john5746

A true democracy would be anarchy and very inefficient. A dictatorship is very efficient, so a mix is the best. I like Jordan's ranking system. I would like to see money taken out of the equation. Have each candidate place their format and answers to predefined questions on a website, then have several debates. Have a day off for voting. Everyone has a vote, but money is the real decision maker.

The parties are also trying to sling mud on the other, because this works. People are swayed by mud. Jordan, I too am waiting for the debates, but I am already leaning toward Kerry, so I will try to take off my lenses before I watch. I disagree with more Presidents. I want smaller, more efficient government. I share this with the republican party. I see no need for the Vice President. Maybe if the congress appointed him that might make sense. Yes, everyone has their agendas and their vote. Unfortunately, the effect of your vote depends on where you live. I think the voting process itself needs to be changed to a popular vote and get rid of the electoral process. In this day and age, we should be able to do this.

I think some people believe you need to be a genius to have an opinion or be interested in certain subjects. Just having a desire to learn and removing emotion from our opinions (an open mind) can go a long way.

OK, so American parents are the worst. Why do we ban WMD's? I mean if we really want the people to be able to form a militia, they need tanks, bombs, etc. If some idiot blows up a McDonalds, it was their parents fault, sorry. But, boy we would be much safer from terrorists!

I wasn't suggesting that, just that the military may not support "our" Iraqi government after a withdraw.

Many vets and people are mad at Kerry because he faught to end the Vietnam conflict. Even he regrets some of the words he used, but most of it was stories he had been told, probably from other vets. Contrast this to McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam war, who says he knew all along the war was a mistake, yet kept silent and kept increasing the conflict. I don't know if he really knew from the beginning, but I am sure at some point he did know it was a mistake, yet keep quite and stay the course. Should we frown upon those that tried to end the war or those that kept it going, even when they felt it was a mistake? McNamara says the Iraq conflict is also a mistake, but if he were in the Bush Administration, he would tow the party line. I wonder if Colin Powell and others are doing this.

Iraq has terrorists, sure but everyone fighting isn't a terrorist. We need to quit generalizing every Arab with a gun as a terrorist. You have different factions in Iraq trying to gain power. Iran has a vested interest in making Iraq a Shiite theocracy, just as we want them to be a democracy. The majority are Shiite. This can very easily end up being a civil war, not just a few thugs killing to make a point. This is a difficult situation. We could train a nice military, only to watch it go to the other side. Both sides dislike America more than each other.

This may be true, but if people can carry guns that "look" like banned guns, then it makes the inforcement of the banned guns more difficult. So, if there is no other reason than "its fun" then live with it. I don't know why there are so many gun deaths in America, but I find it odd that people need to travel all the way to Iraq to be killed by Saddam's weapons, but they fear that more than the idiots around the corner. People are probably worried now about a terrorist attack on a school. It happens here all the time - Columbine?

I voted yes, because racism exists in the US and everywhere and probably always will. In fact, this is a bigger problem than terrorism and has resulted in many more deaths. I think we should have a war against racism. We just need to pick a country, invade it and kick some butt. This will make everyone feel safer, because we don't want the racists here in the US, we want them somewhere else, so we can fight them there. Seriously, racism is used far too lightly these days. Children should be reasonably armed to be successful in the country they live in. In the US, this includes speaking in English, but we are seeing Spanish make its influence. So, I can see where children learning both would be a very good option. Chinese may also be a good one. French? let it go the way of Latin.

Bush ran a very ugly campaign against McCain in South Carolina. Had some similarity to the Kerry attacks. "Others" doing the attacks, Bush saying nothing against the attacks. The big attack on McCain was he might be a "loose cannon" from the effects of being a POW. Not sensitive enough? is that what they meant?

I don't think evolution is entirely random. I think the environment has an affect on genes. "Use it or loose it", "Use it alot and get better"

Kerry is probably hoping for a knockout in the debates. Although Bush sucks as a debater, I doubt they will have many questions to trip him up. His platform and answers are pretty simple: "I say what I mean, I mean what I say", "stay the course", etc. Almost anyone compared to Bush will be seen as "wishy-washy" (actually they are just being thoughtful sometimes). He has an uphill battle, because people really think Bush is the best person to fight terrorism.

I like this model, violence is focused, with a feedback loop which amplifies the violence etc.

If you want to be President, don't fight in a war. Candidates with war experience don't have the best track record.

Actually, this is one reason why I am against the "war". If I remeber correctly, the reason for going over there was that Saddam was a menace who was stockpiling WMD's. Terrorists could get these and become a threat to the US and the world. I don't remember any talk of building a democracy to shine a light on the middle east. On the hispanic question, Bush is the one proposing to give illegals cards, etc. This will encourage more to come. Don't worry about this though. After Bush runs up the deficits, our country will be in such a bad situation, we will be going to Mexico or Iraq to find work.

We did win the war. Saddam is out and no WMD's. Now, we are attempting Nation building. The military is not for this, so they will fail. They will be getting shot at while pulling out on the ships. Clinton's admin could have been more aggresive after the attacks on the Cole, etc. To be fair, I don't remember anyone saying we needed to involve ground troops, etc. But, that was the time to respond to prevent 9/11, not 8 months prior.

You guys are having quite the discussion about deaths. I think something must be said about the reasons though. I don't think you can compare deaths from a terrorist or dictator to deaths from a fight for freedom. The Iraqis clearly wanted Saddam out of there. Death is a terrible thing, but if it is for a just cause sometimes it is worth the price. The problem is determing just cause.

I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt it will make a difference. After watching him at the RNC, he has really improved as a politician. He had tears in his eyes while talking about the soldiers dying, etc. I'm not saying he wasn't sincere, but he really has but Kerry in a no-win situation. If violence subsides, Bush is winning, if it escalates, we need him. If they found a character flaw, like him being gay or having an affair would have a bigger effect. Its ok to screw up on a war, but don't do the intern!

9/11 may have been controllable if Clinton had responded to Al-Queda more urgently, but S**T does happen that we can't control or forsee. The problem in Iraq is what is victory? We won the war. How do we know when to leave? When enough people get tired of it? The same things were said about Vietnam, we must win, etc. But, the military wasn't allowed to "win" I see the same thing happening in Iraq. You don't want the UN to control US troops? How about Iraq? You can bomb this, don't go here, don't shoot there. The election is political, so people will deal with past performance, since this may reveal future results. Iran? What should we do? Call them evil, invade and stay there for 10 years? Sometimes I think the best solution is to pull everyone out and say if there is an atomic attack on anyone, the country that supplied the bomb will be atomized. But, then what if they steal the bomb from us?

Yes, God

Many worlds...Many probabilities - really the same thing in the end. Traveling in the future is in effect slowing your time relative to everyone else. The faster you go, the slower your time ticks.