might go democratic?

ok im sure im one of the few republicans who post/visit this forum and i was just recently watching a news report on all of the politics going on and stuff, and i just realized that wow maybe bush isnt really that great, although even if i do decide to change parties i am still 100% behind him on going to iraq and republican views on gun laws etc, i dont think that will ever change for me, but anyways im relating more to wat bush is doing here in america that got my attention more then iraq, but anyways if you can tell mesome major reasons why i should support kerry and change to democratic then i mite change my support of parties

 

Haha the light shines at the end of the tunnel!

I think you should just look over the "Five Reasons why Kerry should be elected..." thread, it's pretty much talking about what you're asking.

 

Well... Bush is very spendthrift. You've heard about 'tax and spend democrats' well, bush is like that only without the tax part.
Bush makes grandoise promesises on social issues, but silently cuts funding, the 15,000,000,000 he promised african nations to combat AIDS never showed up, his 'no child left behind' act is grossly underfunded.
Bush is deceptive, his medicare bill, of which he claims would cut spending and lower the cost of medicine for the elderly has been quite the reverse.
Bush has a very bad track record for civil liberties, with the two patiriot acts he has essentially given the government 'big brother' status, and while he claims it is a vital tool for stopping terrorism it is almost always used for other crimes.
He supports a ban on gay marrage, while running on the old slogan 'getting government off our backs' he is trying to get government in our pants.
CBS is getting fined 500,000 dollars for one boob, while foxnews showed a picture of people having sex, i.e. a penis pentrating, and nothing has been said about it.
The Afghan war has been largely forgotten and ignored by the bush adminstration, the new government he is always boasting about extends to about 20 miles around Kabul, the capital. In the hills and villages 'the northern allaince' (i.e. warlords) are commiting daily atrocites, while terrorists and the taliban are operating with impunity.
Whatever your feelings on the Iraq war, it is certain now that it could have gone alot better if bush had been able to build a credible alliance instead of bribing countries to get on an inflated list.

 

well i have no doubt thigns coulda and shoulda gone much smoother in the iraq war, but i still believe something had to be done to get sadam outa power and capture bin laden (even though that hasnt been done yet..)

 

Well, as has been argued frequently, the theory that Saddam had close ties with al-Qaeda is pretty dubious and ill-supported, and at any rate, if there were any, they sure don't seem to have been substantial. And thinking that invading Iraq would somehow lead to the capture of Osama is pretty shaky, it's not like he would've been hiding in Iraq (Osama very likely hates the secular Saddam anyway). The Iraq invasion really had little to do with battling al-Qaeda.

 

see, that's the thing, don't confuse saddam with bin laden, saddam was a douche bag, bin laden is a shit-bag.
Saddam didn't attack america, bin laden did.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the largest foreign attack on U.S. soil,bin laden did.
Saddam had no plans to attack america, Bin Laden is still planing.
Saddam was captured after 125,000 soldiers invaded his country, bin laden ran free when 11,000 american soldiers invaded, and didn't get to his part of the country untill 2 months after the invasion.
While I might not agree with you on if Iraq should have been invaded, can you atleast agree with me that capturing Bin Laden should have taken precendence?

 

foxnews showed a penetrating penis??????/ when was this?? is there a clip out there?

 

well the thing is no sadam may not of attacked america but u have to admit he was a shitty guy who killed innocent people and needed to be stopped, this relates with vietnam, north vietnam didnt come to america and attack us, but we knew if we let them continue and take over south vietnam then communism would have a better chance of spreading, we didnt invade iraw for our safety we invaded it for the worlds safety, say we let sadam go and we didnt invade, we would just be giving him more chnnaces to kill people and eventually invade other countries and so on, its almost like the domino effect but not exactly but yes eugene i do agree with u on the bin laden matter

 

In the case of Vietnam, while it was something of a proxy war on the grander scale, as far as the Vietnamese were concerned it was mainly about the two sides wanting to unify Vietnam, not some grand imperialistic goal. I mean, just look at Vietnam. They never posed a threat to the rest of the world, and the world's safety wasn't hanging in the balance or anything. Try to look past the Cold War rhetoric.

With Saddam's Iraq, we had already essentially neutered him in the Gulf War. And of course had he for some reason tried to invade other countries he would have had his ass kicked again. He really wasn't a major threat any longer. And about saving a nation from a ruthless dictator, well it is certainly sad that there are people suffering under oppressive regimes, but it isn't such a simple matter of invading countries ruled by people we deem unfit to govern. It is not our place to just decide that. Furthermore, there are many, many other nasty dictatorships out there... Africa is full of them, for instance. We don't say or do beans to those regimes, in part because we along with the Soviet Union are sort of guilty of installing some of those regimes in the Cold War, and also because we have little or no vested interests in them. Humanitarian deliverence from a nasty regime was only a fringe benny of the Iraq war, no matter how much it may be paraded as one of our chief reasons for invasion.

 

wow someone else just got brainwashed by the liberal media

 

How about this, kerry just picked John Edwards as VP. You gotta admit John Edwards stacks up really well to Dick.

 

Oh NO! he's onto us cheese it!



The liberal media thing is mainly a myth, most people get their news from fox and talk radio, both are overwhelmingly conservative.
Of course, most reporters vote democrat, but this is like me (I work at a gas station now) deciding how Exxon Mobil is running things. Also, it is interesting to note that people who spend their lives being informed vote democrat.

 

They do huh? Why then are the top 3% mainly conservative? They seem to be doing SOMETHING right, but i guess they are so uninfomed that that doesn't matter.

 

Have you considered looking at the minor parties, such as the Libertarians?

http://www.lp.org
http://www.badnarik.org-Libertarian presidential nominee

 

I see libertarians as the only decent 3rd party out there. But I don't understand why someone would start calling themselves a democrat simply because they don't like 1 republican president.

 

I'm a libertarian too, but I don't really like that Badnarik guy, so he's out. I hate Democrats as much as Republicans but i might vote for Kerry cause if he wins and chokes on a ham sandwich or something, Johnny Edwards willl be "El Presidente.

Eugene, If you think most reporters are 'informed', you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Seriously though, JetBlack, Bush in 4 years has lowered taxes while spending more money, while the economy was in deficit. You really wanna vote for a deadbeat who just keeps writing hot checks hoping his kids generation will pay for it?

Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq. At least Kerry says he can get the International Community involved in securing Iraq. He might not be able to but at least he has a plan.

I could list how crappy of a job Bush has done all day, but personally i think the worst thing he has done were the bans on 1: stem cell research and 2: larger fields of cloning. These research industrys are a crucial leg in the scientific developments of the 21st century, and the banning has left our best scientist in the fields fleeing to China, who welcomes them with open arms and big fat checks.

I'm not a pacifist either, but Bush did jump the gun with the Iraq war, even if you think Sadam needed to go, if bush had been more deliberate and patient getting the International community on our side, Iraq would be much safer. More soldiers have died in the occupation then in the invasion.

I'm glad your at least thinking about not voting for this 'president'.

Although if John Kerry is elected, his wife might make kickbacks to the condement industry, its up to you.

 

What is it that you don't like about Badnarik?

 

I actually worked at the same place as Badnarik. I didn't like him because he doesn't pay his taxes, but he feels perfectly fine being in a position to control our country's tax dollars. There are other reasons though, I sat near him and we had many political conversations.

 

I dunno what it is I don't like about Badnarik, I really dug Harry Browne, I'm kinda a fringe voter, I agree with him philosophically, I just don't trust someone who's eyebrows are that far apart.

I kinda understand your point Sera Michele, but powerful people never pay taxes. I still might vote for him, but hes gotta do something to wow me before the election. I had thought, for years, that America did great without Leadership, but these past 4 years have proven me wrong.

America really needs a change of pace.

 

Republicans want to open up our national treasures, our parks to logging, oil drilling, mining, and toxic and radioactive landfill.