectively end the war on terror well short of victory. We'd go right back to the bandaid approach to terrorism used by our previous presidents -- including Reagan and Bush Sr., as well as Clinton.

...If it was up to our military to decide between "war hero" Kerry and "slacker" Bush as their commander-in-chief, take a wild guess which they'd vote for. Like Lincoln, Bush had little real military experience. But, like Lincoln, he's able to lead a high-powered cabinet in conducting a difficult war with a relentless sense of purpose.

If we win this thing and make not just America, but the whole ungrateful world safer from organized Muslim terrorism, it'll be because we had the sense to vote only for candidates who promised to prosecute the war until we achieve victory.

Tragically, there's only one such candidate in this election.