Kerry or Bush?????????????????

[Guest scaryscotsman]

Just a wee poll to see how split political opinion is on the forum.

[Guest squall]

Third party? You do know there isnt a 3rd party at this stage of the election yeah?

[Guest ferret]

Hee hee, dangerous grounds bringing up politics on forums ^_^

Anyway, I've vote Kerry because I think he's the lesser of two evils.

[Guest olly_k]

I suspect this vote will turn out quite differently than the real one :cry:

[Guest awarner [MVP]]

Let me think vote puppet or puppet 8-[

[Guest shadamehr]

Third party? You do know there isnt a 3rd party at this stage of the election yeah?

Squall,

From Reuters news:

"The national poll showed independent candidate Ralph Nader, blamed by some Democrats for drawing enough votes from Gore to cost him the election in 2000, with 1.2 percent."

That's a confusing quote, but it's stating that Ralph Nader is again an Independent, who last time cost Gore sufficient votes to cause him to lose.

So, anyone even heard of him...?

[Guest nickcornaglia]

http://www.votenader.org

He's actually pretty much a nut job.

That's not fair as he is very intelligent but his goal is not to really win but cause disruption to the political system I think. He claims to not be controlled by corporate america. To be a candidate of and for the people. Well, FOR the people at least.

His advertisments are usually filled with freaky imagery. Hitler, Nuclear Bombs, etc. He actually had a full length political infomercial on last election.

For everyone who cant stand Bush or Kerry....they say they'll vote for Nader as a protest to the election....most never do.

He's smart...he's ballsy....but he's not a president.

I'm at a loss on who to vote for.

I hate Kerry's false front. I think he's full of sh*t and will say anything to win the election. Portray himeself in any light necessary to win votes, whether he believes it or not or plans on following thru or not. He wasnt that great of a senator...and doesn't really deserve to even be in the race.

Bush...is...well...Bush. We know where he has gotten us in the past 4 years. He's had alot blamed on him that maybe shouldnt have been. He reacted, in my opinion justifiably to 911 in Afghanistan...unfortunately without producing Bin Laden...but he made the point and hopefully that country will be/could be in a bit more positive of a state in years to come.

But Iraq is a different story. In one light, it is a continuation of the "war on terror" and many view it as a continuation of proactively protecting the US from the countries that HATE us and mean to do us harm.

In another light, the guise was to find supposed WMD's that were never found (I think someone got Iraq and Iran mixed up). That turns many, many off, and see the mission as a failed venture.

Then there are many who believe (myself included) that the US should NEVER put itself in a position to initiate a war. We do not go to war because we can. We go to war because we have to. Protect our borders. Protect our interests. Help in protecting other countries. Go to war when they are provoked. But proactive war is not justified.

There are very bad guys out there. Saddam was one of them and I'm not sad to see him go. He caused alot of death and pain to thousands or millions and would probably have continued to do so...maybe even worse. But the whole thing doesn't sit right with me. Starting very early in the war when a missle was shot by us from Kuwait to Saddam's Palace. Since when are we assasins???

Kerry will make this all worse. Either by inexperience, arrogance, or simply by weakening the country by laying down to the "evil-doers" of the world. I can not vote for him.

I believe Bush will better protect the US, which is the paramount issue at this time. If he needs to admit to mistakes...pre-election is not the time for it. But I'm hoping he rectifies the current situation during his next term and continues to protect our interests.

I'd rather vote for someone else. But there is no one else qualified to vote for. The lesser of the two evils is Bush. It's a terrible political system we're in today. But thats where I currently stand.

I could type on this forever and still not be satisified with the outcome...but I have a Smartphone to tend to. ^_^

PS...Excuse all spelling mistakes. :wink:

[Guest Disco Stu]

Very eloquent summary of the situation Nick.

We tend to sneer at the political process over there but things aren't really any better in the UK, although the 'third' option (our Liberal Democrats) do pose a significant threat to the 2 main parties.

Your vote-rigging is worrying but the higher turnout overall is encouraging for the future. It has just been reported that the US electoral system is simply not geared up to handle over 50% (give or take) turnout, given that it has never been so high in recent history.

[Guest drblow]

I don't suppose it has ever occured to you not to vote?? :shock: Half the problem I see is people all over the world who want to vote, feel it is their duty to vote, but are left with a choice of 'the lesser of 2 evils'. That to me is no reason to vote someone into power who ultimately has the ability to wage war on another nation. In fact it's a good reason to NOT vote for anyone!!

As for protecting the US from terrorists - no harm to ya, but I come from Belfast, and let me assure you there is NO way to protect yourself from terrorists except by engaging them in political action. Look at Northern Ireland now. The IRA are engaged in political talks, not bomb making. OK there are radical factions left, but believe me when I tell you that if a political solution is reached, there will be a systematic removal of the radical elements by IRA command. Currently it serves their purpose very well to have the threat of 'radical' factions still armed, but they can & will put a stop to it if they see the need.

Another good point to note is the fact that 9/11 acted as a catalyst to peace in Northern Ireland. How, I hear you ask? Because the US was the major source of funding for the IRA (ever heard of NORAID?). But after 9/11 it seemed a little odd for the US to be funding terrorists, and when the cash-cow dried up, the IRA was very quick to begin demanding talks.

To me, the US is currently putting itself & it's people in MORE danger from terrorist attacks, because several radical groups feel they have good reason to attack. If an American president REALLY wanted to protect you, they would engage in political action, not military.

Anyway - everybody knows Bush is only after the oil fields ... ^_^

[Guest Monolithix [MVP]]

But bearing in mind that one candidate HAS to get into office, surely the most logical solution is to vote against the one you think would cause the most problems. Unfortuately we live in a world where people aren't particularly sensible and by not voting you don't have any say in how you think your country should be run...

[Guest nickcornaglia]

Not voting would only be beneficial if the entire country were to participate in a protest. If Nader were smart, and since he has the ear of Americans (somewhat), he should have gotten everyone to protest the current nominees instead of running.

BTW...I agree that the although 9-11 was terrible, this crap goes on all the time all over the world to different degrees. Equally as bad or worse to a family member of an individual lost in terroristic/hate attacks.

I am not an expert on the IRA but I would assume that can negotiate their desires as they are most probably clear.

How do you negotiate with terrorists whos only demand is to see your entire country dead and burning to the ground for no other reason than that's what their interpretation of their religion dictates they do?

So since either president to be will be a puppet of sorts...the greater question to me is:

How do we get out of this mess?

What would you have the president-to-be do from this point forward in this matter?

[Guest Disco Stu]

Following on from Dr Blow, you treat the Muslim / Arab (etc) parts of the world fairly, encourage the moderates and they will keep the lid on the fanatics.

There is a tendency for the US government to prop up corrupt regimes for strategic purposes, eg. Saudi Arabia and the one-sided approach to Israel, and this causes resentment that ultimately leads to terrorism.

We do still all drink Coke and watch Disney films, it's just that poor people are getting crapped upon because the Western World is imposing itself on the rest. And the USA is the most obvious target for those poor people.

[Guest drblow]

See, I think alot of the problem there is that the American people are bombarded with media stuff about how they are constantly under terrorist threat, and no harm to you Yanks, but your first reaction is kind of "well, what else is there to do except fight". Politics is meant to be about talking!

It is a fact of life that the US will have to face up to, that their foreign policy over the latter half of the 20th century has stirred up hatred from other nations. It IS extremist, it IS minority factions that perpetrate it, it IS displicable & awful, but it IS there! & it should be the responsibility of the American president to ensure that foreign policy takes account of that (which obvioulsy it has systematically, throughout several administrations, failed to do).

But I would be very wary of any government that is trying to tell you that the US is under this constant threat. It would appear that the average US citizen is in a state of perpetual panic over where & when the next attack is gonna happen. Of course it's a possibility. But the alleged "threat" of WMD from Mr Hussein has been proven to be a complete lie, the US forces there have not been posted to the munitions dumps that were found and as we are seeing at the moment there is speculation about bomb making equipment being lost from them. Now, if the primary objective for the US was to relieve old Saddam of his WMD, then would it not seem a little odd to suddenly discover over a year later, that bomb making materials from an Iraqi munitions dump has been stolen under the noses of the US Army?? :shock: So, if the objective is to exterminate a "threat" to America's security, then why leave some of the very few munitions actually found open to theft?

It does bring into question the fact that the US was told (as we were in the UK) that Saddam was basically pointing his nuclear missiles right at us, and they'll be here in 45 minutes! ^_^ It then transpires that there weren't really any weapons, it was an "intelligence error". Now, we're talking about the entire spy network of both the US & the UK, with the absolute top of the scale technology available to them (you know, satellites that can photograph your nose hair let alone a nuclear missile silo, equipment to analyse particles in air samples etc etc). & we are expected to believe that they just got it wrong?

I know I'm ranting in a conspiracy theory style! :D Please don't get me wrong, I'm not attributing blame on the American people at all. I entirely sympathise with the effects of a terrorist attack. All I would ask anyone to do (in any country of the world) is to research everything you can, in as much depth as you can, from as many different sources as you can. The age old propaganda method of disinformation is long gone. Modern propaganda exists in spreading too much information. It is up to the individual now to search through the heaps of garbage that is thrown on top of every story, to formulate the truth yourself, if you can.

I think it was Hilter or Stalin that said something to the effect of "if you want to get the will of the people on your side, tell them they are under attack and that you are their only salvation", or something! :P

Obviously this is something I feel quite strongly about! :shock: It irks me that for over 30 years Northern Ireland was a bomb crater, and no US forces came in to rescue us from terrorist attack! No "war on terror" for us! :twisted: Obviously that's a bitter & twisted personal Irish viewpoint! It's just that the media is correct in saying that the US president now is not just the leader of the American people, but also the leader of the free-world (god thats difficult to say without throwing up!), whether we like that or not. It WILL have a dramatic impact on the lives of people all over the world.

[Guest nickcornaglia]

From an American point of view only (I do know terrorists dont only point at us).....

Tell the people on the USS Cole, American embassys in Africa, WTC Bombing, World Trade Center Destruction, that talking and negotiating will win the peace.

I know you are not trying to justify terroristic behavior, but these things only get worse as they have proven to over time.

Why should the US negotiate with behavior like that? Or at least initiate nogotiations?

Instead...Why doesn't the threat stop behaving like the live in the stone ages and realize that THEY live in a world with other cultures that don't necessarily believe what they do.

We wouldnt be in Afghanistan if not for 9-11.

We wouldn't be in Iraq if not for all the hatred, killing and destruction that Saddam spread.

I don't think it's up to the US or the UK to be the "better man" here. It's up to the radicals to end their behavior and get along with the rest of the world.

In my humble opinion....

[Guest drblow]

OK - look ... you're wrong about history. The reason I am using the Irish analogy is 1) I come from there, and 2) it shows that there IS the possibility of negotiation with people who are engaged in an armed struggle. Like I said earlier, the peace talks in NI are a joke. They get together once, talk about how much they all hate each other, and then disband the assembly again! :twisted: But they ARE talking, and the bombs & shootings HAVE stopped. Simple as that.

You say that the US would not be in Iraq if it weren't for the hatred & killing spread by Saddam? So it's not about American security, it's about stopping Saddam from killing his own people? Coz lets face it, I dunno how many Americans Saddam has killed, but it ain't very many!

To say that it's up to the radicals to get along with the rest of the world is naive to say the least. There is an impression created in the media that radicals/terrorists are maniac psychos, with a crazed look in their shifty eyes, and a blood-curdling scream of 'infidels' as they rain down terror on you. That could not be further from the truth in most cases. Sure, every radical faction has it's share of cannon fodder that is brain-washed, stupid and ready to kill & maim (same as any army), but the people at the top are rarely if ever any of those things. Most are very intelligent, politically minded individuals. To simply say that you expect them to behave themselves would be music to their ears. That would signify that you have no idea of how to combat them in terms of actually creating stability or peace, and war/terror/killing is exactly what THEY WANT. Believe it ... wherever Bin Laden is right now, he's loving every minute of the Iraq war. Every day it gives him more political ammunition with which to brainwash all the others.

I feel that it is very much up to the US to be the 'big man' in this situation. After all, going around the world on a "war on terror", and a mission of liberating the oppressed, there needs to be a sense that as the leader of the free world, the US must be as peace oriented as possible. It may be very American & gung ho to say "why should the US negotiate with terrorists", but ultimately you'll have to. & going around the world on a crusade of military action against whoever looks like a threat is actually putting Americans in MORE danger than before.

Say they find Bin Laden. Say they disarm every other nuclear capable nation on earth. Say they kill all the terrorists we know of at the moment. Do you really believe that would bring an end to terrorism? If so, you know nothing of the nature of terrorists. In 1974 the British Army & the SAS put together a list of IRA suspects. They could have easily assasinated the all in one go, but the reason they didn't was because they knew that in doing so, they would create a gap in the command structure which would ineveitably be filled with more radical, more determined people. For an idea of some of the measures taken by the British Army & intelligence organisations to combat the IRA take a look at this website http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/dirty.htm , especially the conclusion.

[Guest ferret]

Drblow, I beleive the total number of Americans killed by Saddam Hussein is infact zero.

Instead...Why doesn't the threat stop behaving like the live in the stone ages and realize that THEY live in a world with other cultures that don't necessarily believe what they do.

Isn't that a contradiction? Shouldn't the war on terror brigade do they same? Yes Saddam Hussein was an evil man that terrorised his people, but I believe he never posed any threat to the US or the UK. Why should we have the right to bomb the hell out of the place? Remember, we live in a world with other cultures that don't necessarily believe in what we do.

[Guest nickcornaglia]

I dont claim to be any kind of expert on NI...but by your argument. Why should anyone else have interfered with the IRA struggle? They're not bombing anyone outside of the UK were they?

War itself is a contridiction. Make war to gain peace? Rediculous.

Anyone that kills women and kids for the sake of their religion is nuts. Shoots missles over to Israel because they believe one god is better than another.

You are very close to the IRA thing and I'm not trying to argue with you. But can you really claim that the IRA is similar to radical muslims. Would they claim that or appreciate the comparison? Just because you can negotiate with the IRA doesnt mean the same in every situation around the world.

I wont tell you what to believe and you shouldnt do the same toward me. But I'll tell you that my friend's family member who died in the WTC wouldn't agree that these are people who are able to be negotiated with. They won't agree that we don't need to worry about what could be next. They wouldn't agree that the the threat can be eliminated by talks.

Not with people who kill because they think it's what they're suppose to do. Because they think it's good to do. Those who like to make their efforts more spectacular than previous attempts.

Give the N. Irish what they want and see what kind of signal that sends to the next radical group that wants something.

Give any terrorist what they want and see how many terrorists threaten to take what they want next.

Show compassion for their cause...not for their actions.

I think you'll agree that Terror is stupid. Most wouldn't think of perpetrating such actions. Murder is stupid...yet it happens everyday in your streets and mine. And we expect justice done to those that commit it. We don't sit down and discuss it with them and ask them to stop murdering.

I see the same thing here.

We (the US and UK...and others) police the world. Many countries need us to. Many countries want us to. Saddam doesnt need to kill Americans or British for America and the UK to get involved.

You'll see in my first post that I am against the war in Iraq. But not against the war on terror. And not against the first gulf war.

I feel for every single person who is killed in these things. Every Iraqi, every Afghanni, man woman or child. Many times these things are unavoidable. And not always due to our actions alone.

What a perfect world it would be if there were no war, no hatred. But we dont live in that world. As long as two young boys argue about anything in a playground anywhere in the world...this won't go away that easy.

[Guest drblow]

I appreciate everything you are saying, and I'm really not trying to tell you what to believe - I'm just entering into the spirit of the American elections! ^_^ Please don't get me wrong - I mean you no offence at all. If anything I am merely trying to encourage some discussion and exchange of view points. :wink:

By the way - the IRA planted bombs in Germany & Gibraltar at least that I know of. OK, they were at British Army bases, but their campaign was not limited to NI. They regularly bombed mainland UK in the 70's & 80's. But the point was more directed to the current "war on terror", which I am lead to believe is not about America avenging itself for 9/11 but is about (as you say) 'policing' the world. Ireland, although being part of the world, never qualified for this extra treatment. Obviously things had settled down before the current Bush administration crusade, but the point still remians that during 30 years of violence, various American administrations not only did nothing about NI, but condoned "charities" raising money for "republican prisoners of war". Not terrorsits, "prisoners of war". Google search NORAID for more info if you like (actually, here's a good recent one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/norther...nd/1562217.stm)

& you say that there was no need to interfere in NI because they didn't bomb outside the UK? But Saddam didn't bomb anybody this time. Ok, he invaded Kuwait - but he got his war for that one. The current war in Iraq was sold to us on the basis that he COULD attack us if he wanted to, which has now been proved wrong. So the administrations go on the back foot, and start tellking us that he was a bad man, who did bad stuff to his people, and THATS why we invaded him. Well, thats what I mean. Martin McGuiness was a bad man, who did bad stuff to his people. But he got invited over to Boston on a regular basis for 'fund-raising' dinners! There's plenty of bad people doing bad stuff to their people all over the world (Mugabe comes to mind). Nobody invading there!

Of course direct victims of terrorism will often feel that they could never negotiate with the perpetrators. But again, there was a 'spectacular' in NI in Omagh. It was the largest loss of life in the history of the troubles (I think about 40 people killed - which is of course minute compared with the WTC). In the following years, the victims families created a pressure group to bring to light, among other things, the lack of justice they recieved from the police. In the process of doing so, they came face to face with some of the people who commited the bombing. Quite a few of the families had regular contact with the bombers, and there are other cases of this. Most have said that the only true reconciliation has come from actually facing & talking to the perpetrators themselves.

You say, quite correctly, that anyone who will kill women & children is nuts. I'd go a bit further, and wager that in the 3rd world/middle east, a great number of the 'armies' of terrorists are uneducated, poor, brainwashed, AND nuts!! Which makes them easy meat for the likes of Bin Laden to recruit. Don't forget, on the ground, your average run of the mill terrorist is more tha likely doing it because - 1) its a job 2) you get a gun which means nobody can mess with you in the local bar 3) you get some extra cash. Certainly in the Irish scenario there was very little tradition of extremist political motives or high held ideas of freedom. Make no mistake, the average IRA terrorist just wanted to be a gangster. But the ploitically motivated, clever people at the top neither wanted or needed their cannon fodder to be anything other than willing & able to do what they were told.

So, yes you are right - terrorists are nuts. But some of them are cold, calculating nuts. With political ability & awareness. The point of the NI references was to try to show you that in a tiny province of a tiny island, a tiny group of terrorists were successfully able to evade capture & assasination for over 30 years, until finally the grounds were laid for a peace talks process. Now, considering (if you read the article I posted above) that into the 1980's the British Army intelligence from NI were briefing the US army on how to deal with terrorists - then what chance do you really think there is of catching a terrorist? & even if the US does capture one, what difference would that really make? I mean, I don't personally believe that the IRA were as radical as Al-quaeda, and most of their recruits came from the families of people who were killed by British soldiers. So does it not occur to the US that in every death in the middle east, there are potentially more extremists being formed by those events? Kids growing up poor in an occupied land, with a father killed by American bombs, until one day a man says "we'll feed your family & give you money, if you drive this bomb to this place". Maybe it isn't feasible to establish talks with Al-quaeda. But there can be no doubt about the fact that the biggest threat currently to the Amreican (& British) people is the war for oil ... oh sorry, I mean the war on terror! :D It's just creating more & more terrorists every day.

Just don't forget, your very own 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms ... against a government that is either corrupt or failing to serve the American people's best interests. :P

[Guest nickcornaglia]

TRUE STORY

My son is 4-1/2 years old. He takes a form of Karate that incorporates karate, grappling and kick-boxing.

There is a little boy in his class who is is always paired up with him because they are almost the same size and at the same experience level.

But this little boy is MEAN. He is overly wired up all of the time, like he just ate a pound of sugar. He calles Joey names for no reason, teases him, and even called him a stupid a-hole once in a whisper during class(which my son told me later).

Understand that my son is the sweetest, nicest kid of all time. He is always happy and just wants to be friends with everyone.

The other day they were in full gear during a kick-boxing class: padded helmet, boxing gloves, shin pads, foot pads.

This kid was swinging like there was no tomorrow. He punched my son in the face at least 6 times during their mock sparring...where ABSOLUTELY NO face contact is allowed...nor hard punches for that matter. The purpose is to learn how to punch, move, block and balance. (no one was hurt at all....physically.)

The teacher caught him doing it a couple of times and said something. But missed the other times.

Later, after class I talked to my son asking him how he felt about the other kid and about how he treats him. Obviously, he hates that he teases him, and was mad about the punching and not following the rules. (And not getting caught and corrected for it).

Now this is all just a matter of two boys figuring out who is the bigger gorilla, the pack leader...something we all went thru at one point or another. (I later found that the kid has a bigger brother who treats him like crap and I have a feeling it all comes from the parents in some way.)

But I was at a loss at how to help him deal with this matter.

Part of me wanted to tell him to knock the kid on his ass next time he teases or goes too far during class. Tease him back until he cries. Tell on him right away and get him in trouble.

But the part of me that one was to explain to my son that not all kids know how to make friends and have a funny way of showing it. Tell him you dont like what he's doing and if it doesn't work, just ignore him and practice with the other kids.

I've spoken with the instructor quietly who will monitor the situation. I will speak with the father when I see him again to make him aware and voice my concern.

Now...this kid won't stop. I know it. He doesn't know how to. He only knows how to bully, because he is constantly bullied by his brother and who-knows who else.

If it happens again, I'll voice my concern louder. If it happens again and nothing is done about it, I will give my son full authority to knock his crooked little teeth out until he learns his lesson...which he will very quickly.

Oh how life imitates life. ^_^ This is all true. I'm too tired tonight to reply to your last post but hope to later. I was thinking about this today and saw the similarities...kinda.

By the way...there's no problem with a nice debate drblow! No hard feelings at all. We dont need to see eye-to-eye. Different points of view help me learn as does the opportunity to write about what I'm thinking which I rarely get a chance to do, let alone speak to anyone about things at length....other than my son that is. But they're usually totally different topics, like why our cat licks his own butt! :D

[Guest drblow]

I love a good debate me!! :D

I see what you're saying in the story about your son. Personally, in my own childhood, my dad would have made me go thump the other kid straight off probably! :P Which may explain alot about my screwed up adult life! ^_^

But I definately sense a danger in treating worldwide terrorism in the same way as you treat a childrens scrap. Sure, everybody has conflict. The world is full of bullys. But you gotta understand that to a great majority of people in the middle east, America is the bully.

To follow your analogy - lets say Saddam is a bully in the playground. The US is the big school tough guy, respected by all coz he's bigger & tougher than everybody else. So, on hearing about little Saddam bullying someone, the big US kid goes to his house, kills several members of his family, destroys a large portion of their home & land, & captures Saddam himself, leaving all his tough big brothers to watch over the Hussein family until they can establish a better family relationship?

From what you clearly know about human nature, do you think that would make the little Hussein family just roll over & give up? Or considering what we know about the nature of people who bully & intimidate, do you jot think it more likely that the remaining members of the Hussein family would form a tighter, more determined attitude to getting their own back?

You can show empathy in your story with the kid punching your son, coz he gets bullied at home & doesn't know any different. So why does that empathy not extend to a nation of people?

The idea that America has done absolutely nothing to provoke any ill feeling from people in the middle east is simply wrong. You gotta look at the history of the place. Now again, I'm not justifying 9/11, or condoning it in any respect. But the simple truth is that the US is now dealing with a situation that the Irish had to deal with for years. OK it's was on a smaller scale, but that makes no difference whatsoever to the families of victims. If your Dad was killed in a bomb, it doesn't matter to you how many other people died. But terrorism is terrorism wherever it is happening. I just wish that people could learn from what we in Ireland had to suffer.

Now, go vote! :P

[Guest nickcornaglia]

I'm going...I'm going!

[Guest sparkisgti]

Hee hee, dangerous grounds bringing up politics on forums ^_^

Anyway, I've vote Kerry because I think he's the lesser of two evils.

lmao would u buy a used car of that guy.. i wouldnt

bush for me.. at least u know hes a prat..

were yet to find out all kerrys hidden past n future

"better the devil you know" imo

[Guest drblow]

Look - I'm really not trying to provoke you or anything ... but read this HERE.

The original article comes from the LA Times, so yes, it is from a mad conspiracy theory website, but it is referenced by US publications & journalists. OK it might be bulls**t, I guess we'll find out in the next few weeks! :twisted:

[Guest dodding nonkey]

Judging by the last election farce, the only winners will be the legal profession! ^_^ :D :P