What ONE issue is most important to you in this election year?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

Sorry to burst your bubble about Shrubbie but wouldn't we be much safer if the money we're currently spending in Iraq was actually used within the United States to strengthen our borders? If it was used to beef up the numbers of police & agents who could investigate terrorists on our soil? In fact there are approximately 85 billion ways that money could have been used within the United States to make us stronger.


The truth is that we are not any safer than we were on 9/11/01--we've just been extraordinarily lucky. In fact, I venture to say we are at a far greater danger now than we were because Bush has breed fervent anti-American sentiments amongst Muslims worldwide with his invasion of Iraq. And look at it another way--our military and national guard units have been stretched almost to their breaking point by the war in Iraq--meaning that not only are we without adequate defenses here in the U.S.--we're also much more vulnerable elsewhere in the World as too many of our military have been deployed to shore up the sagging reserves in Iraq. How this makes you feel safer is beyond me.

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

The US was attacked by terrorists under Clinton, too, but I don't hold him responsible for those attacks. I cannot blame Bush for not preventing 9/11, either.

I realize that, and I'm not saying that we should blame Bush for 9/11.
All I'm saying is that, we weren't (and still aren't) any safer with him in the White House.
If terrorists truly want to cause problems in this country, or any, they will find the ways and means to do so, no matter who's in the White House.

Which returns me to my point... we're no safer with Bush as President, no matter how much he and his administration are hoping & praying that we'll believe we are.

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

You are right; Bush is intensely disliked globally, and even by some of our allies. But I don't feel as though I should hold that against him when I decide whom to cast my vote for; look what happened in Spain. The terrorists want to dictate who gets voted into elected offices.

I ask myself this question: Would the terrorists rather have Kerry or Bush in office? My conclusion is that they would want Kerry, who wants to pull our troops from Iraq and proposes a greater role for the UN in the Mid-east peace process. In the past 15 years, I think the UN has been a rather worthless, spineless organization.

Of course, if you believe Kerry's being in office would lead to a safer U.S., that's your opinion, and I won't try to change it. I'm just explaining why I feel Bush is the better man for fighting terrorism.

Kerry, or ANY president from 9/11 forward, would not be able to ignore the issue of terrorism, and would HAVE to work just as hard to prevent terrorism from reaching American soil again.
In these times, it's become a political and social necessity.

And, i have to add this... because it remains a sticking point for me... I still don't understand why it's believed that Bush has been so effective in regards to the War On Terror, when we STILL do not have the man who masterminded the attacks on American soil which claimed nearly three thousand lives, and when we STILL haven't dismantled the al-Qaeda.

All we've managed to do, is to send them deeper into hiding, while effectively helping them to recruit hundreds of thousands of others to their cause.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

To be honest with you, I feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer even going to bother debating this topic any longer.

Bush is most likely going to win in November, because people... even some otherwise intelligent ones... have become convinced that he's the only one who can "save us."

So I think it's time for me to just stop caring. We'll have another four years (and with the extremely conservative Federal and Supreme Court judges that he continues to appoint, God knows how many more years beyond that) of his so-called "morals" and "values," and his agendas, and his ineptitude, and his sneering contempt for the American people.

We reap what we sew, so God help us all.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I realize that, and I'm not saying that we should blame Bush for 9/11.
All I'm saying is that, we weren't (and still aren't) any safer with him in the White House.
If terrorists truly want to cause problems in this country, or any, they will find the ways and means to do so, no matter who's in the White House.

Which returns me to my point... we're no safer with Bush as President, no matter how much he and his administration are hoping & praying that we'll believe we are.

Kerry, or ANY president from 9/11 forward, would not be able to ignore the issue of terrorism, and would HAVE to work just as hard to prevent terrorism from reaching American soil again.
In these times, it's become a political and social necessity.

And, i have to add this... because it remains a sticking point for me... I still don't understand why it's believed that Bush has been so effective in regards to the War On Terror, when we STILL do not have the man who masterminded the attacks on American soil which claimed nearly three thousand lives, and when we STILL haven't dismantled the al-Qaeda.

All we've managed to do, is to send them deeper into hiding, while effectively helping them to recruit hundreds of thousands of others to their cause.

We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. DeeGeMe attributes that to luck, but I believe some of the credit has to go to President Bush, Tom Ridge, and the Homeland Security Department.

No, we have not caught OBL, but we have dismantled the Taliban and caught several high-ranking al-Qaeda members.

I agree that the terrorists will want to attack us no matter who is on office, but I think it would be easier for them under Kerry. JMO

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

To be honest with you, I feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer even going to bother debating this topic any longer.

Bush is most likely going to win in November, because people... even some otherwise intelligent ones... have become convinced that he's the only one who can "save us."

So I think it's time for me to just stop caring. We'll have another four years (and with the extremely conservative Federal and Supreme Court judges that he continues to appoint, God knows how many more years beyond that) of his so-called "morals" and "values," and his agendas, and his ineptitude, and his sneering contempt for the American people.

We reap what we sew, so God help us all.

Gosh, Johnny, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to.

[Merf]

GypsySorcerer,

The terrorists would much rather Bush be re-elected, because it will continue to fuel anti-American sentiment in the western world. This administration has single-handedly taken all the good will from other countries poured over us on 9/11 and crushed it with its iron fist.

Also, if, and that's a VERY big if, Bush is re-elected, he will stay in Iraq indefinitely, and plans to draft young Americans (up to the age 26), male and female, in and out of college, into the military to go fight this ungodly war.

If Kerry is elected, his first order of duty should (and more than likely will) be to get America out of Iraq. Completely. The terrorists don't want that. They want us to stay in Iraq so they can continue to kidnap and murder American civilians and soldiers, not to mention the countless Italians, Bulgarians, South Koreans, British, and Frenchmen that they have already murdered.

Please don't for a second think that the terrorists would rather have Kerry in office. Because that's not the case.

[Merf]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

To be honest with you, I feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm no longer even going to bother debating this topic any longer.

Bush is most likely going to win in November, because people... even some otherwise intelligent ones... have become convinced that he's the only one who can "save us."

We reap what we sew, so God help us all.

Amen.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by Merf

GypsySorcerer,

The terrorists would much rather Bush be re-elected, because it will continue to fuel anti-American sentiment in the western world. This administration has single-handedly taken all the good will from other countries poured over us on 9/11 and crushed it with its iron fist.

Also, if, and that's a VERY big if, Bush is re-elected, he will stay in Iraq indefinitely, and plans to draft young Americans (up to the age 26), male and female, in and out of college, into the military to go fight this ungodly war.

If Kerry is elected, his first order of duty should (and more than likely will) be to get America out of Iraq. Completely. The terrorists don't want that. They want us to stay in Iraq so they can continue to kidnap and murder American civilians and soldiers, not to mention the countless Italians, Bulgarians, South Koreans, British, and Frenchmen that they have already murdered.

Please don't for a second think that the terrorists would rather have Kerry in office. Because that's not the case.

If Kerry is elected, I HOPE I have to eat my words about him. I certainly don't want another 9/11 attack on us.

That's all I'm going to say about the subject.

[DeeGeMe]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

As I stated to Johnny, I am not basing my vote on Bush's international reputation. I really feel that the terrorists groups want Kerry in office. I know you don't agree and that's fine, but please don't act like I haven't thought about this. I have -- very long and hard.

No--I didn't say there wasn't any anti-American sentiment in the Mid-East before the invasion of Iraq and can't really understand how you could possibly get that from my post. What I said was that the actions of Bush had inflammed the Muslims beyond what they already were to begin with by invading Iraq.

The Bush administration has a "vision" of bringing "American-style" Democracy to the Mid-East. That's all fine and well but it wasn't okay with the Muslims who live in the Mid-East. It seems to me that Bush is far more concerned with what goes on in the Mid-East than he is in the United States.

The amount of money that is being spent on this war and to "rebuild" Iraq is mind-boggling. It is money that could have been better spent shoring up our national defenses. Remember-the terrorists are determined to strike us on our home soil. So why not increase our nation's defense instead of squandering resources in Iraq?

Remember also that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia--not Iraq. So how does invading Iraq make us safer from terrorists attack--obviously Saudia Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists but the U.S. doesn't have a problem with them. It also doesn't have a problem with the genocide that's going on in the Sudan. They have "bad" men in office there too--so what aren't we doing anything to stop the dictators there too? Could it be that there isn't any oil in the Suddan and Bush & his cronies can't make billions there like they are in Iraq?

Oh--and that Osama Bin Laden--where is he anyway? I thought we were going to hunt him down and "smoke him out". So why did Bush & Co. wait two months to invade Afghanistan and then only send a handful of troops to do so? That doesn't seem to me to indicate an administration which was determined to hunt down and capture terrorists--particuarly one they knew had masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Instead, this administration had already begun their plans to invade Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

I was provided a very lengthy article by a respected journalist chronicling how there was very strict protocol in place for when planes were noted flying off course, specifically for terrorist attacks. When the 9/11 Planes were noted off course, the (very harsh and supposedly automatic) security tactics were not enacted. By someone's direction. The protocol was if any plane was flying off course and did not respond, immediately some kind of other plane released to shoot it down. (yes, people and all) I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics at this time, but it seems clear that someone stopped that automatic response system....it was supposedly full proof. hmmnnn....
Amber

AMEN SISTER GIRL! Welcome to LIHOP/MIHOP.

To answer the original question, getting rid of the unelected fraud is my number one priority this election season. Without that, I fear our republic will meet it's demise.

[chiliD]

The whole Iraqi fiasco is a personal vendetta by the Bush family against Saddam Hussein.

The terrorist attacks on the US ALSO stems from a personal vendetta of Osama Bin Laden against the Bush family in particular and the US in general BECAUSE of the Bush family. You have to remember that Daddy Bush was the head of the CIA under Nixon & Ford...then, even though was Vice President under Reagan, but IMEO, was actually pulling MOST of the strings for more than two terms...from about Reagan's second year in office when his Alzheimer's was starting to kick in, to ALL of Reagan's second term, and then four years of his own term. THAT's where this whole Middle East/"New World Order" started.

Then you get Dubya put in office by, what? Election fraud in the state governed by whom? His own damned brother. Gore had the popular votes...we're being governed by a rogue administration. We ALL should be VERY, VERY, VERY scared that Bush doesn't get in for another term. I think we'll learn to empathize with those folks in the Eastern bloc countries of the '50's & '60's. Facism needs to be stamped out...stamped out NOW.

And, for those of you who think Nader's an alternative...guess who's secretly financing Nader's campaign...Bush supporters. So, it is not just Democratic propaganda that "A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush".

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Do you honestly believe there wasn't anti-American sentiment in the Middle East before Bush came into office? Come on. The 9/11 attacks were already being planned before the 2000 election.

Yes, but by whom? Do you know about Project for a New American Century and the current administration's major players role in it?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. DeeGeMe attributes that to luck, but I believe some of the credit has to go to President Bush, Tom Ridge, and the Homeland Security Department.

I know I just said that I think I'm going to quit debating/discussing this topic... but let me ask this:
How many times did foreign terrorists attack us on American soil before Bush became president?

Once: The bombing at the World Trade Center, in 1993.

(The involvement of foreign terrorists hasn't been proven or disproven in the bombing at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, in 1995, so for the sake of argument, I'm not going to include that as an example of terrorism from a foreign source.)

So... considering that terrorism from a foreign source and occurring on American soil, has always been extremely rare, is it really that impressive that we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9/11?

Food for thought.

[DeeGeMe]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Then you get Dubya put in office by, what? Election fraud in the state governed by whom? His own damned brother. Gore had the popular votes...we're being governed by a rogue administration.

And remember that Katherine Harris-the Fl.Secretary of State responsible for overseeing the election process in Florida also happened to be co-chair of the Bush 2000 campaign in Florida. Harris was also responsible for ordering that thousands of citizens be purged from the voter rolls because they "might" have criminal convictions which would make them ineligible to vote. The bottom line is that these folks were by and large African American and the only crimes that these people had committed was to have a name similar to others who had indeed lost their voting rights--oh--and that greatest crime of all-being more likely to vote Democratic. Botton line is that these voters were denied the right to vote and their vote WOULD have made the difference in Florida.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Gosh, Johnny, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to.

You didn't offend me, Krista, and I hope nothing I said sounded like a condemnation of you or your opinion.

Admittedly, I'm frustrated and exasperated by the notion that Bush is doing such an effective job in regards to protecting us, and that he's the only candidate who can... and I let that get the better of me.