John Kerry will become President on January 20, 2005. Mark my words.

Lets hope not...This country will go down the shitter if he is elected

Unless there's a massive news story that shifts things all around over the next five months, I'd be surprised if Kerry didn't win.

Gore lost by a razor margin to Bush in 2000 (looking at the electoral college, of course).

How many 2000 Gore voters are switching to Bush in 2004?
How many 2000 Bush voters are switching to Kerry in 2004?

It would seem the latter would be a considerably higher number than the former. And the "Nader factor" is going to be much less influential this year.

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Lets hope not...This country will go down the shitter if he is elected

Don't you mean further down the shitter than we already are at?

were we better off in the 1990's or now...any opinions?

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Lets hope not...This country will go down the shitter if he is elected

We survived Carter, we can survive Kerry.

Lethemeul Wrote:We survived Carter,

Only because we had 8 years of Reagan immediately after!

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Lets hope not...This country will go down the shitter if he is elected

:stupid:

Motown Bronco Wrote:Unless there's a massive news story that shifts things all around over the next five months, I'd be surprised if Kerry didn't win.

Gore lost by a razor margin to Bush in 2000 (looking at the electoral college, of course).

How many 2000 Gore voters are switching to Bush in 2004?
How many 2000 Bush voters are switching to Kerry in 2004?

It would seem the latter would be a considerably higher number than the former. And the "Nader factor" is going to be much less influential this year.

You underestimate just how bad Kerry put off the undecided people.

Mark MY words: If Kerry is elected, the United States will be embarrised overseas by not enforcing our will and pulling out over the slightest thing, will have another terrorist attack of large scale on our shores, the economy will stagnate, the deficit spending and depreciation of the dollar will continue, and illegal immigration will skyrocket to ruinous proportions, making unemployment SKYROCKET for low wage jobs in the south, and gradually moving northward.

RebelKev Wrote:

moloch_322 Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Lets hope not...This country will go down the shitter if he is elected

Don't you mean further down the shitter than we already are at?

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: The country is doing so poorly right now. :rolleyes:

Tell you what, keep relying on O'Leary. :rolleyes: THAT'll get you somewhere.

So war is good, death is desirable, much of the world questions our actions, the economy is mediocre at best, costs are rising faster than wages, just to name a few - and neither Bush nor Kerry is the answer to cleaning up this mess. Doesn't sound like things are that good to me, just more turmoil and incompetence.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:You underestimate just how bad Kerry put off the undecided people.

Actually, it was Bush's $75 million worth of misleading television attack ads doing that -- and it didn't do all that much.

If the election is held today, Kerry probably wins, based on his support in battleground states.

Quote:Mark MY words:  If Kerry is elected, the United States will be embarrised overseas by not enforcing our will and pulling out over the slightest thing, will have another terrorist attack of large scale on our shores, the economy will stagnate, the deficit spending and depreciation of the dollar will continue, and illegal immigration will skyrocket to ruinous proportions, making unemployment SKYROCKET for low wage jobs in the south, and gradually moving northward.

I fail to see how Kerry could possibly embarass us overseas more than Bush has. Bush's cowboy, go-it-alone lack of strategy has *increased* the risk of an attack against us, not reduced it. Bush is embarassing us overseas. In contrast, Kerry will deliver a foreign policy we can all be proud of.

As far as the economy: More than 2 million jobs have been lost under Bush. Do we really need four more years of that?

Perhaps your weakest point is the notion that Kerry will somehow cause budget deficits.

Kerry wants to close budget deficits. He has bravely suggested it is time to recind the the foolish, budget-busting tax cuts that put us into the mess we are now in. Bush has caused the largest deficits in our nation's history. Kerry wants to fix that.

And Bush is no warrior on illegal immigration. He is practically encouraging the flow of illegal aliens -- by talking about amnesty while refusing to do anything to crack down on the corporations who employ illegals.

Kinda agree, kinda disagree.

Quote:Bush's cowboy, go-it-alone lack of strategy has *increased* the risk of an attack against us, not reduced it.

I think the risk is about the same. Al Qaeda, in general, is not an action committee with just a few grievences to pick. Most of their heirarchy dreams of a pan-Islamic state running from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Philippines and beyond, completely rid of Westerners, Christians, and Jews, and riddled with Sharia Law. These hate speeches have been, are, and will continue to be taught in radical Islamic schools called madrasses, even if the US agreed to every one of their "demands". The phrase 'Al Qaeda' might as well be the Arabic term for Mein Kampf. Even though I do disagree with the military detour into Iraq, I don't think zealots were going to stop blowing up malls, airlines, and resorts if Iraq was never mentioned.

Quote:Kerry wants to close budget deficits. He has bravely suggested it is time to recind the the foolish, budget-busting tax cuts that put us into the mess we are now in. Bush has caused the largest deficits in our nation's history. Kerry wants to fix that.

I'm supportive of his narrowing the budget deficit. But I'd much prefer he keep taxes low (even if it means rolling some of the tax cuts) and instead focus on slashing some spending*. I'm not talking about closing soup kitchens and the like. But Bush has rubber-stamped some painfully bad spending bills over the past 3.5 years that never should've seen the light of day.


[* - I'm going to be cautiously optimistic with a Kerry presidency and a GOP-controlled Congress. Gridlock could keep those bloated expenditures from sliding through the beltway like a hot knife through butter, a la 1994.]

<a href='http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040621/D83BFJIO0.html' target='_blank'>http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040621/D.../D83BFJIO0.html</a>

Motown Bronco Wrote:Kinda agree, kinda disagree.

Quote:Bush's cowboy, go-it-alone lack of strategy has *increased* the risk of an attack against us, not reduced it.

I think the risk is about the same. Al Qaeda, in general, is not an action committee with just a few grievences to pick. Most of their heirarchy dreams of a pan-Islamic state running from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Philippines and beyond, completely rid of Westerners, Christians, and Jews, and riddled with Sharia Law. These hate speeches have been, are, and will continue to be taught in radical Islamic schools called madrasses, even if the US agreed to every one of their "demands". The phrase 'Al Qaeda' might as well be the Arabic term for Mein Kampf. Even though I do disagree with the military detour into Iraq, I don't think zealots were going to stop blowing up malls, airlines, and resorts if Iraq was never mentioned.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. start negotiating with terrorists.

I'm simply suggesting that our Iraq adventure seems to have alienated new sets of people -- or, put another way, created new legions of blood-thirsty anti-American terrorists.

Saudi Arabia appears to be an example. I don't know that Saudis citizens were ever thrilled to have American soliders and western civilians in their country. Our cultures are vastly different. We drink, we lack modesty, etc.

But were Westerners getting beheaded there? Was our state department advising civilians, in effect, to get the **** out?

I don't think so.

If America had no choice but to invade Iraq -- if our national security truly was threatened by Iraq -- then such side effects would be of no consequence. We would just have to suck these side effects up and deal with them.

But Iraq was a war of choice. We didn't have to invade. Our national security did not depend upon that invasion.

And, in light of that reality, any evaluation of the Second Iraq War absolutely must take into account such side effects.

That's my opinion.

George Bush hasn't made America safer. He's made a mess of things, in fact.

Two words, Khobar Towers.

We didn't create blood-thirsty terrorists. They hated us from the get-go. Christians were being killed in the Sudan and other parts of Africa, Indonesia, the Phillippines, and the Middle East long before we attacked Iraq.

Schadenfreude Wrote:But were Westerners getting beheaded there? Was our state department advising civilians, in effect, to get the **** out?

Actually, <a href='http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/philippines010612.html' target='_blank'>yes</a>, three months before 9-11. And in a far more unlikely place than the heart of Saudi Arabia.

But this is only a minor tangent point. I actually do agree with nearly everything you've said about Iraq, though (i.e. national security, etc).

RebelKev Wrote:Two words, Khobar Towers.

We didn't create blood-thirsty terrorists. They hated us from the get-go. Christians were being killed in the Sudan and other parts of Africa, Indonesia, the Phillippines, and the Middle East long before we attacked Iraq.

All true.

I still believe this Iraq adventure is creating new terrorists.

That's a difficult argument to test. I mean, I could point to that (revised) report that shows terrorism appears to be more common these days than it was previously.

I could also point to the 3/11 attack. It is hard to imagine Spain would have been attacked had Iraq not been invaded.

But, I admit, it's murky. We can argue all day.

I'm not sure how one argues America is *safer* though. In my mind, that's an even greater hurdle to clear.

Schadenfreude Wrote:All true.

I still believe this Iraq adventure is creating new terrorists.

That's a difficult argument to test. I mean, I could point to that (revised) report that shows terrorism appears to be more common these days than it was previously.

I could also point to the 3/11 attack. It is hard to imagine Spain would have been attacked had Iraq not been invaded.

But, I admit, it's murky. We can argue all day.

I'm not sure how one argues America is *safer* though. In my mind, that's an even greater hurdle to clear.

They succeeded in their quest...to instill fear in the hearts of the Spaniards. 9/11 was totally different than 3/11. 3/11 was to get them out of Iraq. 9/11...well, we weren't even in Iraq. Their entire stance is negated in that aspect. They aren't attacking us because of our involvement in Iraq. They are attacking us because they are fanatical Muslims....who should die a horrible death after being dismembered with a rusty machete with no anethesia and soaked in isopropyl alcohol. To be honest with you, we should bury ALL terrorists we kill in a vile of pigs blood. "F" their religion. ....which they apparently don't practice in the first place(but that's up for debate as I don't see too many Muslims disassociating themselves from these bastards).

RebelKev Wrote:They succeeded in their quest...to instill fear in the hearts of the Spaniards. 9/11 was totally different than 3/11. 3/11 was to get them out of Iraq. 9/11...well, we weren't even in Iraq. Their entire stance is negated in that aspect. They aren't attacking us because of our involvement in Iraq. They are attacking us because they are fanatical Muslims....who should die a horrible death after being dismembered with a rusty machete with no anethesia and soaked in isopropyl alcohol. To be honest with you, we should bury ALL terrorists we kill in a vile of pigs blood. "F" their religion. ....which they apparently don't practice in the first place(but that's up for debate as I don't see too many Muslims disassociating themselves from these bastards).

Mmmm kay.

Schadenfreude Wrote:I could also point to the 3/11 attack. It is hard to imagine Spain would have been attacked had Iraq not been invaded.

Not really. Who's to say what information Spain might have given us in the War on Terror. Or who that might have detained or caught. We can play the what if game all day long, but it does no good and ultimately the only what if's that are considered are the one's that fit your ideology.

One thing is certain, Spain has now shown it can be blackmailed by terrorists and will buckle to their demands. Cowardice provides short term rewards, but they'll be hit again the second they don't bend to terrorist demands.

One thing is for sure, any thought that these fanatics would hate us less or wish us less harm had we never gone into Iraq is assinine at best. They hate us because we are a free country. They hate us because we support Israel, they hate us because we believe in basic human rights and liberty.

Iraq has nothing to do with their hatred, they would hate us no matter what.