Will you vote for John Kerry because you hate George Bush or because you really like John Kerry?

Grandpa,

You're assuming that anyone is still planning on voting for Hanoi John--I'm sure he'll get some votes in the Peoples Republic of Seattle.

It would have been more interesting to get potential Kerry voters to respond in essay form answering the question, "Why will you vote for Kerry?"

Use the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle.

Question: Why should I vote for Kerry?
Answers:
a. I have 8 trillion reasons, all dollars.
(8 trillion is the expected national debt in 2005)
I have 27000 reasons, all dollars. 1 person's share of
the national debt in 2005.
(in 1945 after World War II 1 person's share of the
national debt was $,1950 or $11,000 in inflated
dollars.)
b. I have 40 billion reasons, all dollars.
(40 billion is the average loss in trade per month)
c. I have 1 million reasons. Loss of jobs in US under
Bush. (New jobs created are called "Mc Jobs")
d. I have 4.9 million reasons. Number of Americans
added to the poverty list since 2000.
e. I have 1700 reasons, all dollars. Medium household
income lost since 2000.
f. I have 3 reasons: Bin Laden, Mullah Omar &
Al-Zawahiri still on the loose and planning attacks.
g. 2004 is going to be a record year in
Afghanistan...for opium production.
(in 2002 Karzai banned opium production in
Afghanistan) Where do you think the money is going?
h. I have 19000 reasons. The GI's killed or wounded in
Iraq.

This election should be a no brainer.

Joke. Cheney/Bush say the earth is flat. Fox news
overnight polling suggests that 45% agree that earth
is flat. 45% disagree and 10% are undecided.


"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." -- William G. McAdoo
"Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing
health care to all Americans is socialism." -- anon

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." -- William G. McAdoo

end of discussion.......................

Looking at the knuckle draggers who support Bush is all I need to convince me that he is the wrong guy for this country.

Grandpa, I can not place my reasons in either of your choices.

Rory, I presented my views in an essay form a few days ago. I was somewhat surprised that you chose to not respond. Especially when what prompted me to post was this:

Originally posted by Rory Bellows:

How can anyone with an intellegence level greater than that of a retarded garden vegetable vote for for John 'flip-flopping' Kerry?

Rory, here are my reasons:

I hesitate to respond to this thread because I truly believe that I will not convince very many people (if any). My experience has been that if you are willing to post, your opinions are strongly set. Just as I could never vote for GW, I expect that there are others (on this board, maybe a lot!) that could never vote for Kerry. But, here goes anyway. My reasons for Kerry:

1. The environment - I see GW as representing a group that for want of a better word, I will call extractors. Global warming is "junk science", trees serve no purpose other than lumber or pulp, streams and rivers are best used for Hydro and Irrigation, etc. I believe that Kerry stands for conservation and the use of technology to preserve and protect our National resources.

2. National defense - I believe that GW has diluted our resources (people and money) in the War on Terror through his adventure in Iraq. Afghanistan was a correct response. If you looked to define those country's involved in State sponsored Terrorism that posed a threat to the US on 9/10/2001 I believe the list would have looked like this:

Afghanistan

Iran

Syria

Saudi Arabia

Pakistan

North Korea

I believe that Kerry will reprioritize our War on Terror to go after those that can and will try to harm us. And, yes, I do believe that GW (and those in his Administration) lied to us about Iraq. I remember watching Donald Rumsfeld on Meet the Press in February 2003 (approx.) saying, "Of course Sadaam has WMD, We know that, and we know where they are." Now, this statement was made while the UN weapons inspectors were still on the ground. My red flag went on full alert when I heard this because I knew that GW was going after Iraq no matter what. And, it also meant that this Administration had no intention or motivation to find WMD - otherwise why wouldn't they have just told the UN Inspectors where the weapons were? I believe that he has strengthened the terrorists in the long run because of what we have done in Iraq.

3. The deficit - GW has chosen to fight his war "on the come". Rightly or wrongly, Kerry has supported a balanced budget. He has shown that he is willing to make the hard choices (in his case, usually higher taxes) in order to fund the Budget. GW has no more Budget discipline that a sailor on leave, drunk on Saturday night.

4. The economy - Under GW's watch, the economy has stunk. The root cause of the decline may have not been in his power to control, however, his response is certainly under his control. Job creation has not lived up to his own projections given early this year. The types of jobs created, are not the ones that will sustain the middle class. Kerry's plan of investing in Infrastructure holds much more promise to me than the failed ideas of the "trickle down effect." Reducing taxes while running huge deficits, does nothing to help the economy in the short run and causes escalating damage in the long run.

5. Libertarian issues - I believe that John Kerry represents a much more "hands off" approach on moral issues. I do not want my Govt. telling me what to do and setting out a moral code for me to live by. That is between me and my God (and my God is not GW or John Ashcroft, or Pat Robertson.)

6. Leadership - Every four years, we the stockholders (voters) get to have a referendum on the CEO. I believe that any Company in America that had a CEO make the above blunders would vote to get in new blood. GW has rightly earned the label decisive. However, decisive and wrong still makes you wrong. I do not trust his judgement and I will cast a vote for change.

These are my reasons why I will cast my vote for John Kerry in November.

Eddie....you're not crazy..you're a fisherman.

I think it is important to point out that your opinions can certainly be respected because in expressing them you do not attempt to take the cerebral high ground by holding your views up as the only views an "intelligent" person can have.

Unlike my buddy Stew who thinks all who disagree with his radical views are "knuckledraggers", you atleast can say your views are your opinions and leave it at that.

There are smart people on each side of the political aisle even if we cannot fathom how the other side can think the way it does we can, atleast, respect the person.

Now when it comes to name callers who seem all puffed up with their own "genius", they deserve to be blasted with both barrels.

Sincerely, Rory Bellows and TheKing.

Rory, I presented my views in an essay form a few days ago. I was somewhat surprised that you chose to not respond.--Eddie
------------------------------------------------------------

Eddie,

I was glad to see someone on your side take a few minutes and respond.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I do respect the fact that you shared your opinions in a polite, articulate, well thought out and outlined form.

I consider you one of the more mature and intellectually engaging representatives on your side of the political spectrum.

When someone starts insulting and calling people names when they can't refute or respond to the facts presented--it tells observers alot more about the person hurling the insults than it does about the person there being hurled at. The fact that you address issues and not people makes you stand out above many.

The question I posed was not intended to draw out views so I could rebut them--Just a simple question to inquire if there was any one left on the left that still admired Kerry and was as enthusiastic to vote for him as much as they hated Bush and were enthusiastic about voting agaist him.

Rory,
You hit the nail on the head. maybe these people want a hypocrite (fits him to the T) to them through troubled times.

DanS the cheerleader for the intellectually dishonest.

Eddie, Your number one is the environment. How can we expect you to be honest with us when you cannot even be honest with yourself? What a cop out.

The King - Please elaborate. Do you have a problem with my characterization? My views?

Eddie, I believe environmentalism is a joke. Specifically as practiced in the US. It is intellectually dishonest to say you are an environmentalist while living in the US. It is even more dishonest to say you are more freindly to the environment than another. All you are really saying is you want the environment used your way and not anothers. The downstream effect is the same you just feel better about it being in line with your thinking.

If Kerry where to have any measureable positive impact ( not just feel good legislation)on the environment it would severely impact the economy and cause massive jobs to be exported which are your 3 and 4 concerns.
Be honest Eddie can any candidate swim against that current and surrvive let alone accomplish anything? So are you really saying you just want to feel better about your impact while here?

The King - I don't really want to get into a debate here, I will never convince you of the rightness of my position. However, being a fisherman, I do want to see water rights balanced with water needs of the resource. I do want to see forestry practices be as "fish friendly" as possible. In my mind, that is not intellectually dishonest, nor inconsistent.

Eddie,

Sure it is dishonest. The primary reason is that you most likely show concern for only what you see. As a fisherman you should know what cost the tools you use have on the very thing you seek to protect. Lets take evidence from your avatar. Graphite for your poles comes from strip mines so does the silica for your fiberglass boat. The resins are petro chemicals. How many trees where lost to build the plants where they where made. What kind of waste water treatment do they use of plant discharge? How many people work at the plants? how do the people involved get to work build their homes? and all that electricity to run the whole mess? all the oil to fuel the whole thing. If you did an economic analysis of the cost benefit of the environmental resources used vs the value of the output to society I think you would be hard pressed to defend it. You get the picture. The world would be a better place environmentally with out all of that but it is nessesary for you to be happy. So is it needs or wants that allow you to justify a large impact on the environemnt for FUN? But you do not see that when you pick up the pole and fire up the boat. All the homes, people and industry is someone elses doing not yours. We just scratched the surface of the hypocrisy and the dishonesty.

The King - Well as John Donne said "No Man is an Island". I assume that applies to you as well. We all have an impact on the environment. The difference we have (you and I) is the Cost/Benefit analysis.

Eddie,

It's a real simple formula. The higher your consumption the more impact you have on the environment. So baseline how the avg. world citizen lives vs yourself. How mauch change would you have to effect in your life to be that average citizen. Are your personal environmental polices bringing your consumption down to below that avg.? If not you have some work to do to call your self an environmentalist in your own life let alone in soicety.

I would bet you that the amount of chemicals involved in just the food in your home right now is more than that involved in the avg. citizens of the worlds entire yearly supply. Even if you shop organic.