Bush or Kerry?

This is my unscientific attempt to see where I stand on the political spectrum of MB owners. Do Benz owners represent the liberal elite or the conservative right? MB owners, post your ideology: Dem or Repub?

I'll start... being from Texas, it shouldnt be difficult to guess...

I don't discuss politics.

See what happens when you call the "other side" a name in your invitation instead of waiting until they've come here first?

I'm rather uncomfortable with the thought of someone in the White House who contends that the Earth is no more than 3,000 years old and that he is a personal messenger of God whose goal is to free all of the oppressed people of the world. Personally, I think that's scary as hell. That said, I also don't want Kerry placed in a position to pick my pocket. It's a quandary to be sure...

It's a shame that our political election system has evolved into our having to chose the worse or worst of the bunch and then voting for who's left. An outright "good choice" is rare.

Religion and politics is a scary mix, indeed. Most Americans seem to like it, though. Isn't that why Kerry is pretending to be a good Catholic?

Kerry is in a pretty good position right now to take our money and he takes it at every opportunity, especially if he can take it and spend it in Massachusetts. On the other hand, Bush has become exceedingly handy at spending our moeny as well. He's building the largest government in the history of America. Out of character for a Republican, but there you go.

At least Hitlary isn't running, yet. Did you read Dick Morris' new book or hear or read any excerpts? Talk about scary.

Yes it is a shame. IMHO, the real problem is this whole two-party thing we seem to have gotten locked into. And let's face it -- it's getting harder and harder to tell which republicrat is which. I really believe it's in the best interest of this country to encourage the formation of other viable political parties. The Libertarian party and Green party in particular, deserve a real voice and opportunity to challenge the status quo, rather than simply serving as voices from the fringe. I can't see it happening in my lifetime. It's just too difficult to compete on this unlevel playing field.

Americans' comfort zone is over the middle and the candidate who hovers there best gets the votes. It may be more accurate to say that extremism doesn't get votes. I guess that's why the Libertarians and Greens never get too far. Still, I agree that those party's candidates should have an opportunity to participate in national debates and deserve other national coverage by virtue of running. At least they shouldn't be actively prevented from participating. As dorky as Nader is, he does make a good point now and then and he could spark healthy debates. All he's able to do, though, is "steal" votes from the Dems and make them work harder to win them back by election time.

With a presidential term limit of 8 years, here's a kooky idea that doesn't seem to set a precedent. Say a political party can't serve more than 8 consecutive years in the White House. They would have to wait out at least 4 years before running again. That would pull other parties into the mix.

That might be a little too radical -- I don't know. I do know that there seems to be a mindset in this country that if a candidate isn't a Republican or a Democrat, he's probably a flake (there have been a handful of exceptions, but they're rare). It's that mindset that needs to change and the two-party system we have in place right now can accommodate that, but they won't without a gun to their collective heads.

I agree with your assessment of Nader -- I've never been too wild about him for a variety of reasons. Still, I feel it's important that his voice be heard and his message not be summarily dismissed due to political affiliation. For my part, the closer Republicans come to morphing into Democrats and vice versa, the closer I become to lining up with the Libertarians. I don't accept their hard line verbatim, but I do agree with a lot of their policy, which is starting to more closely resemble the conservative Republican line than the Republicans these days. The problem is -- what's the point? Another fringe party that no one takes seriously. That really needs to change for the betterment of us all.

There are no barriers to a third party candidate other than money and ideas. Witness Ross Perot's first run in 92. He created the organization (with his money), communicated his ideas well and may have won if he had not flaked out. He still took 20% of the vote and Clinton won with only 44% (the lowest total ever).

Bush has succeeded in reducing my taxes substantially and I like the way he took the war on terrorism "off shore". I couldn't care less about supporting the interests of the United Nations or Western European powers, so again I agree with Bush. That being said, I don't think he'll survive this election. To do so, Iraq will have to stabilize, gas prices go down and the economy heat up. What are the chances of that?

Kerry will raise taxes on everyone who makes more than $10/hour. His proposed healthcare policy will spend 100's of billions and do nothing to address the upward medical cost trend. We'll be back in bed with the UN and our soldiers will die defending a French oil contract (or something). But my real issue with Kerry is that he won't take a position on the important issues. He needs to stand up, take a position and answer questions with a YES or NO.

I don't think you can get further apart ideologicaly than Bush and Kerry, so at least we have a choice of two extremes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tex Pat

There are no barriers to a third party candidate other than money and ideas. Witness Ross Perot's first run in 92. He created the organization (with his money), communicated his ideas well and may have won if he had not flaked out. He still took 20% of the vote and Clinton won with only 44% (the lowest total ever).

Actually, there are plenty of barriers. That's exactly why billionaire Ross Perot has been the only substantial third party candidate in this country in a long, long time. And how many third party Congressman and Senators are there?

As far as our alliances go, to hell with all of them, except for the fact that the UN is probably our only hope to ever get us out of the Iraq cesspool that GW committed us to.

...playing a little semantics here regarding a "barrier," no? The only purpose a third party candidate can play in today's presidential politics is to "steal" votes from a Republican or Democratic candidate (whichever one they are more like) and in effect give those votes to the opponent.

They can't even play a martyrdom role for a larger cause of liberalism or conservatism. They lose two-fold. Look at uber-lib Nader killing the Democrats every time he runs. If it weren't for Nader, Al Bore would have been the undisputed winner over GW and would be our president today. On second thought, thank you very much, Ralph.

That sounds like a barrier to the oval office to me. Sure, Perot played a part in the process and no one physically prevented him from stumping but everyone knew he wasn't going to win. Everybody but people with bigs ears who walk around carrying charts, that is.

The scariest part of this year's election is that Kerry will probably win. Afterall, he has the endorsement of all those "foreign leaders" and he sports those multi-thousand-dollar haircuts and he's so flexible on issues that he can change his position by the moment or not have one at all and he is soooo in touch with the average working Joe. How could he lose in America? There will be a record turnout of voting Democrats this year. They will be voting against GWB, not for JFK. We're in a toilet bowl right now fighting to claw our way out, but we're going to be flushed if Kerry wins.

Bush, Kerry just wants our money, for welfare and junk like that, nothing against people on welfare but get a job and support the american economy.

I don't like the fact that at one time people could make a career out of being on welfare in America, especially without working for it (There are always public infrastructure in need of some sort of attention). But that hasn't been the case for quite some time now and I haven't heard this dusty argument for a loooong time. I think there's a two-year limit or something then hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go. Ex-welfare recipients sell drugs, roses, or beg for change at stop lights nowadays.

That's not to say Bush, Kerry, and any other candidates don't want your money so the government can spend it on their legacies, uh, I mean ideas for improving the quality of life here in America. Bush has so far built the largest US governemnt ever. It's uncharacteristic of a Republican. The scary part is that Kerry wants even more of your money and a larger government. The maddening part is that Kerry wants it for mainly social programs both internally and externally. There's no telling what butt-smooching he'd do in terms of economic benefits to get the French, Germans, and the UN to all slobber on his lapel. All at the expense of America in the name of some new world order. Kerry is scary.

On the other hand, it takes two to tango. Congress is the real culprit when you discover your wallet thinning out. When every congressman gets their two-cents worth in, even tax cut bills are stretched beyond reasonable limits. The economic recovery Reagan planned would have happened much sooner and smoother if it weren't sabotaged by spend-till-you-drop congressman suddenly jumping on the bandwagon and tacking on tax cuts of their own--for their own political gain du joir, of course.

There is an economic disaster looming in America. One that will shock our economy to pieces. Wait until the ten year tax cut plan expires. We're all gonna die. If Kerry is elected, it will happen sooner as he whittles away at the tax cuts before they expire.

if indonesian can vote, w'll vote saddam

Saddam will be executed as soon as he gets his fair trial. What will his corpse be campaigning for, anyway? Do you have any idea what his positions are, or are you just another stupid human stain?

Leoginting, sometimes when trying to be funny, one can make a very stupid remark. I trust that is the case with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leoginting

if indonesian can vote, w'll vote saddam

Thumbnail Image

hehehe, who is that gomer pyle Lugnut? really looks similar.

i remember watching machales navy , henry pyffe or somethin' when i was young and i never miss any of their episodes. but that was 35 years ago! i can speak english and spanish at very young age, and i can understand the fun.

Are you talking about the Gomer/Gomer pic I have in the photo gallery?

You watched McHale's Navy 35 years ago? I thought you were about 19 years old or something.

i am 43 now.

i've heard it from our radiola radio when apollo 11 landed on the moon

i'm sorry if all of u americans angry with my opinion,

i'm asking you, what the diffrent with saddam and your president now (mr. bush)....

There are many differences. Here's just one.

Saddam killed his family members, friends, political rivals, and whoever else stood in his way. He did this so he could rob Iraq and its people of billions of dollars for his own personal gain.

Bush kills his enemies to protect his family members, friends, political rivals, and whoever else wants to live in peace. He gets paid $400,000 per year to do this for four years, maybe eight.

Being from Indonesia you're probably Muslim. If you're a fundamentalist Muslim then you're retarded and I forgive you for thinking like a pig.

leoginting, have you ever been in iraq or kuwait when saddam do the killings? well, i was there. barely 60 kilometers where i work in Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
what i see and have experienced is something that only people who got two horns and a pointed tail can do. i cry for those victims.
because of fear, i lose my job.
all Saudi muslims i know are nice and peace loving people. i can sleep in the road and wake up the next morning all in one piece... and they will even guard me.
the rest of you enjoys the guns, and

Yes, i'm muslim, islam love piece, fundamentalis or not. still love piece, people who is killing each other is no human, may be pig like u said to me. i'm not pro to saddam, i agree with all of u, i just want to know, when your president declear a war to irak, bombing that country, can't all of u imagine what happen with iraq people, they also human, not pig. your bomb cant see human or pig. that's why i'm asking the diffrent saddam and your president, they are same. Don't be mad of me, this is the fact, may be this forum can open your eyes, ISLAM is rahmattan lil allamin, try to make peace in the world, not only cristian, buddha, .... Thank u,.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: leoginting

if indonesian can vote, w'll vote saddam

really? yo

quote:

if indonesian can vote, w'll vote saddam

u seem to change your word too quickly.

muslims just like you love peace???

who rape the chinese in indonesia?

who bomb bali?

who destroy world trade center?

who is beheading people in middle east?

you need to study more leoginting. you are not deaf and blind. this not all about religion and race. it's about LIFE, PEACE, and freedom.

you are not a bad person, i fully agree with that. it's just the belief that makes you...

we all just hope that everything will be fine in the future. insh'allah