08-09-2004 08:09									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Why exactly do you consider Badnarik unqualified, Diss? I'm going to vote for him--talk me out of it.

If you absolutely must choose Bush or Kerry, I'd recommend Kerry just to get some gridlock going. A Republican House of Reps won't roll over for Kerry like it did for Bush.

	08-09-2004 08:11									#122
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dissident There was some confusion amongst the hillbillies. Can you blame them? with Guntamano Bay Bush said we didn't need to treat those prisoners in accordance with the Geneva convention. Perhaps the soldiers felt the same way about the Iraqi prisoners. They didn't know better. Dumb rednecks. I don't like Bush bending the rules- even if it is for a good cause. It weakens the system as a whole. This administration seems strange. Why have so many people jumped ship? Many people have left. Including Colin Powel (possibly- he said he might come back).

Dis. Bush memo said to treat them in accordance even those we don't have to according to the Justice Dept.

	08-09-2004 08:13									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Maybe it would be possible to enjoy the best of both worlds. I think perhaps we should grant immunity from practically all government constraint and proscription within the confines of our own homes. The individual would be soverign in their private residence and within any direct extensions there of. Then the patriot act could not be used to police our home lives. The only use i want to see made of the patriot act is as a means of finding and preventing massive acts of violence in advance, especially domestic terrorism which seems to have been forgotten in the wake of the more recent itnernational terrorism.

Where does the home end? Some people, myself included, find ourselves more at home at the school library or the internet than we do around our parents. If I have a cable modem, I can point my browser and have a direct connection--hell, an extension, to any website I want, be it Google, to the AOL website, to Islamic Fundamentalist sites, to Child Porn sites, to the IRS website, to the Teletubbies website. It's the same with a phone line. If I talk to my girlfriend over the phone, and I am "at home" and she is "at home", and we are planning on merging those two into a single unit, would that not count as a direct extension?

To limit the Patriot Act like that would be to kill it. I for one support killing the Patriot Act, but I fail to see how this position helps you at all.

======

quote: I accept no government contraints on my actions apart from my actions that do violence to others. I'm not satisfied to simply get away with doing what I want rather I reject any law the government passes which constrains those actions of myself or others which do no violence to anyone. I'd rather die than have my life run by a police state and would die fighting one that attempted to run my life.

We do not disagree here.

quote: Yet I don't wish to hide or hide my life from everyone. Does this mean I do not love liberty? Is a life that is 'free' only because it is lived in hiding truly free at all?

I don't wish to hide anything except maybe my personal habits (the occasional cigarette and the social drinking, for example) from my parents.
The fact that I have that measure of privacy, the fact that I have control over who sees what parts of me, that is itself a form of liberty.

Just because you have liberty does not mean you have to cast a million-watt halogen spotlight on your life. You may not have any fears of being exhibitionist. Sure, you don't have to hide anything. But others, say, a Tracy Bacon, may want to hide some queer parts of their lives, simply because it's easier for them to do so, and because it really isn't anyone else's business--least of all the government's.

	08-09-2004 08:14									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Is it finger waving which will prevent the eventual use of WMD in a terract? Avoiding the question? Do you actually think the government will be prevented from abusing the info given to them by us saying don't do that.

I honestly think that if they won't be constrained from illegally using the information once it is legally gathered then it follows that they won't be constrained from illegally gathering the information in the first place either in the event such spying is outlawed. As I have said before if the government isn't going to follow the law why write laws that we already assume will be broken? It seems almost paradoxal to say "outlaw spying by the government because it will break laws against misuing such information anyway."

	08-09-2004 08:17									#125
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

But by allowing such laws to stand unchallenged, we send a signal TO the "Watchers" that it's okay.

It legitimizes their activities.

If they do it anyway, then at least they are forced to do so via deception and subterfuge, and if instances OF that deception and subterfuge get out, then change can be affected.

On the other hand, if we roll over and pretend it does not matter, then who's to raise a finger when they come get you in the night for doing something that some nameless info-broker on the Hill deemed "improper"?

-=Vel=-

	08-09-2004 08:22									#126
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Geronimo....I used the chip-installation example for that very reason. I guess my question is....what's the difference? If you're okay with allowing the government unfettered access to spy on anyone, then why not make it even easier, by installing something in our bodies? Just another small nibble into the realm of privacy, yes? (after all, what could be more private than ourselves?) The problem is that once we start down that path, the line will keep getting pushed back. Best not to start down the path at all. -=Vel=-

When you say "(after all, what could be more private than ourselves?)" are you stating that you agree with that statement as well or just observing that I seem to believe that? I'll assume we both agree on that statement and say that it makes sense to start protecting our privacy at the level that is most private and work our way out from there to successively less intimate areas of privacy with less and less protection at each stage.

When you speak of the path you don't want to see the government start down at all do you mean a path representing a starting point of total government ignorance and an end point of total government ominiscience about our lives? If so we started down that path almost at the founding of our consititution with the census and later with the IRS and social security numbers and god only knows what all else. I think a government only goes as far down that path as public resistance allows and I think the further down that path the greater resistance becomes. That is why I have little fear that there will be a slippery slope. If the slope is slippery then I think it is a slope the government is climbing uphill.

	08-09-2004 08:27									#127
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed quote: Maybe it would be possible to enjoy the best of both worlds. I think perhaps we should grant immunity from practically all government constraint and proscription within the confines of our own homes. The individual would be soverign in their private residence and within any direct extensions there of. Then the patriot act could not be used to police our home lives. The only use i want to see made of the patriot act is as a means of finding and preventing massive acts of violence in advance, especially domestic terrorism which seems to have been forgotten in the wake of the more recent itnernational terrorism. Where does the home end? Some people, myself included, find ourselves more at home at the school library or the internet than we do around our parents. If I have a cable modem, I can point my browser and have a direct connection--hell, an extension, to any website I want, be it Google, to the AOL website, to Islamic Fundamentalist sites, to Child Porn sites, to the IRS website, to the Teletubbies website. It's the same with a phone line. If I talk to my girlfriend over the phone, and I am "at home" and she is "at home", and we are planning on merging those two into a single unit, would that not count as a direct extension? To limit the Patriot Act like that would be to kill it. I for one support killing the Patriot Act, but I fail to see how this position helps you at all. ====== quote: I accept no government contraints on my actions apart from my actions that do violence to others. I'm not satisfied to simply get away with doing what I want rather I reject any law the government passes which constrains those actions of myself or others which do no violence to anyone. I'd rather die than have my life run by a police state and would die fighting one that attempted to run my life. We do not disagree here. quote: Yet I don't wish to hide or hide my life from everyone. Does this mean I do not love liberty? Is a life that is 'free' only because it is lived in hiding truly free at all? I don't wish to hide anything except maybe my personal habits (the occasional cigarette and the social drinking, for example) from my parents. The fact that I have that measure of privacy, the fact that I have control over who sees what parts of me, that is itself a form of liberty. Just because you have liberty does not mean you have to cast a million-watt halogen spotlight on your life. You may not have any fears of being exhibitionist. Sure, you don't have to hide anything. But others, say, a Tracy Bacon, may want to hide some queer parts of their lives, simply because it's easier for them to do so, and because it really isn't anyone else's business--least of all the government's.

I'm not sure we disagree on anything substantiative. I'm still mulling over the implications of the privacy system I postulated in response to AH's post. As to the bottom of the post I agree that it's very important the government be required to keep its domestic intelligence information at least as secret as it keeps our personal income tax forms or our census questionaires or our ss#. the government seems to find keeping secrets to be second nature.

	08-09-2004 08:31									#128
	Suffering from ads?

But then...why take another step toward the abyss?

What does it gain?

Our intelligence gathering capabilities are not the problem.

The Shrub was handed...HANDED a report outlining the possibility of folks from the ME coming over here and using big airplanes as guided missiles on targets on US soil.

We got that information before the PatAct was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, therefore, to assert that the PatAct is necessary for the prevention of Terracts in the future is to turn a blind eye to the facts.

Greater freedom to spy on U.S. citizens will not magically prevent terracts, but paying attention to reports that are placed right under your nose surely will.

The system itself was not the problem. It was never broken. The report got made...WITHOUT handing a blank check to the Watchers.

That it was never read, and never taken seriously was the problem.

So...perhaps we should pass a law allowing for Impeachment for gross dereliction of duty? Immediate votes of no confidence when our national leaders perform in sub-par fashion?

Ahhh, but that's not so easy, cos you and I don't have veto powers. Far easier, in this instance to take another bite from the little guy and pretend it makes the world safer.



-=Vel=-

	08-09-2004 08:36									#129
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx But by allowing such laws to stand unchallenged, we send a signal TO the "Watchers" that it's okay. It legitimizes their activities. If they do it anyway, then at least they are forced to do so via deception and subterfuge, and if instances OF that deception and subterfuge get out, then change can be affected.

You are the first to address this objection of mine in this thread. thanks. legitimacy based on legality is one of the reasons that I object to using privacy as a way of skirting around laws I don't like. Just because I can get away with something in no way means that I am willing to accept it being illegal in the first place.

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx On the other hand, if we roll over and pretend it does not matter, then who's to raise a finger when they come get you in the night for doing something that some nameless info-broker on the Hill deemed "improper"? -=Vel=-

This is almost worthy of another thread. the ability to arrest a citizen without charges is indeed of
grave concern to me and in fact is the main reason I will probably hold my nose and cast a very reluctant vote for Kerry this election. I don't think the two issues are inseparable though. In the absence of spying the goverment will as it stands now simply arrest someone it doesn't like "just to be safe" rather than wait to see if in fact there is any reason to be suspicious.

I'd much rather the government spy on me if it decides it doesn't like me and wring its hands in frustration as nothing I do incriminates me than have it somehow unable to spy and so simply lock me up when it decides it doesn't like me.


Important issue and it probably deserves more mention in a thread about reasons not to vote for Bush.

	08-09-2004 08:38									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

impeachment of our leaders

	08-09-2004 09:17									#131
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi [blatant incendinary rightwing scaremongering] Your past posst seem to indicate that you are not a feminist, Diss. However, John Kerry is. Himself henpecked to a wealthier and more forceful wife, John Kerry will use his power to advance the agenda of the hardline feminists. John Kerry states on his website that he wishes to close the pay gap, the whole women supposedly earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earns deal. Never mind that that is mostly due to different career choices and that the gap can close naturally due to women doing bettering in education then men, John Kerry would invoke government's hand to try to intervene. And we can see with Affirmative Action that when the government creates discriminatory programs they can be rather hard to get rid of. If John Kerry gets elected, an employer might have to give a promotion to a women instead of you, or give a contract to a women instead of you, to avoid brining down the wrath of the federal government. Now, granted, John Kerry is not going to talk about radical feminism on the campaign trail. But the radical feminists are a key part of the democratic coalition, and if Kerry is elected he will owe them, and the people he brings to Washington will sympathize with him. The types of feminists who don't believe in due process for rape cases, who support feminist judges who take father's children away in divorce cases and leave the fathers with impovershing child support/alimony, and who would see your romantic troubles as a feminine triumph with females being able to frustrate your man, will have greater acsess to Washington under a Kerry administration. Also consider the types of judges Kerry would appoint. He would appoint activist feminist judges who would use their judicial powers to legislate from the bench for greater power for women. If Due process is violated in a rape or sexual harrasment case, I don't think any Kerry appointee would correct the error. And don't assume your porn would be safe under a liberal administartion either; Remember Tipper Gore was a huge anti-porn crusader. Feminists oppose porn because they feel it is degrading to women, feminist kerry appointees in the courts and in the regulatory agencies would surely oppose them. Just remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for you to become a second class citizen. [/blatant incendinary rightwing scaremongering]

nothing wrong with feminism.

	08-09-2004 09:21									#132
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Thue How about the fact that Bush invaded Iraq on false premises. A big part of the argumentation was that Iraq was connected to 9/11, a claim informed people now know have little basis in reality (though it seems that 50% af Americans still believe there were Iraqies among the hijackers). Or the whole weapons of mass destruction thing. In either case the Bush administration was either lying to the public, knowing better but letting themselves be decieved, or grossly incompetent. Take your pick. I know one can argue that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy who deserved to be overthrown, and I agree to some degree. But that doesn't change the fact that administrations way to sell the war was wrong. I don't trust leaders who act that way. While John Kerry may not be the most inspirering leader, he sounds like he wouldn't make mistakes like that.

this is a big problem with me. And in most cases this would clinch it. But Kerry is a left wing nutjob.

I was considering voting for him under the pretense that under a republican congress he can't do much damage. I shudder to think what would happen if the democrats gain control.

	08-09-2004 09:21									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Yea, but he isn't going to win anyways, so you don't have to worry about him becoming President. A vote for Badnarik is more a protest vote than anything. If enough people vote for Badnarik, the Repubs will wake up and realize their "borrow, spend & conquer" policies are alienating voters that could potentially be part of their coalition (libertarians) and may seek to adjust their policies accordingly. If you are dissatisfied with Bush, then by all means don't vote for him. A vote for Bush sends the message that you agree with him. If you don't, let him know by voting Badnarik.

perhaps you are right. I was thinking about abstaining, but I may vote for Badnarik instead.

	08-09-2004 09:28									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

as for the other subject.

I *gasp* agree with Horse. And Vel of course.

	08-09-2004 09:48									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx But then...why take another step toward the abyss? What does it gain? Our intelligence gathering capabilities are not the problem. The Shrub was handed...HANDED a report outlining the possibility of folks from the ME coming over here and using big airplanes as guided missiles on targets on US soil. We got that information before the PatAct was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, therefore, to assert that the PatAct is necessary for the prevention of Terracts in the future is to turn a blind eye to the facts. Greater freedom to spy on U.S. citizens will not magically prevent terracts, but paying attention to reports that are placed right under your nose surely will. The system itself was not the problem. It was never broken. The report got made...WITHOUT handing a blank check to the Watchers. That it was never read, and never taken seriously was the problem. So...perhaps we should pass a law allowing for Impeachment for gross dereliction of duty? Immediate votes of no confidence when our national leaders perform in sub-par fashion? Ahhh, but that's not so easy, cos you and I don't have veto powers. Far easier, in this instance to take another bite from the little guy and pretend it makes the world safer. -=Vel=-

I actually view the Patriot act as being more effective against Tim Mc Veigh style domestic terrorism than against international terrorism like we saw in 2001. In international terrorism we can often rely on our foreign intelligence gathering capabilities and upon those of our allies. Didn't the report you are refering to get provided by foreign intelligence rahter than by any domestic law enforcement agency?

	08-09-2004 09:51									#136
	Support Apolyton

Geronimo: do you understand the BASIC point that is given here, as in, if we allow an inch, the government will take a mile, as it has already proven its ready to?

	08-09-2004 09:57									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Geronimo: do you understand the BASIC point that is given here, as in, if we allow an inch, the government will take a mile, as it has already proven its ready to?

If we don't allow an inch why would it not likewise still take a mile? Either the government is constrained by the law or it is not. In the case of the latter it matters not what we say here, in the former if we give it an inch an inch is what it gets.

	08-09-2004 10:24									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I still don't understand why people want our law enforcement to have less power to pursue terrorists than the law enforcement in any of our peer nations...

	08-09-2004 10:34									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: He was urging everyone to work together, not saying they should be compelled to do so.

He's saying that unless they do pull together, they will be defeated. Divisions are deadly for the security of everyone.

You are right to question the provisions of the Patriot Act, and whether or not they go to far, but the spirit under which they were drafted is sound, the principle that it is necessary to confine some freedoms in order to preserve liberty.

	08-09-2004 10:42									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse It's interesting that proposals for a constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia have been soundly defeated at recent elections. The logic being, and it's remarkable that ordinary Australians understand this, once our rights are written down, they are limited in a way that they are not limited without a bill of rights. Similarly identity card proposals have been defeated on the basis that the state should not have the power to decide if I am who I say I am. I need no endorsement from the government to a be a citizen - a range of the documents - like birth certificates and passports - serve the purpose for establishing identity for legitimate reasons without the need for an identity card.

AH I want to get back to this concept of doing away with a written constitution. As things stand in the US now there often appears to be only indirect correlation between the liberties written in our constitution and the liberties upheld by the highest court in the land.

Under the australian/UK system how would, for instance, an arrest without charges be dealt with? Our system doesn't seem to be dealing with just such a problem with any sort of haste at all. Padilla seems to be heading for a second year of confinement without charges in spite of the courts finding on multiple occasions that he must be charged or released. This is a serious problem that must be dealt with. Perhaps a look at the australian/UK system you are advocating would suggest some solutions?

	08-09-2004 13:01									#141
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse It's interesting that proposals for a constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia have been soundly defeated at recent elections. The logic being, and it's remarkable that ordinary Australians understand this, once our rights are written down, they are limited in a way that they are not limited without a bill of rights. Similarly identity card proposals have been defeated on the basis that the state should not have the power to decide if I am who I say I am. I need no endorsement from the government to a be a citizen - a range of the documents - like birth certificates and passports - serve the purpose for establishing identity for legitimate reasons without the need for an identity card.

What you perhaps don't understand about the United States is that our constitution enumerates the rights of the government. It is this which is being limited. Additionally a number of amendments were added which explicitly enumerate certain individual rights which government may never violate. These enumerated rights in no way remove any of the hinderances of government power set forth in the rest of the constitution, nor do they limit the rights of individuals to only what is explicitly stated.

As for identity cards, we need them here in the U.S. I would not say this if it weren't true, for I am against them on principle. But with so many illegal immigrants and so much identity fraud I think the only way to avoid a lot of continuing troubles is to create a national ID card which doubles as a Social Security card and is supported with biometric verification.

	08-09-2004 13:48									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Under the australian/UK system how would, for instance, an arrest without charges be dealt with?

In the UK currently Police can arrest some if they suspect them of committing an offence. They then have a set amount of time to question the suspect before formally charging them. If they don't have enough evidence to charge them they have to let them go. This is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. If they didn't have to have evidence to keep you in custody the police would have a licence to go and arrest anyone for any reason and keep them in prison. A very bad thing.

There is a lot of controversy about the new anti-terror laws here that extend further the time the police can hold people without charge on terrorism related charges, and also give them powers to arrest people with less basis for the suspicion that they are committing a crime.

Identity cards are also massively controversial. The proposals say that the police won't be able to stop us and ask for them but as soon as we have them who's to stop them changing the law? Very worrying.

Privacy is a vital part of freedom.

	08-09-2004 14:56									#143
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MikeH In the UK currently Police can arrest some if they suspect them of committing an offence. They then have a set amount of time to question the suspect before formally charging them. If they don't have enough evidence to charge them they have to let them go. This is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. If they didn't have to have evidence to keep you in custody the police would have a licence to go and arrest anyone for any reason and keep them in prison. A very bad thing. There is a lot of controversy about the new anti-terror laws here that extend further the time the police can hold people without charge on terrorism related charges, and also give them powers to arrest people with less basis for the suspicion that they are committing a crime.

It does at least sound as if this system is proving more effective than ours at preventing absurdly long incarcerations without charges such as the one that Padilla has been enduring.

quote: Originally posted by MikeH Identity cards are also massively controversial. The proposals say that the police won't be able to stop us and ask for them but as soon as we have them who's to stop them changing the law? Very worrying. Privacy is a vital part of freedom.

I worry a great deal more about indefinate imprisonment in the absence of charges or any sort of judicial review than I do about privacy but I'd be interested to hear if you have a new take on any link between privacy and freedom. How do you see them as inseparable?

	08-09-2004 15:59									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well there is a problem with our terror law provisions, you can hold people for a lot longer than the standard 24 hours without charge - incidently the police can apply to a judge to hold someone suspected of a normal offence for longer than 24 hours without charge, but they need good reason and generally they won't get much longer than a couple extra days.

There are a whole range of issues and a whole variation in privacy and freedom. In a civilised society you can't have unlimited freedom - you have to have your activities restricted to allow other people the most freedom, a truly 'free' society would be anarchic.

That said, the problem with monitoring / surveillance etc is that it's a (often subtle) challenge to other rights like free speech, travel etc. When a government knows where you are at all times, who you are seeing, what you are talking about etc etc. they not only have a huge amount of power over you but it's a natural deterrent to not do things that are perfectly legal but not desireable for a government eg Protesting, joining radical political parties. All kinds of things. Now the counter to this is always - "If I'm not doing anything wrong I don't have anything to worry about" which seems reasonable on the face of it. The problem is once your privacy rights have been eroded the government has that information about you forever. We've already seen cases in the US (including a senator or congressman IIRC?) of people being detained and prevented from flying because their names were similar to those of people on terrorist warning lists.

What happens when they start checking fingerprints and you are getting tens of people being detained at airports for hours because their fingerprints might match those of a terror suspect? Or in the future when your DNA is on your mandatory ID card and because you have a gene that suggests you are slightly more likely to be a criminal than another person you are routinely stopped and searched every time you pass through an ID scanner? OK, these are extremes but it's a slippery slope.

The principle of law in a free society should always be "innoccent until proven guilty" and going hand in hand with that is the right not to be suspected of a crime unless you have actually given someone reason to suspect you. I see that as a vital right. Just being a young black male driving a nice car shouldn't be enough for the police have reason to suspect you of a crime. for instance. Being a young muslim shouldn't be enough to make you a terror suspect. etc. etc.

	08-09-2004 17:04									#145
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Dis, I hope you vote for Bush because it is the right thing to do. Bush will keep us safe. I don't have to elaborate here. But I am particularly enthusiatic about his domestic agenda. He is planning fundamental reform on everything, from health, to social security, to taxes. He will give Americans ownership of their health insurance, their retirement plan and will make taxes simpler, perhaps even eliminating income taxes entirely. You think America is a good place to live now, it will be much better if Bush is re-elected.

As I have noted in other threads, according to Greenspan, we cannot afford the social programs we have. We cannot even consider a host of new programs as laid out by Kerry because the economy cannot support it. Just to rescue the social security system, we have to dramatically GROW the economy.

IMHO, only Bush has as his top priority growing the economy. It is central to his domestic policy - cutting taxes being a central feature. But I am certain that raising taxes and burdening the economy with a host of new spending programs as called for by Kerry cannot do anything positive for the economy.

A vote for Bush is a vote for hope, a vote for a better America.

	08-09-2004 17:17									#146
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I dont know if voting democrat would actualy be any better now that the line has been crossed with the Patriot act/guantamano.
I can see the reasons why that act was passed, but as Vel and others have said, its a slippery slope that may be too high a price to pay. Time will tell.
Everything that has happened in/to America since 911 is just so 1984/Orwellian that it does make you wonder.
And should be a main reason for NOT voting Bush in again IMHO.

God bless America, the land of once free

	08-09-2004 18:23									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

IMHO, the Patriot Act will protect us and will only positively affect the average American's life by adding additional security. Anyone who tries to cut back on its protections is not doing me any favors.

	08-09-2004 18:34									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dissident But Kerry is a left wing nutjob.

What in his platform, or in his behaviour, makes him look like a "left-wing nutjob"?

quote: I was considering voting for him under the pretense that under a republican congress he can't do much damage. I shudder to think what would happen if the democrats gain control.

What exactly do you fear could happen?

I'm genuinely interested. From my perspective, Kerry is a nice little capitalist, corporate lapdog, that won't change much to the US, except maybe some more emphasis on education.
I haven't seen anything "left-wing nutjob"-ish wrt welfare, corporate governance, or social topics like gay marriage.

Now, I suppose I don't follow the US campaign as closely as you do, and maybe you have seen something in his platform that actually looks like what a "left-wing nutjob" would do. Please give me the info

	08-09-2004 18:39									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Spiffor, he spouts the usual class warfare crap that most Democrats spout. Anyone who is into class warfare and who places raw hate over economic growth as a platform is a leftwing nutjob.

	08-09-2004 18:41									#150
	Tired of ads?

You know that annoying little smirk Bush has? Just imagine him smirking just a little bit knowing he has your vote.
*shudders*