This was intended to start a debate, if you have stinging sarcastic comments to make about me, please make them TO me through use of the PM function. I have no desire to argue with anyone on this board, for it would in essence, be pointless.
You would be surprised how many people try to argue their points without any facts to back them up, didn't mean to sound angry, just a good way to get people to think about what they are saying first.

incorrect information starts somewhere, somebody lied, or was pressured to lie about WMD before the war could begin, Gieger counters dont go off if there is no radiation, you follow? Furthermore, I'm curious as to why there has been no one to accept responsibility for the F*ckup.
I see your point, and if Bush had lied directly to the Public it wouldnt be the FIRST time an American President did it, Clinton coming to thought (Not saying anything bad about Clinton, if he could run again I would vote for him in a heartbeat). Thats probably what seperates the country though, those who believe Bush's administration whole-heartedly lied to us are the ones not voting for them, but those that believe he made his decision on incorrect information then those are the ones voting for him. I imagine if he gets reelected then his advisors will get fired one by one.

Do I think Saddam needed to go? Yes. Do I think the US should have intervened in Iraq? Yes, but not because of WMD. It should have been because Saddam tyrranized his own people, torturing and murdering them, using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, commiting genocide against the swamp Arabs in the south, etc...
Thats the swing vote right there, those that don't give a damn if he had WMD or not and he shoulda been taken care of 13 years ago.

Kim Jong-Il scares me way more than Saddam ever did.
I disagree. Kim Jong-Il is just a big baby who wants attention. You notice he 'threatened' he had been working on a bomb right around that time that the U.S. and Iraq conflict started. I wouldn't believe KJ-Il if he had pictures of them with himself in the picture. Sure, I wouldn't put it past him, but N. Korea has a lot more worries than the U.S., you can be sure China, Japan, and S. Korea would more than be able to handle North Korea this time around and N. Korea knows this. N. Korea are a bunch of atttention-starved pricks who felt that the U.S. was spending too much time on Iraq and had to make up something.

Again, although Bush's foreign policy plan probably isnt the best out there, due partly to his advisors, due partly to our hatred among other nations, and probably also due on Bush himself. But I think Kerry's plan is just that much worse. He's quoted in saying he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 40,000, yet he wants to stop the 'back-door' draft and have more troops come home. All this without instating another draft, these numbers don't add up, I'm sorry.

And his domestic plans scare me as well. Decreasing the tax cut on the rich will not solve our deficit problem any more than Bush giving out more tax breaks. We all saw what happened when Bush Sr. used the line 'no new taxes'....well, he increased taxes and he lost the next election. Kerry will have to increase taxes sometime in the next four years if he wants to decrease the deficit, and thats okay but go ahead and say you are going to increase taxes.

About education, considering education in this country is run by the state, theres little Kerry (or Bush) can do to control it. The governor of IL has royally dicked us on tuition at all state colleges and on local businesses (increasing the unemployment tax from 3.2% to 8.6%) in an effort to balance our budget.

Social Security - man, if that isnt a dilemna i dont know what is. But Kerry's solution of "if sometime down the future it needs fixing then I'll fix it" doesnt do anything for anyone. Bush doesn't seem to have a plan either, but he's at least trying to come up with ideas (individual 401K plans gradually built into the system wouldn't be a bad idea if it worked).

Religion/abortion/etc - Kerry went against his own church about abortion and Stem Cell Research and all that other crap. I love the pro-Kerrys out there telling me Kerry is much more of a Catholic than Bush is...well duh, considering Bush is methodist.

Gay Marriage - yeah, an amendment would be bunk but if thats what it takes for the judges to not be able to define the term marriage over what state's rights are then thats what it has to be. Plus, the fact that Kerry and Edwards mentioning Cheney's gay daughter will hurt him in the long run, plus its a low blow...Not like there arent other parents out there that have gay sons/daughters.

The debates I think really cleared the air on everything, obviously Bush had work to do after the first one but he finished real strong and now has a lead over Kerry in several polls.