I can't imagine how any one can be undecided, but it's nice to see someone is. I won't tell you how to vote, but I'll offer my opinions. I'm pro-life, but I don't vote based on social issues. It's not really that important to me either. That's not true, in regards to the Dems being more fiscally responsible. It's only been recently they've started making a big deal about it verbally, I say verbally because their actions are different. Dems tax and spend. We have a deficit, because of the need for defense and homeland security spending. Which is just fine be me. All other spending is actually somewhat under control. People bring up the 40-50% in education spending, but that's not much since most education spending comes from the state. Also, I'm not sure of the direct accuracy of this but Bush said on O'Reilly last night that non-defense and homeland spending was under 1% of the budget. Congress still needs to stop the pork barreling. Deficits are not a problem in the short-run, only long run. If the deficit had the possibility to continue to increase drastically over the next 5-6 years it could become a problem. It's already started to decrease, it was about 100 billion dollars lower than it was supposed to be last year. The economy is growing, thus tax revenues will increse. The deficit is not a problem. Pro-death penalty, extremely important to me. My worry about this is the judges a hypothetical Kerry presidency would put up for confirmation. I won't vote based on it though. I love the idea of tort reform, it's gonna do wonders. The tax benefits for overseas companies has been around since the begining of time or taxing and foreign markets. It's not something Bush just came up with, it's a way to open up other markets. Kerry actually had a bill in Congress that would stop this (I think, not positive), but there was a some small print that exempted Heinz. Bush has been asking for ANWR drilling for years. His energy policy can't make it out of Congress. I think it's a great idea. It would give us enough oil for 20 years, it's only an extremely small area of ANWR. The people in Alaska support it. I really wish Congress would pass it, it would allow us stop treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves. Minus ANWR and drilling the Gulf, their energy policies aren't that different. There are a few other differences, but Bush's is better. :thumb: I could not care less about this issue. My issue with tax breaks and whatnot is that the way the tax codes and regulations will have to be changed drastically. And hey Bush just wants to cut and eliminate taxes so they won't have to pay much or any in the first place. Bush is trying to cut healthcare cost with tort reform and allowing small businesses come together and get the same benefits as corporations. Neither would cost money, I like things that don't cost money. We need to go to the costs, not regulate it but do something. So people can get it themselves and not have to depend on the government. . Agreed. I think they'll both do a fine job on homeland security measures. On national security, intelligence, defense, foreign policy I have to go with Bush 100%. Sadly they don't. That's too many future voters. The temporary worker cards could be helpful, but I'm sure it'll be abused. We should force all illegals to leave, they can come the legal way. Yep. There will be no Social Security when it's time for my retirement. Bush's plan is honestly, the only way to go. It saves money too. Did you like his answer? Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? If yes to those questions then you answered your original question. :thumb: We are on good terms. They may resent us but they respect us. France and Germany are a bunch of babies, who didn't want to see their cash cow (Iraq) removed. I don't think they should matter on the the issue of Iraq, becuase they voted for the resolution saying disarm or face the consequenecs, yet voted against the UN taking them up on the consequences. Kerry goes with what the paper says, public opinion, and the French. Not good. I just wouldn't trust him, and I trust Bush completely on the War on Terror.
Thanks for the responses I enjoyed reading all of the replies from the Bush supporters and you guys have succeeded in getting me to lean a little more his way but I still need more information from the other side before making a choice. While a agree with just about everything that was posted in this thread, I also find myself agreeing with the Democrats at times. I saw Kerry's convention speech and thought it was great with a lot of good points. Then I saw Bush's convention speech and thought the same thing. Some of the responses prompted more questions of mine. Has either side addressed the North Korea situation in detail? I don't necessarily think of terrorists when I think of North Korea but their capabilities present a huge danger to the world. How do we stop them now before they get started? Question for martin. I agree with just about everything you said but I fear that the vast majority of Americans are like you (and me) in that lower taxes won't be offset by people contributing to their cause of choice. While special interest groups are out of control campaigning for their little things to get more money than they should, there are still a lot of good, hard-working, sometimes elderly, people that need help from somewhere. I think that's the basic reason my parents are Democrats. They don't mind paying a little more in taxes to help those in need. Of course, the problem arises with the manner in which the money is spent. Regarding the ANWR drilling. Is there a chance it can make it out of Congress if Bush is elected or is there no chance of it happening in the next 4 years? Would the "extremely small part" of ANWR spread to a larger section over time? If the Alaskan eskimo folk are for it, I don't see why the Dems would be against it. Does anyone know why? Back to foreign policy which everyone agrees is the overriding factor. I still flip flop like Kerry times infinity on this issue. Before the election in 2000, I just couldn't stand Gore and wanted to vote for GW. When I saw GW on Letterman, I told my wife that I just had a "gut feeling" (see G-Man's post above) that GW would lead us into WWIII. He just had that overly bravado attitude that seemed like he wanted to pick a fight and it didn't matter if other nations gave support or not. Many political pundits said before the 2000 election that GW was starting to believe it was his destiny to be President. I completely believe that he has good intentions in fighting this war and assessing risk from all fronts. However, it's little things like using the term "Axis of Evil" and just pissing off the rest of the world that petrifies me. I just don't want to see him tell Germany, France, or whoever that "you're either with us or against us and there's no middle ground." The next thing you know it's another World War. On the other hand, as SabanFan pointed out, there have been no further attacks on our soil and all indications are that GW is doing something right. If it was just a matter of getting communication improved between all of the agencies after, then Kerry could possibly do nothing and we'd be still be safe in that area. Of course, another big fear is that Kerry will take over and the terrorists will think the U.S. becomes weaker in it's stance. Nothing would be worse than a college football game being bombed or a mall during holiday shopping. Could Kerry unite the country in our efforts? Would all of these anti-war people support Kerry if he basically continued GW's efforts while simultaneously attempting to repair relations with other countries? Simply tell Germany that we believe what we're fighting for is the safety of the world and work with them more. Sorry for rambling, I better get back to work.
Since all the feedback you got from Kerry supporters was a one-liner by Crawfish, I thought I'd keep it "fair and balanced" and give you a couple of links to Kerry supporters so you can read up on why they think Kerry is the right man for the job :wink: http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html#freepress http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html
No, but it hasn't been ignored for the last 4 years either. I think this can be solved diplomatically or scaring them with military force (which I consider diplomatically), Iraq has shown that we mean what we say now. I don't think they would take the chance, this is all assuming Bush is re-elected. Not sure what they would think about Kerry, other than they've endorsed him. I think so. The Eskimos want it, and I too don't see the Dems point. It would lessen our dependence on foreign oil, including Saudi Arabia. Maybe the Democrats don't want to lose their Bush-Saudi conspiracy theory. :wink: I don't think it would spread, it will be hard enough getting the small part. I liked it. It showed that we were pissed and weren't gonna take it anymore. I don't think he meant France and Germany, they've both helped in other areas just not Iraq. It is an another world war, just not like any before. Plus, France and Germany would never fight against us again. No, he couldn't unite it. Too many would think he is doing to much, to many would think he wasn't doing enough. I don't think our relationships with other countries is that bad. The only issue that is brought up is France and Germany, that's just two countries. There are over 30 in Iraq and over 50 in Afghanistan. We may not be liked, but we've never been liked that much. We're still respected. France and Germany have already said they won't give us troops no matter who is president. Bush has been saying we are fighting for our and the world's safety since the war began. They don't listen. They won't help until it is clear Islamic terrorism is a thing of the past. They're scared they'll come after them.
couldnt your parents give that same tax money directly to whatever sources they believe deserve it without forcing me to give money too? there are lots of people like your parents. if those people paid less taxes, the economy would be better, and they would have more cash to contribute in a much more direct and efficient way to whatever. why is the money they give to the government magically able to solve problems that money cant solve through private channels? and why is the government justified in taking my money to contribute? if the money was not paid in taxes, your parents would have more choice about where their money would be most helpful, and it could be used far more directly and efficiently. of course, most democrats dont really want to give to the poor, they want to force the rich to give to the poor. you should almost never force anyone to do anything, it just isnt justified. freedom!
exactly. that it is why it is so weak when kerry claim he would do so much more to have our "alles" along with what we do. it just isnt possible. you can say it all day, but these coward countries are not going to agree. claiming you will be more sensitive is not gonna do anything. you cant just work a little harder at it, and suddenly everybody agrees. at some point you just have to have the leadership to say screw them, we will do what is necessary. kerry is claiming not to be that sort of leader. and it is exaggerated how much this stuff hurts our diplomatic ties to these countries. they didnt like it, so what, nothing comes of it. maybe they can pass an official law that says they were annoyed. our relations with these countries would have to be alot worse for it to matter.
Please keep in mind France and Germany were profiting from Saddam. Of course they did not want to buck that system. Is that what you want, someone who will wait for other countries without our best interest at heart to be in charge? Appeasement is not the answer....the UN is a great idea and a terrible reality. The UN is as corrupt as it comes, as they were actually profiting off of the oil for food program. They are a disgrace and to act like we should let them dictate our foreign policy so no one is mad at us is foolish... EDIT: This is not actually dictated towards any one person, it is just a general statement regarding foreign policy.
Reality Check: We are the United Nations. Without us, their forces would effectively drop to 0, nill, nada. Also, the French are pussies (I say this with great disdain, as I am French). They aren't going to take action against anybody, especially not something so controversial.
