Tom, I proclaim you hody2 DUMSTUFS under article VII, subparagraph 3 clause A of the Gambrell Mandate.

Not likling either candidate is a very compelling reason to vote for someone else. It's your horrible, ignorant mindset that keeps us locked into this uberstupid 2-party system.

1) You are a retard.
2) I did not vote for Bush.
3) You are a retard.
4) You are a retard.
5) Anyone who complains about 'the system' who votes for Democrats and/or Republicans is a retard.
6) You are a retard.

Luckily, you don't have to feel bad. Since Bush got ~51% and Kerry got ~49%, ~100% of Americans are complete idiots. Let me break this down for you:

• People who voted for Bush because they truly thought he was the best candidate, they're idiots, but at least have my respect for being civically responsible.
  
• People who voted for Bush because they truly thought he was the best candidate, they're idiots as well, but at least have my respect for being civically responsible.
  
• Anyone who votes for a candidate or party not because of support of them, but for anti-support of something else, is a complete and utter idiot. Without respect. None, no, go away. You do not contribute to the solution of changing anything. You only perpetuate your own stupidity ad nauseam into time without end.
  

Here's a little excessive for you: Why don't you go out, get some opinions of your own, research those opinions, listen thoughtfully to people on both sides of the argument, then reconsider your opinions once you are properly informed. Forming your social opinions because of what your friends, enemies, family, or whatnot believe/think/tell-you-to is FOOLISH. You are a supposedly a man, and not a sheep. Men are supposedly self-aware and possess critical thinking skills as our distinguishing trait.

It saddens me that I couldn't really call most people I know cognizant. It saddens me that half the time I myself am not particularly self-aware, doing whatever task I'm presently engaged in using almost no actual thought. However, you sir, you need to stop fumbling around aimlessly pretending to be well-informed and pretending to have the 'high moral ground' or whatever it is you believe you actually have behind you to make these statements without coming off like an infantile knee-jerking me-tooing liberal dittohead.

I hate you as much as I hate your conservative counterparts who were as rabidly anti-Clinton as the liberals are now anti-Bush. Both of your moron-clans are getting your stupid all over everything, and all the white noise is making it hard to fucking think around here.

Ok, first of all: I say again, damn you loretian! for dragging me into this. :D

Second, let me just reiterate this from the beginning. I am basically arguing pro-GOP, but 1) I did not vote for Bush this election 2) I voted against the gay marriage ban in Kentucky 3) I will gladly admit several faults of the GOP, which is why I didn't vote for Bush. But I do prefer the GOP to the democrats [I voted libertarian].

Now, @Khross:

I realize my statement might have seemed this way, but I was not saying 'omg, america singlehandedly won the war! And we're uber-saints!' That's not the case. Its important to remember that I'm responding to a comment comparing our current actions to the _Nazi's_. My point was only that we did make a large contribution in the fight against the Nazis, a dictator that, then as now, most European nations wanted to appease rather than fight. Nor did I ever insuniate that saving the jews was the reason we went to war, but it did have that effect, and America has been a strong ally of Israel ever since. Those are facts.

Israel is certainly not innocent in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but they have always been an ally to us, I see nothing improper in us supporting them. American intelligence believes Arafat was most likely (we have him on tape) responsible for ordering the death of two American diplomats in Sudan, among other atrocities he's responsible for - I see no reason we should have ever dealt with him. I agree with you that a strong, stable Iraq that is neither dictatorship nor theocracy and does not support terror (Saddam may not have had anything to do with 9/11, but it's irrefutable that he did support terror) is in the region's best interest and our own.

Is Iraq better off right now than it was 2 years ago? Probably not. In 10 years, will it be better off than if we had not removed Saddam Hussein? I believe so, but only time will tell. Saddam was a very bad man, though, and all rhetoric aside, I seriously believe that if it has been Clinton doing this war, all the liberals would be supporting it and citing those mass graves as reasons why he had to go. Lets not forget that he DID use 'WMDs' in the past, he DID want to acquire them again, he was actively trying to end the sanctions which prevented him from getting them, he DID invade a neighbor nation (and Kerry voted against the _first_ Iraq war!), and the UN clearly thought the sanctions were a joke and happily profiteered from them at the expense of the Iraqi people.

@Ear (oh deary me):

Well, I have always disliked moral arguements because unlike other logical conversations, people cannot agree on what is and is not moral, and with such fundamental ambiguity, any clarity of argument is difficult to come by. In short, I agree with you that the line between terrorism, war, and guerilla warfare are thin and fuzzy. I would argue that a principal differentiation is that legimate armies do not intentionally target civilian targets (I will concede that Nixon bombing rice fields in n. vietnam would constitute a war crime in this context, I will not concede Hiroshima/Nagasaki because I believe there are legitimate arguments to be made, but I really don't want to argue Hiroshima so lets leave it at 'no contest'). Accidental, collateral civilian loss of life is inevitable especially when your enemy uses civilians as human shields, but actively targeting civilians is a distinct characteristic of terrorism in my book. Other factors: combatants should be uniformed and adhere to international rules of blah blah whatever.

Re oil, I simply see no evidence that what you have described has actually happend. Please feel free to point me to something that says it has, I would be very interested. A 1945 state dept memo has little bearing on 2004 policy.

I dont see that your comments on Afghanistan really contradict mine. You said they wanted to construct a pipeline through afghanistan. That has nothing to do with actually having natural resources IN afghanistan. Furthermore, America has no need for imported natural gas, nor can I see how this would be of financial benefit to the US in any way. In any case, I don't know any liberals that have ever made the arguement that we attacked Afghanistan for financial reasons.

Quote:Originally posted by Ear

Iraq did not support, sponsor, or incubate terrorism against the US, under its formal definition.

Iraq DID support, sponsor, and incubuate terrorism against Israel. I consider that relevant. This is not a 'war against terrorism that only effects the US.' Such a war would, in my opinion, be unlikely to succeed- the key in winning the long-term war on terror to make America safe relies on removing safe nations that foster and facilitate terrorism, not necessarily by removing the nation, but by making it no longer a safe place for terrorists.

@TomT64:

First, you are a retard. I do agree the Patriot act goes too far. I will point out that it passed with large bipartisan margins, which is one of the reasons I'm NOT stupid for voting for a 3rd party. Ass. I would also point out that Ashcroft is no longer AG (and at that, I will join you liberals in saying 'yay').

Moral values: I voted against Kentuckys gay marriage ban. I don't know what the whole country is smoking, but lets get several things clear. 1) Don't blame 'the backwards, relgious, red states'. In California, as blue a state as you'll ever find, there was a voter initiative just a bit before Schwarzenegger was elected to explicitly recognize gay marriage. It failed by like 70-30 margins. I mean just utterly massively defeated. 2) The gay marriage bans were basically a reaction to that san fransisco mayor or whatever asshat that went around marrying gays in DIRECT VIOLATION of the aforementioned issue that had JUST BEEN VOTED ON by _the people_ (ie not just the state representatives).

Voting for who you believe is the best candidate is never 'wrong'. Thats the POINT of voting.

I believe you underestimate the impact that lawsuits and the rising cost of insurance have on healthcare. The fact that many doctors cannot afford insurance and thus can no longer practice should be a hint of this. That said, I do agree that other things need to be done in addition.

Taxes: Sooner or later you'll realize that the money government spends is not 'free', it comes from the pockets of its citizens. That is why lean and efficient government is paramount, entitlements are not 'free.'

Social Security: I believe you (and many other liberals) have misapprehended how social security actually works. Social security is a massively regressive tax. Actively, vengefully so. It essentially does amount to a mandated private savings account with a very shitty return rate. Bill Gate's social security taxes pay for, at most, 4 other people than himself. Social security taxes do not go higher as income goes beyond $78k, so Mr.Gates pays the same social security taxes that my dad does. That is a regressive tax, and you progressive liberals should be against it or, at least, in favor of reforming it. People that do not pay into social security DO NOT GET SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. Social security benefits are CONTINGENT ON HOW MUCH YOU PAID IN. It is NOT a safetynet for retirement. Its nothing more than a poor investment.

---

Back to one of the original points of this thread, I'll add one more reason I'm glad Bush won. Bush said in his first policy speech after the election he wanted a serious reform of the tax code. Some on FOX have gone as far as to mention the phrase 'flat tax'. I dare not dream that it could be true, but I would be estatic beyond words and faith in humanity restored if it came to pass. Iraq does have a flat tax and Bush's comments on it at the time were that they had a more fair tax system than we do.

A flat tax of say 17% would reduce the average taxpayer's burden, and raise Theresa Heinz Kerry's taxes (who paid ~12%). It would also drastically reduce corporate expenses for accounting (estimates that it could provide a 10-20% gain for some corporations) while providing the same revenue to the government.

So no, I am not uninformed.Oh, so you've gone out and done all of that critical listening and thinking that I suggested? Good, that was fast, and you're a better person for it.

Hey. I liked Kerry.Oh, I guess you were just lying there in the other quote. How does it feel to be a liar, with pants constantly on fire?

But hey, good for you, you've won civic duty points by actually voting for whom you believed was the better candidate. You're still not getting any intellectual respect from this quarter for a myriad host of reasons here, and I am still going to rest upon the unwaivering statement that you're an idiot.

Idiot until proven intelligent: The only way to survive in these moronic times.

Now, unless you have any more egregious and/or patently false claims against my person (Oh, like assuming that I voted for Bush?), I'll leave this matter buried, since we've established you are, in fact, hody2 dumbstuffs, and that I, in fact, am not. Although I'm most certainly being obnoxious and discourteous, but your own little flagrant tantrum of uninformedness...

This is hardly conducive to a real conversation, and is typical of you Bush voters.

...annoys me on so many different levels. Here, I'll enumerate them for you!

1. The fact that you'd assume that I voted Bush.
   
2. The fact that you assume that only Bush-Voters and Kerry-Voters matter.
   
3. The fact that you attacked me over a stupid joke.
   
4. And most incredulous of all of these, the fact that you think that CASTLE HECK, an UNMODERATED FORUM on a GAME-CREATION SITE and that opinions presented here deserve CALM AND CIVIL behavior? THIS THREAD IS NEXT TO ONES DISCUSSING FUCKING HAM AND FUCKING VIDEOGAMES FUCKSHITCOCK BALLS MORON STUPID CRAP.
   

In conclusion, fuck you, fuck your mother, fuck everything dumb, fuck loretian, and fuck loretian's dog.

Then fuck you again for good measure.

And then fuck you again one last time for sport.

I concur.

Quote:Originally posted by TomT64

Originally posted by the_speed_bump

Originally posted by TomT64

Let's bottom line it all

Not liking Kerry as a reason to not vote Bush or Kerry:
There's something wrong with you people too. You know full well that your state won't vote for a third party, and you also know from last election that a vote for a third party is one taken AWAY from the Democratic party, the party closer to the ideals you claim to want. The obvious vote was for Kerry if you really didn't like Bush. Not liking Kerry is no excuse for handing the country over to Bush AGAIN.I'm not a political person (much less American politics), but even I can see that this is ludicrous.

If you want a third party to win, (not just this election, or the next, but any election, ever) people have to vote for them.

Even if your favourite third party doesn't win, you help contribute to that tiny chance that, someday, it won't be so insignificant. This is true only in principal, because in reality the two party system is very strong right now. 'Eventually' making it significant isn't going to save the environment or contribute to the separation of church and state. The reality is, in this country, what you're doing when you're voting for a third party is you are taking a vote away from the party closest to those ideals. In most cases, the Democrats lose the votes, particularly regarding Nader and the Green party. And because of the two party system, again, the Republicans get a majority.

Actually, that situation is not the fault of the Nader supporters. It is not Nader's fault (nor the fault of his supporters) that Gore lost the 2000 election. It is the fault of the Gore supporters that Nader lost the 2000 election. If all those silly people that voted for Gore in 2000 had voted for Nader instead, Nader would have won.

I can make that argument just as effectively as you can make yours (i.e. not at all), which is why neither argument has any merit. The point of voting is not to keep someone out of office; it is to put in the person you want. That is why there are laws against people trying to organize other people into voting in patterns which specifically aim to keep someone out of office. Websites in the past that offered to allow people in Democratic states to 'promise' to vote for Nader if someone else in a battleground state voted Dem were shut down last election for that very reason.

Anyways, my two cents here is that both of the major parties as a whole really blow. Both of them have a 'vision' for how they want people in this country to be, and pursue political measures to make it hard for people who don't fit their vision. I used to be a big proponent of the Democratic party, but I've come to view them much less positively because I see them as meddlers, much like how I see the Republicans. Overall, I want to be left alone to live my life how I want to, and neither the Dems nor the Repubs seem to want to offer that.

Damn, made a total dog's breakfast of that post and can't edit it to put it right. That'll teach me not to sign in. :(

* Omni listens to his Dad's AC/DC Back in Black CD [he thought it sounded cool when he was five, so now that he can understand lyrics he figures he'll try it again.]

[post_edit after Loretian's following reply: Hell's Bells is indeed cool, unlike the EU :) ]