Originally Posted by: HammurabiSo, where does economic security fit into the equation? What about education and medical assistance for the elderly to compensate for the skyrocketing costs of pharmeceuticals?

While everything you mentioned is definitely important what you described is Ghengis Kahn, not a suitable president.[/QUOTE]
Forgive me, but that's just a laughable response, and it shows that you don't really know anything about civics. Economic security? . . . How about getting a job? It is up to each individual to provide for their own economic security, not the government or the president. Education? Medical assistance? Medicine?....what happened to the days when people were able to work to better their own situations and their own lives instead of relying on a powerful central government to do it for them? However, in this "enlightened" and compassionate age, I do realize that this is not a very popular viewpoint. Even so, it is the responsibility of the Congress to pass laws about these issues. The president doesn't have much to do with it.

Originally Posted by: kingdavidDemocracy, baby. Democracy ( is it just me or is the word democrazy ringing in your head too?).
Oh well.[/QUOTE]
America is not a democracy. It's a republic. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that pure democracy is a stupid system and can only end in fascism.

Originally Posted by: kingdavidYour having not been attacked previously doesn't mean the presidents you've had previously were good at anti terrorism, or that terrorists didn't exist before Osama. And by the same token, just because you haven't been attacked ever since, it doesn't necessarily mean Bush is doing a good job of defending you.

It depends on where you want to land the blame (or the credit). One could argue that because of Clinton, Kerry, and other liberals cutting defense and intelligence budgets for eight years that America was attacked. I do know that because of what Bush has done in Afghanistan Osama's network has been either mostly destroyed or is on the run.



[QUOTE=kingdavid]
CONSPIRACY THEORY:
The CIA faked that Osama tape to scare Americans into voting for the guy that looks like he can do a better job of fighting terrorism.

That's just stupid. Polls showed that the tape had no effect on the opinions of the electorate. If anything the tape would have hurt Bush because it reminded everyone at the last minute that OBL was still out there.



[QUOTE=beginner]Right, as long you are not attacked, everything is fine. And it doesn´t matter how many (A LOT MORE THAN on 9 11) non-americans died in the last 3 years due to decisions of Bush?
But obviosly many americans don´t care about this point!

Maybe the rest of the world needs to start trying to stand on their own two feet instead of always running to the US for help. Whenever there's any disaster or any unrest everyone always expects us to come swooping in with a bag of money, or some stupid police action, and fix things. America is the most charitable nation on the planet, and the only thing we get in return is a slap in the face.



To NTM - it all comes down to what you believe the responsibility of the government really is. You're right, nobody is perfect, and no one's plan for the future of the country will be perfect either. There are just too many variables. But when a candidate for president has a thirty year record of raising taxes, restricting freedoms, and voting against the military, I don't think we need him in office.

You can't have a prosperous economy without morality. After all, if everyone was stealing and killing, there wouldn't be much point in trying to be productive. Just look at 3rd world countries. So if voting on morality makes us blind, then so be it.