if bush wins again than america is truely gone to the corporations and I will see no hope for the futre. although I cant say any of the other choises, besides nader, is even worth voting for.

why would someone vote for nader? because he's FOR the enviroment. As if our enviroment isn't already on the highway to hell, the Bush Administration has taken steps twords making our situation worse. Bush has made numerious bad decisions but I will focus on enviroment inorder to support nader.

Our water is already highly polluted as you can see by a report done by the enviroment news service in 2001 reporting that in 1997 about 270 million pounds of toxic pollution was released into US waterways. 30% of the industrial, municipal, and federal facilities are serious violation of the clean water act. As if all that wasn't bad enough, the Bush Administration slipped into the Homeland Security Bill a provision to allow even more chemicals to pollute our water supplys.

There has been no effective action by the bush administration to help our enviroment and they have been accused of refusing to go to court in defense of the enviroment against groups who are currently violating the federal laws and mandates passed to protect our enviroment.

After 9/11 bush refused to sign a bill that would grant money to the department of heath and human services for monitoring the health of the people who were at ground zero durring the attacks. Aka: the people who helped with the rescue work. Many have become ill and incapacitated.

And next time you try to make that bold of a statement... try actually proving something rather than pointing out a typo I made.

haha

When America ignores such issues such as pollution and global warming it sends the signal that the only thing that matters in the world is America.

But seeing as you dont see the enviroment as a big deal and the only thing that matters is money and jobs lets look at what bush has done for those people and America!

Bush spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury, shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history, set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period, set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market, After taking-off the entire month of August, bush presided over the worst security failure in
U.S. history, in his first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month, set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period, presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed... and the list goes on.

and the fact you care so little for our enviroment either means you're heavily uninformed or refuse to believe what people are telling you. The truth is that the causes of this mass pollution are easily solved but the companies doing most of it refuse to change their ways in the name of the money they alreay have an excess of.

Leaded gas comes to mind. The companies who produced the leaded gasoline did everything in their power to deny and supress the facts about how lead is poisionous and causes severe brain damage.

What about asbestos? great for insulation, hell on your lungs and causes asbestosis. It was supressed and denied for years. In the manual, for people who dealt with it, said straight up "does not cause lung damage of any kind," which was easily proven to be false far before they even realized it was a good insulator.

And to the person who said conservatives want to control social freedoms, no, we don't at all. Conservatism is all about freedom. If you mean abortion, (ie, the lack of right), we just don't agree with killing the most innocent form of humanity and defending it as some sort of constitutional right, or the illegal Roe vs. Wade ruling (the supreme court can't create new laws). I would say the pro-life standpoint is actually much more free, because it gives all humans, even the voiceless and the defenseless, the most basic of rights: the right to live. Modern day, American liberalism's hypocricy is exposed in this regard.

If you're referring to gay marriage, then think about it for a second. Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman. It's like arguing that girls should be allowed into boy scouts. If you wanna make a new "domestic union" that allows gays to be united in some sense, which gives them all the tax and insurance benefits, and is reconized by the government in the same way as marriage, then fine. If the homosexual community was actually fighting for this, rather than gay marriage, which is an oxymoron, they might actually be succesful and get exactly what the majority of them want.

Furthermore, marriage is not just about love and committment, ans some are so fond of saying, but I won't get into that argument.

And to the person who said conservatives want to control social freedoms, no, we don't at all. Conservatism is all about freedom. If you mean abortion, (ie, the lack of right), we just don't agree with killing the most innocent form of humanity and defending it as some sort of constitutional right, or the illegal Roe vs. Wade ruling (the supreme court can't create new laws). I would say the pro-life standpoint is actually much more free, because it gives all humans, even the voiceless and the defenseless, the most basic of rights: the right to live. Modern day, American liberalism's hypocricy is exposed in this regard.

I think you will find my opinion on this subject quite weird.

There's a lot of debate about what constitutes a human life. My own feeling is that I am unsure, and therefore I would prefer to side the safe way. This means I would not choose to have an abortion (well, I am a guy, but you know what I mean here). This is what I would consider a moral opinion.

However, I don't think that I should have the right to tell other families what to do. If it doesn't involve my own family, then it isn't any of my business.

If you're referring to gay marriage, then think about it for a second. Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman. It's like arguing that girls should be allowed into boy scouts. If you wanna make a new "domestic union" that allows gays to be united in some sense, which gives them all the tax and insurance benefits, and is reconized by the government in the same way as marriage, then fine. If the homosexual community was actually fighting for this, rather than gay marriage, which is an oxymoron, they might actually be succesful and get exactly what the majority of them want.

I think both the Republicans and Democrats are totally wrong about this issue. They both want to turn to the government and ask to have their moral opinions made the law. Instead, the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. Give the economic benefits for having children instead. Allow any person to sign off any person of choice to act as "next of kin" in cases where they are unable to give consent. If the government would just butt out of marriage, no one would be forced to recognize any marriage they didn't want to recognize, and any two people could declare themselves married and it would all be the same in the eyes of the law.

There are a few other issues I disagree with Republicans on. As you sort of asked me (indirectly) why I had that opinion, here we go:

Drugs: I think they should be incrementally legalized. As in, not all at once, but with that as the eventual goal. Let people do what they want in their own homes. The insurance companies will raise their rates for being druggies, thus providing an economic incentive to stay clean. However, ban all drugs (including cigarettes and alcohol) in public (i.e. city-owned) places, because no one else should have to be affected by a druggie's habits. Anyone who harms another person while under the influence should be punished severely.

Pornography: Porn is legal right now, but when there have been motions to illegalize it, it has been by the right-wingers. I find it pretty gross stuff for the most part (though I can respect some of the more artsy stuff), but something being gross is not a good reason to make it illegal. As with drugs, if you don't like it, don't do it.

Privacy: I'll just keep this one short and say that any society that needs to monitor the actions of all of its citizens is not one worth holding on to.

Foreign Policy: I agree that those in charge should work towards the best interests of the country (which is why I oppose liberal agendas like the US becoming the world's welfare check), but making an enemy of out of everyone else is not in our best interests. They often mention that we had a "coalition" of many different countries which supported the Iraq war, but I don't think they understand the meaning of "country". A country is not the government that runs it; it is the general population living there. Other than Israel and the UK, you will be hard-pressed to find any general population outside the US with even close to 50% support. I have friends in other countries who have told me about mass parades that lasted for days following 9/11, and that not a single person they knew was unhappy about it. When we make enemies out of the general populations of these countries, the chance becomes much slimmer that they will report potential terrorist camps or recruiters. This is not good for national security at all. Instead, we shouldn't be doing business with tyrant leaders of middle-eastern countries (I'm thinking of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in particular). We should be doing business with the people who are oppressed by these rulers instead.

Israel: I don't agree with the declaration of "solidarity" with Israel. I don't have much against Israel as a whole because I find them and the Palestinians to both be very silly. However, I do not want it implied by my country's support that I support them. I think the US should back off completely from giving any support to either Israel or the Palestinians, tell the whole region that we are going to turn our head, and clean up after the dust has settled. Israel has nuclear weapons and the many Arab nations surrounding it have large population bases to launch attacks with. It doesn't even matter to me who wins. But they should really get it over with, because people in power here seem to want to pick sides in something that I don't really care about either way.

See, that's my problem. Should I not tell other families they can't beat their children? Of course not.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are people who believe, with equal ferocity, that it is just as wrong not to force other people to convert to their own religion (or those who believe that people should be forced to absolve their religion completely). Or perhaps I find that allowing children to learn to eat other animals is abhorrent, and parents should be punished for it. It is impossible to prove a moral opinion correct. Therefore, I see it best to give the greatest respect to family sovereignty that we can. Let each family (or any group of people living together because they share similar values) make their own rules for themselves. The government should only intervene if someone in the family wants out because of differences of values.

Marriage invokes a lot of things that require the government - including who gets what if someone dies, as well as tax things and other things reconized by the government, like insurance. The government has to be involved.

As I already said, there are other criteria that can be used for determining these things. Most can be attributed to having children, as that is the primary logic behind most of the incentives for marriage anyways. I do think a lot of these could be cut entirely, though, because it is irresponsible anyways for people to expect the government to pay for their own children. With the "next of kin" thing, any person could sign a form where they would put any person of their choice to act as next of kin.

Unfortunately, we're extremely reliant on oil right now. The only way around the middle east dependency would be to drill somewhere else.... sound familar?
I personally am willing to give up oil if it means I'm not going to be a target for terrorism. I'm completely ready to adapt if necessary to living in a log cabin. It's not ideal, but it's better than being hated by people who don't even know me. I understand that there are some, perhaps many who are not as willing to give up oil, but I don't think that this means the government should back dealing with oppressive rulers to get it.

And anyways, we have loads of oil in Alaska. Enough to last us for quite a long time without the middle east.

Noone is completely innocent in that situation, but after Bush took office, and stopped Israel from stealing more land from the Palistinians (which was a serious crime and it's a shame that previous Presidents did nothing about it), Israel has pretty much been in the right in every major issue. Palistine is supporting terrorism, and that is a major crime and needs to stop. Besides that, it makes a lot of strategic sense for us to support Israel. I'm not saying that should be the determining factor in every situation, but it needs to be taken into account.

Israel is currently building a wall which is hampering the lives of all Palestinians, not just the terrorists. Even so, the point I was making is that this is a conflict between Israel and Palestine, not them and the US. I don't see the strategic sense in supporting Israel. It gives the radical Muslims their biggest reason for targetting us. Even the nonterrorists who live in countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt will tell you that this is their biggest problem with the US. That tiny country is not worth the hit in PR it causes us.

Sorry to jump in so late in this discussion. Rage just told me about it today. There is way too much text to reply to here, so I'll focus on the main points.

ENVIRONMENT:

This is one of the most pathetic things I've seen thus far in my discussions with conservatives. Look man, if you're going to not care about the environment, then you've got to be willing to live in a void with no air, water, food etc. Everything basically revolves around the environment. There are no jobs, no money, no countries, not a damn things without the environment. Of course Global Warming is overblown, but just because that theory is perfectly sound, it doesn't mean that you and your compatriots can go around pretending like liberal science is all a bunch of bullshit. There are a lot more facts to look at that cover all aspects the environment, and President Bush has set back years of environment-friendly laws and regulations. Frankly, I find it ridiculous that conservatives think we can abuse the environment for profit, a profit which, by the way, does not go to factory workers, but rich businessmen like Mr. Burns.

Thats the essential difference between our thinking right there. You see it as, "All the hardworking people in America will be screwed." We see it as, "The corprate dickheads at Enron etc. will lose their precious millions." Do you really think the pharmacuetical companies are going to slack off if we don't pay them as much? Hell, they'll just invent new afflictions to start treating, they've already done it enough times. Trust me, those guys are the least of our worries where money is concerned.

RIGHTS:

After countless arguments with Conservatives on the issue of abortion, I really don't know where I stand anymore. It does seem rather cruel and inhumane, but then, so does war. There's a lot of contradiction on both sides of the fence. I think if they found a less gruesome way to do it a lot of the opposition would go away actually.

On the topic of gay marriage, I was amazed to see such a great idea (coming from a conservative at least :P). I don't have any problem at all with making a new union for gays, that's good thinking. I can really see where you're coming from as far as gays playing the helpless, "Waaa!! You won't let us get married! Homophobe" victims when there's a much easier solution that would please both parties.

However, I think you are sadly mistaken about the implications of the Patriot Act and other crap Bush as forced on us to "Protect our freedoms". How are we protecting our freedom by taking it away? Its completely ridiculous, and I find it insulting that people are so ethnocentric about us being the "spreaders of equality" and that Iraq was a "mission of freedom" when we have such absolute bigotry in our own country. How about when all those people were jailed after September 11th, without any kind of trial, or even a phone call, because they were Middle Eastern? Wow, that's a really great example of our equality, liberty, justice, freedom, and all the other patriotic buzzwords you guys use to force us into a collective killing frenzy. I'm glad you recognize that this is going on, but don't underestimate the power of fear. Its obvious we can't win a war against an "ism". Its an idea, you can't kill an idea. Its completely ridiculous. The whole war is going to have us in a state of fear indefinately, and then Bush is going to be asking for another term to keep us safe from the evil Terrorists!!! Watch out, or we could turn out like Star Wars/1984/other opressed people.

Thanks for reading that long ramble, and sorry for the obscure referances at the end, ask me if you need clarification.

My gosh. This looks like one of those philosophy discussions on the Megatokyo forums.

Well, to be honest, I'd add my opinions to the stew, but I'll just reserve them. I've got a hardcore Republican friend and a hardcore Democratic friend, and I've listened to them argue a lot--mostly futile. You can't form a solid argument against people who energetically look for a flaw in your statements.

I will say, however, to be honest, I have heard a lot about the bad that Bush has done to the country--huge deficit, ruining our global relations, a less than stellar economy, etc, etc. I'm not sure if those observations are valid or not.

I believe that a huge deficit is something to be avoided. I do recall that Hamilton originally established the national debt to the states, since it would give the states the incentive to remain in the union (ie--if we owe Oklahoma money, they won't drop out of the Union). After the Civil War, this pretty much because invalid, and instead we owe money to other countries. What does a large national debt do? It, in essence, makes itself useless. If we owe other countries money, they obviously have some stake in us. However, if we have shown through negligence and continued inflation of this debt that we probably will never pay (and look at it--how practical is it to pay 3 trillion plus dollars?) then the national debt loses its geopolitical usefulness. I am not in favor of a huge deficit.

Global relations? I'll be honest--I don't think we should appease "terrorists"--to be more specific, anyone who poses a threat to international peace. However, I do think that by choosing to attack targets of potential terrorist activity without the approval of the rest of the world, we have distanced--set ourselves apart from them. This could be interpreted that we are too self-righteous.

Whether we are truly in the right, or simply self-righteous, having your actions polarize many nations against you is not a wise one--many enemies are not good. No nation is invincible. I would much rather have appreciated a solution to the Iraq problem that could have be reached by international cooperation. I'm not saying that we should have held out for cooperation at all costs, since there is a point where you do have to say, "Look. The enemy is past compromise. War is the only option." I'm just saying that I would have tried compromise as long as possible.

Beginning of last paragraph, I suppose what disappoints me most about the Bush administration isn't anything particularly wrong with their policies (even though there is probably room for criticism), but what disappoints me is how they have polarized the nation. It truly is Democrats vs. Republicans, Moral Majority [read: christians] vs. The Rest of Them.

Republicans continue to appeal to family values and Christian morals as campaign pillars. There is nothing wrong with this--however, by stressing it they almost suggest that such values cannot be found elsewhere. With many books being published along the theme of Liberalism = Terrorism, Liberalism = Satan, etc, etc, I can see how this polarization is affecting the social side of politics.

I myself am a Southern Baptist, and I can notice when my pastor says that he is shocked at how Liberals have destroyed America--that something is wrong. Whole demographics have been polarized against each other.

To split America into armed camps is not wise. We are a socially divided nation, even if we stand united behind our troops. Bush has not found a solution for this, and in some cases I would almost say that he seems to encourage it. Perhaps the constitutional amendment redefining marriage is an example of this, but I don't really want to go into that.

I do believe there is probably no one perfect candidate this election.


SIDE NOTE EDIT: Turns out I expressed a few of my opinions after all. Sorry about that.

It was a nice post anyway Omni. I agree on all points.