one day to go... (USA VOTES)

[coma]

...I would rather be friendly with everyone, and have everyone try to work together as opposed to blowing each other up. If no one is willing to give that a try maybe we need someone who can or will. It maynot mean much to you Lou, but in the long wrong good foreign policy benefits everyone... bad foreign policy can wreak havoc on families, the economy and citizens in general. You may think the opposite but it is something clearly needed. Also, To be threatening to the enemies and actually be believable when you say "Attack us, we will destroy you and win". Which is not the case except for the destroy you part (and even thats becoming doubtful). North Korea treats us like a Fruit Basket because we are out of juice. And the trillions spent on Iraq means no $$ for anyhting domestic. If you wanted to do something good, you just can't. Endless war also gives a pres liscence to do whatever the hell he wants perpetually. I understand what you're saying coma, but there's a problem: they've already done that, and will do it again anyway regardless of who is in power and regardless of our association or relationship with foreign governments. We could be on great terms with every country in the world, but it just takes one fanatical fraction who disagrees with a countries policies to cause issues - this will never change. You can never please all of the people all the time - and the ones you can't please, are the ones that will eventually rise up and bite you in the ass. Remember, it's no safer in the US right now than it ever has been in the past - it's just more difficult to get on a plane. Hense the need for a chance for change. If I hear "they hate our freedom" again I am gonna s**t blood. And I kinda agree with you, except that I am a pessimist, but occasionally I give in to my deeply hidden idealism and my desire for something better. I have a few serious health issues and got screwed big time. I looked up a lot of the reasons for my screjob and I was shocked to see they came from a certain affiliation (mostly). I thought it was a more general politition in the pocket. But it really wasn't. Much of this is more of a state issue, but I am pissed and I want the dicks who are screwing me over fired. I don't believe in the "devil you know" theory. I have to hope for something better, without hope I have literally nothing. When geo comes to stump at Ground Zero he is many, many feet away from any spectators. Why? It's not for hating republicans. We have senetors, Mayors, Govenor, Local officials. It for heckling. The man is hated by 90% of New York City residents because we all blame him for 911. Not as conspiracy. For not trying to find Osama. For ingnoring Afghanastan. And for not giving a crap about us unless it's politically expedient. So Anybody who buddies up to him and the man himself are pesona non grata around here.

[_liam_]

ah i wouldnt worry about democracy falling, i personally dont think weve reached the point where we can say we have a democracy. we have a sort of representative democracy, where once every four years you get to choose who will tell you what to do for the next half decade. ===UK centric blag begins==== the british public hasn't tolerated a dictatorship or authoritarian govt. since the middle ages, can't see it happening any time soon. lol MZ always with the red bashing, remember the tories put millions of people out of work & sacked our fossil fuel industries, sent hundreds to die for the falkland islands (surely a million times less worthy than iraq) - sent hundreds to die in iraq for that matter - just so we could keep our post imperial protection racket with kuwait going, commissioned the millennium dome then bizarrely blamed labour for trying to clean it up, tore the country's public transport system up (and now blame labour for privatising it), then youve got allllll the drug & sex scandals that we know and love the tories for. lol sorry for goin on one there, i know youre not a tory boy or anything, but just think they were so much worse than new labour even when they were sorted out - but now theyre in chaos, 4 leaders in 3 years or whatever, i think theyre out of touch with reality and will screw us up something rotten if we vote em in. which may well happen. although i'll say this; GO BORIS. always got time for that man. plus theyd sort out the drugs laws, i like this being able to smoke pot in the garden without being arrested thing ==========UK CENTRIC BLAG ENDS========== but yeah, sorry for hijacking this thread a bit! america seems lodged in a similar game of neo con tennis, you really don't want the dim witted puppet of corrupt oil magnates running the 68th empire, but john kerry seems to have a habit of saying stupid, alienating stuff (the recent "study or go to iraq" being a classic), and it'd take a spectacular achievement on his part or a brutal failure on his enemies for it to go any further, but then there's been so many brutal failures on bush's part, and i may well be wrong but his approval figures aren't critical? (or are they? i have to keep up a bit more) as for foreign policy, SOME diplomacy wouldnt go amiss, that whole "with us or against us" thing was kinda doomed to failure seeing as most nations would rather not get involved in these messy middle east debacles cos, as you say, it compromises homeland security more than it assists. that said you used to fanny about with black ops in chile and nicaragua and panama and were rarely attacked then, why is it so different these days? i sometimes think it's not as bad as all that, there's been like, one major attack in britain since the iranian embassy incident in '80/'81, and 9/11 is the only major incident in america i can recall, not exactly as persistent as say, IRA or ETA, and not really deserving of the "war on freedom" handle they get. ah who knows. just do the right thing, US voters, whatever you feel that may be...

[coma]

that said you used to fanny about with black ops in chile and nicaragua and panama and were rarely attacked then, why is it so different these days? i sometimes think it's not as bad as all that, there's been like, one major attack in britain since the iranian embassy incident in '80/'81, and 9/11 is the only major incident in america i can recall, not exactly as persistent as say, IRA or ETA, and not really deserving of the "war on freedom" handle they get. ah who knows. just do the right thing, US voters, whatever you feel that may be... WTC 93, Many Embassy Attacks, The USS Cole. Also Robert Kennedy was assasinated by an Palestinan Fundamentalist. Also there was an major attack planned on the Fulton Street Subway station in Brooklyn that was thwarted. That would've been very high on the casuality scale and probably more desturctive for the day to day lives of New Yorkers because it is a major Hub. My friend lived across the street from them. Nice. Why are they always trying to bomb us, and occasionally LA? I know why, money, but give it a rest you lunantics. I still don't think it's worth throwing all of our ideals and rights in the toilet over. Nothing is.

[HLS]

Look at that, Dj - someone who can admit something you can't. Both partiest are crap. Here's how I look at it: 1) Both parties suck, and they're both corrupt, neither any better than the other. If you're involved in "politics" you can't be trusted, no matter what your party affiliation is. 2) Voting in the US is a complete waste of time. You can get a republican to replace a democrat in any office (or vise-versa) and guess what'll change for you and me and the average working-class people in the US? Nothing. Not a goddamn thing. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Oh, that's right.. you can't. This country was bought and sold a looong time ago, and a few days where they say they're having an "election" is just to give you the "illusion" that the people of the US actually matter and to make us think that our votes really 'count' to make this country a better place.. well, from way back when as far back as I can remember, nothing has ever changed no matter who was elected - not for the average citizen. If it makes you feel better about yourself, go have fun pulling those levers, playing on those computers, and filling out those absentee ballots. I'll be at home playing Battlefield 1942 on my computer - which is more engaging than anything having to do with politics - and when it's all said and done? Guess what? You'll still have lying thieves in office, regardless of their party affiliation... and then the complaints about government start again until the next election.. then someone will cry the ballots weren't counted right 'cause they're a sore loser.. then there will be more voter fraud controversy, people will feel cheated and that "their" leader really won but because of some kind of voting booth error, they didn't. Then we'll spend the next 2-4 years saying how this person shouldn't have been elected because someone cheated the system... hey.... waaaaaait a second! That sounds like a repeat of the past five or so elections we've held here, eh? Enjoy the illusion that you matter while it lasts, 'cause sooner or later, it won't. I have better things to worry about than bitter old men bickering with other bitter old men (and women too, not leaving them out) about who is right and who is wrong when they don't give one fu*k about anything or anyone but themselves. None of it makes a lick of difference. If you think it does, you've already bought into the lies. Sorry folks, that's just the way it is. As dennis miller always says, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong" (the sad part is, I'm not, and that's what angers me the most) Your first point is why I do not vote. None of them care about us or about the issues at hand. Its all about power. They will say whatever it takes to get into office.

[LouCipherr]

I agree coma - we should've not ignored the person who started this sh*t in the first place. Instead, now, we're in Iraq. Go figure. Foreign policy means a lot and is one issue that can either make or break homeland security and global terrorism. If you have 20 Foreign countries/nations that hate your guts then your chance for being the receiver of a terrorist attack increases. Since the current bozo in the oval office would rather give everyone the finger that doesn't stand good with me. I would rather be friendly with everyone, and have everyone try to work together as opposed to blowing each other up. If no one is willing to give that a try maybe we need someone who can or will. So, we become firendly with everyone - what does that mean, exactly? Does it mean when a country stands up in our face and is defiant, do we just sit back and say "whatever" like Slick Willy? Or do we over-react like that idiot Bush? Even if you are 'friendly' with every country in the world and kiss their ass to no end, that does not guarantee you "homeland security" - it only takes one fanatical group to f*ck it all up, and there's thousands of them out there waiting to pounce on their opportunity, regardless if they country they're from gets along with us. It didn't benefit the thousands of people in the world trade centers having good foreign relations now did it? We weren't hated then like we are now were we? All of this hatred of america started after that point because of Bush (another flippin' idiot) - but it proves my point. Having good relationships with other countries from a political standpoint is good because it gives the politicans something to talk about, but realistically, does it really matter? From an economic standpoint, yes, but i'm referring to this terrorist and homeland security angle. I understand the economic function of relations with other countries, but that's not the topic at hand (at least it's not what i'm discussing right now - we can touch on that later if you wish to discuss). If we were friendly with every country in the world, would it stop terrorism? Would we suddenly have no need for homeland security? Nope. It'll be the same sh*t, different day, only the sh*t is deeper. Sure, everyone is "working together" - but can that stop terrorism or terrorists? It never has in the history of any country ever, period. It wouldn't stop these other countries from doing whatever the hell they want either - it only gives these bozo idiotic politicans something to brag about. "well, we get along with <insert country name here> now, so we have nothing to worry about." Oh, really? and I bet every one of those politicians that would say that would try and take credit for it too. Sorry man, I don't buy the BS, but apparently a lot of people do in this country. I see through all of the lies. Most only see through the ones they don't agree with. Now, if we want to discuss the economic benefits of good foreign relations, that's totally different. I just wanted to touch on relationships with other countries and the false idea it would help to stave terrorist attacks and improve this so-called "homeland security." Besides, calling anything involving the US 'secure' is a joke - take a look at the mexican border. Yeah, we're "secure" allright "Homeland Security" is a fu*king joke. You can call me an idiot for saying that all you want, but what will you say when the next attack on US soil happens? Will it be "well, it was Bush's fault"? will it be "well, it's because Bush screwed up our relationship with that country that attacked us"?

[_liam_]

WTC 93, Many Embassy Attacks, The USS Cole. Also Robert Kennedy was assasinated by an Palestinan Fundamentalist. Also there was an major attack planned on the Fulton Street Subway station in Brooklyn that was thwarted. That would've been very high on the casuality scale and probably more desturctive for the day to day lives of New Yorkers because it is a major Hub. My friend lived across the street from them. Nice. Why are they always trying to bomb us, and occasionally LA? I know why, money, but give it a rest you lunantics. I still don't think it's worth throwing all of our ideals and rights in the toilet over. Nothing is. ah good points indeed, but i think they still fall into the realm of sporadic incidents rather than a consistent campaign. tit for tat rather than indiscriminate killing. awful things will happen, doesn't mean it's a war as such.

[Adrenochrome]

I'm going with Hammy...

[LouCipherr]

I think Hammy would make a better president than a dem or a repub!

[MinionZombie]

"Complacency & Apathy" most definately. I've never seen so much complacency from the British before - and we're a complacent people traditionally! Also, add drunken-ness to that combo, because I'd say a lot of people in the UK (where binge drinking is out of control) get pissed up to forget about their life troubles - which are induced by the gubment (especially this past 10 years when binging has really taken off). Complacency, apathy and drunken-ness ... no wonder Labour passed the 24 hour drinking law - trying to get the country good and lickered up so they're too hungover to notice the damage being done.

[zombie04]

If you are happy about seeing our service men and women murdered everyday over the cause of terrorism, and actually believe we need to be there, with no end in sight then you will probably vote Republican. Ok, here's where I couldn't disagree with you more. In your fantasy world, Republicans like seeing our soldiers killed for a cause you don't support and are evil in every way. When, in the real world, we don't like seeing our soldiers killed, we want the war in Iraq to end as soon as possible, but we believe the end result will be justified. That's all I'm saying on the matter.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ok, here's where I couldn't disagree with you more. In your fantasy world, Republicans like seeing our soldiers killed for a cause you don't support and are evil in every way. When, in the real world, we don't like seeing our soldiers killed, we want the war in Iraq to end as soon as possible, but we believe the end result will be justified. That's all I'm saying on the matter. They must like it because they did nothing to give them the protective gear they needed and once Suddam was ousted we should have packed up and left. There is no other reason to be there. They guy is in jail and was on trial for a year. Why should we be there. We did what was needed and that was that. What other reason was there for hanging out this long?

[zombie04]

What other reason was there for hanging out this long? Making sure the country doesn't fail and get taken over by some its neighboring countries.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Making sure the country doesn't fail and get taken over by some its neighboring countries. So us taking it over was ok... There is no logic in that statement man. Seriously we got him out of power, put him on trial. We really needed 100,000 troops to secure a country. No one is trying to take it over, hell they want us out hence why nearly 3000 troops have been killed in 2+ years. I mean lets get serious that country was at best a minor to medium threat. N. Korea on the other hand is a bigger threat we should be dealing with.

[_liam_]

i dont think his statement was crazy, there is a danger iraq could be taken over by a government either sympathetic to or engaged in terrorism, the recent election of hamas is one thing that indicates a rising popularity for such groups & movements in the middle east. also i wouldnt be suprised if an iranian element was funding some groups. but anyway, the place is in a mess, there seems to be a lot of seriously ill will against the west (and rightly so in some cases), a dodgy government could take over, but the question begs to be asked; what good are our forces doing over there? is there anything they can do to salvage the damage that has been done?

[coma]

If the country was a true democracy, and most of the people can't stand us, the logical conclusion is a country unfriendly to the US. The only option to insure a friendly govt is to have a puppet govt ala Diem In Vietnam, who ended up dead in a US backed Coup. The US only supprts Democracy whe it is convienient. witness the backing of Coups against democracys unsympathetic to the US and support of Military dictatorships. Like Non stop from the 50s through the 80s and beyond. Iran apparently is backing Militia groups . I might have the sects backwards so excuse me... Sdaam is a Sunni, of the Minority in Iraq. The Sunnis fight because they are pissed (and afraid) about losing power. The SHiites are a majority and Iran is Shiite, so the alliance is A natural. The US removed the Sadaam and Baath party creating a path for an Iraq/Iran cooperation. That did not in any way exist before the invasion. While Saadm basically talked a lot of S**t, Iran HAS directly threatened the US. Bush didnt even know what a Sunni and a Shiite was before the invasion. Thanks Asshat. and the other reason being HALIBURTON and, of course, making the US safe for a wonderful constitution free Future. Awesome!