So, what is a disillusioned fiscal conservative to vote for??

[Ebenezer]

OK, here is the scoop.

Contrary to what most think I am a fiscal conservative. Many of my social views may be libertarian (or as some around here think, liberal) but I don't vote for candidates based on social issues.

1. Whether the intel was bad or not, more proof has come out that there were never any WMD in Iraq. No matter who is to blame the buck stops with GWB. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who was either duped, didn't do his homework, misled the American public or out and out lied to us. I will not vote for GWB.

2. Kerry is a dead fish. He has no ideas and no pulse. He is the ABB crowd's answer? Please. I cannot vote for Kerry.

I said after Iowa to hold the election because it was Kerry and Bush and that, at a critical time in our history, the choices were poor and poorer.

So? What am I to do in November? The thought here is to write in McCain.

:feedback:

[Dozerdog]

I wrote in McCaine last time.


However- the stakes were raised with 9/11, the war in Iraq. The question to ask yourself is- Which guy serves YOUR concerns better?


If you are fiscally conservative, not dumping the guy who has cut taxes while spending at a record pace would just run contrary to your beleifs.


Or you can not vote for a guy because he's boring.


What's more important to you- selling out you beleifs for an exciting guy? Your call.

[OpIv37]

I find myself in a very similar situation, and right now I'm a very reluctant Bush voter because I'm 100% convinced I can't vote for Kerry and only 90% convinced that I can't vote for Bush. A write in is always an option- it's basically a protest vote that makes no difference, but at least this way you still participated in the democratic process and you don't have to live with the guilt of voting for the guy who's gonna f up the country.

[kgun12]

OK, here is the scoop.

Contrary to what most think I am a fiscal conservative. Many of my social views may be libertarian (or as some around here think, liberal) but I don't vote for candidates based on social issues.

1. Whether the intel was bad or not, more proof has come out that there were never any WMD in Iraq. No matter who is to blame the buck stops with GWB. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who was either duped, didn't do his homework, misled the American public or out and out lied to us. I will not vote for GWB.

2. Kerry is a dead fish. He has no ideas and no pulse. He is the ABB crowd's answer? Please. I cannot vote for Kerry.

I said after Iowa to hold the election because it was Kerry and Bush and that, at a critical time in our history, the choices were poor and poorer.

So? What am I to do in November? The thought here is to write in McCain.

:feedback:

I would only say that the buck doesn't stop just at Bush. Remember Kerry is on the Intellagence committe, he saw the same things Bush did and voted for war (I think). Even stated that many times before his run for office.

I am not 100% for all that Bush has done these last 3+ years (believe it or not). Yes he has made mistakes in handleing this war, every president that went to war could have done things differant. Most people don't realize how close to disaster the Normandy invasion almost was. If we would not won that battle we probably would have lost WWII. The biggest upside to Bush, and I know people will argue this is No president wants war period. He has stood by his convictions on the war and most everything else and has not wavered, right wrong or indifferant! Just look at Kerry since this whole campaign started, how many times has he changed his position on almost everything. No politician is above board and the are all crooks, they all take money from speacial interest groups sometimes from both sides, but Bush has stood up to all the critisizm and held his ground. The first thing I always tell a new manager (and in my job that's a lot cause they take that job to retire) is just one thing: right wrong or otherwise, tell us what you stand for how you want the job done and don't change with the day. No matter how you want it done we will do it as long as we know the rules are always the same. hope that helps!

[Đ²]

I find myself in a very similar situation, and right now I'm a very reluctant Bush voter because I'm 100% convinced I can't vote for Kerry and only 90% convinced that I can't vote for Bush. A write in is always an option- it's basically a protest vote that makes no difference, but at least this way you still participated in the democratic process and you don't have to live with the guilt of voting for the guy who's gonna f up the country.
LOL, choose your poisson

[Ebenezer]

I wrote in McCaine last time.


However- the stakes were raised with 9/11, the war in Iraq. The question to ask yourself is- Which guy serves YOUR concerns better?


If you are fiscally conservative, not dumping the guy who has cut taxes while spending at a record pace would just run contrary to your beleifs.


Or you can not vote for a guy because he's boring.


What's more important to you- selling out you beleifs for an exciting guy? Your call.
I could always do what I did in '92 and write in "none of the above"

...btw, I live in New York state...a state that will vote Kerry....my vote does not count.

[kgun12]

I could always do what I did in '92 and write in "none of the above"

...btw, I live in New York state...a state that will vote Kerry....my vote does not count.

Don't be too sure! Our left wing rag newspaper showed that Kerry was only up in NY State 47%-42%. That is amazing for this state. Bush won't carry the state, but every vote will count for the popular vote!

[OpIv37]

I could always do what I did in '92 and write in "none of the above"

...btw, I live in New York state...a state that will vote Kerry....my vote does not count.

I'm in VA and this state will go to Bush, so mine doesn't count either.

[Spartacus]

LOL, choose your poisson


LOL! I'm sure I'm the only one that gets this.

[Ebenezer]

LOL! I'm sure I'm the only one that gets this.
um...no, I got it.

[Đ²]

Mais oui :D

[FTG]

So? What am I to do in November?

:feedback:

You could always write in Hillary

[Ebenezer]

You could always write in Hillary
not if she were going to give me "Monicas" everyday for the rest of my natural life...

[G. Host]

If you are fiscally conservative, not dumping the guy who has cut taxes while spending at a record pace would just run contrary to your beleifs.

This is the most important thing to me - voodoo economics - and current admistration lacks most important attribute - the ability to balance checkbook.

According to an old Economics/Political Science professor that was the whole purpose of the cut the taxes bandwagon supporters - continue cutting taxes (which was a popular decision) in order to force support for cutting popular spending programs (which is not a popular decision). They were purposely putting the country into bankruptcy.

No one wants to cut spending of programs which THEY support, they want support for programs THEY dislike so what the legislation branches is continuing borrowing and keep revising estimates of income to cover costs.

[G. Host]

Don't be too sure! Our left wing rag newspaper showed that Kerry was only up in NY State 47%-42%. That is amazing for this state. Bush won't carry the state, but every vote will count for the popular vote!

Popular vote means nothing in terms of electing president.

[Patrick76777]

So, what is a disillusioned fiscal conservative to vote for??



I thought you said delusional.


Might be a better fit!

[Mr. Cynical]

Quick....let's start a whirlwind internet campaign for McCain. Seriously...I'm only half joking. Of course he would never win, but we could stir up some s**t by getting a few hundred thousand write-in votes. Stranger things have happened.

Eb - get to it! Start bloggin yer arse off! :;

[gameboy]

The initial post in this thread brings up intelligence data. Whomever was president, he/she would have arrived at the exact same conclusion.
Not only did every free world intelligence source report it, so to did contacts with Turkey and Jordan. Their response was that he had WMD and he was planning to use them. Read Tommy Frank's book for proof.

On other matters, I think the key is to realize you are voting for a team. The president makes the final decision, but his team provides him information to form that decision. So, look to the likely team that each would employ.
Bush we know. Kerry we don't. So we must look to the likely candidates and history.
Clinton's initial cabinet was, in my view, the worst in history. He got it right in the latter portions of his second term.
Kerry has made no mention of a proposed cabinet, so I must look one step further.
What is his parties' history. From that base, his cabinet will emerge.
I think the Dems were wrong on Vietnam.
Wrong on nuclear disarmament.
Wrong on the Soviet Union.
Wrong on Gulf War 1.
Wrong on tax policy.
Wrong on economic policy.
Bizarre on Iraq.
When I sum it up, with the realization that Kerry has done nothing in 20 years as a senator, the choice seems apparent.

[kgun12]

The initial post in this thread brings up intelligence data. Whomever was president, he/she would have arrived at the exact same conclusion.
Not only did every free world intelligence source report it, so to did contacts with Turkey and Jordan. Their response was that he had WMD and he was planning to use them. Read Tommy Frank's book for proof.

On other matters, I think the key is to realize you are voting for a team. The president makes the final decision, but his team provides him information to form that decision. So, look to the likely team that each would employ.
Bush we know. Kerry we don't. So we must look to the likely candidates and history.
Clinton's initial cabinet was, in my view, the worst in history. He got it right in the latter portions of his second term.
Kerry has made no mention of a proposed cabinet, so I must look one step further.
What is his parties' history. From that base, his cabinet will emerge.
I think the Dems were wrong on Vietnam.
Wrong on nuclear disarmament.
Wrong on the Soviet Union.
Wrong on Gulf War 1.
Wrong on tax policy.
Wrong on economic policy.
Bizarre on Iraq.
When I sum it up, with the realization that Kerry has done nothing in 20 years as a senator, the choice seems apparent.

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

pos reps are coming!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Ebenezer]

The initial post in this thread brings up intelligence data. Whomever was president, he/she would have arrived at the exact same conclusion.
Not only did every free world intelligence source report it, so to did contacts with Turkey and Jordan. Their response was that he had WMD and he was planning to use them. Read Tommy Frank's book for proof.

On other matters, I think the key is to realize you are voting for a team. The president makes the final decision, but his team provides him information to form that decision. So, look to the likely team that each would employ.
Bush we know. Kerry we don't. So we must look to the likely candidates and history.
Clinton's initial cabinet was, in my view, the worst in history. He got it right in the latter portions of his second term.
Kerry has made no mention of a proposed cabinet, so I must look one step further.
What is his parties' history. From that base, his cabinet will emerge.
I think the Dems were wrong on Vietnam.
Wrong on nuclear disarmament.
Wrong on the Soviet Union.
Wrong on Gulf War 1.
Wrong on tax policy.
Wrong on economic policy.
Bizarre on Iraq.
When I sum it up, with the realization that Kerry has done nothing in 20 years as a senator, the choice seems apparent.
not disagreeing...

but, I don't trust Ashcroft with my freedoms either...

[pcnorth22]

not disagreeing...

but, I don't trust Ashcroft with my freedoms either...

you're not disagreeing with anything he said in there?

[pcnorth22]

OK, here is the scoop.

Contrary to what most think I am a fiscal conservative.

:feedback:

It seems to me that most people are fiscal conservatives. Who really advocates spending more than the govt. takes in. Its just figuring out the most effective way to spend it to make our lives better.

In my eyes its not a democrat/republican or liberal/conservative thing...

[Dozerdog]

you're not disagreeing with anything he said in there?


Turning a record surplus into a record debt that generations down the road have to fix is "right with the economic policy?"

Even many republicans think this is folly.

[gameboy]

not disagreeing...

but, I don't trust Ashcroft with my freedoms either...If your real concern is being a fiscal conservative, then you must look to Congress, and not the president.
All checks are written by Congress.
The deficit is the result of general economic activity (tax receipts) and spending. Congress controls spending. The normal business cycle controls general economic activity.
Track the budget defict and Congress. Look at when the surplus emerged.
It will make your choice even easier.
Congress contols the budget.
Always has. Always will.
Don't vote for president based on budgets.
That's like voting for an all-star pitcher based on field goal percentage.

[Dozerdog]

So who ran on the "I'll cut your taxes" platform?

If you vote for a guy on that premise are we being lied to/misled?

[Earthquake Enyart]

I wrote in McCaine last time.




If you are going to write in McCain, you need to spell it right. The guy who makes frozen french fries got your last vote. :eek:

[LtBillsFan66]

LOL! I'm sure I'm the only one that gets this.
giggle giggle giggle
he he he

[gameboy]

So who ran on the "I'll cut your taxes" platform?

If you vote for a guy on that premise are we being lied to/misled?

I really don't have the answer to your question.
But....This country could balance it's budget and completely redo it's insane tax code at the same time.
That is the only point of the Bush speech at the convention that I found interesting.
This absurd, ridiculous, idiotic notion that we can influence a culture based on tax policy, the result of which is a 17 volume tax code that nobody understands and costs hundreds of billions in compliance costs is proof positive that simpler is better.
Kerry and his cohorts will screw with it and make it worse.

In my view there are two things this country needs to do.
1. Simplify the tax code, rewarding investment in the US and it's employees.
2. Control our borders.

[Ebenezer]

I really don't have the answer to your question.
But....This country could balance it's budget and completely redo it's insane tax code at the same time.
That is the only point of the Bush speech at the convention that I found interesting.
This absurd, ridiculous, idiotic notion that we can influence a culture based on tax policy, the result of which is a 17 volume tax code that nobody understands and costs hundreds of billions in compliance costs is proof positive that simpler is better.
Kerry and his cohorts will screw with it and make it worse.

In my view there are two things this country needs to do.
1. Simplify the tax code, rewarding investment in the US and it's employees.
2. Control our borders.
around here it is the Dems that scream about rewarding investment in US jobs and keeping jobs in the US.

[Đ²]

giggle giggle giggle
he he he
Quiet, or I'll have to slap you with a poisson

[gameboy]

around here it is the Dems that scream about rewarding investment in US jobs and keeping jobs in the US.

Exactly.
And the view, "around here" is exactly why I left when I was 17.

What has their view around there produced?

"Keeping jobs," in the Democratic game plan is protectionism. It doesn't work.
I'm all for leveling the playing field.
What I spoke of, in my post, is encouraging investment. Money always finds the most efficient economy. That is why most of the money exiting this country because of higher oil prices has been re-patriated in US treasuries.

Look at your own area for a view on how to vote.

[Ebenezer]

Exactly.
And the view, "around here" is exactly why I left when I was 17.

What has their view around there produced?

"Keeping jobs," in the Democratic game plan is protectionism. It doesn't work.
I'm all for leveling the playing field.
What I spoke of, in my post, is encouraging investment. Money always finds the most efficient economy. That is why most of the money exiting this country because of higher oil prices has been re-patriated in US treasuries.

Look at your own area for a view on how to vote.
no chit...why do you think I almost never vote democrat...they've driven this area into a hole...

[kgun12]

no chit...why do you think I almost never vote democrat...they've driven this area into a hole...

Eb I say continue this trend! :dance:

[kgun12]

So who ran on the "I'll cut your taxes" platform?

If you vote for a guy on that premise are we being lied to/misled?

Kinda like Kerry's recod on voting against defense, I won't take your gun, and the war. Talk about lies to the American public!

[Ebenezer]

Kinda like Kerry's recod on voting against defense, I won't take your gun, and the war. Talk about lies to the American public!
I really don't worry about "taking your gun"...too much legislation and lawsuits needed to get rid of the 2nd amendment...

[kgun12]

I really don't worry about "taking your gun"...too much legislation and lawsuits needed to get rid of the 2nd amendment...

I realize that, but like I say about green peace and the like, I get 1 or 2 letters a day from the NRA telling me the sky will fall in if Kerry's elected. Scare tactics. I didn't know how good (?) Kerry's voting record against guns were until I started recieving the info from the NRA. He gets 100% approval ratings from all anti-gun orginizations. However he goes around the country telling people that he isn't anti gun. Talk about a crock of s***.

[clumping platelets]

If you are going to write in McCain, you need to spell it right. The guy who makes frozen french fries got your last vote. :eek:


Free Frredom Fries for everyone :rofl:

[ParanoidAndroid]

The initial post in this thread brings up intelligence data. Whomever was president, he/she would have arrived at the exact same conclusion.
Not only did every free world intelligence source report it, so to did contacts with Turkey and Jordan. Their response was that he had WMD and he was planning to use them. Read Tommy Frank's book for proof.

On other matters, I think the key is to realize you are voting for a team. The president makes the final decision, but his team provides him information to form that decision. So, look to the likely team that each would employ.
Bush we know. Kerry we don't. So we must look to the likely candidates and history.
Clinton's initial cabinet was, in my view, the worst in history. He got it right in the latter portions of his second term.
Kerry has made no mention of a proposed cabinet, so I must look one step further.
What is his parties' history. From that base, his cabinet will emerge.
I think the Dems were wrong on Vietnam.
Wrong on nuclear disarmament.
Wrong on the Soviet Union.
Wrong on Gulf War 1.
Wrong on tax policy.
Wrong on economic policy.
Bizarre on Iraq.
When I sum it up, with the realization that Kerry has done nothing in 20 years as a senator, the choice seems apparent.
So you must look one step further? This is your step further? Blind speculation and right wing opinion? Bravo.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I realize that, but like I say about green peace and the like, I get 1 or 2 letters a day from the NRA telling me the sky will fall in if Kerry's elected. Scare tactics. I didn't know how good (?) Kerry's voting record against guns were until I started recieving the info from the NRA. He gets 100% approval ratings from all anti-gun orginizations. However he goes around the country telling people that he isn't anti gun. Talk about a crock of s***.
His voting record pertains to toughening ownership regulations, safety requirements, and banning the sale of assault weapons. He has never led anyone to believe that he's not going to protect hunters, antique collectors and hobbyists rights to ownership. We put responsible limits on other amendments including religious freedom and the freedom of speech. The right to bear arms is no different. We can't make human sacrifices on the Altar of Satan, we can't threaten the President, and we shouldn't be able to buy a gun that was only made to kill people. If you're paranoid and feel the need to defend your home, buy a German Shepherd or a Rottweiler, and keep your Ithaca 12 gauge handy.

[gameboy]

So you must look one step further? This is your step further? Blind speculation and right wing opinion? Bravo.

Hardly right wing.

Regarding your accusation of "blind speculation," I didn't engage in it.

But it does bring up an interesting question.
How is one to get a handle on Kerry without blind speculation?
The guy has done nothing meaningful in 20 years as a senator, has voted for things before voting against them, (in point of fact-he voted against them when seeing Dean's poll numbers), provided no real illumination during his one hour in the spotlight at the convention, and not much since.
Blind speculation is all that remains, but I didn't engage in it.
He shows up every four years trying to get the democratic nomination, gets his butt kicked, and goes back to anonymous service as a senator.
This year he got the nomination. Big deal. He's still the same guy.
He's going to go to the Democratic well for his cabinet and lesser appointments, and I don't see any talent there.
Nothing right wing about that.

[Canadian'eh!]

OK, here is the scoop.

Contrary to what most think I am a fiscal conservative. Many of my social views may be libertarian (or as some around here think, liberal) but I don't vote for candidates based on social issues.

1. Whether the intel was bad or not, more proof has come out that there were never any WMD in Iraq. No matter who is to blame the buck stops with GWB. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who was either duped, didn't do his homework, misled the American public or out and out lied to us. I will not vote for GWB.

2. Kerry is a dead fish. He has no ideas and no pulse. He is the ABB crowd's answer? Please. I cannot vote for Kerry.

I said after Iowa to hold the election because it was Kerry and Bush and that, at a critical time in our history, the choices were poor and poorer.

So? What am I to do in November? The thought here is to write in McCain.

:feedback:

Honestly... if it was me... i;d have a hard time too... I'm Libertarian AND Left wing fiscally.

BUT.... I don' think the dems are EITHER.

I would PROBABLY vote for Nader IF i was in a state that was already decided. If I was in a close state (stupid florida) I THINK i would go dem. just because they are FAR lesser than the 2 evils. IMO at least.


but i definately the opposite to you in my REASON for voting... I put social issues FAR above fiscal onces...

(note; cutting taxes while accumilating MASSIVE debt is both STUPID and higly UNCONSERVATIVE!)

[gameboy]

(note; cutting taxes while accumilating MASSIVE debt is both STUPID and higly UNCONSERVATIVE!)[/QUOTE]

Note: You would be right if the results supported that view.
They don't.
When marginal tax rates are reduced to a more efficient level, federal tax revenues increase.

It's happening again this year, as always.

Heres a quote from the Congressional Budget Office:

The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update
September 2004

Revenues
After three years of decline, revenues are projected to increase by $89 billion, or about 5 percent, in 2004.

They were up about $54 billion in the first half.

[Ingtar33]

write in Condi Rice, she'll be our next pres anyway in '08 no mater what.

[KRC]

OK, here is the scoop.

Contrary to what most think I am a fiscal conservative. Many of my social views may be libertarian (or as some around here think, liberal) but I don't vote for candidates based on social issues.

1. Whether the intel was bad or not, more proof has come out that there were never any WMD in Iraq. No matter who is to blame the buck stops with GWB. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who was either duped, didn't do his homework, misled the American public or out and out lied to us. I will not vote for GWB.

2. Kerry is a dead fish. He has no ideas and no pulse. He is the ABB crowd's answer? Please. I cannot vote for Kerry.

I said after Iowa to hold the election because it was Kerry and Bush and that, at a critical time in our history, the choices were poor and poorer.

So? What am I to do in November? The thought here is to write in McCain.

:feedback:


I am in a similar situation. I am fiscally conservative, and the current Republican Party has gone away from that principle. If you are going to cut taxes, then you must cut spending. I understand that we had an unprecidented situation in 9/11 which increased spending, but it did not warrant what we have now.

This is one of the main reasons I am running for President. Neither party has shown that they can be resonsible with OUR money. The amount of government waste is astounding, and neither party is willing to address the situation. They just continue to spend, spend, spend, and did I mention spend.

Added to our economic woes, are the foreign policy blunders of this administration.

-Iraq: I supported the war in Iraq, but not for the reasons Bush mentioned. The WMD was something that existed (can't get into how I know that), but the evidence presented to the UN and the rest of the public was not a "slam dunk" as Tenet said. Bush should have stuck with the humanitarian crisis/REPEATED violations of UN resolutions including the cease-fire agreement angles. The last thing the UN wants to hear, is that they are irrelevant (ego thing). Show them that inaction=irrelevance. They had 12 years to do something about Iraq, but failed. The IAEA begged the UNSC to address the North Korean situation. The UN could not run away fast enough from threats from the DPRK. Look at the current Sudan sitaution. People are dying, and the UNSC just passed (over the weekend) another toothless resolution basically stating "since you have not abided by our other resolutions, we will threaten you with another resolution. If you do not abide by this resolution, so help us, we will pass another resolution." They are a joke, and you need to show them that they need to start acting, otherwise risk irrelevance. Don't even get me started on Haiti.

-DPRK: Bush started with the proper approach, but is having some trouble lately. It has been uncovered that the South Koreans have a uranium program. The administration is trying to downplay this, while forcing the DPRK to abandon its uranium programs. Not a smart move, and we will lose some credibility as a result. We need to, at least publically, hold the ROK to the same standard as the DPRK, if we want the DPRK to buckle. Having the double-standard only makes things more difficult.

-Iran: Deja vu anyone?

Don't get me started on Kerry's foreign policy. It is absolutely SCARY what he is proposing, and there is no way in hell I want him in charge.

I do not want either of these guys in charge. Instead of bitching about it, but just voting for one of them anyway, I am doing something about it. Right or wrong, at least I am trying to make a difference, and trying to fix the mess that the career politicians have created. It will take at least a generation to fix all of the problems, and we need to get started. Voting for Bush or Kerry will only make the situation worse.

[Ebenezer]

I am in a similar situation. I am fiscally conservative, and the current Republican Party has gone away from that principle. If you are going to cut taxes, then you must cut spending. I understand that we had an unprecidented situation in 9/11 which increased spending, but it did not warrant what we have now.

This is one of the main reasons I am running for President. Neither party has shown that they can be resonsible with OUR money. The amount of government waste is astounding, and neither party is willing to address the situation. They just continue to spend, spend, spend, and did I mention spend.

Added to our economic woes, are the foreign policy blunders of this administration.

-Iraq: I supported the war in Iraq, but not for the reasons Bush mentioned. The WMD was something that existed (can't get into how I know that), but the evidence presented to the UN and the rest of the public was not a "slam dunk" as Tenet said. Bush should have stuck with the humanitarian crisis/REPEATED violations of UN resolutions including the cease-fire agreement angles. The last thing the UN wants to hear, is that they are irrelevant (ego thing). Show them that inaction=irrelevance. They had 12 years to do something about Iraq, but failed. The IAEA begged the UNSC to address the North Korean situation. The UN could not run away fast enough from threats from the DPRK. Look at the current Sudan sitaution. People are dying, and the UNSC just passed (over the weekend) another toothless resolution basically stating "since you have not abided by our other resolutions, we will threaten you with another resolution. If you do not abide by this resolution, so help us, we will pass another resolution." They are a joke, and you need to show them that they need to start acting, otherwise risk irrelevance. Don't even get me started on Haiti.

-DPRK: Bush started with the proper approach, but is having some trouble lately. It has been uncovered that the South Koreans have a uranium program. The administration is trying to downplay this, while forcing the DPRK to abandon its uranium programs. Not a smart move, and we will lose some credibility as a result. We need to, at least publically, hold the ROK to the same standard as the DPRK, if we want the DPRK to buckle. Having the double-standard only makes things more difficult.

-Iran: Deja vu anyone?

Don't get me started on Kerry's foreign policy. It is absolutely SCARY what he is proposing, and there is no way in hell I want him in charge.

I do not want either of these guys in charge. Instead of bitching about it, but just voting for one of them anyway, I am doing something about it. Right or wrong, at least I am trying to make a difference, and trying to fix the mess that the career politicians have created. It will take at least a generation to fix all of the problems, and we need to get started. Voting for Bush or Kerry will only make the situation worse.
:ill: after a Bills loss that just makes me want to slit my wrist.

[Đ²]

write in Condi Rice, she'll be our next pres anyway in '08 no mater what.

:rofl: