"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:52:54 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee

wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher)
opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good
choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry
may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and
none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I don't plan on voting for either of those bozos. Their proven records
tell me I
wouldn't want EITHER of them as president.

The fact remains that you will get either Bush or Kerry. Not voting
won't
get you "none of the above."

I do plan on voting. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of those
two.

I understand your position. I would rather have two different choices. I
don't like Nader, so make that three choices. The fact remains that the
next president will be Bush or Kerry. While Kerry isn't my first choice,
Bush is out of the question. If the election were predicted to be a
landslide for Kerry, I might be tempted to vote for a third party candidate
as a way of protesting. Since it is going to be very close, I see a vote
for a third-party candidate as cutting of my own nose to spite my face. It
means that the Luddites who hang on every word spewed by the likes of Shawn
Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will have the last word. I would rather have a
president than a messiah.