Kerry. I don't know what it is about GB but he comes across as being very arrogant when he speaks. Not to mention he's the only educated man I've heard use the word "strategery". I would also rather vote for someone who actually served and understands what he's putting people through. No flying planes around in friendly skies doesn't count Mr. Bush. Either way I miss the vote by a year (sucks) so my opinion doesn't mean jack. EDIT: Tris is going to reply with something along the lines of how much our country sucks, just to give everyone a heads up .
I put GB, I don't think he is doing all that bad of a job and I think Kerry is too moderate on everything. He wants to please everyone and that will not solve anything. PS: How come Nader isn't up there? I might vote for him.
Because Nader won't win. I need to show you the daily show skit about people voting for Nader. They refer to it as a disease
I have seen it. And it is not really wasting a vote, it is simply an abstract way of voting for Bush.
2 crappy choices but kerry is the lesser of 2 evils. with the death of ronald reagan its evident that bush jr. has tarnished the view of a republican presidency with his lies, whoreing himself to big business and religious special interest groups. Being a republican all i can hope is that someone like frist makes himself available in 2008
you guys voting for bush know that he passed a law that makes it legal for the government to search your house, arrest you and not even tell you why or have to show any kind of warrant? I say get him out, he's a lunatic. Just look at what a jackass he made himself out to be over proposing an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.... Lets kick this guy to the curb... I may have just started a flame war... oh well.
How about the Iraqi war, Bush shouldn't be up for re-election after that, he should be in Den Hague on trail. A) Iraq was a threat with WMD ? If that was actually true then what about North Korea who will actually give us tours to where they are making them B) Iraq has a terror link to Al-Qaida? As much as i hate to say it, it's bush-administration propaganda. There is no link other then they both dislike america, But Saddam was a very smart man when it came to keeping himself in power for as long as he could. He would have never sponsored an attack on a western country. It would be political suicide
north korea would equal world war III because china would get involved and that would be a million times worse than going after iraq. but i agree the iraqi war was built on lies and a sense of urgency to do this for his father
First off let me say this...I would vote for Bush, but my vote doesn't count. I agree quite a lot with what Tris said, but let me say this: If Sadaam Hussain didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he come straight out and say: I DO NOT HAVE ANY? Why did he keep out the weapons inspectors for so long?
He did, remember that interview with Dan Rather, and his head of state went on a international campain to also get the word out, He met people like the pope.... Keep in mind, you see the "American" news so thats probably why you never knew they actually tried everything they could to avoid getting blown out of office
That is true, but don't forget his head of state and also the guy who spoke on the news giving announcements, also said that the airport hadn't been captured by American Forces, when there was videotape of the U.S. invading it, and then running it lol.
Precisely, all american news groups are owned by a group of five companies and they never give the accurate truth. Its sad, but to get accurate news you have to go to the british press.
OK, I am going to stop here, I am lost....all these damn names confuse me. Why can't TARIQ AZIZ change his name to Bob Dole or Dick Head
