Who will/would you vote in the November US presidential election?

[LoneDeranger]

Oh boy .. here come the big guns .. I think it's time for me leave.

Goodnight guys

 

[Spiffae]

Lil' Timmy, you're my hero. Great post.

 

[Lucifer Crass]

I'll vote for............................................................................................................SATAN!!!

 

[Maskirovka]

Excuse me? This country was founded on the basis of Freedom, not Separation or Chuch and State. That didn't even happen a Century ago. This country was actually founded on the basis of God. You were allowed to freely worship a God or not, but it was founded on the basis that there was one.


"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Key word is Amendment, this wasn't in the original Constitution. At the time of the Constitution, this country was very Christian. You can still see the words, "In God we trust.", on money today.

the "in god we trust" was mad mandatory on money in 1955. it was an anti-communist measure and is outdated.

and it's the first amendment. that means first...as in the first thing that was added that people thought should be in there. we're fighting against religon-based states in the middle east...religous fanatacism is what causes terrorism. you want to take the first step down the slippery slope towards that in this country? i think you're sadly mistaken if you think that's a good idea.

i fully support the work churches do in their communities. i fully support their ability to help the less fortunate members of their communities. but i don't think they should be receiving federal money to do so. any money given to anyone by the federal government must be done in some sort of appropriations bill or law. therefore, that would be violating the first amendment by making a law that favors religion over non-religion.

and FYI, the first amendment is part of the bill of rights. the Constitution took effect in 1789. the bill of rights was proposed in 1789. that's about as close to being in the original constitution as it gets...it only took 2 years until the bill of rights became official in 1791.

yes, the men who made up the constitution were religious. but they were smart enough to recognize the value of separating their religious beliefs from their government since that had caused so much struggle and turmoil in England. that was part of their vision...no more religious persecution, and no more government favoring one religion over another...or religion over non-religion. and you want to go against their vision. good job.

look, churches do a lot of good things for their communities...so let them do it in a non-religious way. bush complains that churches have to make sure they're not advertising or pushing their faith when they're offering these services in order to get federal money. i say that's a good thing. if they're really wanting to do the noble thing with no hidden agenda, then why aren't they fine with helping people in the name of good will instead of in the name of God? it's the same thing unless you're trying to convert people.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

I'll vote for............................................................................................................SATAN!!!

I'm sorry, I'm not running this year.

 

[Maskirovka]

the war in iraq has nothing to do with the people that died in the WTC.

selling the US to the enemy? look in the mirror bush-supporters. border-security? bush-friendly american coporations? this country is being turned for a quick buck by the bush family and friends. it's plain and simple. wake up you damn sheep.

much more damage is being caused to my country by the uninformed, uninvolved people oozing through the school systems into predominantly dead-end service jobs than any imginary WMDs in lands far-away.

if you support this war in iraq, you're supporting the treating of a problem by attacking the symptoms.

read my mind

 

[OCybrManO]

Excuse me? This country was founded on the basis of Freedom, not Separation or Chuch and State. That didn't even happen a Century ago. This country was actually founded on the basis of God. You were allowed to freely worship a God or not, but it was founded on the basis that there was one.


"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Key word is Amendment, this wasn't in the original Constitution. At the time of the Constitution, this country was very Christian. You can still see the words, "In God we trust.", on money today.

You do realize that the people that became our founding fathers came to this country because the church of England was corrupting the government, right? Anyone that didn't agree with their view was prosecuted.

Religion is a choice. Government is not (on the individual level). If you are going to force everyone to obey laws you don't want the laws to endorse religion and prosecute others because they followed their beliefs about what is good and what is bad (unless they believe things like murder are good).

Example: Abortion is a primarily religious problem. If abortion was legal it would not force religious women to abort their children, but if it were illegal it would be forcing religious views on atheists as well. Thus, the church is now excercising control over people that do not believe in the teachings of the church... which is what people came to America to escape from in the first place.

This also applies to things like gay marriage and other topics on which the church's view strongly opposes those of atheists or people of other religions.

The church should have no influence over the government whatsoever. That doesn't mean that you can't vote for people based on their religion if that is how you decide between candidates... but I draw the line at making legislature or judicial decisions based on any religion.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

You do realize that the people that became our founding fathers came to this country because the church of England was corrupting the government, right? Anyone that didn't agree with their view was prosecuted.

Religion is a choice. Government is not (on the individual level). If you are going to force everyone to obey laws you don't want the laws to endorse religion and prosecute others because they followed their beliefs about what is good and what is bad (unless they believe things like murder are good).

Example: Abortion is a primarily religious problem. If abortion was legal it would not force religious women to abort their children, but if it were illegal it would be forcing religious views on atheists as well. Thus, the church is now excercising control over people that do not believe in the teachings of the church... which is what people came to America to escape from in the first place.

This also applies to things like gay marriage and other topics on which the church's view strongly opposes those of atheists or people of other religions.

The church should have no influence over the government whatsoever. That doesn't mean that you can't vote for people based on their religion if that is how you decide between candidates... but I draw the line at making legislature or judicial decisions based on any religion.

Yes, I realize all of that. I didn't mean to have this message come across. I was merely stating the foundation of religion and state in the early years of the country, not the effect it has on the country today. Why I put that "In God we trust." comment in there. Hell, the "Under God" part of the pledge wasn't even in the original.

 

[Maskirovka]

well you'll have bush saying, "i didn't mean for this message to come across" if they pass the type of legislation you're favoring.

 

[Asus]

I didn't read all the posts but I did read a few things that I don't think some of you understand.
Bush didn't cause those jobs to be lost.
Bush got elected when?
The market started to go down when?
Job loss is a delayed outcome of a poor market in buisness and manufacturing that takes a while to develop.
And you think bush did that? haha
It was done on the previous administrations watch.
Just the effects (job loss) came to be right after they left.
Job loss is a way to offset loss in buisness in the hope of returning profits.
If anything bush has slowed job loss and is returning manufacturing to where it was before while doing his little action with the military.

It was those democrats I tell you!

BTW It isn't bush I support. Its the administration.
I dare not think of how these past years would have been spent if Gore was pres.

 

[Maskirovka]

I didn't read all the posts but I did read a few things that I don't think some of you understand.
Bush didn't cause those jobs to be lost.
Bush got elected when?
The market started to go down when?
Job loss is a delayed outcome of a poor market in buisness and manufacturing that takes a while to develop.
And you think bush did that? haha
It was done on the previous administrations watch.
Just the effects (job loss) came to be right after they left.
Job loss is a way to offset loss in buisness in the hope of returning profits.
If anything bush has slowed job loss and is returning manufacturing to where it was before while doing his little action with the military.

It was those democrats I tell you!

BTW It isn't bush I support. Its the administration.
I dare not think of how these past years would have been spent if Gore was pres.

please...enlighten us as to how the clinton administration caused and sustained record job losses. especially when the bush administration supports companies sending jobs overseas.

the bush admin. claims they're going to china....and they want to go after china because we have a large trade deficit with them...they argue that this is what causes job loss...but China turns around and invests the money back into the US in the form of treasury bonds....which lowers our interest rates.

 

[Asus]

I didn't mean to say it was Clinton's administration. Just that it couldn't be Bush because the market started to go downhill in 2000.

 

[Maskirovka]

I didn't mean to say it was Clinton's administration. Just that it couldn't be Bush because the market started to go downhill in 2000.

it's not all about the stock market...that's just for rich people who have enough money to invest to the point where it actually affects their livelihood.

the stock market is pretty strong now, but peoplea ren't getting their jobs back, and manufacturing is losing more jobs.

 

[craig]

Not that I follow American politics very well, but Kerry seems more of a decent guy and doesnt windle his way out of fighting in wars.

 

[Deadline]

Not that I follow American politics very well, but Kerry seems more of a decent guy and doesnt windle his way out of fighting in wars.

Its Bush time!!!!, *Sings "Its Hammer Time"*

 

[GhostValkyrie]

well you'll have bush saying, "i didn't mean for this message to come across" if they pass the type of legislation you're favoring.

Bah!
I was only saying aiding poor churches is a good thing. Whether or not that will actually happen is unknown to me, but I do like the idea.
You have your opinion, why can't I have mine?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

who voted for bush? and why? seriously it would be interesting to know.

i don't know much about the candidates, but michael moore is backing wesley clark for some reason, must be something good about him.

I voted for Bush, even though I'm a British citizen.

I find it interesting that Bush has so many votes even though from looking at whats posted on the forums you might think he has only 1 supporter. Perhaps its just the Anti Bush people are more vocal.

 

[Maskirovka]

Bah!
I was only saying aiding poor churches is a good thing. Whether or not that will actually happen is unknown to me, but I do like the idea.
You have your opinion, why can't I have mine?

what you don't seem to understand:

1. i agree that aiding churches is a good thing...they help their communities.
2. not all the churches who receive aid will be poor...read the legislation
3. passing this legislation FORCES taxpayers WHO MAY NOT BELIEVE IN GOD to give money to churches. that is a bad thing, imo. do you want legislation in the future that forces you to give money to some organization that leans towards something you don't believe in? i hope not...

#3 is not separation of church and state, imo...i'm not sure how they've changed all the legalese to make it constitutional...but they must have...otherwise bush wouldn't be proposing it if it was unconstitutional.

like i said before...churches can already receive federal aid because they're non-profit organizations. all this faith-based initiative thing does is allow churches to receive federal aid while keeping their religious tone.

as of now, churches that want to help their communities must do so in a non-religious way. all this bill does is let churches help people as a church and not as a normal nonprofit organization. and again...i think churches spreading faith in their communities is a good thing. it will help the community. but i still don't think it should be approved by the federal government...the federal government should not be forcing taxpayers to give money to religious organizations they do not belong to.

 

[Maskirovka]

Perhaps its just the Anti Bush people are more vocal.

i can't find any bush supporters who will give an actual concrete, rational, and supported reason why any of bush's domestic policies are good for america.

 

[Sprafa]

I voted for Bush, even though I'm a British citizen.

I find it interesting that Bush has so many votes even though from looking at whats posted on the forums you might think he has only 1 supporter. Perhaps its just the Anti Bush people are more vocal.

Most ppl that vote for Bush don't frequent these forums. Actually, I don't think they have Internet....or brains to do such a thing...

2000 elections were lame anyway, Gore would have done a worst job in the chair.
None of the canditates deserved to sit in the chair.McCain was th only one acceptable and was put out.

Anyway, this is becoming another Anti-Bush thread.And its gorwing so fast.

I hope my contribution in invisible ink (nobody bothered to highlight th poll ) didn't cause this....

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

You know i could take offense at that comment about people visiting the forums...but i wont because that would be wrong and unforgiving. Anyway, i say that because i have a brain and the internet. Im not dumb, i may even consider myself quite intelligent...yet for some odd reason i support bush. I think that really, its usaually the idiots who are more vocal, so all you hear of bush supporters is stupid comments. But since you're not exactly for bush, then you will tend to mix with others of a similar mind set. So ou will come into contact with more intelligent people who are perhaps less vocal.

What im saying is....its really a level playing field, you may see republicans as stupid rural bible bashers but i can guarrantee that there are a lot of very smart people who probably visit places more to their liking.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

what you don't seem to understand

No, you don't understand.
I didn't say I thought the legislation was a good idea, should be passed, or that non-believing taxpayers should pay money to this. I was talking about the issue on moral grounds, not completely political. I look at both things in a candidate - their Political, and Moral stance. Both make a difference, believe me.

 

[ray_MAN]

Wesley Clark, if I could vote. He will be MUCH better with the war than Bushwacker.

 

[Sprafa]

No.

I said "most" and thats true.
The republicans attract the rich(that gain with it) and the poor(that don't know shit so they vote in the guy that they like)
Democrats usually are informed ppl...

 

[GhostValkyrie]

No.

I said "most" and thats true.
The republicans attract the rich(that gain with it) and the poor(that don't know shit so they vote in the guy that they like)
Democrats usually are informed ppl...

That's not totally true.

 

[Maskirovka]

No, you don't understand.
I didn't say I thought the legislation was a good idea, should be passed, or that non-believing taxpayers should pay money to this. I was talking about the issue on moral grounds, not completely political. I look at both things in a candidate - their Political, and Moral stance. Both make a difference, believe me.

hmm...coulda fooled me:

Bush could be an evil man, but I don't know that. I know I support his space program, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, stance against abortion, Faith based initiatives, and other programs.

if you support bush's stance on faith-based initiatives, you support the passing of that legislation...because that's what bush wants to do. i can agree with someone morally, but that doesn't make them a good candidate or a good leader. and it definitely doesn't make the legislation they try to get through congress good.

how can you support bush morally, but then agree that the legislation he favors is crap...and then still want him for president? i don't get what you're trying to say.

you continue to explain yourself, but it seems to cause more confusion...try to make yourself very clear so i can understand what it is you're trying to say.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

hmm...coulda fooled me:

if you support bush's stance on faith-based initiatives, you support the passing of that legislation...because that's what bush wants to do. i can agree with someone morally, but that doesn't make them a good candidate or a good leader. and it definitely doesn't make the legislation they try to get through congress good.

how can you support bush morally, but then agree that the legislation he favors is crap...and then still want him for president? i don't get what you're trying to say.

you continue to explain yourself, but it seems to cause more confusion...try to make yourself very clear so i can understand what it is you're trying to say.

There are things I like about Bush morally, that I don't politically. There are things I like about Kerry, too. But, in the end, I favor Bush more at this time.
I don't like everything about Bush, I don't dislike everything about Kerry. Just because I don't like a form of Legislation Bush has talked about, and it almost seems abandoned with the war and all, doesn't mean I'm going to not vote for him.
Just because there are things I don't like about him, doesn't mean I'm going to just vote for someone else.

I like his moral stance on the issue, but I agree that the legislation is going in the wrong way...against the 1st amendment.

Sorry. Sometimes I have a problem explaining myself.
Is that clear anough for you?

BTW: To cater to your needs even more, I will place a Poltical, or Moral, next to the things I like.
Space Program - Political
Faith Based Initiatives - Moral.
Happy?

 

[Maskirovka]

laff...you don't need to cater to my needs or whatever...just be clear about what you're saying...

if you say you support bush on something, that means you support him politically. if you say you support issue X, then you support that issue and not necessarily the way things are going with that issue. it's not hard to make sense...you just have to try like you just did ;P

 

[Sprafa]

That's not totally true.

Thats why I put always "mostly", "usually"....words that disencourage 100% certain

 

[crabcakes66]

Sometimes I wonder why the rest of the world hates us so much and wants to ram airplanes into our office buildings. Then I read statements like this and realize why America is so disliked. Morons like yourself.

agreed...not that valk is a moron....but the other part is pretty much what i keep saying myself.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

agreed...not that valk is a moron....but the other part is pretty much what i keep saying myself.

Yeah, I see how my comment could have been taken in such a way. I wasn't saying we're better than anyone else, I was only saying we need to crawl out of the holes we've fallen into - Judges upholding idiotic lawsuits, rediculous wellfare for lazy crackheads(I'm not against welfare, I do support drug tests in order to obtain and keep welfare, though.), the liberalization of the Military, passing kids along in school because they keep failing, and other things. I'm not saying being liberal is bad, but the Military is not a place for sensitivity training.

It's okay, you can say I'm a moron if you feel that way.

 

[Maskirovka]

what does "liberalization of the military" mean, exactly? and when you're talking about sensitivity training...i hope you remember that there are a lot of reports coming form iraq about female soldiers getting sexually assaulted by the men over there. so maybe those assholes do need some sensitivity training...in the form of a dishonorable discharge.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

so maybe those assholes do need some sensitivity training...in the form of a dishonorable discharge.

I totally agree. Actually, I think they should be punished even more, especially since they're soldiers. They're supposed to live up to a higher standard than civilians, plus the fact that civilians are put into jail for rape. I think they should be Dishonorably Discharged, and put into Prison.


I'm talking about things like what happened to my friend's brother.
He got an email from a buddy at the base. He's sitting at his desk, reading. Well, this female Marine comes up behind him, looks over his shoulder, reads his private mail, and gets him thrown out because it offended her. People getting offended - Are we really so weak that we sue people because they offended us? Are our courts really so liberal as to uphold such lawsuits? . I admit that I try not to offend people, but these whiners really do get on my nerves. That's the liberalization I'm talking about. Yeah, liberal can mean different things. For a while, I called myself liberal, because it used to mean for the people. But now, the overwhelming majority of proclaimed liberals are a bunch of crybabies. I'm not talking about you guys, but a lot of people are.

 

[Sprafa]

This is only in the US.

In my country, you need to be proven mentally changed by a licensed phycologist to sue someone by offense.

 

[Maskirovka]

I totally agree. Actually, I think they should be punished even more, especially since they're soldiers. They're supposed to live up to a higher standard than civilians, plus the fact that civilians are put into jail for rape. I think they should be Dishonorably Discharged, and put into Prison.


I'm talking about things like what happened to my friend's brother.
He got an email from a buddy at the base. He's sitting at his desk, reading. Well, this female Marine comes up behind him, looks over his shoulder, reads his private mail, and gets him thrown out because it offended her. People getting offended - Are we really so weak that we sue people because they offended us? Are our courts really so liberal as to uphold such lawsuits? . I admit that I try not to offend people, but these whiners really do get on my nerves. That's the liberalization I'm talking about. Yeah, liberal can mean different things. For a while, I called myself liberal, because it used to mean for the people. But now, the overwhelming majority of proclaimed liberals are a bunch of crybabies. I'm not talking about you guys, but a lot of people are.

i agree...a lot of liberals are crybabies...it just so happens that they vote democrat because it's closer to their ultra-liberal views...so all democrats get labelled as weak crybabies somehow :\

 

[crabcakes66]

i agree...a lot of liberals are crybabies...it just so happens that they vote democrat because it's closer to their ultra-liberal views...so all democrats get labelled as weak crybabies somehow :\

I agree with what your saying also gv. I just wish some people didnt look at things as so black and white.

For example.

I dont like alot of things bush has done ....I dont like plenty of the things clinton did.

But i dont see what clinton did as being as bad as some of the things bush has "supposedly" done......

I can overlook what clinton did as just being as an asshole....and the fact that he can no longer be president makes me look back and think that he did a pretty decent job overall other than the lewinsky scandel.

..on the other hand.... if what HALF of the media says about bush is true(thats probobly about much actaully is true)..then i dont think he is thinking in the best interest of our country...and i think he is of a much lower moral standard in MY mind than clinton ever was.....especailly when he tries to project the exact opposite.

i guess thats the differance between being liberal and conservative....out president getting his dick sucked and lying under oath doesnt bother as much as the whole iraq situation(wrong or right).

thats what i like to think....but im not sure.....about clinton being so good or bush being so bad....

9/10s of what gets blamed on a president wasnt even his doing anyway.

 

[Sprafa]

Are you sure?

Check my sig link on the MLK quote....

The bombs theory is just plain stupid, but some stuff actually make you think....

 

[Asus]

There are things I dislike about bush and just about any other pres.
There are a lot of things that people pin against bush that should be blamed on congress.
The economy going bad... Wasn't that more wide spread than just the US?
I don't see how that was bush's fault, let alone any others.
I do not have any faults with bush that I can pin on him alone except his educational plans.
What I like is this administration, not bush alone.
The administration that another pres. may bring in, may or may not be good. IMO

 

[Sprafa]

If you look into any Adminstration and don't see controversy and mistakes, then thye did nothing.

But the Bush admin. has done some catastrofical errors that are ruining the wohle thing.
The economy of the Us is in such state b/c they decided o change the way it was going, and that end up reuining the whole thing. Republican analists predicted that the democratic way was wrong....so they change oiwa

 

[Sprafa]

oh well, just bumping it to say - Bush won.....

Thats, right - GEORGE W. BUSH WON!