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

[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.

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]

Orson Scott Card (a Democrat) on this question

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.