Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Plea from a European Friend

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Nick_90, Nov 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nick_90

    Nick_90 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Geneva
    Dear American Friends,

    I have no particular tie with the US except that, as a Swiss citizen, I think both our countries share the values of armed freedom, democracy and determination to remain free against all ods.

    I know most Europeans, disinformed by the media, are hoping for a Kerry victory. I myself are not.

    I think you should reelect President Bush if only because he is the only candidate ready to stand up a against tyranny and evil. I do not agree with all his policies but I think that this time, the war on terror should supersede all other considerations... This time it is not "about the economy, stupid" but about freedom and peace.

    I would hate to see the ennemies of Amercia rejoicing tomorrow: so get out to vote and give Mr Bush another four years...

    Thank you and good luck!

    Nicholas
     
  2. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    Nick:
    WILCO.
    Out

    TC
    TFL Survivor
     
  3. Nick_90

    Nick_90 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Geneva
    I beg your pardon, I haven't understood your post...
     
  4. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Nick, that's somewhat overly simplistic. There are other candidates who are much stronger on preserving liberty than Bush. In fact, Bush is almost as bad as Kerry in that regard. It is really a choice between two evils, if you limit yourself to these two. In some states, the wisest vote would be for a third party candidate. Only residents of the so called battleground states would be wise to vote for Bush over either the Libertarian or US Constitution Party candidate. That said, there is no state in which it would be wise to vote for Kerry, who is the worst of two evils.
     
  5. KRAUTGUNNER

    KRAUTGUNNER Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    255
    Leatherneck says, that he will vote for Dubya. What more can he do?!? ;) :cool:
     
  6. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Look up the term WILCO. It means he agrees with you.
     
  7. Akurat

    Akurat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    AZ
    No, Hawkeye. The race is between two men, just like a football game is between two teams. If Miami and New York are out on the field, who are you going to pick? Just as a fan at the game, you have the ability to influence the outcome of this game. Your entire future and your children's future depends on the outcome of this game. Your rights and the preservation of the only truly free country in the world depends on the outcome of this game.

    Sure the rules didn't specify that you couldn't pick Seattle, but what the hell would you do that for? They're not even playing this week. This means you (read: we) lose no matter what.

    Pick a team, folks, but make sure they're in the stadium.
     
  8. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    Hawkeye is correct.

    The two party system in this country is broken. Or, perhaps more accurately, the country is broken as a result of the dominant nature of the two party system and its ability to stifle meaningful debate.

    Sunday a friend from Massachusetss was in town with his wife to visit his elderly mother. My wife and I stopped in to say hello. My friend's wife is Turkish and is only just initiating the citizenship process. She was lamenting the fact that she can't vote for Kerry. I asked her why she might want to vote for a proven liar, and her response was enlightening ... and frightening.

    First, she would vote for Kerry because she dislikes Bush. Okay. That much fits my overall perception of this election. Few people are actually voting FOR anyone. Everyone is voting AGAINST someone. That in itself is a scathing condemnation of our entire system.

    But my friend's Turkish wife then went on to say that she knows Kerry is lying to us, but it's okay "because that's just how the game is played." She seems to think it's perfectly acceptable for a candidate to lie in order to get elected, because once elected his "core values" will kick in and he'll act in an enlightened way for the betterment of us all.

    I don't happen to agree with her that Kerry has any core values, but the real problem is that she probably represents a whole bunch of people who are so morally relativistic that they actually see nothing wrong with a candidate lying in order to get elected.

    I asked her if it might not be better for the candidates to actually tell us the truth so WE could decide which way we want the government and the country to go. She got that deer-in-the-headlights look and never really answered the question.

    I'm glad she can't vote.

    But Massachusetts is a foregone conclusion. They are going to Kerry, so if I lived in MA my vote would not be watsed if I cast it for a third, fourth, or fifth party candidate. It would not affect the electoral college outcome, buit it WOULD add another tally in the "neither of the above" column to help demonstrrate that people are fed up with the two major parties.

    That's why, if you live in a state that you know is going one way or the other, it is better to vote for some other candidate. Just to send the message that the two-party system is broken.
     
  9. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Nick, I feel there are a lot of people like you. They just don't get the press time that the pro-Kerry people do.

    My vote is already sent out. I whole-heartedly disagree that the two-party system has been broken. Maybe at the local level, but definitely not at the national level. There are two people running for President this year. Since I'm here, I assume you know who is getting my vote.
     
  10. Nick_90

    Nick_90 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Geneva
    Furious Styles: your French spelling is fine! Merci...
     
  11. Dave R

    Dave R Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,628
    Location:
    Idaho
    Nick, thank you for sharing your views with us.

    I will certainly vote for Mr. Bush.

    And we all appreciate your support for aremd freedom, and determination to remain free at all odds.
     
  12. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    Leatherneck said message acknowledged and he will perform as requested.

    So will I.
     
  13. Atticus

    Atticus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Ohio
    You got it Nick 90....Roger (understood) Wilco (will comply).


    " The origin of this phrase, which means "Yes, O.K., I understand you" dates back to the earliest days of wireless communication, when the Morse code letter R (dit-dah-dit) was used to indicate "O.K.--understood." As communications advanced to include voice capabilities, the military alpha code (Able, Baker, Charlie, etc.) was used as a logical extension of such single character responses. R=Roger=understood.

    Of course, you always hear "Roger, Wilco, Over and Out" in terse military dramas. The additional verbiage means (Wilco) "Will Comply", (Over) "Message Complete--Reply Expected", and (Out) "Message Complete--No Reply Expected"."
     
  14. Adam

    Adam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Rockies
    Poland is one of three countries in the World (the only one in Europe)where in simulated elections Kerry lost his race to The White House incumbent. Go President Bush! We are with you. Good luck.

    Freedom isn't free, peace isn't pretty...
     
  15. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    :scrutiny: Um .... er ... OK, I'm voting for Bush tomorrow, but that's a false analogy. The race is between how many people are on the ballot.
     
  16. TooTaxed

    TooTaxed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Columbus, Georgia
    Our Swiss friend's post is right on target. Our national and international security has to be the over-ridingly important issue in this election...we can handle economic issues during the next Congress.

    Each main candidate's strategy is completely different. Bush's strategy is to push the terrorists hard internationally where and when discovered...no safe sanctuary; those nations who aid terrorists are our enemies. Kerry's strategy to try to gain an uninterested Europe's support would allow time and sanctuarys to permit the terrorists to regroup, set up new training camps, regain resources including nuclear equipment, and plan new attacks. I would hate to see my grandson have to go into Iraq a third time...and likely other countries also.

    Note that Bush's strategy has taken Iraq, Libya and Pakistan off the potential terrorist sanctuary list, and Iran is at bay...for any nation to permit terrorist training camps invites American action. That is certainly the best strategy, and one that is working.
     
  17. fish2xs

    fish2xs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    Nick_90,

    it must be lonely on your side of the pond. Do you consider yourself in the vast minority? I will gladly heed your request.


    As far as 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates go, I will have to disagree with the pack here. In a 2 party system, political change is slow. However, this is usually good socially and economically. Imagine what would happen to small businesses, the backbone of our GDP, with radical policy changes.

    For Example: I too was sucked in by the Ross Perot effect. That was a 3 party election and look what it got us? The only way Perot's ideas could change things politically would be if he continued to run, election after election, and forced the R's to start adopting some of his platform to begin winning voters - this could take > 1 lifetime.

    Also, with a multiparty system, imagine a ticket where the following candidates are running:

    Michael Moore
    Joe Lieberman
    A DNA clone of Ron Reagan
    John McCain
    Jeb Bush

    2 days before the election, Michael Moore activists sneak past airport security and pack the front storage bays of the Lieberman campaign jet with mayonaise. His plane can't lift off -it crashes on takeoff killing all on board.

    Moore wins.

    2 party system may not be great, but I contend that it is better than a multiparty system we see in many banana republics.

    2 party may suck - but it sucks less.

    I am a republican for practical reasons, not because I love the overall platform.
     
  18. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    :confused:
     
  19. fish2xs

    fish2xs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    as the number of parties increase two things happen

    1. the probability that you will find a 'hand in glove' candidate increases, but
    2. the probability of a 'lunatic fringe' candidate winning (ie moore) also increases

    i'll take my chances w/ 2 party
     
  20. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    BTW, Nick_90, welcome to The High Road and thanks for your comments on our election. Our old line media is woefully inadequate in reporting on attitudes in Europe.

    My 2 cents. I get the biggest kick out of bellyaching about the two party system. It has served us just fine from day one. It seems to me the more we become enamoured with democracy the greater our longing for multiple parties.

    Reality is the two parties suck right now because we let it suck. Every two years (read that: every two effin' years) we the voter can shut down all the garbage and nonsense oozing from Washington. Every two years the entire house of representatives is on the block. Every two years 1/3 of the senate is on the same block. If we really wanted to shake things up we could easily put this entire government into a tailspin. It takes getting mad and deciding not to take it any longer. It takes accepting the fact that the two parties are not democrats and spinelessrepublicans but instead Incumbants and Challengers.

    I don't think additional parties will solve any perceived problems. I do think throwing out bums will help. The only problem is we tend to want to throw out the other guy's bum. Our own bum is doing just fine.
     
  21. WEPS

    WEPS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Location:
    NUNYA
    im voting for dubya, to hell with kerry and his goons.
     
  22. WEPS

    WEPS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Location:
    NUNYA
    spineless republicans???? it was the democrat that let the cole get bommed and did nothing in return. it was the democrat who dodged the draft and the resposibilty to his country only to be elected president by and ignorant country. it was the democrat who did nothing when the trade center was hit the first time. when the trade center was hit for a second time, it was the republican who bloodied the nose of our attackers and brought two countries to their knees. nuff said
     
  23. RevDisk

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Sorry, but I don't feel Bush is any better than Kerry at the core. Gun issues, yea. Bush is better in that he's not really anti-gun, nor is he pro-gun. I simply see two slimy politicians I wouldn't let in my house.
     
  24. pbman

    pbman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    OK.
    Thanks NIck.

    Glad to see a few of you can still think for yourself.
     
  25. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    east Texas
    Thanks Nick and Adam and Krautgunner, I did my part in Bush's (apparent) win anyway.

    It's nice to know we still have friends in Europe, even if the political climate over there is more heavily tilted towards the other side of the political spectrum.

    It's posts like this that remind me we shouldn't engage in the "They're all a bunch of idiots" mentality despite any given country having a plurality of people whom you disagree with.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page