#13: Three Reasons. > Three Strikes?

THREAD BEGAN: October 22nd, 2004
Following a resurgence of Conservative contributions...

BOB: Now we have just 10 days remaining before the big day, so I have one last challenge for y’all:
Give me three specific reasons that you’re voting for your candidate.
In this explanation, don’t mention the other candidate AT ALL or the wonders of the party platform or the ideals of Liberalism / Conservativism (and especially not Evolution and the joys of Capitalism). Just the man and his record. Good luck. I’ll post mine this weekend.

DAN: Kyle, Here is an example of a "luxury afforded to people who failed due to their own poor choices,".......The three strikes and your out policy.
In my opinion, fuck those liberals who fight so diligenly to keep these abusers on the streets. Your argument, "Well the prisons are getting too full." You know what fixes that? The death penalty. I'm NOT saying getting caught with drugs makes you a candidate for capital punishment. These criminals are some of the people who reap the benefits of my tax dollars the through welfare they may collect and blow on drugs, as well as paying for the court systems they end up in. Poor choices, huh? How about letting these people make the same "poor" choice THREE times before imprisioning them. Sounds like something worth fighting for!!!

CHUCK: Economics: So if its so simple, that people wont work w/ higher taxes.....then what was going on in the 90's.....people worked under Clinton's 40% top bracket.....WHY? WHY? That's where Kerry wants to put us....back to clinton top bracket rates....and if i'm not mistaken....people worked....and created 20 million new jobs (21 million more then bush)
Secondly, people that make great innovations (technology, science) are not solely, and probably not primarily, driven by money. If you are in a scientfic field, it much less likely you got there for money....probably more like a unique passion or brain capacity. And these are the people I want working. You and these greedy business men that will only market their new consumer good for a huge profit, etc....that is the type of asshole that I could careless if he works. Someone else will gladly do his job.
Listen there are obviously very complex issues here, and I agree......the whole pie does grow....the problem is, is that it is COMPLETELY CLEAR: The Rich are getting MORE of the newly grown pie, and the Poor are getting LESS. There is no doubt. So the question is not "what should the tax rate be?", the question is, "are you okay w/ rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer?"
Overall, I think you act like the alternative proposed by the democrats is completely communist. Well, sorry to disappoint, but we like getting money and growing the economy like all capitalists.....we just have a little more sense and compassion. You make obviously strong and informed points, but they are similar to the beliefs of all money-driven people.....not just conservatives
IRAQ: Get the hell out of here w/ this 'mainstream media shit'. What the hell is wrong w/ you? This is nuts. I understand you support for the war, while i disagree. But for you to live in a fantasy land that this is going well, is absurd. It is just dillusional. Sure its a long fight, but its a lot worse because of Bush's mismanagement. You compare to rebuilding in Germany....that presumes we have control of the country....we don't. We have gone in circles about this thing for months, so i'll avoid the specifics. but get you head out of the same rose-colored glasses worn by president bush, and see that this thing has not gone well. You talking about the great things going on in iraq, is as unfair as Michael Moore showing kids flying kites before the invasion......they both distort reality. I DID IT, I admitted michael moore was distorting iraq......So do you part and be honest, too.

SAMMY: Peter, I think you should be questioned if you think domestic policy is something to scoff at. I am not sure what you are trying to say in the least. Please give examples. Atleast you acknowledge that the current administration is doing a horrible job here at home. And I don't know if you realize we are not do so well in Iraq either. I would have to say as a business owner, like your father, I would need to know just a little about the free market to suceed at all. So please don't even try to insult me at all.
Now for your freind Aram. I don't know him and I will not insult him, but Aram is quick to point out the New York Times, but forgets to point out Bush's endorsements.Yes, Bush was endorsed by the Chicago Tribune. Try picking it up once in a while Pete you do live their now. The Chicago Tribune has over 1 million papers in circulation. Yes that is smaller than the Times' 1.7 million in circulation. But still a pretty good achievement. Also, Aram has not told us that The New York times supported Al Gore in 2000 and the Tribune endorsed Bush in 2000. Now for the Times excepting money from the Kerry campaign. i could find no evidence of this, on the other hand I have found proof that The New York Times have donated to the Kerry campaign. Maybe this is what Aram meant to say, or maybe he is right. Their is undeniable proof though that the Times does endorse kerry and has given money to the campaign. While giving no money to the Bush campaign. Actually, the Times have given the campaign 27 thousand to the campaign. One more fun fact, the donations are not from the actual paper, they are from individuals empolyed by the Times. The max donation is 2000 by an individual, so really this is a meager number compared to the individual cotributions over the whole election. From "opensecrets.org" I found that their have been 106,595 individuals that have contributed the max donation so far to both parties. Shit I even donated 10 dollars to the Kerry campaign. And I am sure that rerpublican endoresed media outlets have done the same for Bush. So while Aram brings up a good point, I think you should still not bat an eyelash at this.

CHUCK: Not that anyone has been missing my long emails, but here goes:
Sammartano: Love the energy.....agreed 'angry nugent' borders on anarchist
Jay: you comment on the 'resume' argument. Well, the problem is is that you guys act like this world is based entirely on merit....but then you have Bush running the whole operation, who has earned nothing. Also, you say about the other dads.....agreed, they were all influences.....but in the case of John Edwards, his Dads influence was VALUES, not MONEY....so when edwards saw his dad work in a mill....he learned hard work.....which is what sets him apart from the other 3.
Jay: seriously, anyone that supports bush has no credibilty to question Kerry's plan for spending
Bob: Read my economic comments to Bob....and by the way, when you get tax breaks for stock investment, the rich invest in stock.....and then you are just filling the pockets of skyrocketing CEO salaries....just the facts. Again, you claim we pay more taxes....you are just wrong. I know you dont make over $200,000 and those are the only people that gained....and again, we worked and earned and thrieved under Clinton....and that is where Kerry will return us to. Also, Theresa is great....laura bush is the bitch that tells the disabled and sick that there is no hope in stem cell research.
Chief: I could have saved some breathe on peter, if i read your email first.
Bob: I could have saved some breathe on peter, if i read you simple 'pete, stop it' email first.
Nug: All of the sudden, 'not-angry nugent' created a lot of gray areas in what is good and bad.....that is good. Because now we can squabble over the specifics of what programs are productive versus counterproductive
VISCIONE: Going to jail for life after 3 criminal convictions is a LUXURY? You said it, not me. By the way, I think you are 1 conviction away and only 25 years old.....so are you prepared to go to jail for life? I am not wasting any energy on that absurd argument. Okay, one more thought....YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT LEAST 2 TIMES.....BUT YOU WANT TO GIVE THE LIFE IN PRISON for 3 strikes people......ha.

3 Reasons to vote for John Kerry
1. John Kerry strongly believes in and supports science and technology (specifically stem cell and alternative fuels).
2. John Kerry has a tremendously informed world-view along w/ respect for all of worlds people. This knowledge and respect can unite a divided world (from the war in iraq, to the human rights disasters in china/africa/mexico/etc, to the ignored struggle in israel).
3. John Kerry has consistently fought against poverty and sought to help insure the uninsured, and that gives me confidence that (along w/ his formal plan) he will find a way to reduce poverty and provide more health insurance. This is important to me, despite the fact that I do not know anyone in poverty, or know anyone that is uninsured, because I think (and John Kerry agrees) that the richest nation ever should not have people in poverty or unable to receive medical treatment.

DAN: I truly did not understand you response at all. Firstoff, when did I say that going to jail for life is aluxury? I didn't look back at my e-mail, but I'mpretty sure the word luxury wasn't written. If youare insinuating that life imprisonment is a luxury ascompared to the death penalty, then yes, I would haveto your question. Secondly, I have been arrested ONE time, and that wasfor a DUI, which was a misdemeanor offense...notapplicable here. By the way, regardless of how manytimes, or what it was for, that is a fucking shittything to add to an e-mail, being that your weren'ttrying to provide examples, you were just being anasshole. Belittling someone to prove a point is adick thing to do. Especially to a good friend.

BOB: I agree with Dan. I don’t think that we should be soft on crime. And I too, hate when liberals coddle criminals and blame society for the faults of individuals. I would consider a strike system. But we must be very, very, very careful what crimes we include on that list. If we include:
---Drunk driving
---Drug possesion
---Criminal Trespass (I got this one)
---Disorderly Conduct
---Indecent Exposure (Me too)
---Assault & Battery
---(That thing Dan did when I had to bail him out on MY vacation)
Then half of us on this Blog would be one drunk bar-fight away from a life sentence.
About Capital Punishment: Everyone deserves a fair trial with all the rights provided to them in the Bill of Rights and the appeals process. But if after the trial process, a person is found guilty of a 3rd malicious, violent crime: (Rape, Child Molestation, Manslaughter, Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon, Kidnapping, etc.) Then I have no problem dropping them in a big garbage disposal and grinding them to liquid pulp. We have better things to spend our tax dollars on then rehabilitating Jeffery Dahmer.
But no theft or drug crimes should be considered in these strikes . And I think age needs to be taken into consideration. If someone isn’t old enough to drink a beer, they aren’t old enough to earn a life sentence. So start at 21, keep it to violent crimes and I’d consider it.

DAN: I stand corrected...I've been arrested twice.

BOB: 3 Reasons that I Voted for Kerry:
#1: Kerry is qualified to be Commander-and-Chief---I think it is important in a time of war, for the Commander-and-Chief to know what war actually looks like. Kerry does. When Kerry sees a casualty report or decides to deploy more troops he will have a clear understanding of everything that entails.
#2: Kerry puts science before religion---(Nugent, even you can appreciate this).
He supports stem-cell research. I think that as president he will not wear his religion on his sleeve or allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his secular office.
#3: Kerry is intelligent---What more can I say? As we saw in the 3 debates he won, he knows his stuff, is well spoken and has a presidential demeanor.

ABROMOVICH: My three (or seven) reasons:
1) George Bush has taken a proactive approach to fighting the war on terror. Before September 11th if we would have gone into Afghanistan to disrupt the Taliban regime all of you liberals would have shit your pants like you are now about Iraq. We can no longer wait for terrorists to strike our land, we must hunt them down before they can do any more harm to our country. Although we may never know, what George Bush did by invading Iraq could have spared this country from another major catastrophie. I am not about to support anyone who doesnt protect our country first or leaves the security of our nation in the hands of a coalition of nations. Can someone answer this for me - How can we have a Commander in Chief leading a war who says it is "the wrong war at the wrong time?" What kind of support does a Commander in Cheif get from other countries, for a war he does not feel is just? I guess it will just have to pass the "Global Test." What exactly is the "Global Test?" Do all nations have to approve any actions the US takes now? The Global test can be whatever you want it to be. For the other canidates it is what is called being a pussy (I sound like Viscione).
2) I currently work for what would be classified as a small business. George Bush's tax cuts are what allows small businesses to grow and prosper even when our economy is in an economic downswing. Under other leadership taxes would eliminate the opportunity for many small businesses to flourish. Small business is the heart and soul of our economy.
3) Abortion
4) Have you seen who the first lady would be?
5) The other canidates are liars and are not qualified.
6) I will never vote for anyone (Dem or Rep) who votes against providing body armor, ammunition, and armored vehicles to our troops when they are in a war?
7) George Bush owns a timber company.

DAN: 1. Bush's stance on the war. I am for the liberation of Iraq. One year, or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter, there WILL be a "totaly free" Iraq in which other Middle Eastern countries will aspire to become. This can not happen without the help of the Coalition. I like his policy on terrorism. I don't think going about terrorism light-heartedly is going about it the right way. Bush will "stay the course" and do what it takes to protect us. I think others will leave us short when it comes down to it, as well our troops.
2. I don't want my taxes raised. Other candidate's proposals WILL, in the end, raise taxes. There is no other way to implement them without doing so.
3. I like that Bush stands firm on what he believes in, and lets you know exactly where he stands. He does not try to play both sides to avoid loosing popularity. Whether or not I agree with his stances, and there are things I disagree with on his platform, I know where Bush stands because he does not play the middle. He is much more genuine than any other candidate.

BOB: First, I would like to thank Dan for being the only REP so far to follow directions and giving me three reasons why he supports Bush. I would just like to point out that I too, “don't think going about terrorism light-heartedly is going about it the right way.” The Democrats are proposing a different approach to the war on terror, not a light-hearted one.
Abromovich on the other hand, you gave me a mixture of genuine reasons (proactive approach), party platform issues (abortion), bad jokes (timber company) and direct attacks on John Kerry (global test).
I thought the directions were simple…oh well.
By the way, you’ve really swallowed Bush’s talking points hook-line-and-sinker. John Kerry already answered your “Global Test” question in the debates several times. Can he be any clearer?
“I will never cede the authority of our country or our security to any other nation. I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity -- not a nation, not a country, not an institution. But I know, as I think you do, that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. We are not doing that today. We need to. I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists. And I will not stop in our efforts to hunt down and kill the terrorists.”
And your second concern that Kerry wouldn’t get the same kind of global support as Bush. It is ridiculous. The Coalition is shrinking—eight nations have left. 90% of the costs and the casualties are ours. As Kerry pointed out in the third debate: “If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.”
So the question is: Who do you think will muster more international support in Iraq?
[the following text was originally in green]
A fresh face that is in agreement with the international community (admitting the war was wrong and poorly executed) while demonstrating why it is now in all of our interests to clean it up.
[the following text was originally in red]
Or the man who disregarded the 'irrelevant' U.N., and blocked nations that didn't support the war from bidding on reconstruction contracts? This man is the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security!!!
You tell me, Abromovich.

DAN: I know you are looking for an answer from Bob A. inregards to your international support in Iraqquestion, therefore, will not go into that. I willthough point out your subtle, yet transparent,subliminal Red/Green color scheme when writing yourviews on the candidates. You almost made me realize how evil Bush really is.

BOB: Well Dan, Unfortunately, those reading the Blog will read every post in black and white, but to those who received my full color version (in which text referring to Kerry was green and text referring to Bush was red) I'd like to say: My color scheme wasn't 'subtle' or 'subliminal'.
Green means good. Red means bad.
It was however, irrelevant. (I think it's hilarious that instead of answering the question, you addressed my choice of color!) Just to make you happy though, I will attach the email in the reverse color scheme. Guess what? It reads the same. Next time, try disputing the facts.

ABRAMOVICH: Bob, see my comments below... and its Abramovich:
OK - now he has told me he is not going to leave our security up to other nations etc. and Yes he could be much clearer. This still does not answer the question? What is the Global Test? and what is John Kerrys "plan?" How does one go about completing the "Global Test?"
Do you honestly think that if John Kerry became president all of this countries are just going to jump into this war - of course they are not. The 90% figure does not take into account Iraqi fighters. Do they not count? John Kerry doesnt seem to think so. They are the ones fighting for their own freedom.
Neither will get anymore support. Why should we allow countries who dont support a war we are in to win bids for reconstruction? Disarming Saddam was a victory for the entire world, not just the US. These other countries should be greatful for what Mr. Bush did. I am not concerned about what any europeans think or how they view Bush's presidency. Do they care about how I view their leaders? Didnt think so. As Dan Viscione said - some day there will be peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and the people of those countries will have 2 people to thank, Mr George Bush and Mr Tony Blair.
By the way - why the hell did Kerry make that reference to the Timber Company. That should tell you enough about him. He is just making things up.

DAN: Bob,You chose that color scheme representing eachcandidate, whether subconciously or not, for a reason. There is no arguing that. Also, I wasn't avoiding your question, youspecifically asked Bob A. to answer your question. Iwas merely waiting for him to respond first. I amwalking out the door in a minute, but to brieflyanswer your question, I think after the elections areheld in Iraq and insurgent Iraqis begin to see thecause in which we are fighting for, things will settledown over there. They will then have a realization tothe potential we are helping them to achieve. Inwhich case, prosperity will begin and theinternational community (as well you and many others)will then realize our efforts were not in vain.

CHUCK: VISCIONE, EVERYONE that makes less then $200,000 pays a HIGHER PROPORTION of the taxes under Bush. So you shoulder a HIGHER BURDEN under Bush. Sure you might pay $400 less over a year, but you pay a higher percentage of the overall pot, then you used to.
Also, still know where Bush stands? Because Bush doesnt even know where he stands. Bush said
ABRAMOVICH, Why dont you ask Keeler what the timber company comment means? Because he can tell you, because anyone that looks into it, understands it. But since you refuse to inquire, just joke and mock Kerry, I'll explain:
Bush Claimed: 900,000 small business owners get a tax break under his tax cuts. Kerry Said: That figure (900,000) is ridiculous. Kerry Explained: When President Bush owned $80 in timber company (in 2001), Bush (w/ an $80 investment) would be considered one of those 900,000 "small business owners" Kerry was (somewhat unclearly) explaining that Bush is completely distorting the number of small businesses that got a tax break under Bush
GET IT? NOT HARD, if you allow yourself to use your head and common sense.

BEN: 1. I like who he has appointed to the federal judiciary (including those blocked by Senator Kerry and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate)
2. I agree with the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes against terrorism and "we will make no distinction between those who harbor the terrorists and the terrorists themselves)
3. He isnt a poll driven president who needs to go shooting guns in Ohio to score points. he went into Iraq believeing it was the right thing to do, knowing his presidency would be on the line
I think this will be my last response until the election......with my site and newsletter i cant keep up with all of this right now.
There is going to be a shift in the polls by Friday that will tell us who is going to win. That I can predict. What i can not tell you is for what side it will be.

KYLE: 1. A return to fiscal discipline instead of record deficits.
2. The protection of basic freedoms including a woman's right to choose.
3. Critical thinking and debate instead of devine decisiveness.

SAMMY: 1) Intellegience- John Kerry has the definite skills that are needed in a public official.
2) Religion & State- John Kerry is obviously not influenced by religious fanatics. He wants stem cell research funding, is pro-choice. He is not swayed by the influential religious fanatics.
3) A new face- John Kerry is just what is needed for United States to save face in the international community. A new face is needed to repair the mistakes that have been made in the past 4 years.

MANEY: ...Tonight I actually read all of my e mails, and it is fucking funny. I thought we were not supposed to get personal. holly shit you guys are ripping nug a new ass. I have to ask you bob, are you drunk when you respond to nugent? I don't think u realize that he is no longer human. He is freaking huge! He could rip your arms off and then beat you with them. Which is how I would be feeling after some of your guy's responses If I was nugent. I have basically dropped out do to the fact of boredom. I have my opinions and they are not going to change, just like yours are not changing or J's or anyone. So besides not having time, I just don't see the point. Back and fourth, back and fourth. Plus I see how nasty everyone is getting as the debate gets closer. So sorry, I will keep reading but I prob. will not be chiming in much unless you want to talk about the ladies. Oh and out sourcing. I tried weeks back to bring that up but no one really gave a fuck. So I just let it go since no one seemed interested.

Not voting!
1. What does it matter when the popular vote means nothing?
2. Do not like either candidate.
3. I like how it pisses people off when I tell them that I am not voting!

CHUCK: Maney, You not voting, does make me mad. It makes me not care about your problems. Still love you, though. Just could careless if your job gets shipped overseas, or you lose overtime pay, or whatever.