Quote:That right there tells me you are not principled and have no CLUE about the politics of this nation. Considered voting Libertarian or Nader? Dude, do you even KNOW what you are talking about? One's a Socialist the other's a FULL Capitalist. Take a stand man.
I know what they are and what they are not. The fact is, no one candidate out there appeals to me strongly right now, because on some issues I have views that would be considered conservative (abortion, fiscal responsibility, illicit drug use) and on others, liberal (education, no death penalty). In other words, I don't vote on party lines, because I see issues from a different perspective.
Quote:Damn. How about this, don't vote.
You know RebelKev, even if I disagreed with your viewpoints -- and that already seems likely -- I wouldn't say that to you. How about making your points with a logical argument instead of demanding that I pick from the choices you deem appropriate? I take a stand on issues more than parties or political dogma, that's all.
Quote:I don't want to put words in CMichFan's mouth, but I would take a guess that he's strongly against the Iraq War, and Badnarik and Nader are the only two candidates against the war.
Pretty good guess, but no. To avoid a long and drawn-out argument, I'll keep it simple.
I have a hard time believing Kerry, who seems to be making an effort to say what people want to hear more than anything. He's contradicted himself on numerous occasions. I don't want yet another president who makes lying a habitual practice in office. Not to mention the fact that it's hard to pin down exactly what he wants to do if elected.
Meanwhile, Bush seems to be too stubborn to listen to anybody outside his inner circle. I can admire sticking to your guns, but only up to a point. The man resisted the creation of the Homeland defense department until it became obvious that everyone wanted it...at which point he tried to take credit for the idea! He also obviously had Iraq on the agenda from the beginning.
As for the war: I would have tried to achieve more through diplomacy first. The strategy of employing Muslim clerics and other respected Islamics to help stabilize the country was a good one, but maybe it should have been the first resort, not the last. Change would have taken longer, but perhaps at the expense of fewer lives, both American and Iraqi. I also think we could have bent a little further to the wishes of some NATO allies.
Unfortunately, that argument is all academic at this point. We went in and made a big mess, so now we have a moral obligation as well as a political one to help clean it up. My hope is that the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off without Hussein's iron hand in control. Already some schoolchildren there are learning more about the world without regime-mandated dogma being force-fed to them. OTOH, how many enemies have we created among those who lost siblings, children, parents, or friends to terrorist or U.S. military actions? There's no easy answer to the question of, "did we do the right thing?" It'll take years to resolve that. I only hope that Iraq will be able to evolve into a country where its citizens feel both free and relatively safe, instead of one where yet another dictator comes to power.
Have I sufficiently confused everyone yet?
