[Mr 5 0]

I've been busy and just now have had to time to respond to this:

Originally posted by RBatson

First of all, I'd like to say that if you vote for someone based on how you think they look, you're an idiot. Fortunately the majority of folks won't and Kerry will win.

Very few people who are serious enough to go out and vote (50% of eligible voters don't even bother) will do so on the basis on a candidate's appearance. The few that do won't make a difference, either way.

Jim, I know this arguement is redundant and I'm wasting my time because you are not about to consider any point of view except your own, here goes anyhow.

Let me stop you right there, Rick, because that statement is based on a fallacy. Here's why:

There are facts and there are opinions. I look at the facts and from those facts - and my political ideology, which happens to be conservative - I form my opinions, or my 'views', as you put it. That I won't consider any views but my own is simply not true. Think about it: I have to consider pro-Kerry, liberal political views before I can decide to reject and oppose them and to do that, I have to understand the ideology behind them, as well as know the facts. So your supposition that I simply refuse to consider political opinions other than my own is fallacious. What you probably mean is that I actively oppose liberal, Democrat-party opinions and conclusions, which is true.

Economy- The bankrupcy rate and unemployment rates have been the highest in history. Interest rates have been the lowest. This is not the sign of a strong economy. People losing part of their health and welfare benefits is not a good sign. Have you been to the grocery store lately? So I guess if folks losing thier homes, jobs and retirement is the sign of a good economy then... the last 42 monthes have been swell.

You really need to stop reading those biased stories written by liberals and start reading the Wall Street Journal so you can at least get your facts straight. Unemployment is down (to 5.6%, the same as in the 'oh-so glorious boom years' of the Clinton administration), not up. Home-building is way up thanks to continuing low mortage interest rates fueled by a thriving economy. Worker productivity is up 2.9%, (a good indicator for a growing economy) retail sales were up last month (July), the CPI is down, consumer confidence is up. Job growth has been phenomenal (2 million news jobs this year) and the GDP rate is between 3 - 4%, which is excellent. In short: with a few normal flucations (job growth dipped in July) the U.S. economy is fully recovered from the 2000 recession and second hit it took in the months after 9/11. You can search around and find some negative statistics but the solid economic facts indicate that the U.S. economy is thriving.

The price of oil went up to a record high last week but the price of gas is dropping, doesn't have anything to do with an upcoming election, does it? I'm sure Bush has nothing to do with that though.

Rick, here's a clue for you to ponder. First: the price of crude oil that you mentioned has dropped again. Second, the price of gas at the local station's pump comes from crude purchased many months ago. While many gasoline suppliers do jack up the price whenever possible, the lowering cost of retail gasoline simply reflects the lowered cost of the gas to suppliers. It's not a deep, dark conspiracy, as you infer and you're doing so is rather naive.

Energy- Kerry and Edwards want to find alternative means of energy to make us less dependent on oil.. things like solar power, windmills, ethanol. Sounds good to me!

Spare me! Windmills have been tried and failed as a source of energy becuase they are unreliable most of the time. Solar has it's own major drawbacks, obviously and ethanol is a boondoggle that makes corn farmers rich but has environmental drawbacks and requires more energy to produce than it saves. These flawed energy 'alternatives' have been around for decades and the Democrats have nothing new to add here, just political rhetoric.

Ever hear of Mother Earth? We waste way more resources than we have to and we are the smartest creatures on the planet but sometimes we don't put logic to good use. I think its because of money and greed, which brings me to my next point. Bush's plan. He wants to give the oil companies a tax break and start drilling on federal wildlife reserves. Now I'm no treehugger but that doesn't sound like it is in the best interest of the people or the environment. Conservatist? Conserving what?? Their bank rolls and ideals is all.

ANWAR is a large frozen tundra in a near-uninhabited section of Alaska and drilling on a tiny portion of it won't do anything or anyone any harm, environmentally or otherwise. The Caribou don't seem to mind and the Alaskan natives don't mind (they've said so, to congress) and we could use the oil but no, a handful of environmental whackos with more concern for frozen dirt than the American people and their welfare - when it comes to energy - block ANWAR drilling while patting themselves on the back for how 'sensitive' they are. Yet folks like you get all upset when gas prices go up because we have to depend so haevily (60%) on 'foreign oil'. Go figure.

National Security- Now I agreed and always have agreed that attacking Iraq was justified, I just couldn't figure out why he used the broad "WMD" reason. The fact that they broke the treaty was cause for action. I figured it out last week when Bush made comment of Iran having nuclear weapons. I guest that falls under "WMD". So now I see that everyone is at risk of being invaded by Bush. WMD?!? ATTACK!! So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the middle east doesn't want Bush in power. If I lived over there I would probably be afraid of being attacked, which is probably why Saudi has bought radio ads in 16 major US cities saying they never had anything to do with the terrorist and don't support them. So if you feel safe ticking off the rest of the world.. its a false sense of security, my friend.

What a mish-mash of muddled thinking that paragraph represents.

Yes, Rick: 'WMD" (Weapons of Mass Destruction) would include nuclear missiles. Theocratic, Islam-dominated Iran is a major threat to the region and ultimately, the U.S. if and when (it's just a matter of time) they possess nuclear capabilities. The president and all Americans have a right to be concerned about this. We want the terrorist-supporting Arab nations to be 'afraid' of being attacked. It's called 'deterrence' and it worked fairly well with the old U.S.S.R. for over 50 years. If you feel safe ignoring that reality then it's a false sense of security, my friend.

So yes, I'm standing by my comment that Bush isn't qualified to be president but he makes a damn good cowboy.

George W. Bush has proven himself well-qualified to be president and he makes a damn good one. I can't wait until he's re-elected in November.