Bush or Kerry? - Page 3

Which third party presidential candidate would you vote for in 2004?

Either libertarian or green. It doesn't really matter too much these days, as they seem to be slowly forming an alliance. There was some article not too long ago where the L's and the G's got together to talk, and found they agreed more than they disagreed on things.

The others are just a little too kooky or flaky, even for me :) Especially that natural law party, whoa, you really need to be high on some sort of drug to read that platform right.

Interesting. I would never think to throw Libertarians and Greens in a pot a call them the same. Libertarians are more like Republicans and Greens are more like Democrats. I'd like to read that article.

Ralph Nader has run as a Green and toyed with it again this year. Neal Boortz is a Libertarian. Can you imagine the fireworks should those two run into each other? A matter/anti-matter collision comes to mind. They don't think alike politically at all.

But my question, though it wasn't clear, is who would you vote for that has a chance in Hell of even having a chance to run, let alone win? It doesn't look like Nader, the strongest third-party candidate, will get on enough state ballots to even run for president.

am just testing if i get 3 stars upon reaching 501

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Interesting. I would never think to throw Libertarians and Greens in a pot a call them the same. Libertarians are more like Republicans and Greens are more like Democrats. I'd like to read that article.

As you say, Greens and Libertarians have essentially no common ground. Greens want sweeping legislation on every level to protect the environment, and Libertarians are essentially anti-legislation on all levels. Almost everyone has some points of disagreement with the Libs -- mine includes their faith in our good citizens and big business to do the right thing in regard to the environment. I am drawn more and more to the Libertian party as time goes by, but would like to see them take a more moderate stance in regard to both drugs and environmental issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleepwalker

am just testing if i get 3 stars upon reaching 501

I'm still waiting for an explanation from the management here as to the whereabouts of my 50+ missing posts. It's been a long wait....

somehow GWB anti-terrorism works for the past 3 years already.

perhaps, RUSSIA and the rest of the world understands him now, and why he is doing it.

...it is better to follow a strong man with the wrong system than a weak man with the right system.

horsepower's point was down too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Interesting. I would never think to throw Libertarians and Greens in a pot a call them the same. Libertarians are more like Republicans and Greens are more like Democrats. I'd like to read that article.

I believe our friend is referring to the Nazi Green Party. Talk about a bunch of sick puppies.....

Yep, you're right. Now it all makes sense. Ls and Gs are the same. Dopey me.

People,

if you workfor a living and don't enjoy paying taxes then you have to vote for W. Remeber millions of people on welfare count on you to get up every morning and punch the timeclock so they can collect a check from uncle sam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldnews

People,

if you workfor a living and don't enjoy paying taxes then you have to vote for W. Remeber millions of people on welfare count on you to get up every morning and punch the timeclock so they can collect a check from uncle sam.

What if we don't enjoy financing some idiot's personal war? I always enjoy folks who have no problem slaughtering thousands of people through the cry of Christian values...

Then you should vote for Kerry. He plans to turn things around so that we are killed by the thousands through the cries of Muslim "values." And he'll do it in a "sensitive" way, no less.

So, do you advocate the invasion of any country that is primarily Muslim, or should we go ahead and include Hindu and Buddhist nations, as well? Hail Milosevic, right? Hopefully, the terrorists won't get us while on this Holy quest... Crusades, anyone?

So you advocate sitting back in a pose of appeasement while the war that has been declared against us comes to our soil?

Hail Kerry! Right?

No, I advocate attending to the actual terrorists who perpetrated that attack, rather than wasting time invading random Muslim countries who played no part. Why is that idiot in the White House wasting an incredible amount of resources in Iraq, rather than hunting down terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, among others? You know -- the folks that actually played a part, rather than those who only cheered?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Hail Kerry! Right?

I'm no Kerry fan, but I'll choose an admittedly shaky unknown over a proven failure any day.

We're not wasting time in Iraq. Iraq was a haven for Muslim terrorists and a source of monetary support. Now it's a killing field for Muslim mutts.

We agree about one thing. I, too, want to take it to the enemy and kick their ass no matter what country they hide behind. Where we disagree is that I prefer to do it before they attack us.

Iraq has conveniently become a magnet for Islamofacist members of the "religion of peace" murdering maniacs. We don't need to invade other countries if they all come to us in the cesspool they want to perpetuate in Iraq. We can kill them all in Iraq. What difference does it make?

Iraq was not a haven for Muslim terrorists. The Islamofascists couldn't stand Saddam, nor he them. The only verifiable terrorist link to Saddam beyond his own borders was a stipend he offered to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I don't mean to sound callous, but that's not our problem. All we did was throw a rock at a hornets nest. Yes, there are terrorists being drawn to the region now, but not the ones we want. Do you really think someone with the brains to orchestrate 9/11 is hanging out in Fallujah or Baghdad? In the long run, our presence in Iraq is likely to create more terrorists then we take out. This was sheer idiocy from day one -- it was obvious then, and it's more obvious now.

Oh, right. Iraq was a peaceful paradise with a benevolent leader before we invaded. Saddam never conspired with terrorists. He never financed or accommodated their training. All he ever did was eat dates while sitting on his veranda reading poetry and his wives went shopping. He was an innocent victim of the US war machine. Boo. Friggin'. Hoo. Um, except for paying to kill some Jews which you seem to think is okay.

Big dogs, little dogs. Just semantics that mean little today. They're all dead Muslim meat. The attacks on 9/11 were not the first Muslim terrorist attacks against the US. They were not the only attacks. They were not the last attacks. You could have what amounts to half an argument if the 9/11 attacks were the all of it and the end of it all. Iraq is not the only front in the war against terror.

And attacks on Israel are our business. They are an ally. Why do you think they didn't attack Iraq in retaliation for Iraqi SCUD missile attacks in '91?

You know, we can probably come up with some lame excuse to attack just about any country on Earth if we try hard enough, but the fact is that for the scant few years prior to our invasion, Iraq was essentially minding its own business, which is more than I'd say for some of it's terrorist-aligned neighbors. It may have been a sh!thole before, but it's our sh!thole now, and I resent paying for it for no good reason. Iraq didn't need to be a front on the war on terror at all -- we created that situation, and we're going to have to live with it for a long time to come. All GW had to do was listen to Colin Powell and his daddy instead of the crowd he chose.

Oh, get over it. The US had every right to invade Iraq. Just go read those 17 UN resolutions and compare them to Saddam's actions leading up to the attack.

The bandwagon you insist on riding broke down after the attack when it came to light that the UN, Russians, Germans, and the French were all in Saddam's pocket as they tried to steer the US away from doing what had to be done.

THE REASON THEY DID NOT WANT TO INVADE WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

Oh, get over it.

I'm getting there -- I'm almost over it. All I need now is for some supporter of this atrocity to step forward and pay my share -- any volunteers? Oh, yeah, and a certain idiot's return to his village in Texas.

Check's in the mail.

You're welcome.

Now, get outta here.

I don't care what anyone says. You're alright, Lugnut!

bush*o4