John Kerry promises us A Stronger America. I have reason to believe he can deliver, at leastly partly, but what does "stronger" mean? To me, it means two things, one positive and one negative.

I'll start with the negative. Stronger means a more effective empire: a more effective policy of theft and murder for the benefit of the American middle and upper classes. America was an empire from its beginning, it nearly split into two empires in the 1860's, and then realized its full potential during the 20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, America is an empire in waning. George W. Bush is America's Nero, a overgrown child playing the fiddle while his empire burns. I'm not sure which Caeser is best to compare John Kerry to, but it would certainly be a more estute and savvy one.

But the fact that Kerry is more appealing to foreign elites really doesn't matter. The American Empire cannot sustain itself much more than 100 years. Rather than fighting another Civil War for survival, it will probably just splinter off into regional nations. The slack of American global influence will be picked up by Europe and China.

The positive side of Kerry's stronger America is his domestic agenda. And ultimately, this is why most people will, and should vote for him. Knowing my audience, there is no need to explain further.

As there is no difference between Bush and Kerry regarding global trade and foreign policy, any attempt to convice voters that Kerry will be better in these matters is fraudulent or misguided.

On the now infamous tape broadcasted Friday, Osama bin Laden said "neither Bush or Kerry" can protect Americans from terrorism. He reiterated that he attacked us because of our alliance with Israel and our policy towards Palestine and the Middle East. Both Bush and Kerry strongly support Israel's occupation of Palestine, and both support our alliances with corrupt Arab dictatorships. Have you ever heard a discouraging word about the Saudi royal family from John Kerry? Bin Laden and millions of his supporters and sympathizers know that Kerry will not change what has been unwavering Democratic and Republican policy since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR first formed the American-Saudi alliance in the early 1940's and 70 years later, the Saudis still practice state-sanctioned beheadings of political dissidents, but FDR knew then, as Kerry and Bush know today, that the American Empire needs Saudi oil.

Speaking of extreme Islamic governments that have oil, the ruling clerics of Iran has recently said that they prefer that Bush win the election. Their reasoning is that the Democrats have generally taken a more hostile position towards Iran. Also, John Kerry happens to be a blood relative of the dynasty of Persian Shahs (in addition to other Indo-European royal families), which the Islamic Revolution ousted in 1979. Perhaps Iran fears they could be ousted by a King/Kaiser/Czar/Shah/President Kerry, who could then make way for the "pro-democracy" Prince of Iran/Persia to replace them.

Al-Qaeda's goal is to totally wipe out Israel. Its hard to gauge what the average Arab thinks of such a goal. Certainly, all Arabs think the occupation of Palestine is cruel and unjust, and I would certainly agree. Many Israelis agree. Israel needs to withdraw from its hard-right stance if it wants to survive. Israel should not withdraw because of fear, thus letting suicidal terrorists win, but because it is the right thing to do, thus letting themselves win. They should withdraw to pre-1967 borders and protect those borders. For them to persue the current course, and thereby allow terrorism against themselves, their children, and most egregiously, their allies, is enraging.

I doubt that very many Americans want to die because of Israel's claims to "holy land", or because our economy is dependent on foreign oil, or for any other bullshit reason, but unless our policy towards the Middle East changes, terrorism will continue to haunt us.

To be patriotic, we must rise up and protect ourselves from all terrorists, both foreign and domestic. We must never cease to challenge this imperial reign. We must take down the two-party system, but that is not going to happen within 24 hours. So tomorrow let's vote to give America the strength to be somewhat more decent to its own citizens and to its first world allies, even though it will continue to brutalize and exploit the third world.

If you live in a state where the vote is close, please vote for Kaiser Kerry.

If you live in a state where the vote is not contested, stab Caeser in the back and vote for Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, etc.

I just learned that both Bush and Kerry support some form of the 'Star Wars' missile defense system. Kerry would just spend less money on it and claims he would make it "work". Bullshit. Nothing can save us from nuclear war. Its just a giveaway to the military-industrial complex. The Democratic candidate, as Ralph Nader noted, truly does get worse every year.

Restart the revolution on November 3.

So it comes down to the wire, Kenny my boy. Who are you voting for? Cobb? I think I might, despite the overwheming urge to write-in Bill Belichick. I'm feeling robbed though. At least a vote for Cobb will help me sleep at night, if nothing else.

Great insights on that first post, even though I disagree with a few points.

Ultimately, if Kerry is elected President tomorrow, or whenever he will probably end up being a tool for more American imperialism. In the past week I have actually come to like Kerry even less, but when it comes down to it, Bush is pushing us backwards much faster and more agressively than the Democrats. Kerry has some views I like, particularly a national health care system. He doesn't have the same ridiculous notions of right and wrong like Bush, but he will still buckle under the weight of this country's established right-wing ideologies. You can't get people to change over night, it takes years. Whatever.

I agree 100%. Kerry is not the answer, but the lesser of two evils seems to be the American way. Unfortunately, it seems more likely to be the eviler or two evils who will steal this election.

I wiser man than me (Mr. Lewis Black) once said "The Republican party is a party with NO ideas, the Democratic Party is a party with BAD ideas."

i was expecting a photoshop Kerry/Palpatine.

weak.

nice

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/debate.php



Make sure you check out the bonus animation after...

Holy crap, that was hilarious.

AHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA. no fucking way!

UPDATED VERSION OF MY ANTI-IMPERIAL RANT

John Forbes Kerry promises us 'A Stronger America'. I have reason to believe he can deliver, at leastly partly, but what does "stronger" mean? To me, it means two things, one positive and one negative.

I'll start with the the positive: Kerry has a stronger domestic agenda. And ultimately, this is why most people will, and should vote for him. From doing more (although not enough) to do things like protect the environment, increase health care coverage and reduce costs, protect the supremacy of a woman's private body rights over that of a fetus, remove theocratic influence from the public sector, and create a more equitable social and economic climate for women and ethnic minorities.

And now the negative: 'Stronger' means a more effective empire: a more effective policy of murder and theft to exploit third world citizens for the benefit of our middle and upper classes. America was an empire from its beginning. It nearly split into two empire-nations in the 1860's, forcefully retained its weaker faction, reconstructed itself by exploiting immigrant labor, conquered much of Spain's empire, and then realized its full potential during the 20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, America is an empire in waning. George W. Bush is America's Nero: a overgrown child playing the fiddle while his empire burns. I'm not sure which Caeser would be best to compare John Kerry to, but he would certainly be a more estute and savvy one than Bush is.

Kerry can make life for better for most Americans in the short run, he cannot save America from itself. The American Empire cannot sustain itself much more than 100 years. Rather than fighting another Civil War for survival, it will probably just splinter off into regional nations. The slack of American global influence will be picked up by Europe and China. American-based corporations that have gone multinational already have their foothold in these dense population centers that are rapidly surpassing America in terms of industrial sophistication.

Bush and Kerry, by supporting corporate-sponsored international "free trade" scams like NAFTA and the WTO, have actually helped bring about the future end to America's lone superpower status. Kerry and Bush have no allegiance only to a small group of powerbrokers and do not care about anyone else.

Because of all this, it is only a matter of time before anarchists and socialists around the world become as famous as Islamists for creating widespread terrorism against Western imperialism.

On the now infamous tape broadcasted Friday, Osama bin Laden said "neither Bush or Kerry" can protect Americans from terrorism. He reiterated that he attacked us because our policy towards Palestine and the Middle East. Both Bush and Kerry strongly support Israel's occupation of Palestine, and both support our alliances with corrupt Arab dictatorships. Have you ever heard a discouraging word about the Saudi royal family from John Kerry? Prince Bandar was just as cozy with Clinton as he is with Bush. Osama Bin Laden and millions of his supporters and sympathizers know that Kerry will not change what has been unwavering Democratic and Republican policy since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR first formed the American-Saudi alliance in the early 1940's and 70 years later, the Saudis still practice state-sanctioned beheadings of political dissidents, but FDR knew then, as Kerry and Bush know today, that the American Empire needs Saudi oil.

Speaking of extreme Islamic governments that have oil, the ruling clerics of Iran has recently said that they prefer that BUSH win the election. Their reasoning is that the Democrats have generally taken a more hostile position towards Iran. Also, John Kerry happens to be a blood relative of the dynasty of Persian Shahs, which the Islamic Revolution ousted in 1979. Therefore, its very possible Iran fears they are more likely to be ousted by a President Kerry, who could then make way his blood relative, the "pro-democracy" Prince of Iran/Persia, to replace them.

Like Islamist Iran, Al-Qaeda has a goal to totally wipe out Israel. Its hard to gauge what the average Arab thinks of this goal, but certainly, all Arabs think the current occupation of Palestine is cruel and unjust, and I would agree. Many Israelis agree. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli have marched against it. The Israeli government needs to listen to these citizens and withdraw from its hard-right stance if Israel is to survive. Israel should not withdraw because of fear, thus letting suicidal terrorists win, but withdraw because it is the right thing to do, thus letting themselves win. They should withdraw to pre-1967 borders and protect those borders. For them to persue the current course, and thereby allow terrorism to affect themselves, their children, and their allies, and their allies' children, is enraging.

I doubt that very many Americans want to die because of Israel's claims to "holy land", or because our economy is dependent on the oil owned by Arab dictators, or for any other bullshit reason, but unless our policy towards the Middle East changes, terrorism will continue to haunt us. They do not "hate us for our freedoms" as President Bush claims. They don't hate us, the people, at all. They hate our government and its policy. This is why they attacked our power structure (WTC, Pentagon and an attempt at the White House or the Capitol building) and not something where civilians are the only target, like the Super Bowl, for example. What Al-Qaeda did to us is no different from what we would do in a military strike against our enemies. War is Terrorism.

To be patriotic, we must rise up and protect ourselves from all terrorists, both foreign and domestic. We must take down the two-party system that ensures this imperial reign election after election, but that is not going to happen on Nov 2. So for now, let's vote to give America the strength to be somewhat more decent to its own citizens and its allies, even though it will continue to brutalize and exploit the third world.

If you live in a state where the vote is close, please vote for Kaiser Kerry.

If you live in a state where the vote is not contested, stab Caeser in the back and vote for Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, etc.

Because I live in the safest safe state of Massachusetts, I'm voting for David Cobb of the Green Party.

http://www.votecobb.org
http://www.votenader.org
http://www.badnarik.org
http://www.peroutka2004.org


I have heard that the candidate with the bluest blood always wins. If true, John Forbes Kerry will be the 44th President of the United States of America. Though both he and George Walker Bush are related to the British royal family that originated from the Holy Roman Empire, Kerry is also related to French, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Russian, Byzantine and Persian royality. Both men are related to Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Taft, Hoover, Nixon and that's just a short list. Both men are members of the ultra elite Skull and Bones Society that meets in a building called the The Tomb at Yale University.

So its quite possible that this election is rigged.

Peace,

Ken

Voting for Belichick will be just as meaningful as a vote for Cobb.


3rd parties should not be focusing on Presidential elections, without the financial aid of billionaires, they have absolutely no chance of making any difference in them. They need to focus on local elections where personal communications can actually help voters understand what the parties are about.

Tell me these two aren't related...


ALI REZA PAHLAVI, PRINCE OF IRAN


JOHN FORBES KERRY, UNITED STATES SENATOR

Politics in America aren't a meritocracy?

I agree that they are ineffective, particularly in an election year like this, without big money. But there is never going to be change if they give up or loose focus. And if they began taking billionaire-corporation money? I wouldn't vote for them. I suppose I'm in a loose/loose situation.

And this is one of a few reasons why I support federal funding of elections. 100% funding from the fed for all qualified candidates. What the qualifications are is a different subject entirely, but elections going to those with the most financial support is wrong.

Voting 3rd party is better than not voting at all.

I think what we need is a coaltion party of 3rd parties and call it the Anti-Two Party Party, whose sole purpose is to destroy the two-party system.

Anyway, I'm leaving to go vote now. I'll be voting for Cobb and then NONE OF THE ABOVE for the rest of the ballot except for my state rep, who's a Democrat, cause she's the mom of a guy I went to high school with and she's cool.

I also get to vote YES on a ballot initiative to decriminalize weed! ROCK!

Indeed, but what kind of impact does it really make?


Without the financial backing nationally of the Jackasses and Circus Animals, there's no way this could ever happen. It's not that easy to topple the very structure of the government, after all, the ones you're going after are the ones that have the power to squash you.


Hail hail.

The only argument to support federal funding is that it puts a cap on the amount of spending. But with the "new" 527 rules, the cap is null anyway, so what the hell. Tax us so you can feed us slander. Gotta love it.

What's wrong with capping the amount on spending? Particularly if candidates' campaigns are financed with tax money?