I am going to vote for a democratic candidate in 2004. Beside my disagreament for the reasons of the war, I think that a democratic president will work to help all people, not just the self-entitled. Reducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels, subsidizing or lowering the tuition for college educations, getting rid of John Ashcroft from legislating to us what is our private business and goes on in our private homes, empowering americans against local businesses in foreign markets, and hopefully doing an end to political bigotry that practices in the name of religion.

I think it's rather naive to say a person will work for the people simply based on the party that backs him. I'm waiting to see how each individual candidate emerges from the pack, and will NOT vote simply based on party lines.

From the debates I've heard, all of the candidates make strong arguments that I agree with. So on average, I agree with the democratic candidates 99% of the time. The 1% remaining accounted for the fact that we are human, and that people can and will lie. The republicans on the other hand, I agree with 1% of the time, because they are still human.

democrats are JUST as evil as republicans.

ALL politicians are liars.

to blindly follow a political party is foolish.

i'm with jason, i vote by candidate, not by party lines.

ALL people are liars, in varying degrees, that is nothing new.

What IS important is renewable energies, lower tuitions, and a mending of national and international policy.

Yup, well said....Clinton was pretty evil, and quite the warmonger. Bosnia, anyone? He was one of the best friends the conservatives ever had.

And don't even get me started on JFK. Scumbag.

However, that said, I will prolly vote for a democrat for prez just to get Bush outta there. I'm tired of looking at the dude. I'm also tired of the economy being in the shitter. I'm sick and tired of the gunslinger act as well.

I will vote for the one that represents me and my family's best interests. If not, then I will vote for the candidate that has the best chance of defeating the Supreme Court appointed president we currently have in office.

have hope, America needs a progressive candidate.

"Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state."

"Kucinich has developed a plan to stimulate the economy through investment in a jobs program restoring infrastructure by attacking at large corporations, and supporting small business growth. Such a program will give a boost to small businesses in urban areas, in contrast to the lack of stimulus provided by President Bush's massive investment in weapons and in tax cuts for the wealthy."

"Kucinich will shift the nation's energy policy away from support for major oil, coal, and nuclear companies to smaller businesses developing renewable energy technologies."

http://www.kucinich.us/culturecorner.htm

Kucinich said in debate that marijuana should be decriminalized! He's the smallest candidate, but has the biggest balls.

that's great...so are all those small businesses going to hire the people laid off from the large corporations when they are attacked?

At this point, such a radical course of action is probably not possible within the framework of our government. And I agree that people having jobs working for corporate scum is most likely better than starving on the street.

What Kucinich is talking about is responsibility. If making CEO's and big businesses be accountable and responsible puts them out of business then so be it, it will be better for America. Large businesses have the ability to market to lots of people without any responsibility to how their products infulence a given area of our lives, and allows the owners to seperate themselves from the social repercussions of their products. Cigarettes or alcohol anyone?

better for America in the long run? bullshit! The massive lay offs that would follow any "attacking" of large corporations (as they decided to close up shop and move to countries that would not "attack" them) would be catestrophic to America, it's economy and it's people.

I say better for America "period".

That's all fine and dandy until large corporations start pulling even more of their operations out of our country. I'm not saying it's good to pander to corporate interests. I'm just saying these folks have economic bases all over the world, and the US getting tough with them will just give them more impetus to go abroad in search of cheap labor. Kind of a cruel catch-22. Now if governments on a world-wide level could establish some sort of corporate regulation, that might have some impact.

yeah...people not being able to afford to eat, have a roof over their heads, medical care, etc but not having to deal with corporate business practices is really better....if you believe that you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

That is not what I believe.
America has enough Nuculear weapons to destroy the surface of the earth five times over, yet another 5billion dollars is going to build more. Anybody can see that this will bring us no "real" protection from terror. Instead that 5billion could go into growing big businesses in the right way. At the middle, at your level Jim, and not just at the top.

However, that's not bloody likely, no matter who gets elected prez. These same corporate interests have pawnz at many levels within the current regime. Some of them are building the bombs we're spending $5 billion to construct. Basically, at this point our government bends over backwards for large corporations, and I doubt any president, democratic or republican, will make even a dent in corporate domination of our country's policies toward them.

hopefully they will. If not I'll become a citizen of a nation where I have more of the freedoms I want.

5 billion may seem like a lot of money, but it's a piss drop in the bucket of big business.

BTW that 5 billion isn't going to add more nukes, it's going to maintain and/or replace current.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

where would that be?

have you even been outside of the US?

This is the argument of saturation. Just like your happiness can only increase with so much money, it will eventually level off. Likewise, regardless of how much you bulk your weaponry up, your ability to protect yourself still levels off. A suit of armor can still be penetrated at the joints.

I have no problem with big business under the proper regulation. After the fiascos of the past few years I think a certain amount of control is needed, at least in the short term, in order to steer corporations back towards social responsibility. Oh yeah, and we need to do something about this outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Call centers in India, despite cheaper labor, don't help the average American citizen when they need a job.

My second issue of concern is how they will address our domestic energy policies. Increasing independence from foreign oil industries could greatly increase our mobility as well as ability to throw our weight around on the global political field. Not being dependent on foreign sources would be keen. Not to mention decreased efforts for greater energy production is just a common sense idea.

Most of my problems are domestic. Increased security, real security, not the illusion of it under such things like a star wars system that is ineffective against current missle technology. I have no problem with funding the military, in fact I greatly support it, as long as the technology is relevant. Greater speed has been one of the obvious factors in making our military as effective as it was shown to be over the past year. Not to mention the military serves as an educator and employer for people who might otherwise be limited in options.

In the middle I would rank our foreign policy. I could give a care less about what France or Germany thinks of us. At the end of the day, the U.S. has to look out ofr its own concerns. However, I wouldn't mind seeing us extend aid without the political backhand of us asking something back from some of these more impoverished nations. It just seems to make the human life a tad too trivial for my taste. Increasing relations with our trade partners in this hemisphere and promoting continued industrialization in our latin american neighborhood would also mean more open markets willing to buy American made products, which in turn would create more jobs for the local market.

I will say I am leaning more liberally this year, though I'm not going to say I'm going to vote Democratic just because there are Democrats. I'm going to try and see who has the best public record, whose done their jobs, but honestly there are slim pickings. I've still got a while before the vote, obviously, so I'm going to take my time for now.

Yeah. Move to a more socially democratic nation, and watch your income drop. More to a second or third world country, be assured that your rights will be limited. The truth is democratic nations offer more possibilites in general, and that among those, the U.S. offers quite a bit of chance. The problem is, most people view the U.S. internally. They never see the world as a whole, or the fact that other countries are just as messed up as us, if not more so. The only reason the U.S.' mistakes glare more obviously is because of the influence it wields on the world stage, but in honest truth it's easy to say there's a better country, but far more difficult to find one. You can say you want to move to a country that, for instance, legalizes marijuana. The only problem is in exchange for the freedom to smoke, you trade in other potentialities and freedomes.

No I haven't been out of the country, but I know that i will be if things don't change. The nation that shows the most regard for renewable energies, healthcare, education, and the ability for technology to improve life, is the place that I call home...even if it doesn't exist yet or you think that I will never get there.

You may think it is SOOO funny, but I take it very seriously.