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

darklinensuit · #1 07-13-2004, 01:50 PM

Just curious.

- Jake

amber · #2 07-13-2004, 01:59 PM

The one issue always most important to me is the environment. In this election? Getting the evil despot fascist dictator out. Burn the Bush. Snuff the Muff. Damn the Beaver...oh, wait...nevermind.

Amber

strandinthewind · #3 07-13-2004, 02:05 PM

The only and single most important issue in any campaign Presidential or otherwise is the placement of Federal Judges, particularly Supreme Court judges. Congress and the Pres. may pass the law, but it is the Court that keeps them in line and from taking away our civil rights. The Court is the sole arbitrater of what is right and what is wrong under the expanded view of the U.S. Constitution. So, if you are for conservative judges, vote Republican. If you are for liberal judges vote Democrat. I am for liberal judges because I see the far right as using the legal system to establish an intolerant theocracy in the US.

Put it this way, a Pres. can serve one or two terms. A Supreme Court Justice can serve for 30 years. The latter will therefore always have the most reaching and longlasting effect.

Patti · #4 07-13-2004, 02:27 PM

I totally agree with what Jason said. It is always about the judges that matter the most. It scares me to think of Bush nominating more judges for ANOTHER four years. It really, really, really scares me.

Having said that, however, MY number one issue is getting rid of Bush!

Patti

wondergirl9847 · #5 07-13-2004, 02:59 PM

We must save the whales!!!!! I shall not sleep until we do!!!!!

Merf · #6 07-13-2004, 03:09 PM

The administration's deception of the American public in regards to our reasons for going to war with Iraq.

amber · #7 07-13-2004, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

We must save the whales!!!!! I shall not sleep until we do!!!!!

I don't get it...and what about the forgotten chimpanzee?
Amber

Johnny Stew · #8 07-13-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

Getting the evil despot fascist dictator out.

What she said.

Beyond that... gay rights (or, more importantly, the attempts by the Bush Administration to drum up support for anti-gay sentiments).

estranged4life · #9 07-13-2004, 04:02 PM

with some damned intelligence in that grey matter located 2-3 feet above their ass (Shrub and intelligence go together like Lindsey Buckingham and gangster rap...No chance in hell of that!)

amber · #10 07-13-2004, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

What she said.

Beyond that... gay rights (or, more importantly, the attempts by the Bush Administration to drum up support for anti-gay sentiments).

oh yeah, good one. I just can't believe that it's actually an issue, so sometimes i forget, specially where i live, (oakland, sf, berkeley, etc.) cause Gavin Newsom, mayor of SF, straight up ignored the law and allowed all the couples to get married.

but he's really threatening human rights with the ol' constitutional ban. Like some others said above, I really don't want his hands in the supreme court. Yipes!
Amber

hayley · #11 07-13-2004, 04:46 PM

Civil rights & social issues (specifically including abortion & gay rights), which is more determined by the Supreme Court than by the president. So, my vote's undoubtedly with Kerry. This country cannot stand having insane Bible-thumping Bush appointees in the Supreme Court, period.

Johnny Stew · #12 07-13-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

If Kerry is elected, I really feel there will be a major attack on this country, and we cannot take another one.

But sweetheart, Bush had been president for nearly 9 months when 9/11 occurred... so why would you feel any safer having him in the White House?
Not to mention the fact that he is deeply hated across the world... which, to me, makes us an even bigger target for those who want revenge against him or want to embarrass/discredit him.

National security is a concern for me, too, and I think we all want to feel safe... but having Bush in the White House doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it worries me more.

I'm not bashing your opinion, or saying you're wrong... I just don't believe we're as safe under Bush's watch as some people would like to believe (and as other people are hoping we'll believe).

GypsySorcerer · #13 07-13-2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

But sweetheart, Bush had been president for nearly 9 months when 9/11 occurred... so why would you feel any safer having him in the White House?
Not to mention the fact that he is deeply hated across the world... which, to me, makes us an even bigger target for those who want revenge against him or want to embarrass/discredit him.

National security is a concern for me, too, and I think we all want to feel safe... but having Bush in the White House doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact, it worries me more.

I'm not bashing your opinion, or saying you're wrong... I just don't believe we're as safe under Bush's watch as some people would like to believe (and as other people are hoping we'll believe).

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.

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.

amber · #14 07-13-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

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

DeeGeMe · #15 07-13-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

National security. If Kerry is elected, I really feel there will be a major attack on this country, and we cannot take another one. Sorry, but this is how I feel, and no, I have not been brainwashed by Fox News.

That said, I really don't like Bush that much. He has been a wasteful spender and I disagree with him on most social issues, but I feel he is much better equipped to handle terrorist threats.

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.

Oh--and the single most important issue to me in the upcoming election? Getting Bush out before he and his band of cronies can do any additional damage to this nation as they have already made a mockery of the US Constitution and have limited the rights of US Citizens more so than any other administration in history combined.