Okay... so I'm voting this year.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bog

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
145
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?
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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?
 
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."
 
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.
 
"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:
 
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,

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. :(
 
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.
 
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?
 
"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
 
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
 
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.
 
*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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top