2004 Presidential Election.

[rextorres]

Umm I wrote that I am not voting for Bush because his tax cuts are bankrupting the country (implying that his deficits are causing the bankruptcy). This was a general statement not directed at you.

In the very next post you wrote . . .I quote:

"Rex I am sorry that you are so misinformed. If I had to explain everything to you I would be here all day. Vote for Kerry, it is the tv fed, liberal lie, best way to go for people who refuse to open their eyes."

I am assuming you meant that the deficit is a liberal lie . . . but like I said it's not clear what you meant.

So once again I ask in response to your post.

Are you saying that the deficit is a liberal lie or that there is no deficit?

It's requires a very simple answer to a very simple question.

[Atrocities]

EDIT

Rex, you can assume whatever you want from what I post. If you enjoy taking comments and calling them rants, a nice role reversal I might add, then that is your right. I choose not to debate symantics with you especially manufactured ones that you have fabricated out of thin air and claim I made in my Posts.

As for the environment, has Bush drilled for oil in the artic? No. Is Bush responsible for the horrible forest fires of recent years? No. The catastrophie of those fires were the direct result of Clinton/Gore environmental policies. Policies I am happy to say are in the process of being changed.

As for clean air, under Bush 2 stroke motors are being phased out of production. That is something that Clinton promised to do but never did.

As for the deficate, I never mentioned this and will have to research it. But from first glance, we are at war and during war decificates do tent to rise. Yes I am alarmed about this, but I do not see Kerry as the answer to it. In fact I view Kerry as a threat to balancing it.

So Rex if you want to pull things out of the air and toss them onto the debate table that is your call. But please don't blame my Posts as the source of for your rants. Thanks.

(And I am sorry for flaming you earlier. That was out of line.)

[Gandalf Parker]

rextorres said:
Are you saying that clean air, clean water, public schools, social security, police and fire protection, etc. is too much to ask?

Its all pros and cons. The repubs seem to live for the present. Keeping the most of what they make, gaining the most ground, even if it detracts from others later. Investing in the future means "my problems, my future, my families future, my states future, my countries future".

Demo's seem to be willing to accept less today in order to invest in a further tomorrow. Investing in the future tends to be "our problems, our future, our families future, our states, our countries".

Both sides tend to paint horrible pictures of what will happen if the other side is carried to the extreme. I think they are both right when they do that. So I tend to vote in a way that doesnt let either one go too far for too long.

Under the republicans we would become the Ferrengi.
Under the democrats we would become the Federation.
Under the U.S. marijuana party we would become Rhysa.
Under the american heritage party we would become the Dominion.
For more parties visit http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

[Renegade 13]

Speaking as someone who does not live in the US, and can perhaps provide a somewhat impartial opinion:

A few points: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11/01 had exactly the effect they wanted them to have. Think about it; most people were saying they'd failed due to the relatively low death toll, compared to what it could be. However, look at the amount of money the US has recently spent on the "war against terrorism". Hundreds of billions!! I think your deficit for this year is something like half a TRILLION!!

The terrorists simply wanted to destroy the US economy, and with the massive anti-terrorist spending that has occured, they have succeeded in a huge way.

From the view of an outsider, it looks like the US is on its Last legs. If you don't pull your economy together sometime soon, that's going to be it, some other country, such as China, will be the lone world superpower. That's something I'm sure none of us want. I sure don't, as I'm from Canada, and to a certain extent we rely on the US to provide an amount of protection to us.

Basically, the terrorists succeeded.

Another point. Both of the candidates would, in my opinion, be horrible to have in office. Its simply a question of which would be the least of the two evils. Personally, if I was voting, I'd vote for Bush. Kerry is willing to make the US into a country with few personal freedoms, and if that would happen it would be a huge blow to world democracy. However, Bush was the one to put in the Patriot act in the first place! So who knows which of them would be worse for the freedom of Americans. Why would I vote for Bush? He's in favor of the owning of firearms, which I think is a right anyone should have, anywhere in the world (unless you're a convicted criminal, or some other good reason). That is about the only thing I can say that is in favor of either of the candidates.

Lets face facts; they're all politicians!! They will lie, cheat, distort the facts, whatever it takes to satisfy their own personal demons, or to try to accumulate power.

I for one, am quite glad I'm living in Canada, instead of the US. We have more freedom than you do now, we are politically stable, among other things.

I just hope the actions of the US leaders don't push the world into World War Three. Although I bet that within 15 years it will be happening, or have just happened. Rather than being a far off dread, it will be an immediate reality.

Of course, remember that all of this is my personal opinion. If any of the "facts" I have stated are in error, please correct me. Also, if you would like to contradict anything I said, or state a counter-opinion, I would greatly appreciate it if you do so. I will not be offended, or insult your opinions, as some others would do.

[Gandalf Parker]

Renegade 13 said:
A few points: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11/01 had exactly the effect they wanted them to have. Think about it; most people were saying they'd failed due to the relatively low death toll, compared to what it could be. However, look at the amount of money the US has recently spent on the "war against terrorism". Hundreds of billions!! I think your deficit for this year is something like half a TRILLION!!

If I remember correctly thats not much compared to what it was when the republicans were Last in office.

And when someone says that 9-11 had a horrible impact on our economy Im not sure if the cost of the reaction is quite the same as the impact on our economy. Is the impact what the terrorists did? Or what Bush did?

[Fyron]

The Last time Republicans were in office, they increased the national debt as a means to end the Cold War once and for all, without a single shot being fired. Reagan's huge increase in military spending caused the Soviets to increase their spending to keep up. The economy of the US was strong enough to shrug it off. That of the USSR was weak, and collapsed. Russia still hasn't really recovered from ~65 years of rape by an oppressive military dictatorship, but at least the Russian people have more freedoms than they did previously...

Another point. Both of the candidates would, in my opinion, be horrible to have in office. Its simply a question of which would be the least of the two evils.

Indeed. Unfortunately, there is no lesser of two evils in this case...

[Atrocities]

We really need a better way.

[Will]

Well, I've been moving around the past few days, so I missed this thread. So I am going to belatedly jump in

In a perfect world, I would probably vote Libertarian, and have Badnerik actually win. I don't entirely agree with all of his proposals (and that is most likely impossible anyway), but I agree with most.

However, that is over-ruled by the fact that I do not want Bush in the White House. It is my opinion that he has sided with his hawkish advisors too often, and messed up relations with the rest of the world (I was going to say warmongering advisors, but that wouldn't be diplomatic ). There are a lot of people that don't think that is a big deal, usually because they have an isolationist view on international politics. But from what I've learned of history, all isolationist states end up having more harm than good come from ignoring the rest of the world. Like it or not, we live in a world with many different cultures, and agression is not the way to deal with it.

I also think that he has largely ignored most domestic issues, including the economy. In my view, cutting taxes and lowering pollution regulations is not an economic policy. The "trickle-down theory" for taxes has one huge, glaring flaw in my view, and that is the assumption that if those citizens with large incomes pay less of that income in taxes, they will spend more in the private sector. But it turns out that a lot of them don't spend, they save. Which ties up a lot of capital where it cannot be used to create products and jobs. From what I know of what Kerry wants to do, the tax cuts will shift from benefitting mostly the upper classes to benefitting the lower-middle to middle class. Here, the trickle-down theory is more applicable, since people in those income brackets are more likely to do things like fix the garage roof, or replace the broken basement door. I know this because that's what my parents did with their tax return checks this summer, when they otherwise would have just let those projects slide.

I remember one of the big issues for the 2000 election was education. It's not being made a big issue this election it seems, but I was really pissed about the so-called "Texas Miracle" being brought nation-wide. I managed to escape to college before it effected me, but after going through public school, I know that the whole "No Child Left Behind" is not the way to go about education. The big deal was, under Gov. Bush in Texas, a large majority of public school students "passed" with basic or better proficiency a standardized test, where not as many did this before. What wasn't spread around much was the little bit of information that this was accomplished by lowering the standards on the tests (eg. now answering 4 out of 10 right is ok, instead of 7 out of 10; these aren't real numbers, just made up to illustrate point). So now with "No Child Left Behind", we have flawed tests at every grade level, taking up money, time, and resources that could be used on real education, instead of encouraging schools to teach only the materials on these tests.

I am also made extremely uncomfortable by the large role that Bush's religious views play in his policies. I don't have a problem with a person having religious views, but I do have a problem with religion in public office. That is just one step too close to theocracy, and a theocracy will inevitably persecute those not of a particular religion who happen to be living under that government. Kerry, while still being religious, has shown some ability in distancing himself from his beliefs when it comes to public policy.

As for the military, Atrocities was complaining about how Clinton reduced the military during his term. I say he had good reason to! The military was the size that it was because of the Cold War, and like was already stated, we increased our military in order to cause the Soviets to increase theirs, our economy could handle it, theirs couldn't. But our economy couldn't handle it indefinitely, only longer than the Soviet economy could. So, when there was no reason to have a huge military, cuts were made. I'm not sure of exactly when the study for the re-alignment of troops was started, but that should also have been completed by around the end of Clinton's second term, instead of happening now at the end of Bush's term. Our military is plenty large, and would be still too large if not for our participation in two theatres of war. The fact that Bush is looking at ways to make even more troops available (while making sure that draft board positions remain filled) makes me worried that if he gets a second term, he'll start yet another war, in the name of the "War on Terror"... and then want to draft me. If that happens, well then I will gladly renounce citizenship, because this country obviously will not be the land of the free I thought I was born in.

Anyway, that's just how I see things.

[Colonel]

I cant vote as im not old enough to but I wish Kerry will win because bush is bound to be the dumbest idiot in the world and should be gotten out of office as soon as humanly possible. If he wins again we all might as well go kill ourselves because there wont be much of a world left after another four years of Govener Bushey's Reign of Terror over the world

[Will]

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Douglas Adams was a genius.