Why I'm not voting for "W" (Resume)

[STiSchucky]

tjamz wrote:
The plan to hunt down terrorists.....woops, decided to stretch our military and attack a country that has never (prior to the current war) killed one US civilian nor did they have the means to attack us AND had no connection to Al Qaeda(duelfer report, 9/11 commission, etc... all confirm this)....I agree Saddam was a bad man, he killed many innocent civilians in his own country, but there are MANY other "leaders" that fit this description. Seems odd to me that of the 3 countries in the axis of evil, we attack the only one that doesn't have and wasn't capable of nuclear weapons....hmmm....who's the biggest threat?

The plan to finance the war, sorry, don't agree there either. Someone has to repay the debt, I'd prefer to pay it now, through either higher taxes or extreme reductions non-critical govenment programs (I know, Kerry doesn't want to cut a ton of programs, like I said we are different and he's not perfect like me )

Everybody knows, Iraq would have, and probably did harbor terrorists from late 2001 to present times. All of these car bombs, road side bombs are performed by She-di-Yene(sp?) soldiers, which are basically terrorists. Well, Saddam and Osama don't see eye to eye in some things such as religion. But if they had to cooperate with one and nother, they would do so. You say we had no right to start a war with Iraq, yet your candidate voted to get Saddam. Getting him was a big boost in the war on Iraq, and terror itself. But just because he never attacked, or killed any Americans(doubt that, just dont remember it) since the Gulf War doesn't mean he had any plans to do it in the future with soldiers based world wide, and key allies with much hated Israel and a Turkey country whose been nothing but big help for lending us air force bases and also troop support. Saudi Arabia is the only neighboring Arab country that is kind of on the ropes with everything. My gut is that we shouldn't really trust them.

North Korea and Iran are big concerns to, no doubt. If Kerry was elected, he would probably leave these countries be, let them develop a few nukes and then use them on a European country. Then we'd all be back at square 1 blaming Kerry for being to sensitive with terrorists/evil countries and giving them time to strike without us being the first ones to hit them first. Those 3 countries are the only 3 I can think of with actual radical leaders. The part where you said many, please give some examples, with communist ambitions, not just a country that just harbors and supplies terrorists with little groups such as Sudan and tiny tiny parts of Pakistan.

Eventually to pay for the war, there will be no tax-cuts but just raises, no matter who the president is. And right, neither will cut a large amount of gov't funded programs, as it would set off a few tree huggers that fortunately recieved a screw job. Which would start all this bickering and blah blah blah.

[Guest]

Umm...like I said before, there was NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND AL-QAEDA. Many reports have confirmed this. Many reports have also stated that our "friends" the Saudi's have and still do harbor terrorists and al-qaeda training cells. Saddam did not and has not had the capability to attack us w/ missiles. There were no WMD's, which was THE case for us going to war in the first place. Hans Blix (UN Weapons Inspector) said this before the war, during the war, and still maintains it to this day. I think we went to war on false pretenses, maybe the info wasn't clear, but it is the job of the president to ensure that all intelligence is factual before acting on it. And yes, I know, Kerry authorized the president to use force, however Bush said he was going to go to our friends in the UN and not rush to war and that we would attack w/ a grand coalition of forces with "Shock & Awe". Some grand coalition. 3 countries backed us militarily (according to bush) as we invaded Iraq (England, Australia and the ever fearsome Polish Army).

As for N korea and Iran, I don't think he would "leave these countries be", I don't think he would attack them, but I think he would try and rebuild some form of relations to these countries. I'm not saying he would partner with them or anything like that, I just think that we would try and find some sort of resolution and compromise. Maybe that compromise would be to allow weapons inspectors in as they dismantle their nukes and in exchange they get some sanctions lifted...I don't know. I don't think he would just say "oh gee, these countries are harmless, lets let them be". Kerry has stated that he would like to see bi-lateral talks between the US and Korea, talks that would be aimed at eliminating their nuclear programs. Of course we need to get other parties involved as well, such as Japan, the Chinese, Russia, etc...

I am glad that we agree that tax hikes are needed to fund this war.

One thing I will say is this, just because I don't like the war (or the reasons we went to war) doesn't mean I don't support the warriors involved. I have friends and family there right now. We have to win. We need to win in Iraq.

[STiSchucky]

I never said Al-Qaeda and Iraq had a direct link, but if you give a dictator like Hussein the resources, knowledge, power, time, equipment..he could and probably would've caused major troubles over there. The US first started war in Oct. 2001, and we attacked Iraq in March of 2003.. that gave Saddam around 15 months or so to destroy any evidence to prevent such an attack. We knew he had such gasses as mustard gas,because he used it against his own people and tried developing his arsenal of nukes but failed. Now that we got Saddam, it gives us some relief. But of course, some other republicans like myself disagree that we should be over there right now and losing soldiers. But once they finally establish a Gov't, hold an election, get proper security systems in tack, we'll still be over there losing guys which I think should've started pulling once they got Hussein.

And when you got North Korea, who never negotiates, and Iran, who we'll never ever ever see eye to eye with(unless Regan resignated and got re elected). So I dunno if ole Kerry could pull of a task thats much more easier said then done, with out using any, if not none military force.

I do think that what we see from the media is just a lil chip on the soldier. I think we're winning Iraq and winning it strongly. From over throwing a pro communist gov't, establishing a democracy, getting a good education system up and running, seducing the bad guys etc. is what we never see from the Media.

[STiSchucky]

and about the other economy issues with me saying why the govt just cant make up 330 000 000 000 dollars, was just a shot in the dark to see what the real reason was.

[Guest]

Okay; I also posted this in another thread, but it serves more purpose to this thread so here's a copy/paste
I hate the media.. They exploit everything for ratings.. Any1 notice how the beheadings happened after the media made a big deal about how we treated our POWs not so friendly, yet the media doesn't exploit that the people were punished and how severe.. Crazy huh? The media wants things to look bad becuz ppl seem so interested in it all the time. This is my opinion (all of it; some others may think differently) Anyways has any1 seen the beheading vids? Makes me feel sick man, I'd want to shoot them A-hole's too! Where do Copy Cat criminal's come from? Media; they want to top what the media brags about..... My opinion.. Every1 should read cold hard Facts before they Vote, not listen to the media or other's opinion's..

[STiSchucky]

I saw it...totally disgusting, yet very sad at the same time..Its a shame YelloEvos gf thought it was "awesome"...:/

[Guest]

It's not so bad "muted" and when u only glimpse it.. But it's still horrid... Unmuted and watching it w/ eyes wide open makes ya wanna puke.

[legacy-user-33]

RX8ownage wrote:
I saw it...totally disgusting, yet very sad at the same time..Its a shame YelloEvos gf thought it was "awesome"...:/

EWWWW...........

[Guest]

I agree, the media has made things worse there and elsewhere. I never did watch the beheading(s). Have no desire to either. Saw a few pics of before/after, that was enough.

[Guest]

Hey Kirk, since neither of us is going ot pursuade the other and we just keep going round and round and round, what do you say we just agree to disagree and end this endless squabble. I'll be the Democommie and you can be the Neo-Con

[Guest]

tjamz wrote:
Hey Kirk, since neither of us is going ot pursuade the other and we just keep going round and round and round, what do you say we just agree to disagree and end this endless squabble. I'll be the Democommie and you can be the Neo-Con

Actually if your a true Kerry supporter your a Demosocialist

[Guest]

yeah, but kirk prefers democommie, so I'll compromise

[integra_gsr98]

tjamz wrote:
2. How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)

Privatize it. Let the people decide where their SS money goes.

[Guest]

So are there any Ralph Nader supporters in here????

[amicheze]

i was all for howard dean... but that got shot to shit.

[DaveH]

Agree'd 100%. If I could get out of SS right now I would in a heartbeat. Put that $$ in a fund where it would actually have some growth, and where you know what you got when you retire.

integra_gsr98 wrote:
Privatize it. Let the people decide where their SS money goes.

[Guest]

integra_gsr98 wrote:
Privatize it. Let the people decide where their SS money goes.
I'm in favor of that IF we can find a way to pay for the babyboomer generations SS benefits that they have contributed their whole lives for. The only semi-fair way to do it, IMO, is to have those between 60-65 be able to put 5% toward privatized SS, those 55-60 put 10% towards private, 50-55 put 15% to private, 45-50 put 20%, until we reach a maximum of 50% toward private and 50% toward the current system. I also think that people should be able to opt to NOT privatize their SS. What happens if the stockmarket crashes when you are close to retiring and you lose 70% of your investment? Some people don't want that risk, some people aren't smart enough to manage their retirement savings to avoid risk at those ages. That is why I like the idea of 50/50 private/current to help offset a little risk. Just my take on things.

[DaveH]

IMO, the first flaw in this is that we have to pay it back.... Heck, none of the countries that own us billions of dollars ever plan on paying it back!

Ok, seriously now... to pay off some of the deficit (I'm not so sure that running in the red a little is a bad thing), we have to do 2 things. Lower spending and increase income (duh).

To lower spending all we need to do is elect people who will actually do this. This is a tough sell tho, because everyone wants there piece of the federal pie... which is why we have left leaning Dorgan, Pomeroy and Conrad in our mostly conservative state of ND. They have a fair amount of seniority in their respective offices, and are good at getting federal $$ for the state. This sort of We need ours needs to stop, and we need people who actually look at the big picture.

To increase federal income, the easiest way is to boost the economy. Get businesses and people making lots of $$, and in return the federal tax intake increases. In general, you can raise taxes also but I believe that just takes $$ out of peoples pockets and in the long run hurts the economy.

Social Security is a dead dog and should be scrapped, it's just another tax on people. The people who are currently using it need to be paid, as they are relying on it. The transition will not be easy.

tjamz wrote:
I actually agree with a lot of what the republicans are stating here (mostly Dave and Matt), BUT the only questions I have are:

1. How are we going to repay the deficit w/o raising taxes?
2. How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)

The only answer I can think of is taxes...not just for the rich, but for all of America. Regardless of who is in office, taxes will have to be increased somewhere to pay off our foreign debts.

[fallguy]

tjamz wrote:
I actually agree with a lot of what the republicans are stating here (mostly Dave and Matt), BUT the only questions I have are:

1. How are we going to repay the deficit w/o raising taxes?
2. How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)

The only answer I can think of is taxes...not just for the rich, but for all of America. Regardless of who is in office, taxes will have to be increased somewhere to pay off our foreign debts.

I believe the best way to get rid of deficit is to have a strong economy. If you compare the deficit to our GDP, it won't take that long to pay it off. That's how Reagan took care of it. He cut taxes etc and the booming 90's are what we saw in return. I do think that Bush does have to control his spending. (he's spending like a democrat) The Social Security is a big problem that Bush wants to face with privatizing a portion of it. That's the way the goverment plan has it set up, so what not SS.
You have to remember that when Bush came into office we were well into a recession. Then all the corporate scandals. Then 911 happened, which hurt our already fragile economy even more. Given the circumstances I think he's done ok with the economy and even better with the war on terror. It's always easy to make decisions in the rear view mirror like Kerry is doing right now. But with the potential of another attack maybe even worse than 911, I think Bush did the right thing with the info he had at the time.

[fallguy]

tjamz wrote:
I'm in favor of that IF we can find a way to pay for the babyboomer generations SS benefits that they have contributed their whole lives for. The only semi-fair way to do it, IMO, is to have those between 60-65 be able to put 5% toward privatized SS, those 55-60 put 10% towards private, 50-55 put 15% to private, 45-50 put 20%, until we reach a maximum of 50% toward private and 50% toward the current system. I also think that people should be able to opt to NOT privatize their SS. What happens if the stockmarket crashes when you are close to retiring and you lose 70% of your investment? Some people don't want that risk, some people aren't smart enough to manage their retirement savings to avoid risk at those ages. That is why I like the idea of 50/50 private/current to help offset a little risk. Just my take on things.

It's not going to go in high risk investments. Anything is better than the gov return on SS right now. Hell a triple A rated bond would be a better return, and insured.