Who's your choice to be president?

[Stal]

It's a shame the Presidents always get blamed for how the economy and job rates turn out, when in reality they have little control over it and they simply inherit the trend. That's why Clinton got praised for a good economy, despite him having nothing to do with it, and same goes for Bush and the downward trend.

Anyway, I'm voting for Bush tomorrow. Like that comes as any surprise. I find it amazing people claim that Bush outright lied about the WMDs. He appears to have been mistaken (although I will still wholeheartedly believe that Saddam did have them). There is a difference. I noticed none of you accused Elementa of lying by saying Kerry was for gay marriage. No, she was mistaken, not lying. Our intelligence reports, and even other country's reports said Saddam had them. Everyone believed it. So why is it when it may turn out to be wrong or extremely well hidden that Bush is _lying_?

As for why go for Iraq when North Korea is eminently more of a threat? It's a common tactic. You take out one of the weaker ones. Not the weakest, but not the strongest. Not one with strong allies, and not one that _everyone_ hates. It shows you mean business and stuff like that.

Plus we're talking with North Korea and making headway with them. Saddam wouldn't talk. Jong Ill is.

And look at what Mumar Kadafe (or however that's spelled) did in Libya. he got rid of his because he was afraid he was next.

Linny, you asked about what our efforts on tracking down Osama are? Well, ask the media. You can't assume that just because you don't hear about it that it's not going on. The media will play what they play. You have no control over it.

Kerry also changes opinions too much. Look at this recent e-mail I got. You'll have to sit through some bias/rhetoric, but gleam from it what you can while being objective:

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

The Osama Litmus Test
By DAVID BROOKS
The New York Times
10/30/04
....

Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.

Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.

On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."
...

But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.

This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself?

We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.

To View the Article Please Visit:
www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html




Politicizing The Bin Laden Tape
By William Kristol and Stephen F. Hayes
The Weekly Standard Online
10/29/04
...

The Bush campaign wisely avoided going political. But the Kerry campaign--in comments from a top adviser and the candidate himself--did not.

Kerry gave what appear to be his first extemporaneous comments about the tape in a previously scheduled satellite interview with Kathy Mykleby, a veteran anchor with WISN TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
...

But Kerry finally couldn't resist politicizing the tape: "I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush," he added.

Kerry's comment was unfortunate, and mild compared to those made later in the day by his senior foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke. In an appearance on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Holbrooke, who has rejected the notion that we are in a "war on terror," said this:

"The U.S. is determined to defeat al Qaeda and its allies and the war against their use of terrorist tactics."

Holbrooke then went on the attack. "The tape shows that he's still around. We should have captured him and we haven't. And the other thing it shows, illustrates a key point which is that Senator Kerry in his relentless pursuit of terrorism is going to be very aggressive. The tape doesn't show that but Senator Kerry's comments continually--his experience shows that Osama bin Laden will draw no comfort from a Kerry presidency."
...

Blitzer: "Are you concerned though that when Americans see this videotape--it'll be all over the news media as you can imagine, not only today but in the days to come--they will be reminded of what happened on 9/11 and they'll say, 'You know what, I'd better vote for Bush because he's tougher in dealing with al Qaeda than Kerry.'"

Said Holbrooke: "I don't think so. I think it also raises a much deeper question: How can this grotesque mass murderer be out there on worldwide television more than three years after 9/11?"

Holbrooke punctuated the next sentence with exasperated pauses between his words. "Why--haven't--we--captured--him--if the Bush administration was going to be so effective in the war on terror? President Bush said in the debates that he's rolled up 75 percent of al Qaeda. Well, it sure doesn't sound like it now."

When Blitzer pointed out that Bush claimed to have captured or killed 75 percent of "al Qaeda leadership," Holbrooke scoffed. "He did not say 'leadership' at all. And how does he know? And as Secretary Rumsfeld himself said in that leaked memo, 'Aren't we creating more terrorists than we're killing?'"
...

Is there any development in the war on terror, however grave, that the Kerry campaign won't try to exploit for partisan advantage?

To View the Article Please Visit:
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/856mpsdl.asp

For those with a decent internet speed and computer, check out this site as well:

johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

Anyway, of course Bush lets his views influence the way he lives his life and runs the Presidency. We all would do the same, and just so you all know, lately Kerry has been talking about how he's a religious man and he'll be bringing his religion with him to the White House (Bush has been blasted for saying the same things!)

I can't trust Kerry, I don't know where he really stands on so many issues, and I don't want this country turning into a UN lapdog.

Bush has my vote, and I pray he wins.

[Kiddo]

Of course, hindsight is always the best view to judge someone's actions from.

At the time, with the information he had been given, I believe Bush made the best choice. He wanted to protect America and with the information he had, the best option to do so was to invade Iraq. I respect the fact that he had the courage to recognize that something had to be done and did something, even when it meant putting his reputation, ability, and chances of reelection on the stake. If something major came up again I'm worried that Kerry would be too concerned about not stepping on anyone's toes to do anything. Bush had guts and that's why he got my vote. I'd rather have someone in office I could trust to take action and maybe prevent another 9-11.

That and Bush has significantly improved our departments of defense. The FBI, CIA, etc were seriously fragmented during the Clinton administration - he really screwed those agencies up and the lack of communication between the groups seriously hurt our country. (think 9-11) Bush has done a lot to repair that - the Terrorism Task Force for instance. I met the Oklahoma task force and they all went around and said what department they were from - only two were actual FBI agents. All the rest were from different departments. Because of that, the FBI and other related organizations are a lot stronger and more effecient in protecting us. And yes, that is their primary objective. These people are far too dedicated and committed to their job to do anything else.

That and I think some of the strategy Kerry has been using is disgusting. Democrats introducing the draft bill so they can claim Bush is bringing back the draft - even after both he and Powell denied it - honestly. All I hear on campus is draft this and draft that and evil Republicans and it wasn't even them who introduced the bill.

Come to think of it, I'm sick of ignorance in the voting population in general. The other day I was talking to some people who were all Kerry supportes. When I quizzed them I found out that their sole source of information was Farenheit 9-11. Hadn't read the Patriot Act, hadn't read the 9-11 Commission. That strikes me as being willfully ignorant.

Blech. I'm all ranty because my high and mighty English classmates were pretending to be superior intellectuals by bashing Bush today. I'll shut up now and keep my venom to myself.

[Shadyy]

Yuki said:

Anyway, I'm voting for Bush tomorrow. Like that comes as any surprise. I find it amazing people claim that Bush outright lied about the WMDs. He appears to have been mistaken (although I will still wholeheartedly believe that Saddam did have them). There is a difference. I noticed none of you accused Elementa of lying by saying Kerry was for gay marriage. No, she was mistaken, not lying. Our intelligence reports, and even other country's reports said Saddam had them. Everyone believed it. So why is it when it may turn out to be wrong or extremely well hidden that Bush is _lying_?

Tshtshtsh, the intelligence reports did not say there were WMDs. Nor did Hans Bliks (or Blix whatever). The intelligence services were ordered to look for connections between Al Quaeda and Hoessein. I'm not saying it's all Bush's fault, but he's just the guy in the spotlight. Anywho the reports were not adequate and closing. When you're on the verge of war you might want to check things more thoroughly, before having millions killed. (americans and iraqui) . I believe that this is a losing battle anyway...nobody wins.

[Stal]

Shadyy said:

Tshtshtsh, the intelligence reports did not say there were WMDs. Nor did Hans Bliks (or Blix whatever). The intelligence services were ordered to look for connections between Al Quaeda and Hoessein. I'm not saying it's all Bush's fault, but he's just the guy in the spotlight. Anywho the reports were not adequate and closing. When you're on the verge of war you might want to check things more thoroughly, before having millions killed. (americans and iraqui) . I believe that this is a losing battle anyway...nobody wins.

Uhm, no, take a look at things. Our intelligence agencies said Saddam had them. Everyone (Even JOHN KERRY) said he had them. British intelligence said the same thing.

This has never been a contested fact before, not even on this forum.

And yeah, Kiddo, thanks for mentioning the other aspect we forgot...the fact our reports also said Saddam was ready to use them on us. So that left us with the options of standing by and doing nothing while a potential 9/11 happens again, or take preemptive measures. I say take the preemptive measures.

[The Wanderer]

Bush.

Do I really need a reason behind my decisions?

[Shadyy]

Yuki said:

Uhm, no, take a look at things. Our intelligence agencies said Saddam had them. Everyone (Even JOHN KERRY) said he had them. British intelligence said the same thing.

This has never been a contested fact before, not even on this forum.

And yeah, Kiddo, thanks for mentioning the other aspect we forgot...the fact our reports also said Saddam was ready to use them on us. So that left us with the options of standing by and doing nothing while a potential 9/11 happens again, or take preemptive measures. I say take the preemptive measures.

that's the big story the media get, european media has been spreading way different info, i can tell you that. But whichone is the truth?

[Oily]

quote author=Yuki "Stalos" Sohma link=board=debate&thread=1099106972&start=30#2 date=1099328305]It's a shame the Presidents always get blamed for how the economy and job rates turn out, when in reality they have little control over it and they simply inherit the trend. That's why Clinton got praised for a good economy, despite him having nothing to do with it, and same goes for Bush and the downward trend.
[/quote]

Still, the US has gone from 200 billion budget surplus to a projected deficit of 422 billion and is heading for aggregated arrears of 2.3 trillion by the decade's end. That's some big figures. I don't know how much effect the President has on the economy, but it ought to be watched.

And, Stal, of course Kerry got political. It's right next to an election, a very close run election. Both sides are attacking and defending as much as possible, turning every situation to their advantage. You can’t blame politicians for being political

Anyway, I'm voting for Bush tomorrow. Like that comes as any surprise. I find it amazing people claim that Bush outright lied about the WMDs. He appears to have been mistaken (although I will still wholeheartedly believe that Saddam did have them). There is a difference. I noticed none of you accused Elementa of lying by saying Kerry was for gay marriage. No, she was mistaken, not lying. Our intelligence reports, and even other country's reports said Saddam had them. Everyone believed it. So why is it when it may turn out to be wrong or extremely well hidden that Bush is _lying_?

The UN inspection team found no evidence of WMDs whatsoever. Throughout the invasion, we found no WMDs. British intelligence was telling us the intelligence reports were flawed. There was a big question mark over the intelligence – shouldn’t there have been more investigation? The WMDs are still missing and have now been admitted as never existing. Has Bush admitted he was wrong, or mistaken? No. No apology. Doesn’t it scare you that countries can be attacked for owning weapons that they don’t have? Sure, he was mistaken perhaps, not ouright lying. But should he have been mistaken in the first case? Should we forgive and forget?

As for why go for Iraq when North Korea is eminently more of a threat? It's a common tactic. You take out one of the weaker ones. Not the weakest, but not the strongest. Not one with strong allies, and not one that _everyone_ hates. It shows you mean business and stuff like that.

You should take out random countries to show you mean business? That ones that are barely a threat at all should be destroyed?

Plus we're talking with North Korea and making headway with them. Saddam wouldn't talk. Jong Ill is.

Saddam wouldn’t talk. He also wasn’t a threat. We may be talking at Jong, but is he listening?

And look at what Mumar Kadafe (or however that's spelled) did in Libya. he got rid of his because he was afraid he was next.

Gadaffi did that for protection and for favourable trades. Do you think he’s stopped all his WMD production? Do you think he’d honestly obey us? He’s a dictator, and we’ve endorsed his brutality. Like we did with several other dictatorships.

I can't trust Kerry, I don't know where he really stands on so many issues, and I don't want this country turning into a UN lapdog.

UN lapdog? As in listening to the rest of the world while you drag them into a war?

Fox said:

Come to think of it, I'm sick of ignorance in the voting population in general. The other day I was talking to some people who were all Kerry supportes. When I quizzed them I found out that their sole source of information was Farenheit 9-11. Hadn't read the Patriot Act, hadn't read the 9-11 Commission. That strikes me as being willfully ignorant.

Do you know 20% of American adults not only believe Saddam has WMDs but that he used them on America? And 11% of Americans can't locate the Pacific Ocean.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance around, unfortunately :/

Bush bashing irritates me too.

Whichever candidate wins, I find it scary that the result can be decided by a tiny proportion of voters, largely ignorant ones. How can you run a country where you only have about 50% support? It's crazy. How can you run a democratic, fair election in a country where both sides are destroying ballots, deceiving each other, lying and cheating? Where the leader of the free world can be decided by how nice the weather is in Minnesota?

To be honest, as long as there’s a President that handles Iraq well, doesn’t rush into war, sorts out the economy and doesn’t force through a controversial piece of legalisation, I’d be happy. I’m just not convinced that Bush would be like that.

[Kiddo]

Oily said:

Do you know 20% of American adults not only believe Saddam has WMDs but that he used them on America? And 11% of Americans can't locate the Pacific Ocean.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance around, unfortunately :/

Bush bashing irritates me too.

Whichever candidate wins, I find it scary that the result can be decided by a tiny proportion of voters, largely ignorant ones. How can you run a country where you only have about 50% support? It's crazy. How can you run a democratic, fair election in a country where both sides are destroying ballots, deceiving each other, lying and cheating? Where the leader of the free world can be decided by how nice the weather is in Minnesota?

And people wonder why I'm such a computer nerd introvert. Because humanity depresses me.

[Tahu]

Nader. Nuff' Said. Kerry isn't Liberal enough for me. Bush? Incompetent. Want me to explain more? just ask.

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

It's a shame the Presidents always get blamed for how the economy and job rates turn out, when in reality they have little control over it and they simply inherit the trend. That's why Clinton got praised for a good economy, despite him having nothing to do with it, and same goes for Bush and the downward trend.

Anyway, I'm voting for Bush tomorrow. Like that comes as any surprise. I find it amazing people claim that Bush outright lied about the WMDs. He appears to have been mistaken (although I will still wholeheartedly believe that Saddam did have them). There is a difference. I noticed none of you accused Elementa of lying by saying Kerry was for gay marriage. No, she was mistaken, not lying. Our intelligence reports, and even other country's reports said Saddam had them. Everyone believed it. So why is it when it may turn out to be wrong or extremely well hidden that Bush is _lying_?

I do agree with you on both of these points. I fail to see how one man can have so much power over the economy that he is almost single-handedly blamed for it. It just doesn't make sense. And it really is unfair.

Really, I would doubt few Americans actually even understand how the economy works! I mean, heck - some of them can't even find the Pacific Ocean! Disturbing, really...

And the idea that he lied really doesn't pan out. Why would Bush lie and say there were WMDs in Iraq, if he knew full-well that there weren't? Was he hoping he might get lucky and be right? Was he hoping everyone might forget? Sure, I may not give Bush much credit for intelligence, but no one can be that dumb!

As for why go for Iraq when North Korea is eminently more of a threat? It's a common tactic. You take out one of the weaker ones. Not the weakest, but not the strongest. Not one with strong allies, and not one that _everyone_ hates. It shows you mean business and stuff like that.

That really makes no sense - unless, of course, your ultimate goal is to conquer to world. Which isn't what George Bush is trying to achieve... right?

Plus we're talking with North Korea and making headway with them. Saddam wouldn't talk. Jong Ill is.

When Clinton was in office, we were able to talk North Korea into standing down it's nuclear ambitions. But, when Bush came into office, Jong Ill got scared and started them up again. Since then, talks to get them to stop have borken down - especially under new accusations that South Korean scientists were doing nuclear reasearch in the 80's.

And look at what Mumar Kadafe (or however that's spelled) did in Libya. he got rid of his because he was afraid he was next.

For a while, this is what made me think that something good might come out of the war - sure, we've got everyone mad at us, but at least they know we mean business! But, thinking it over, who do we really have on our side?

Yes, Libya - I'll give you that one. But who else? Well, Saudi Arabia. But, they've had terrorist attacks of their own. They would've helped us anyways. Iran? On the contrary, they've restarted their own nuclear programs (or so is suspected), which has, in turn, caused Israel to bristle it's fur, causing more tension between the two (if I had to place bets on the next country we'll have to take out, I'd say Iran). Pakistan is our only "real" ally - and they've been with us since Afghanastan.

And, if truth be told, only parts of their government is with us - the country is still a huge breeding ground for terrorists (though, admittingly, getting better).

So, who do we have with us now, really? In fact, if you look at how many countries have given us less and less support over (along with their populations' having lesser and lesser opinons of us), it almost looks a bit like we're in the negative...

Linny, you asked about what our efforts on tracking down Osama are? Well, ask the media. You can't assume that just because you don't hear about it that it's not going on. The media will play what they play. You have no control over it.

I have to agree - if slightly - with you on this. I don't feel the media gives us everything; not because it is biased, but only because stories of little girls going to schools and Iraqis finally having jobs/cars/food just doesn't make good news (the media, sadly, is at the wrath of the cause of all evil - money).

Kerry also changes opinions too much.

Oh yes, Kerry really does have a hard time finding an issue and staying to it, unlike George Bush, who keeps to his ideals all the time. Like when he first opposed the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then turned around and supported it. Or when he opposed the creation of the DEpartment or Homeland Security, then turned around and created it. Or when he wouldn't let Rice testify (as a "matter of principle") at the 9/11 Commission, then went ahead and allowed her to. Or when Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, then turned around and supported the Constitutional Amendment to ban it. Or how Bush was a for a UN Resolution concerning Iraq and Saddam - in order to "see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Counci" and for people to "show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam" - yet withdrew the rquest, later.

The stone of flip-flopping/hypocricy is so large, it falls on both sides of the fence.

I can't trust Kerry, I don't know where he really stands on so many issues, and I don't want this country turning into a UN lapdog.

While I know that we must sometimes "do what we have to do", to go around and act as if no one else matters - that the rest of the world is wrong, that we're right - might as well be just as bad. Never forget that one reason so many people hate us so is that we act arrogant.

[Linnen Malfoy]

Fox said:

Come to think of it, I'm sick of ignorance in the voting population in general. The other day I was talking to some people who were all Kerry supportes. When I quizzed them I found out that their sole source of information was Farenheit 9-11. Hadn't read the Patriot Act, hadn't read the 9-11 Commission. That strikes me as being willfully ignorant.

Yes, it's really sad. Everyone who went to see Micheal Moore over at our college came back to say they were voting for Kerry. Someone during the rally yelled out "Go Nader!" to which Moore told the person to "shut the--"...well...I'm sure you know what word to use.

I didn't see 9/11, and I don't want to. It's biased and I hate biased things. I'd like to see the counter for 9/11, simply because it looks more intresting.

As for the 9/11 comission, I found that very intresting. My mom and I decided to read it. I, sadly, only got about half way (classes started and my mom was anxious to read it), but it was very intresting.

I must say that I'm just worried about this election. Either way someone looses - and I'm sure after the last election fiasco this is going to be...bad.

Thank goodness I only have one class tomorrow. I've stocked up on food so I don't have to go by the polling places (absentee ballots are the way to go!), and I'll just stay out of the way.

The draft e-mail too is stupid, but anyone who bought into it is a moron. Putting women on the front lines? Drafting women? Doesn't work like that. Our teacher told us about the draft and first they take unmarried men not in college, then married men not in college, then college men. But it wouldn't need to get to that extreme of the last one, because the first two would fill up the numbers.
But it's a policy not to put women on the front lines mostly because it's a bit of a danger (let's face it, women are not as phyiscally strong as men. As a women, I can say that I will never, even with traning, be as strong as a trained army guy).

College voting is a sad thing, because it's voting with the trend. They very bad here too. Two rooms put up signs (one for John Kerry and the other for Bush). In the morning both doors had their items destoryed - it was disgusting...

[The Wanderer]

Sorry about my previous post. Time was of the essence, and I needed to get to class.

I choose Bush, because I know what he can do, and what he is capable of. Sure, none of us can't help but laugh at some of the dumb things he's said, and done, but that shouldn't be the driving reason to brand him a complete moron.

I watched Kerry on all three debates. I couldn't help but notice him say "I have a plan," on a regular basis, in all three bouts. Okay... what's your plan? Tell us why we should place all our hopes on your shoulders? And when Kerry was asked a question on a difficult issue, he would cite live examples for his cause. Most noteworthy was Cheney's homosexual daughter.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry could do a good job with the national economy, and certain domestic issues, but there are risks with him, that I cannot bear to allow. Namely his apparent inability to make solid decisions, without going back and changing his mind.

Bush could've had an uneventful presidency, and who knows? If this had been the case, he would be a sure-thing for re-election. But then 9/11 happened, and this threw everything out of whack.

But... in the end, it's not like I care who the president is. Either way, I still have to pay taxes, and still have to watch an ongoing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of the candidates have plans to end them, effectively. Still, Bush has my vote.

[Kiddo]

Linnen said:

Thank goodness I only have one class tomorrow. I've stocked up on food so I don't have to go by the polling places (absentee ballots are the way to go!), and I'll just stay out of the way.

Ugh, I'm with you there Linny. I only have my geology lecture and that's at 8 am so no one goes. After that I'm handing in a paper and hiding in my room praying it all goes away.

It's gotten to the point that I don't even want elections to happen. Whoever wins its going to be the whinefest of the century and I abhore whining.

I vow, right now, that if Kerry wins you won't hear a peep out of me. I will keep my mouth shut for the next four years and not turn into some pathetic little whiner that has to gripe on the president every second of their miserable lives.

Can we just fast-forward past this week? I'd like that.

[Tahu]

I don't like Bush for many reasons. The prime one is that I disagree with nearly every single one of his political views. There must be some obscure political issue that I agree with him on, but I don't know what it is. Now, I also don't particullarly like Kerry. I think that of all the candidates, Nader is the best choice. However, not enough people think that to get him elected. The second reason I don't like Bush is because he's dim. I think all that needs to be said on this subject has, so I'm not going to elaborate. The third reason that I don't like him is because he is a liar. He lied about our reasons for going to war, he lied about the WMD's (as of this moment, the only WMD's Saddam ever had were the ones that we gave him) and many other lies.

These are the three main reasons that I dislike Bush. Now, I don't exactly have an unbiased standpoint. I will cite my four favorite Books as Stupid White Men, Dude, Wheres my Country?, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them. While these books are all very partisan, enough of them is true to make you wish Bush had never even run for office. I will finish off this post with a quote from our President in 1989:

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office. "



Sorry, I just love that piccy of bush falling off a segway.

[irishdragonlord]

Just have to say about Bush bringing his personal opinions into politics -

Well DUH. And so is Kerry.

Bush is a "right-wing-nutjob" (jibjab.com "This Land" rules! XD) and Kerry was voted the most liberal person in America!

I say keep atheism out of politics as it has no place, and getting rid of religion is bringing in your own opinion - it doesn't matter.

You can't have it all, but you can take what you can get. Bush can be a moron, but Kerry's worse.