Mission Accomplished

[IcemanCometh]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg

America Destroyed

4 more years of raising deficits, fewer civil liberties and less freedom

[bigzak25]

:cry :cry :cry :cry

[1369]

Ice,

I'm curious, which civil liberties and freedoms have you personally lost over the last four years that would cause you to make that claim?

[T Park]

lower taxes, highest home ownership in the history of the country, fastest growing economy in years, 1.3 million jobs created in 13 months.

God, it sucks to be an american right Ice?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Still a net loss in job creation for the first time in over 70 years!

[T Park]

yeah that 9/11 thing wouldnt have had anything to do with it right Marxy?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Uh, other presidents have still managed positive job growth during a time of war.
Get it Tparky?

[Marcus Bryant]

Over the last 70 years which party has consistently argued for the expansion of the Leviathan which we now encounter at the federal level? As much as some of you like to claim our rights are threatened by Republican politicians when you actually realize why the government is up our ass to begin with then you will have taken the first step towards sanity.

[Marcus Bryant]

Still a net loss in job creation for the first time in over 70 years!

So the federal government 'creates jobs'? That's a new one.

[T Park]

Uh, other presidents have still managed positive job growth during a time of war

other presidents havent had two buildings explode containing business and 3 thousand people die in matter of minutes.

Get THAT Marxy?

[T Park]

Of course MB,

according to libs, without the federal government, us dumb people would be totally lost, heyuk.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

According to Dubya it does since his tax cuts have stimulated the economy and is creating jobs. Isn't that what TPark is implying?

Oh, but Bush is solely responsible for "keeping" us safe?

[T Park]

People reinvesting there own money, horrible idea I know Johnny, you liberals just hate it when people want to keep more of there own money.

[Hook Dem]

Still a net loss in job creation for the first time in over 70 years!
Have you ever had a job Johnny?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Of course I have a job. Luckily mine wasn't lost during this administration.

Have you ever had a job?

[NeoConIV]

Uh, other presidents have still managed positive job growth during a time of war.
Get it Tparky?
Uh, have you looked at the latest job numbers, the overall economic trend. And uhhhh, do you realize how we also overcame the Clinton/Gore recession? Do you, uhhh, understand that?

[Brodels]

People reinvesting there own money, horrible idea I know Johnny, you liberals just hate it when people want to keep more of there own money.

If you really wanted to keep your money, you wouldn't be a republican. Your party is willing to propose small tax cuts but it keeps spending the nation into oblivion with money we don't have.

Don't tell me that Bush's small tax cuts are that big of a deal. I want real tax relief and decreased spending, you know, what republicans used to stand for.

[Hook Dem]

Of course I have a job. Luckily mine wasn't lost during this administration.

Have you ever had a job?
Many of them Johnny. I am retired now so I speak with a lot of experience. If your job wasn't lost during this administration, why are you echoing the lost rhetoric of your chronies?

[Marcus Bryant]

The US economy suffered two rather direct hits in the span of 18 months between March of 2000 and September of 2001. What we found out was that the 'internet economy' of the 1990s was simply unsustainable, built upon inflated financial market asset prices which were based upon unrealistic future assumptions. A lot of employment lost to that 'bubble burst' was simply not recoverable. 9/11 pretty much kicked a weakening economy down and bashed its head in.

Again I take issue with the notion that the federal government 'creates jobs' because I think slogans like that distort the reality that jobs are for the most part created by private decisionmakers, not public ones. This is not to say that government policy does not have an impact on 'jobs'. Yet usually that impact is negative.

The problem I have with those who try to hang the 'job loss' on Bush's head is that they ignore a host of issues, namely the ones I mentioned above, as well as the fact that the economic policies that Bush pushed for (low taxes, more spending, low interest rates) are pretty much what you would expect the federal government to do if you believe it should be trying to 'create jobs.' Bush even engaged in a bit of protectionism with the US steel industry.

[Useruser666]

The economy was so great under Clinton that all of those companies went bankrupt and pissed out employees like they had been waiting in line at the rodeo for 3 hours.

[T Park]

If you really wanted to keep your money, you wouldn't be a republican

who should I vote for boutons, Kerry, who wants raise my taxes again???

Uhhh, no.


He couldnt get huge tax cuts, because the stupid liberals in the senate would filibuster and object to the big tax cuts, making them smaller.


I remember when the first tax cut was passed, I think it was, oh, John Kerry who stood up and said, "This is a dark day for america"

Yeah, its horrible john, we get to keep more of our money, aint that fuckin bad.

[Brodels]

who should I vote for boutons, Kerry, who wants raise my taxes again???

Uhhh, no.


He couldnt get huge tax cuts, because the stupid liberals in the senate would filibuster and object to the big tax cuts, making them smaller.


I remember when the first tax cut was passed, I think it was, oh, John Kerry who stood up and said, "This is a dark day for america"

Yeah, its horrible john, we get to keep more of our money, aint that fuckin bad.

Your hypocritical. You say you want to keep more of your money, yet you won't vote for the party that wants to allow you to do that. You say you want to be free, yet you won't consider the party that is strongest in that area. Instead you support the Patriot Act. I've got news for you: the Patriot Act is just another attack on your freedoms.

Why do you vote republican? There are alternatives to republicans and democrats you know.

You say you want certain things, yet you won't support the party that matches your views.

[T Park]

when did Kerry say he was in support of across the board tax cuts.

HOW AM I HYPOCRTICAL?!?!!?

WHEN HAS G DUB RAISED TAXES ON ME?!

PLEASE TELL ME!!


Your reasoning makes zero sense.

[IcemanCometh]

simple, hes dumb

[Marcus Bryant]

I think the Patriot Act criticisms are overdone because it pretty much expanded law enforcement power into anti-terrorism efforts which already existed for other matters.

This Leviathan we face didn't arise overnight. I'd say by and large we have the Democrat party to thank, as well as an honorable mention for the GOP.

[Brodels]

when did Kerry say he was in support of across the board tax cuts.

HOW AM I HYPOCRTICAL?!?!!?

WHEN HAS G DUB RAISED TAXES ON ME?!

PLEASE TELL ME!!


Your reasoning makes zero sense.

Obviously you can't read. I never said anything about Kerry and what he was or wasn't going to do. When I say "There are alternatives to republicans and democrats you know," that doesn't mean that I want you to vote for Kerry.

The facts are this: Libertarians want you to keep more of your money than Republicans do. Libertarians want to protect your freedoms. They are more committed to it than republicans are. So don't talk to me about communism. The Patriot Act shows that the Republican Party is going in that direction. If you're really concerned about communism, you certainly wouldn't vote republican.

[Brodels]

This Leviathan we face didn't arise overnight. I'd say by and large we have the Democrat party to thank, as well as an honorable mention for the GOP.

That's the truth. The solution isn't to trust those two groups to undo what they've done. The solution is to leave it to a group seriously committed to taking on the very things that plague the nation.

[T Park]

I dont vote libertarian, one, cause they were strongly opposed to the IRaq war, I was for it.

Also, I feel my vote needs to go to the candidate CLOSER to my views,

Im sorry, but I cant waste my vote on a third party this election, I had to vote to keep the conservative alternate in office.

Even though hell probobly loose.

[Brodels]

I dont vote libertarian, one, cause they were strongly opposed to the IRaq war, I was for it.

Also, I feel my vote needs to go to the candidate CLOSER to my views,

Im sorry, but I cant waste my vote on a third party this election, I had to vote to keep the conservative alternate in office.

Even though hell probobly loose.

So you don't have the guts to stand up for what you believe? Instead of voting for the party that matches your views on money and freedom, you go with the republicans because it's the popular thing to do?

Just confirm it so I can get you on the record saying it: "I, TPark, don't have the guts to stand up for what I believe. I am a sheep."

[Yonivore]

Still a net loss in job creation for the first time in over 70 years!
Well, it's the first time 1 million jobs evaporated in a single day too...

[IcemanCometh]

tpark doesn't know what he believes

[T Park]

I have the guts to stand up for what I want, stop twisting my damn words.

Im saying, I feel Bush closely resembles what I stand for, so I vote for him, and am trying to help him in the national overall vote.

Id much rather Bush, who is more conservative than John Kerry in the white house.


I understand where your coming from, but I still vote republican because thats what I have been, and thats where my loyalties still lie.

[T Park]

Iceman doesnt know what to say half the time so he makes shit up.

[IcemanCometh]

there are more people running than bush and kerry tpark

[T Park]

REALLY,

no shit.

On my ballot I voted on this morning it was Bush and Kerry and thats it, what should I do, write in the guy's name??

Ok sure.

[Yonivore]

there are more people running than bush and kerry tpark
No there's not...they're just names on the ballot. No one is "running" aside from President Bush and Senator Kerry.

[Brodels]

I have the guts to stand up for what I want, stop twisting my damn words.

Im saying, I feel Bush closely resembles what I stand for, so I vote for him, and am trying to help him in the national overall vote.

Id much rather Bush, who is more conservative than John Kerry in the white house.


I understand where your coming from, but I still vote republican because thats what I have been, and thats where my loyalties still lie.

Fair enough. I still think that you're scared to go against the norm. If you really want to keep more of your money, you won't vote republican.

But I'll respect that you've come to a conclusion that you've thought hard about and I'll get off your back. Fair enough.

And Bush will win tonight, so you will get a victory.

[IcemanCometh]

yes, dumbass. your state is already fucking decided, your vote does not matter. vote for what you believe not what everyone else tells you to vote. or do you not believe in anything

[Yonivore]

Fair enough. I still think that you're scared to go against the norm. If you really want to keep more of your money, you won't vote republican.
You actually believe that?

So, how would one vote, in this election, in order to keep more of their own money?

[Brodels]

No there's not...they're just names on the ballot. No one is "running" aside from President Bush and Senator Kerry.

What constitutes "running?" Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states and he's traveled around the country campaigning with what money has been available. His base is strong enough that some feel that he'll make enough of a difference to get Kerry the victory.

[IcemanCometh]

No there's not...they're just names on the ballot. No one is "running" aside from President Bush and Senator Kerry.

its attitudes like that that leave us in this fucking mess. douchbag vs cuntrag .

[Brodels]

You actually believe that?

So, how would one vote, in this election, in order to keep more of their own money?

Every vote counts the same. And since every vote for a third party candidate gets us closer to destroying the two-party system and allowing fiscally conservative candidates to actually have a chance, I'd say that one vote in this election is quite important.

Do you really believe in what Bush stands for, or are you simply too scared to go against the norm? If you really believe, all the more power to you.

[Yonivore]

What constitutes "running?"
Having a chance to win constitutes "running."

Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states and he's traveled around the country campaigning with what money has been available. His base is strong enough that some feel that he'll make enough of a difference to get Kerry the victory.
Then change his name to Kerry on the ballot. Because, if what you say is true and enought idiots vote for Bednarak -- on the premise that Libertarians are more fiscally responsible (a position with which I happen to agree) -- only to spoil the election for George W. Bush, then you're going to end up with a President that is twice as fiscally irresponsible as is the current President.

Nice job!

Thankfully, it's not going to happen that way...but, that you think it's a responsible way to cast your vote is a sad commentary on the average Libertarians "blindness" on this election.

[Yonivore]

Every vote counts the same.
Myth #1. A Demoncratic vote in Texas doesn't count for squat this year. Just as a Republican vote in Taxachussetts doesn't count for squat.

And since every vote for a third party candidate gets us closer to destroying the two-party system and allowing fiscally conservative candidates to actually have a chance, I'd say that one vote in this election is quite important.
It does not such thing. Perot turned public opinion against the third party in 1992. Nader did it in 2000. Bednarak will have no such impact on the 2004 vote so, it's likely the Libertarians won't suffer the wrath of the Green Party and the party started by Perot and propped up (briefly) by Jesse Ventura.

Libertarians would do better by trying to influence Democratic or Republican party platforms -- not supplanting their base.

Do you really believe in what Bush stands for, or are you simply too scared to go against the norm? If you really believe, all the more power to you.
I know there are only two viable candidates in this election and I'm going to vote for the one with whom I share the majority of my views on national issues. Who agrees with any one person 100% of the time?

[Brodels]

Having a chance to win constitutes "running."

Then change his name to Kerry on the ballot. Because, if what you say is true and enought idiots vote for Bednarak -- on the premise that Libertarians are more fiscally responsible (a position with which I happen to agree) -- only to spoil the election for George W. Bush, then you're going to end up with a President that is twice as fiscally irresponsible as is the current President.

Nice job!

Thankfully, it's not going to happen that way...but, that you think it's a responsible way to cast your vote is a sad commentary on the average Libertarians "blindness" on this election.

Having a chance to win does not constitute "running." Candidates run for office every year with very little chance of unseating incumbents. They are still running. If you are mobilizing a significant base of people, you are running.

Either you vote for the candidate you believe in or you're too scared to vote for the candidate you believe in. Voting for a particular candidate just so another candidate will lose is a poor use of your vote. I want fiscal responsibility. Bush hasn't delivered and Kerry certainly won't deliver. I'm not about to vote for a candidate who doesn't support my positions.

If you really want fiscal conservatism you don't have to be afraid. All it takes is a little guts.

[T Park]

how is it good to vote for the third party, while getting Kerry elected. Id like that explained.

Ice, loose the hatred shade of red, it is NOT your color. :)

[Brodels]

Myth #1. A Demoncratic vote in Texas doesn't count for squat this year. Just as a Republican vote in Taxachussetts doesn't count for squat.

It depends upon how many people believe that.

Your vote is working towards something in the long run. A republican vote in Mass gets that state closer to going with a republican presidential candidate someday.


It does not such thing. Perot turned public opinion against the third party in 1992. Nader did it in 2000. Bednarak will have no such impact on the 2004 vote so, it's likely the Libertarians won't suffer the wrath of the Green Party and the party started by Perot and propped up (briefly) by Jesse Ventura.

The problem is that Nader was a one-hit wonder. Libertarians are in it for the long haul. They will be on the ballot year after year. Every vote they can get matters because they have a chance to build upon it next time. If they can do that, and do it again after that, and so on, they'll make a real difference eventually.


Libertarians would do better by trying to influence Democratic or Republican party platforms -- not supplanting their base.

Democrats and Republicans don't share the same views with Libertarians. That would be a mistake.


I know there are only two viable candidates in this election and I'm going to vote for the one with whom I share the majority of my views on national issues. Who agrees with any one person 100% of the time?

If Bush's views match yours more than any other candidate, all the power to you. But if you're voting for Bush even though the libertarian candidate's views most closely match your own, you're missing an opportunity to destroy the system that is partially responsible for our nation's problems.

[T Park]

problem is brodels, not enough people are there to destroy the "two party" system.

There are too many polarized peopel on each side to end it.

[IcemanCometh]

might as well stick with those people, don't want to rock the boat

[Brodels]

how is it good to vote for the third party, while getting Kerry elected. Id like that explained.


It increases your base. And if that can be increased again in the next election, you've really gained something and you're working towards busting up the two-party system.

I voted libertarian because I believe in protecting personal freedoms, keeping more of my money, decreasing government spending, eliminating federal deficits, and some other things.

Either you vote for what you believe in or you're too scared to do it.

[Yonivore]

Having a chance to win does not constitute "running." Candidates run for office every year with very little chance of unseating incumbents. They are still running. If you are mobilizing a significant base of people, you are running.
I didn't say "very little chance." Bednarak has absolutely zero chance of winning. None, zilch, zero, nada, niet, nien...pick your fucking language.

Either you vote for the candidate you believe in or you're too scared to vote for the candidate you believe in.
You use your vote to elect the person you believe will most represent your views in the office sought. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with understanding political realities.

Voting for a particular candidate just so another candidate will lose is a poor use of your vote.
Not if the person against whom you're voting would do irrepairable harm in the office and certainly not if your vote acheives the desired result.

I want fiscal responsibility. Bush hasn't delivered and Kerry certainly won't deliver. I'm not about to vote for a candidate who doesn't support my positions.
Not even if your vote stands the chance of causing the election of someone that is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from you?

If you really want fiscal conservatism you don't have to be afraid. All it takes is a little guts.
I think you're confusing guts with naivette... A vote for Bednarak is worse than wasted...it's dangerous.

[Brodels]

problem is brodels, not enough people are there to destroy the "two party" system.

There are too many polarized peopel on each side to end it.

It's people like you that are the problem. Everyone with an attitude like yours is responsible for ensuring that we'll never break out of the two party system.

The only way to get enough support to destroy the system is to get people to understand why other options most match their views and getting them to stand up and vote for other candidates. If just 100,000 more people like you stand up and vote to destroy the system, it will make a difference next time around. You have to start somewhere.

I really feel that people are polarized because they feel the need to identify with something and they either think that there are only two options or they find strength in supporting a popular party. At least some of the polarization you see is a front. There are many republicans who choose to be hardcore republicans because they hate what democrats stand for and vice versa. Those people don't understand that you don't have to be republican just because you hate democrats.

[Yonivore]

It increases your base. And if that can be increased again in the next election, you've really gained something and you're working towards busting up the two-party system.

I voted libertarian because I believe in protecting personal freedoms, keeping more of my money, decreasing government spending, eliminating federal deficits, and some other things.

Either you vote for what you believe in or you're too scared to do it.
This is a prime example of a person who believes elections have no real consequences.

A Kerry Presidency would do two very dangerous things...

1) It will place, in the White House, a party that would spend the next 4 years working hard to ensure their continued occupancy of that office. And, judging by the campaign this year, they're willing to do almost anything in that regard.

2) It will place, in the position of Commander-in-Chief, a person that in all likelihood will lose the war on terror thereby raising the spectre of a very different political landscape in 2008 and beyond where Libertarian "fiscal responsibility" will be very low on the totem pole of priorities.

I would suggest that to keep Libertarian ideals at the forefront you need to elect a party that, at the very least, isn't antithetical to your ideals...and, friend, that ain't the Demoncratic Party.

[IcemanCometh]

A Kerry Presidency would do two very dangerous things...

1) It will place, in the White House, a party that would spend the next 4 years working hard to ensure their continued occupancy of that office. And, judging by the campaign this year, they're willing to do almost anything in that regard.

2) It will place, in the position of Commander-in-Chief, a person that in all likelihood will lose the war on terror thereby raising the spectre of a very different political landscape in 2008 and beyond where Libertarian "fiscal responsibility" will be very low on the totem pole of priorities.

how is that any different than what we have had the past 4 years?

[Brodels]

I didn't say "very little chance." Bednarak has absolutely zero chance of winning. None, zilch, zero, nada, niet, nien...pick your fucking language.

Every candidate had some chance coming into today. His chances may have been almost nothing, but they weren't zero.


You use your vote to elect the person you believe will most represent your views in the office sought. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with understanding political realities.

It does have to do with fear if people fail to vote for the person most closely matching their views and instead go with the next best thing. Some people are afraid to vote for Badnarik because they are afraid of what might happen when Kerry wins. That's fear. But you still need to stand up and vote for what you believe in if you ever, ever, ever want there to be a chance of a candidate getting elected that actually matches your views. Bush and Kerry aren't fiscally conservative. They aren't for increasing personal freedoms. They support deficit spending. Why would I vote for either if they don't match my views?


Not if the person against whom you're voting would do irrepairable harm in the office and certainly not if your vote acheives the desired result.

See above.


Not even if your vote stands the chance of causing the election of someone that is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from you?

I don't take spectrums into consideration. Either you match my beliefs somewhat closely or you don't. Bush and Kerry both support spending more money, deficit spending, war, and other things things I don't agree with. It's as simple as that.


I think you're confusing guts with naivette... A vote for Bednarak is worse than wasted...it's dangerous.

A vote for Badnarik is a vote for someone that agrees with my views on most (but not all) issues. There is only one key area where I'm not with the libertarians. I disagree with Bush and Kerry on many issues. A vote for Bush isn't a vote against Kerry any more than a vote for Badnarik is. From my point of view, a vote for Bush is a vote for principles that I don't believe in.

[Brodels]

This is a prime example of a person who believes elections have no real consequences.

So I should vote for a person who doesn't come close to believing in what I believe? That makes no sense.


A Kerry Presidency would do two very dangerous things...

1) It will place, in the White House, a party that would spend the next 4 years working hard to ensure their continued occupancy of that office. And, judging by the campaign this year, they're willing to do almost anything in that regard.

And Bush will spend the next four years working hard to make sure that his party remains in control. He'll spend the next four years trying to ensure a positive legacy. That's an issue with both republicans and democrats. It's not going to make a difference who is there.


2) It will place, in the position of Commander-in-Chief, a person that in all likelihood will lose the war on terror thereby raising the spectre of a very different political landscape in 2008 and beyond where Libertarian "fiscal responsibility" will be very low on the totem pole of priorities.

Fiscal responsibility is always most important. You can't fight a war when your country is bankrupt. And you won't get popular support for a war when quality of life begins to rapidly decrease. Fiscal responsibility is one of the greatest weapons we have against terror. Unfortunately, we haven't used it.

This isn't a thread on war, but it's true that we view the war on terror differently.


I would suggest that to keep Libertarian ideals at the forefront you need to elect a party that, at the very least, isn't antithetical to your ideals...and, friend, that ain't the Demoncratic Party.

Both parties have proven to be antithetical to my ideas.

[Yonivore]

So I should vote for a person who doesn't come close to believing in what I believe? That makes no sense.
How 'bout you just don't vote if your vote stands the chance of doing more harm than good -- by your own admission.

And Bush will spend the next four years working hard to make sure that his party remains in control. He'll spend the next four years trying to ensure a positive legacy. That's an issue with both republicans and democrats. It's not going to make a difference who is there.
Let's just say, I think you're going to see a more "Libertarian" fiscal policy out of President Bush's second term.

Fiscal responsibility is always most important.
Security is paramount.

You can't fight a war when your country is bankrupt.
Really? What was our financial position going into World War II?

And you won't get popular support for a war when quality of life begins to rapidly decrease.
Dead people don't make good voters either...well, for Republicans anyway. They've come out in droves for Demoncrats before.

Fiscal responsibility is one of the greatest weapons we have against terror. Unfortunately, we haven't used it.
President Reagan spent Communism into oblivion. It wasn't fiscally responsible and he caught a lot of heat for it...but, it worked.

This isn't a thread on war, but it's true that we view the war on terror differently.
Obviously...

Both parties have proven to be antithetical to my ideas.
I still suggest a person in your position shouldn't vote at all then.

[Spurminator]

You can vote Libertarian and not jeopardize Bush in the race. Particularly if you're in a state like Texas.

[Brodels]

How 'bout you just don't vote if your vote stands the chance of doing more harm than good -- by your own admission.

I feel that my party has the best policies for the nation. I believe that they only way to truly get an accurate picture of what the nation wants, fraud aside, is to encourage everyone to vote.


Let's just say, I think you're going to see a more "Libertarian" fiscal policy out of President Bush's second term.

I hope you're right. But he hasn't done anything to this point to suggest that we can expect that.


Really? What was our financial position going into World War II?

We didn't have the debt that we have now. You can only spend what you don't have for so long before it catches up with you. Question: do you think we should spend what we don't have forever? When do you propose that we stop?


Dead people don't make good voters either...well, for Republicans anyway. They've come out in droves for Demoncrats before.

I'm not going to debate the war in this thread, but our foray into Iraq isn't going to do anything to prevent more terrorist-induced deaths.


President Reagan spent Communism into oblivion. It wasn't fiscally responsible and he caught a lot of heat for it...but, it worked.

And it worked. But it can't work forever. You can live on credit for a period of time, but you can't do it forever. I'd rather not find out where the limit is.


I still suggest a person in your position shouldn't vote at all then.

It's disappointing that you wish to discourage others from voting. I actually thought that you would encourage people to vote. I guess I was wrong.

[Spurminator]

For better or for worse, third party candidates do have an effect on the major parties. Is it a coincidence that most of the Democratic Primary candidates represented the Far Left side of the Democratic Party after Nader had such an effect on the vote in 2000?

The Libertarian Party may never have a legitimate shot at winning elected positions in government, but it may influence the Republican Party to change for the better if enough people are attracted to their platform.

[Yonivore]

I feel that my party has the best policies for the nation. I believe that they only way to truly get an accurate picture of what the nation wants, fraud aside, is to encourage everyone to vote.
I agree with you. It's just that your party hasn't put forward an electable candidate since its inception.

I hope you're right. But he hasn't done anything to this point to suggest that we can expect that.
Well, gee...wars cost money.

We didn't have the debt that we have now. You can only spend what you don't have for so long before it catches up with you. Question: do you think we should spend what we don't have forever? When do you propose that we stop?
Please, the rest of the world is so far behind economically and so indebted to us financially...

Seriously though, exactly what is in jeopardy? Social programs? Egad!!! Being the good Libertarian you are, you really shouldn't be mourning the possible demise of socialist programs -- because, if we get in a financial bind, those will be the first out the window. And, frankly, I say good riddance!

I'm not going to debate the war in this thread, but our foray into Iraq isn't going to do anything to prevent more terrorist-induced deaths.
I don't think the world has any idea the benefits the war in Iraq is reaping. One notable example is the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program -- of which we weren't even aware!

And, given there have been no further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- in spite of bin Laden's promises to the contrary (remember the "American blood will be running in the streets" threat after September 11?). No, instead, bin Laden has been reduced to issuing a once-quadannually missive about the good ol' days of al Qaeda in a thinly guised campaign ad for John Kerry.

And it worked. But it can't work forever. You can live on credit for a period of time, but you can't do it forever. I'd rather not find out where the limit is.
And, we eliminated the deficit last time...just as we will this time, when the threat is passed.

It's disappointing that you wish to discourage others from voting. I actually thought that you would encourage people to vote. I guess I was wrong.
Voting is a privelege not a right, (you only have a right not to be discriminated against by voting laws that are enacted -- and only on the basis of belonging to a protected class as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Stupid people who refuse to acquaint themselves with the important questions of any election should be stopped at the polling place door and turned away.

[Brodels]

I agree with you. It's just that your party hasn't put forward an electable candidate since its inception.

I agree. The party needs to run a more electable candidate. Badnarik is somewhat of a nutjob. But he's still better than the alternatives.


Well, gee...wars cost money.

They do. But if you fight them without the money to pay for them, you need to pay for them someday. When is someday?


Seriously though, exactly what is in jeopardy? Social programs? Egad!!! Being the good Libertarian you are, you really shouldn't be mourning the possible demise of socialist programs -- because, if we get in a financial bind, those will be the first out the window. And, frankly, I say good riddance!

I don't care about the loss of social programs. I'm worried about the severe economic downturn that will occur when we aren't able to pay back what we owe.


I don't think the world has any idea the benefits the war in Iraq is reaping. One notable example is the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program -- of which we weren't even aware!

I don't consider the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program to be worth the cost.


And, given there have been no further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- in spite of bin Laden's promises to the contrary (remember the "American blood will be running in the streets" threat after September 11?). No, instead, bin Laden has been reduced to issuing a once-quadannually missive about the good ol' days of al Qaeda in a thinly guised campaign ad for John Kerry.

Our journey into Iraq hasn't prevented those attacks. It's our vigilance at home. And that's one area where Bush has been pretty strong.


And, we eliminated the deficit last time...just as we will this time, when the threat is passed.

When? And we need to do more than eliminate the deficit anyway. We need to eliminate the debt. How do you propose that we do that when we continue to spend our nation into oblivion?


Voting is a privelege not a right, (you only have a right not to be discriminated against by voting laws that are enacted -- and only on the basis of belonging to a protected class as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964).


Stupid people who refuse to acquaint themselves with the important questions of any election should be stopped at the polling place door and turned away.

I don't think you're in any position to measure my intelligence. What means are you using to do so?

I am very familiar with the questions of the election. I've spent countless hours learning all I need to know about all of the issues. I've been invited to write about them for a local newspaper. I'm very aware.

I know this is a shocker to you, but those who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid and they don't necessarily have a poor grip on the issues. That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it.

[Yonivore]

Okay, I'll skip all the preliminary stuff and jump to the end...because, quite frankly, we disagree on what this election is about. You say money, I say security.

I don't think you're in any position to measure my intelligence. What means are you using to do so?
I never pretended to evaluate your intelligence. I was talking about voters in general...I can't help if you decided I was referring to you.

I am very familiar with the questions of the election. I've spent countless hours learning all I need to know about all of the issues. I've been invited to write about them for a local newspaper. I'm very aware.
Yeah, well, there are idiots writing for the New York Times too. Being invited -- or paid even -- to write for a newspaper doesn't automatically confer any special title that infers enlightenment.

I know this is a shocker to you, but those who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid and they don't necessarily have a poor grip on the issues. That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it.
I don't think John Kerry is stupid and, I can't think of anyone with whom I disagree more right now.

[IcemanCometh]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/images/cartoons/ward/badrep.jpg

[Guru of Nothing]

I think you're confusing guts with naivette... A vote for Bednarak is worse than wasted...it's dangerous.

Damn those voters with convictions!

The only good voter is a voter who is easily manipulated.