Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

With the election coming less than two months away let's see who the CoN community would elect for president. We've seen what the candidates stand for and why they think they should run the United States. Feel free to explain why you think a certain candidate would be better than the others but at the same time respect other peoples' opposing viewpoints. It would probably be best to put democratic and republican biases aside if possible.

I think George W. Bush should continue to be president because he has the leadership skills needed to run this nation. Pre-emptive combat against the world's most potential hosts of powerful terrorist groups is the way to go. You really can't be passive when it comes to protecting the nation against extremists who devote their lives to attacking America. Sure we don't want to be in a war but we can't fool ourselves into thinking there is no war. Clearly there is, and 9/11 is the best homeland representation of that reality. At this critical point in American history I don't think we should be switching presidents. George Bush already knows what it's like to run this nation during a time of crisis and I think those tough experiences have strengthened him a great deal.

John Kerry seems to be standing on a weak foundation by relying on his war experience so much in an attempt to get into the White House. He's even gone as far as to say that you can't criticize his voting record if you didn't serve in the military. It just shows how childish and defensive this guy can be, and it's a sign of weakness. Does this guy really have what it takes to lead this country during tough times? I don't think so.

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

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

Quote (i90east @ 13th September 2004 21:34)

Feel free to explain why you think a certain candidate would be better than the others but at the same time respect other peoples' opposing viewpoints.

I'm going to emphasize this. If this topic goes sour, then the poll will remain open but the post will not be accepting any more replies.

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

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

hmm, I feel that the republicans offer the best canidate for the limited choice of people to vote for. Kerry seems unreliable, Bush is....Bush

However Nader seems to be the worst of call if it is true that he is an anarcho-Capitalist. I can't stand anarcho-capitalists.

I don't think I will vote, and if I do it will be for bush because he's the best thing I feel is offered out of the limited choices.

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

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

I personally feel that our current President should have lost his presidancy a long time ago.

The man lied to us, guaranteed us that Iraq had WMDs, and that because so Iraq was a grave threat to our nation. And so we rush into war only to find that there were no WMDs, that Saddam's great, secret operation that he had been keeping UN inspectors from was actually an attempt to gain weapons with a great enough range to protect himself. And now we're billions in debt trying to rebuild this country that we messed up with minimal support from the UN and other countries.

Clinton was impeached because he got some from a secretary and lied about it.

Sure, we got Saddam out of there. That's good enough for the country, if it ever gets back on its feet. But we have no support in rebuilding the country because we acted against the wishes of the UN.

Had we not rushed into this conflict, or approached the UN on the grounds of taking an evil dictator out of power, would we be in the same boat? I don't think so.

As a 19 year old, this is my first year of being elligible to vote. It really sucks that it's come down to Kerry and Bush, as there were like 6 democrats I liked better than Kerry. This is not a vote I'm going to be excited about. Here's why.

Dubya needs to be removed from office. Period. While I'm not going to slander anyone who cares for him, I will NEVER vote for someone whose values so strongly oppose mine, especially because he is so adamant in all his stances. In this regard, I wish Kerry would win the election. Think of it as 4 years with a leader doing things I don't want or 4 years of nothing at all happening. Because that's what Kerry, the other end of this craziness, will do as leader: absolutely nothing. He is so moderate about absolutley everything, and he will never take a strong stance on any issue. While 4 years of nothing is not an interesting proposition, it beats the crap out of 4 more years of serious regression in the civil liberties department.

Despite all this, or perhaps because of this, my vote this November will be for Nadar. Consider two things: 1) I live in Georgia, which will under no circumstances swing Kerry's way, so a vote for Kerry is as much a "wasted vote" as many consider a vote for Nadar to be, and 2) A vote for Nadar, while not a vote for a legitimate candidate, is in no way a wasted vote. When democrats decide how moderate to be when campaining for the 2008 election, they're going to look at how many votes Nadar recieved this year. The ultimate goal of Nadar is not to win the election; rather, it is to try to send a messege to the democrats of America: start acting like democrats. There were so many democratic candidates this year that could just have easily put an ® by their name, and that's not good. There needs to be a clear alternative to the current administation, and to republicans in general. As republicans begin to get less moderate (anti-gay ammendments, crazy tax cuts, and wars on concepts), democrats need to become less moderate on the other side of the coin. Ironically, it is a non-democrat (Nadar) who has the best chance of stirring up such a change.

I hate that my first vote ever (besides the primaries) is for a candidate who I know has no chance to win, but my reasoning is firm, as is my inability to force myself to vote for the main two candidates.

What Soup said.

I can't respect or trust anyone who would lie like that. And if he didn't lie on purpose then I think Iraq and the people of America have one hell of an apology coming. Like thats going to happen.

The best defense I've heard for Bush is that he has good leadership skills and he is decisive and takes action. Personally I think his leadership skills suck because of the way he started this war. He says they've got WMDs then once its discovered they don't he starts saying we shot up Iraq because they had the "potential" to make WMDs. A lot of countries with nasty guys ruling them have that potential. His decisiveness is what made this mess.

This guy doesn't do anything for education or the environment in this country. And he has alienated us from our allies with those great leadership skills.

"Kerry is a war hero". Big deal you might say, and I agree to a point, but he knows what war is like and he isn't going to jump unthinking into something that is going to get a bunch of people killed. I don't give a rats ass about his purple hearts, its his experience.

Bush has proven, by his actions, to be a bad president. So I'm casting my vote in hopes to change this country for the better. Getting Bush out of office would be a terrific start.

This post has been edited by Rujuken on 14th September 2004 06:02

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

-- You're Gonna Carry That Weight --

A couple of thoughts...

If you choose not to vote, you have no right to bitch about how bad the country is.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

I don't give a damn if you were in the Air National Guard, or if you won three Purple Hearts. Get up, tell me where you stand on things, and let me make my decision.

I don't want to hear about your religeous preferences. If you think your faith moves me to vote for you, consider this: I'd rather have an intelligent, insightful, capable leader in the White House than an incompetent buffoon who says he prays every day and is in church all the time.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for mediocrity!

A vote for Bush is a vote for rich imbeciles everywhere.

I don't give a shit about the presidential candidates' wives. I don't care that Teresa Kerry-Heinz has stock in Heinz Ketchup. (only a 4% shareholder, though... not this corporate fat cat that the media makes her out to be) I don't care that Laura Bush reads to disadvantaged kids and goes as an emmissary to France. Unless you're Bill Clinton, your wife doesn't share the seat of the presidency with you.

If you're old enough to vote and don't, monkeys will poop in your mouth while you sleep.

This post has been edited by Hamedo on 14th September 2004 12:21

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

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

First of all, this is not a flame, just the other side of this issue.

Quote (Hamedo @ 14th September 2004 07:17)

If you're old enough to vote and don't, monkeys will poop in your mouth while you sleep.

I know a few people who don't often vote, because they refuse to go along with the voting for the "lesser evils" ideal. That seems perfectly valid to me. If for some reason voting for any of the candidates seems immoral to you, then don't. Just as this CoN poll has a null vote, so does a real election. ...but do try your best to vote and make a difference!

People do have a right to complain about their country, even if they didn't vote. Not voting is a choice and it does affect the election. It's not fair to tell somebody who pays taxes and who made a choice (none of the above), that they cannot complain.

Again, do TRY to vote for somebody if you can, but if you cannot make yourself decide because you are too morally opposed to them all, then don't feel bad about it. You made a moral decision and your decisions are important, just like everyone else's.

In any case, I'm not even a member of your fine country. I wish you all good luck with your choices!

This post has been edited by Endless Knight on 14th September 2004 12:52

I'm with Soup and Hamedo on this one...well, maybe not about the monkey poop thing - I kinda agree with Endless Knight there.

Anyhoo, Dubya has happily screwed up so much that I can't believe he hasn't been impeached yet. Clinton was for something that didn't even hurt the people, yet Bush gets off scot-free (which of course has a lot to do with the GOP invading almost every inch of congress, but I digress). It seems obvious he takes a stance on many issues not because he gives a damn about what the outcome will be, but because he knows it will make him look better to the rich and/or religious crowd(s). He spouts empty promises when they concern anyone middle-class or below; he denies his own wrongdoings despite the fact that the average Joe could prove him wrong by skimming through his quotes in an article of last week's newspaper; he stated himself that he never even watches the news nor reads magazines/newspapers, and you know his advisors sugarcoat anything "negative" to the point where he remains oblivious to the world (and I just can't rely on someone who has so little respect for their presidency that they don't even pay attention to the big picture), and, of course, there's his neverending string of blatant lies. Not just the WMDs issue, but the whole Iraq/Al Qaeda fiasco as well. Why oh why would a terrorist organization and a country who hate each other with a passion be allied? Hell, Saudi Arabia funds terrorists and I've yet to see the US wage war on them. It's sickening, really.

As for a strong leader, well, to me "George W. Bush" and "leader" come off as an oxymoron. All he's really proven is that he can resort to childish schoolyard bullying to get his way, and his "way" isn't exactly the best thing to behold. He hasn't kept anyone safer; terrorist activity has only seemed to increase around the world. The war which had no basis (known to some as "Vietnam II") turned out to be an embarrassment. Sure, they caught Saddam and made more enemies, whoo. When did the US become the International Police anyway? I thought there was already one of those. Now, I don't want to sound cold, but isn't a Presidents first priority to take care of his OWN country? Yeah, yeah, he said Iraq would bomb us...with bombs they didn't even have. He can't blame it all on false intelligence: I distinctly remember him and Cheney being the most adament about going to war from the get-go. Sure, leave education in shambles, refuse to help those poverty-stricken, deny the elderly affordable medicine, but dammit, but sure to wipe out those suicide bombers half a world away!

Honestly, I don't like John Kerry either, but he's most definitely the lesser of two evils. Voting for Nadar, I'm afraid, won't do much good. I'm aware that's widely known, but think of it this way: Would you rather make a "statement" by voting for a guy who has no chance and possibly end up with another four years of Hell, or just vote for someone who DOES have a chance and at least see things move in a better direction even if it isn't perfect? The environment's only going to get worse (thanks in part to Bush's disbelief in anything related to global warming), taxes are only going to go up, the economy and job market will only continue to plummet, and the rest of the world will only fill with more hatred towards the US to the point where it loses a boatload of what allies it has left.

I short, I'm voting for Kerry. He does stand behind many issues I find important and comes off as a much more capable leader. I think he can clean up a lot of the mess there is now and maybe get the country rolling again. It may not be much, but he's good enough to be at least mediocre.

(NOTE: I'm not trying to insult anyone who supports Bush or their views, I just wanted to state my opinion)

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

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

I was sort of hoping for a "None of the above" selection, too. Being Canadian, I don't know everything about these politicians, but from what I do know, it makes me hesitant to say that I'd want any of them to be president.

Of course, we only really get the gossip and the media's version of how these politicians are. So I "know" that Nader won't get elected, he just absorbs votes that would otherwise go to one of the other two, and I "know" that Bush isn't someone that I would like as president for any longer. I don't know too much about Kerry, but he seems to be better than Bush, to me.

--"Pre-emptive combat against the world's most potential hosts of powerful terrorist groups is the way to go. You really can't be passive when it comes to protecting the nation against extremists who devote their lives to attacking America. Sure we don't want to be in a war but we can't fool ourselves into thinking there is no war." (Quote from i90, written like this because I don't want to use the quote code)

I have a question about this, i90. For a pre-emptive attack, isn't there a chance that America would be wrong? What if the information was wrong, or America attacks an innocent nation, or kills innocent people by the thousands just to get to one man? I personally don't think anyone should have a right to attack someone pre-emptively like that. If, for example, China suddenly felt threatened by the US and heard through intelligence that they were next for an attack, and China attacked us just in case, would the US look at that with understanding as a pre-emptive attack? Would the government say "Oh, it's okay, you thought we were going to attack. It's understandable." ?

I don't want this to get into a huge debate, but I wanted to bring this up. Does the US want someone who thinks pre-emptive attacks are a good idea?

This post has been edited by Elena99 on 14th September 2004 16:21

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

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

With the Netherlands being generally more 'commie' then Canada, I agree with Elena. With the current Democrats edging towards the Republican side more and more (obvioulsy hoping to adopt the same image of 'strength' concerning terrorrism yet only seeming half-assed and weak concerning opinions) it seems that either way is not going to change a whole lot.

However, Bush has sat for four years, and in these four years the US suffered a dramatic popularity decrease across the world, and the face of this new way of doing things is George W. Bush. Even if Kerry is a weak leader, he still is not Bush, which would help greatly. Bush is the face of the "New, Bad America"....replacing him should grant America more of the benefit of the doubt.

Should I have been a US citizen, my vote would have gone to Kerry. The history books will talk about his war and our grandchildren will wonder why the world put up with a president who lied about safety to gain support for a war he wanted for cloudy reasons. In my opinion, four years was more then enough.

This post has been edited by Djibriel on 14th September 2004 16:28

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

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

I'm with Hamedo when it comes to everything else too. It sickens me to see this "holier than thou" crap with regard to their military service. I would rather see them tackle the foreign issues and the economy. I don't see how wives should factor much into things. They're voting for the president, not the wives.

Someday I would love to see a female president and how she handled running the USA. It's about time.

I think we need to elect a hot president. No Hillary Clinton's or CondoSLEAZa Rice's.... I'm talking beauty and brains.

Think.... Julia Roberts.

Or Elena99, if we can get her naturalized.

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

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Elena99 @ 14th September 2004 11:13)

I have a question about this, i90. For a pre-emptive attack, isn't there a chance that America would be wrong? What if the information was wrong, or America attacks an innocent nation, or kills innocent people by the thousands just to get to one man?

That is a good point. Something like 10k Iraqi civilians have been killed and about a thousand US troops. And for what? To protect our country from a non-existent threat? If Bush wanted Saddam so bad couldn't he get some Secret Service Assassins or something? Or perhaps deal with it some other way? But instead he misled and/or lied to the country and made this mess. He had his chance (though I think he shouldn't have even gotten that) and he royally screwed it up. Time to give him the boot.

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

-- You're Gonna Carry That Weight --

Quote

I have a question about this, i90. For a pre-emptive attack, isn't there a chance that America would be wrong? What if the information was wrong, or America attacks an innocent nation, or kills innocent people by the thousands just to get to one man? I personally don't think anyone should have a right to attack someone pre-emptively like that.

Good point. When you put it that way, it almost seems like (or at least what many people would consider it nowadays)...terrorism. If a pre-emptive attack with no basis on the US can be referred to as such, why can't the act of the US government doing the same? Maybe not in every way, but it's definitely a "do as I say, not as I do" kinda deal. Also, the way Bush tries to scare people into believing they're constantly in danger as a way to win votes. Sounds to me like he himself is using "terror" to his advantage.

Oh, the irony...

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

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

i think we're pretty much screwed no matter what path we take. Bush might be the better choice for now. i don't like him, but i detest Kerry.

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

moé in the streets, senpai in the sheets

Quote (Elena99)

I have a question about this, i90. For a pre-emptive attack, isn't there a chance that America would be wrong? What if the information was wrong, or America attacks an innocent nation, or kills innocent people by the thousands just to get to one man? I personally don't think anyone should have a right to attack someone pre-emptively like that. If, for example, China suddenly felt threatened by the US and heard through intelligence that they were next for an attack, and China attacked us just in case, would the US look at that with understanding as a pre-emptive attack? Would the government say "Oh, it's okay, you thought we were going to attack. It's understandable." ?

Consider this situation: Saddam, a powerful madman with a history of using biological and chemical weapons, who kills thousands of his own people says he has no weapons of mass destruction. Without knowing whether or not he does have them, do you trust him? He denies weapons inspectors from looking at his weapon sites without announcing what his intentions are. Do you still trust him? Do you risk losing a few thousand people to get rid of him or risk losing millions here in the United States due to an attack involving weapons of mass destruction? Either way you go you're taking a risk. Bush may look bad because he lost out on the deal with Iraq, but in my opinion he was honestly doing the best he could to keep this country safe. After seeing how vulnerable this country is to madmen we couldn't take any chances with Saddam.

How would Kerry supposedly fix our country if he became president?



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

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

Quote

How would Kerry supposedly fix our country if he became president?

Kerry would make us learn Arabic and convert us to Islam.

Just kidding.

I agree with i90east on this issue, even though I live in NYC (a very liberal place). Bush shuold be the one that shold get elected because he would be a better leader than Kerry. He knows what he wants to do. He attacks deranged madmen before they attack us. He tries his best to protect us and keep us safe. On the other hand, we have Kerry. Whenever I listen to him or stuff about him, its always, "my war record this" or "my war record that". He tries to make us think of him as some sort of war hero. But this sounds fishy, because he refuses to release his war records even though Bush already did. Another thing about Kerry is that he doesn't know what he wants. He keeps on changing his mind on things. One day he says that he wants this, but the next he says he wants that. I do not want an indecisive man to be the leader of my country. At least Bush knows what he wants.

About the WMDs: So what if we didn't find WMDs in Iraq? Saddam was an absolute dictator. He could have made his people do anything to the weapons. Remember the fact that Saddam used to use chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He also had a nuclear program going on. A few more years in power and he might have nuked us, or sold the nukes to Osama. Also, Saddam had months before the US attacked. He could have either destroyed the weapons, or smuggled them out of Iraq.

This post has been edited by eternalsphere on 15th September 2004 00:57

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

Music is a mysterious thing... Sometimes, it makes people remember things that they do not expect. Many thoughts, feelings, memories... things almost forgotten... Regardless of whether the listener desires to remember them or not...

- Shitan, Xenogears

I don't think it's so much that Kerry would help things so much as he would stop hurting things.

Terrible as it sounds, Saddam killing people in his own country is not the U.S.'s business. If we want to try to push the United Nations to act, then by all means, that's something we could have done. But it is not our right as a country to just superceede the wishes of the governing body to which we belong. Bush doesn't get to decide what would be best for the world. He doesn't get to decide that the U.N. isn't acting appropriatly, or else he becomes a vigilante, much the same as he accused Saddam of being. I don't think he's very good at history. Yes, we're the most powerful nation in the world right now. But even the most dominant of empires never last more than a century or two. And those that act like assholes while they are at the top end up falling a lot harder, and the U.S. is certainly acting like an asshole now.

Another issue that sort of bothers me (and though this may seem like a rant against you, i90, I swear it isn't; the "you"s are not reffering to you, just the masses in general) is people that suggest we are "vulnerable to attacks." We've been hit on American soil by foreign terrorists a grand total of twice in our entire history. And if you think anyone is going to hit us within the next 10 years, you are sorely mistaken. We have entire cabinets dedicated solely to preventing such acts, and everyone in the world knows that the U.S. will destroy your country if you are even loosely affiliated with any attack on America (or hell, even if you aren't). We are not vulnerable to anything. But if we keep acting like pompous bullies who think we own the world, terrorists will keep getting gutsy enough to try anyway.

Edit

I just noticed somthing ironic - i90s response to Elena's fictitious scenario. If China did through some intelligence find out that they're next in line, they would be 100% justified by American logic in launching a "pre-emptive strike". i90s entire response fits almost word for word.
Consider the situation: a powerful madman who kills thousands of innocent Iraqis who he claims to be liberating. Would you trust him? He makes up a story about WMDs as an excuse for invading, then offers no apology, feelings of regret, or even a lame excuse when it is proven false. Would you still trust him?

This post has been edited by io_rage on 15th September 2004 01:09

I, instead of flying off on the already present tanget, am going to state my reasons for picking Ralph Nader. Yes he might be taking away from John Kerry who many people associate with as the - Lesser of two evils- but I submit that there are more than two choices. Thats one of the biggest problems i have with america is the lack of 3rd party coverage and attention. I had to watch CSPAN to catch poor little Ralphs reform party speech, whereas Bush and Kerry got primetime spots on Huge Networks. That irritates the hell out of me. I choose Nader because, quite frankly, he just isn't as full fo shit as bush and kerry. Hes a small time politician who cares for the people above all. He wants us to benifit. The working man. The little middle and lower class people who can't make endsmeet in a republican america. He also wants to pull out of iraq. Nader is a canidate for the people. He looks out for the little guy and not the lobbyists. Its sad that we live in a two party government but thats how it is because washington is run by them. I just want Nader to win. Though it won't happen. I might vote for nader, but in the end i can hope its going to be kerry over bush. I'm a liberal and proud of it. But i'm not getting into any debates.

Edit

I just found something that sums up my arguement

Quote

Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

~Jerry Garcia

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 17th September 2004 02:44

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

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (io_rage)

Saddam killing people in his own country is not the U.S.'s business.

It's an indication of his disregard for human life and promotes his "madman" title. Anyone with any kind of power who directly kills thousands of people should be of great concern to the world.

Quote (io_rage)

He makes up a story about WMDs as an excuse for invading, then offers no apology, feelings of regret, or even a lame excuse when it is proven false.

That's your interpretation, not an absolute fact as to what happened. I don't believe he made up anything for any excuse... that's my interpretation.

This post has been edited by i90east on 15th September 2004 01:30

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

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

EDIT:
Should be taken to PM, and is.

This post has been edited by Soup on 15th September 2004 02:02

I like how this thread has spiraled off already. Shall we try to fix it overnight or close it now?

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

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

I think its a simple case of under Bush the US has lost alot of it credibility and the economy went down the toilet fast. And face it Bush didn't catch Bin Laden and there is too much distrust. In four more years what sort of chaos could occur. Even though Kerry is not the best choice, to chance the downward spiral and atleast stop the Bush administration a vote for Kerry is a vote for change.

Let's all respond in this manner so Rangers and Tiddles don't close the thread. (no that doesn't mean having my opinion )

Definitely Kerry. I was hoping Edwards would win the Primary, but at least he's the running mate. Since Kerry's policy is not that different from Edward's one that seemed to me so sensible for the country, I don't look at Kerry as the "lesser of two evils;" I just think he'd do his job a tad less well than would Edwards.

The specifics of the candidates' selling points - you guys know, so I don't even care to debate them.

This post has been edited by Ejoty on 15th September 2004 03:35

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

Get me off this Disciplinary Committee so I can play any FF except for FF8!!!

I voted Kerry. Like Ejoty, I was rooting for Edwards in the primaries.

To begin my rant:

Just the other day the ban on assault rifles expired. Bush could've at least promoted the ban, but he caters to the NRA. (Kerry hunts, but he doesn't approve of assault rifles; he sure has a tough stance, doesn't he?)

One of the first things Bush did when he took office was sign a $1.3 million dollar tax cut. Gotta support Kerry, knowing he won't do that.

Of course, the economy isn't nearly as good as the administration portrays it. And so mortgage rates are very high? They were very high when Bush took office.

Iraq. The justification was false, that much can't be denied. Capturing Saddam didn't stop terrorism, which also can't be denied. Over 1,000 U.S. troops have died, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have, and hundreds of billions (I seem to remember an $87 billion figure...too bad that didn't work out) of dollars have been spent.

I don't care how "decisive" and "steady" Bush's decisions are in such times. A "steady" decision doesn't necessarily make it a good one.

And so you can see that Bush is the "lesser of the two evils". I don't really consider Kerry bad though. We haven't seen him in action yet (we just know he's not a very good campaigner). We have seen Bush though, and he certainly doesn't deserve another 4 years based on the majority of his actions.

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

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

George W. Bush......

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

"Isn't ramza a girls name?" -me

i havent changed my avatar or anything in a long time! time for a change yall!

Quote (RacistAgainstChocobos @ 15th September 2004 19:07)

George W. Bush......

he's good in leadership, but Kerry pretty much the one who just changes the economy...
we're not loosing the war because of Bush....but he makes big sacrafices...
but we need a good economy too that's for Kerry...

Hamedo's right...everyone just shows what they're doing that's a good cause, but they aren't even getting to the point...

This post has been edited by Dragon Lancer on 16th September 2004 01:04

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

Auron might be good, but I'm better...=p*

My first visits....:
*Returning from home-Returner
*Trying to find a Cactuar Costume for Halloween-Cactuar
*Treasure hunting for more shiny things, & candy-Treasure Hunter

Current Location:
*Crusading hell, I want to assasinate Satan but don't tell him what my plan is okay....?-Crusader

I'm going to vote for Bush.
The main reason is I at least knows what he stands for (and that he actually stands for something). Kerry is only a moderate in the sense that his voting record cancels itself out. Kerry has given no indication to what he stands for, if anything.
I'd rather somthing happen than nothing.

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

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

I agree with the above