Bush or Kerry
- Thread starter jakb
- Start date
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 515
Bush. Kerry is a joke.
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Hmm...I said Bush. Kerry is a joke. But I don't exactly like Bush all that much either. Although he did wave at me as he drove by on Tuesday after his rally in Pensacola. That was exciting. The President.
Still, I wish there was another candidate. Someone that's a good compromise between the two.
Still, I wish there was another candidate. Someone that's a good compromise between the two.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,111
Pensacola is beautiful. One of my favorite beach lines. I voted Bush the 1st time around but "fool me once shame on you" wont make that mistake again.
I live in his state, so my vote really wont make a huge diff.
I actually have talked to Bush Sr several times, he works out in the gym I work at.
I live in his state, so my vote really wont make a huge diff.
I actually have talked to Bush Sr several times, he works out in the gym I work at.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,728
Kerry, Bush isn't worth sitting on the trone. He belongs on cattlefarms! ;P
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 637
Kerry will make a fairly decent president, not as good as Clinton was, but at least he wont be a fuckin retard who talks to Jesus in the white house.
Bush is a total joke and wasnt even elected in the first place.
Bush is a total joke and wasnt even elected in the first place.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,842
Aren't they both masons and were part of the skulls or sumthing anyway?
So in the end it wouldn't matter which one was elected because they would still have the same people telling em what to do.
So in the end it wouldn't matter which one was elected because they would still have the same people telling em what to do.
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 515
Clinton was biggest joke of all time and will always be remembered in the history books as one. He is one of like 2 presidents to be impeached.
Also...
Quite pathetic last attempt. Democrats are just liars and weak people in general.
BTW, I admire that Bush is open about his religion positive or negative, he doesn't play and get cameras to watch him coming out of churches like some... especially some who vote in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches... democrats.
Anyways.. *rant off*
Also...
It is a common fact he won. It was democrats trying to recount and change the vote.
Quite pathetic last attempt. Democrats are just liars and weak people in general.
BTW, I admire that Bush is open about his religion positive or negative, he doesn't play and get cameras to watch him coming out of churches like some... especially some who vote in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches... democrats.
Anyways.. *rant off*
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Messages
- 652
Yeah.9cyclops9 said:
I am a big fan of the Libertarian party. Their nominee for president is a man named Michael Badnarik, who is a constitutional scholar. There is something very inspiring about him, if you get a chance to hear him speak.
Realistically he won't win, unless he can get into the debates, but at the same time by supporting him and the Libertarian party on the ballot you can make them more credible for the future. The party's vision is to return the federal government to the limitations set out for it in the constitution.
The Libertarians are by far the largest third party having more people in office then all other third parties combined. What they stand for is personal freedom and property rights, as the constitution spells out.
The same very wealthy people, and corporations fund both the Democrats and Republicans. And in exchange for those donations and bribes the duopoly passes laws which benefit them. I am not a believer in the lesser of two evil argument, I see both Kerry and Bush as establisHydromaxent players.
Check out www.badnarik.org/Issues/ and see if you agree with some of what he is saying.
Realistically he won't win, unless he can get into the debates, but at the same time by supporting him and the Libertarian party on the ballot you can make them more credible for the future. The party's vision is to return the federal government to the limitations set out for it in the constitution.
The Libertarians are by far the largest third party having more people in office then all other third parties combined. What they stand for is personal freedom and property rights, as the constitution spells out.
The same very wealthy people, and corporations fund both the Democrats and Republicans. And in exchange for those donations and bribes the duopoly passes laws which benefit them. I am not a believer in the lesser of two evil argument, I see both Kerry and Bush as establisHydromaxent players.
Check out www.badnarik.org/Issues/ and see if you agree with some of what he is saying.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
Some Stuff about George W. Bush I don't like . . .
1. He brags about not reading or keeping himself up to date with world events.
2. He also brags about "shooting from the gut" when making decisions, rather than really thoroughly evaluating all angles and being cautious. (he's the leader of the free world for god's sake!)
3. He's not a good speaker of intelligent debater. This represents our country poorly. The president ought to be an articulate and smart person, not a talking head that people vote for because they think they can relate to him. Bush is blue-blooded son of privelage from one of the most wealthy and powerful dynasties in our nation's history. Trust me, very few of you can relate to him, I don't care how many pictures you've seen of him in front of his truck out in Crawford.
4. He likely would have achieved nothing in his life without his family name and wealth. (this is speculation, but think about it for a moment. Yale, Harvard, oil companies and and investments, most of which he bankrupted by the way, just handed to him? He may be afable to a a degree, but he would be a mediocre man without his familial advantage).
5. Bush's economics have failed. He took a record surplus and blew into an enormous defecit, and this was not the the result of 9/11, Afghanistan, or Iraq. He spends recklessly, at the expense of future generations (and those of you that might have been looking forward to colelcting any social security). Those of you that identify as conservative and republican ought to investigate the fact that most fiscally conservative economists and theorists are aghast at Bush's wildy irresponsible spending and budgeting.
6. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" who would change the tone in Washington and try to work across party lines to achieve better government. He has not done this. If anything his term has fueled antagonism between the parties and he has not made a single overture to stop it.
7. Bush talked up his no child left behind plan extensively. Then he blocked measures to fully fund it, which in fact left several million children, ahem, behind. If you have children I encourage you to do some independent research into Bush's record so far as education goes, I promise you will not like what you find.
8. When a senior member of Bush's administration leaked the fact that former ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative (Wilson had written an article for the NY times a week before that was critical of the president in regard to the Iraq war) to journalist Robert Novak, Bush did not take immediate action or particularly make a big deal out of it. This is technically an act of treason against our government by a member of his staff, but he opposed an investigation into the matter. The leak has still not been identified. Isn't it our presidents responsibilty to find out which member of his staff is responsible for this act, committed during a time of war? Those of you Clinton bashers, just imagine if old Bill had been in office for this. I do believe you would have been howling that he be executed, at long last exposed as the sleazy, anti-US communist monster that he is. Just imagine it, be honest. The GOP would have called for imprisonment, maybe execution.
9. Bush has undone years of progressive and hard won environmental legislation. I don't care if you're not an environmentalist, I'm certainly not, if you investigate the consequences of his policy you will see that he has severely damaged our natural resources, water supply, and endangered or degraded the lives of many Americans in his race to prostrate himself before big industry and their support. Once again, he has placed the GOP and his own personal gain as a priority above the longevity of the health of our vital resources and environment. Future generations pay the price for his short gains.
10. He mixes religion into the presidency to an uncomfortable degree. The architect of our constiution and bill of rights, James Madison, was extremely clear in stating that church and state must be seperate entities. Nearly our entire perception of American Freedom and Liberty is drawn from this man's work, as well as Jefferson, who agreed whole heartedly. Bush invokes the name of God in regard to his own policy at every opportunity. He proposes to use federal money to fund religious organizations. He let's religious views inform his policy on funding for scientific research programs and education. He is the acknowledged de facto leader of the American religious right. It also a credible and publicly available fact that he has consulted with representatives from a far right wing Christian group at the white house on numerous occasions. These fundamentalists believe in a forthcoming end of days, and hence are very supportive of Israel, as they believe all Jews must be gathered in the holy land so that they can stand before the fiery judgment of god.
This doesn't even get into foreign policy, his record as governor, the Florida election, ect., but cripes! I don't understand why conservatives support Bush, the only things he's really conservative on are societal and moral issues like abortion and stem cell research, and that once more is directly placating the religious crowd. Here's a fact - the CIA released a report that estimated there had been an increase in the number of operating anti-US terrorists during Bush's term in office. The Bush administration, the day before, had declared otherwise. They had to sheepishly retract this, although they did fight hard to try and get the CIA to squash their report, but it was too late. He's not getting the job done. And unless you're a wealthy corporate donor or you can deliver a significant number of swing voters for him in a battleground state in November, he abosultely positively does not give two shits about you. He is not a compassionate man, a smart man, or a talented man. He's a talking head that spouts opinions that please a certain percentage of the voting block that consider themselves "conservatives." Don't be fooled, a true conservative wouldn't have anything to do Bush.
1. He brags about not reading or keeping himself up to date with world events.
2. He also brags about "shooting from the gut" when making decisions, rather than really thoroughly evaluating all angles and being cautious. (he's the leader of the free world for god's sake!)
3. He's not a good speaker of intelligent debater. This represents our country poorly. The president ought to be an articulate and smart person, not a talking head that people vote for because they think they can relate to him. Bush is blue-blooded son of privelage from one of the most wealthy and powerful dynasties in our nation's history. Trust me, very few of you can relate to him, I don't care how many pictures you've seen of him in front of his truck out in Crawford.
4. He likely would have achieved nothing in his life without his family name and wealth. (this is speculation, but think about it for a moment. Yale, Harvard, oil companies and and investments, most of which he bankrupted by the way, just handed to him? He may be afable to a a degree, but he would be a mediocre man without his familial advantage).
5. Bush's economics have failed. He took a record surplus and blew into an enormous defecit, and this was not the the result of 9/11, Afghanistan, or Iraq. He spends recklessly, at the expense of future generations (and those of you that might have been looking forward to colelcting any social security). Those of you that identify as conservative and republican ought to investigate the fact that most fiscally conservative economists and theorists are aghast at Bush's wildy irresponsible spending and budgeting.
6. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" who would change the tone in Washington and try to work across party lines to achieve better government. He has not done this. If anything his term has fueled antagonism between the parties and he has not made a single overture to stop it.
7. Bush talked up his no child left behind plan extensively. Then he blocked measures to fully fund it, which in fact left several million children, ahem, behind. If you have children I encourage you to do some independent research into Bush's record so far as education goes, I promise you will not like what you find.
8. When a senior member of Bush's administration leaked the fact that former ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative (Wilson had written an article for the NY times a week before that was critical of the president in regard to the Iraq war) to journalist Robert Novak, Bush did not take immediate action or particularly make a big deal out of it. This is technically an act of treason against our government by a member of his staff, but he opposed an investigation into the matter. The leak has still not been identified. Isn't it our presidents responsibilty to find out which member of his staff is responsible for this act, committed during a time of war? Those of you Clinton bashers, just imagine if old Bill had been in office for this. I do believe you would have been howling that he be executed, at long last exposed as the sleazy, anti-US communist monster that he is. Just imagine it, be honest. The GOP would have called for imprisonment, maybe execution.
9. Bush has undone years of progressive and hard won environmental legislation. I don't care if you're not an environmentalist, I'm certainly not, if you investigate the consequences of his policy you will see that he has severely damaged our natural resources, water supply, and endangered or degraded the lives of many Americans in his race to prostrate himself before big industry and their support. Once again, he has placed the GOP and his own personal gain as a priority above the longevity of the health of our vital resources and environment. Future generations pay the price for his short gains.
10. He mixes religion into the presidency to an uncomfortable degree. The architect of our constiution and bill of rights, James Madison, was extremely clear in stating that church and state must be seperate entities. Nearly our entire perception of American Freedom and Liberty is drawn from this man's work, as well as Jefferson, who agreed whole heartedly. Bush invokes the name of God in regard to his own policy at every opportunity. He proposes to use federal money to fund religious organizations. He let's religious views inform his policy on funding for scientific research programs and education. He is the acknowledged de facto leader of the American religious right. It also a credible and publicly available fact that he has consulted with representatives from a far right wing Christian group at the white house on numerous occasions. These fundamentalists believe in a forthcoming end of days, and hence are very supportive of Israel, as they believe all Jews must be gathered in the holy land so that they can stand before the fiery judgment of god.
This doesn't even get into foreign policy, his record as governor, the Florida election, ect., but cripes! I don't understand why conservatives support Bush, the only things he's really conservative on are societal and moral issues like abortion and stem cell research, and that once more is directly placating the religious crowd. Here's a fact - the CIA released a report that estimated there had been an increase in the number of operating anti-US terrorists during Bush's term in office. The Bush administration, the day before, had declared otherwise. They had to sheepishly retract this, although they did fight hard to try and get the CIA to squash their report, but it was too late. He's not getting the job done. And unless you're a wealthy corporate donor or you can deliver a significant number of swing voters for him in a battleground state in November, he abosultely positively does not give two shits about you. He is not a compassionate man, a smart man, or a talented man. He's a talking head that spouts opinions that please a certain percentage of the voting block that consider themselves "conservatives." Don't be fooled, a true conservative wouldn't have anything to do Bush.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
A Few Things About Kerry . . .
1. He's a decorated war hero, and he volunteered to go. Any white, affluent, college student that volunteered to go to Vietnam is, as I heard described on television the other night, a bad motherfucker. Bush had his dad get him into the Air National Guard in Texas, then went AWOL. Who's better on defense?
2. Kerry can speak english, and I'm pretty sure he has some idea about what is going on in teh world, having been head of the senate foreign relations committee and all.
3. Kerry worked across party lines with John McCain to investigate POW's still missing in Vietnam and normalize our relations with the country, helping gain closure for the war on both sides. He also spearheaded the investigation into the sandanista revolution and the corrupt dealings with Noriega. Most of this was going on while Bush was charging his baseball team's new stadium (built conditionally to attract investors and enriching Bush's holdings) at the expense of texas taxpayers.
4. Kerry has held down and succeeded at a job that was neither arranged by his father or given to him because his father was famous and powerful.
5. Kerry is a fiscal conservative, his senate voting record reflects this. He watches the books like a hawk. He also opposes overly large government and is a proponent of tax relief for the middle class. This means he would raise taxes for extremely wealthy people, whom Bush has awarded enormous tax breaks at the expense of everybody else. (The tax breaks enjoyed by the top 1% of incomes under Bush would have nearly been enough to fund our operations in Iraq to date).
6. Kerry understands how complicated things like foreign policy, economics, and even the government itself actually work, because he didn't almost fail out of school at every turn like Bush. He's also been a senator for many years, a state prosecutor, ect. In otherwards he's actually succeeded at a few things. These are good qualities for a president to have. Bush by all accounts, does not have them.
It's one or the other. I hate that "two sides of the same coin argument." That's political apathy and naivety. There's a world of difference between the candidates, and it can very much affect your life. Think Supreme Court appointments. Think foreign policy. Think energy policy. I don't think Kerry is half bad, but I'd vote for a taxidermied marmot over Bush. That at least, couldn't do any more harm. By the way Bush advocates executing severely retarded people guilty of murder, including one man fried under his watch that had an IQ proportional to a small child. What a super guy.
1. He's a decorated war hero, and he volunteered to go. Any white, affluent, college student that volunteered to go to Vietnam is, as I heard described on television the other night, a bad motherfucker. Bush had his dad get him into the Air National Guard in Texas, then went AWOL. Who's better on defense?
2. Kerry can speak english, and I'm pretty sure he has some idea about what is going on in teh world, having been head of the senate foreign relations committee and all.
3. Kerry worked across party lines with John McCain to investigate POW's still missing in Vietnam and normalize our relations with the country, helping gain closure for the war on both sides. He also spearheaded the investigation into the sandanista revolution and the corrupt dealings with Noriega. Most of this was going on while Bush was charging his baseball team's new stadium (built conditionally to attract investors and enriching Bush's holdings) at the expense of texas taxpayers.
4. Kerry has held down and succeeded at a job that was neither arranged by his father or given to him because his father was famous and powerful.
5. Kerry is a fiscal conservative, his senate voting record reflects this. He watches the books like a hawk. He also opposes overly large government and is a proponent of tax relief for the middle class. This means he would raise taxes for extremely wealthy people, whom Bush has awarded enormous tax breaks at the expense of everybody else. (The tax breaks enjoyed by the top 1% of incomes under Bush would have nearly been enough to fund our operations in Iraq to date).
6. Kerry understands how complicated things like foreign policy, economics, and even the government itself actually work, because he didn't almost fail out of school at every turn like Bush. He's also been a senator for many years, a state prosecutor, ect. In otherwards he's actually succeeded at a few things. These are good qualities for a president to have. Bush by all accounts, does not have them.
It's one or the other. I hate that "two sides of the same coin argument." That's political apathy and naivety. There's a world of difference between the candidates, and it can very much affect your life. Think Supreme Court appointments. Think foreign policy. Think energy policy. I don't think Kerry is half bad, but I'd vote for a taxidermied marmot over Bush. That at least, couldn't do any more harm. By the way Bush advocates executing severely retarded people guilty of murder, including one man fried under his watch that had an IQ proportional to a small child. What a super guy.
Last edited:
Swank said:
For me the big issues are the economy, the fiat currency, the war mongering and the violation of the constitution in the war on drugs and the patriot act.
I am a third year economics student and throughout history nations with small and efficient governments propser and advance. Nations with gigantic governments advance in technology slower, and the standard of living increases at a slower rate. Bush has raised non defense spending 3 times faster then Clinton, despite promising to reduce it. Kerry says outright he will increase spending. So right away my biggest issue I have no choice between the two.
History also shows a currency backed up by gold, a country prospers like Argentina during the 1800's which became the 8th largest economy in the world by 1900. Both candidates want to continue the unconstitutional and failed idea of a fiat currency. Which is waht ultimatley sunk the Roman Empire when they started reducing the amount of gold in their coins, yet keeping the value the same.
On the war in Iraq, Kerry just this week says he still would have voted for the war. He promises to send more troops into Iraq. Which I believe is not winnable, and will only get worse the longer we are there.
Both candidates want to continue the war on drugs, which has been an unmitigated disaster. In 1900 a 12 year old could buy opium at the local pharmacy, there was hashish bars, marijuana was legal, yet where was the mass criminal drug gangs, the junkies everywhere, a million prisoners, 2 million parolees, and a murder rate that increased by 2.5 times after the drugs laws were enacted?
Both candidates want to continue the patriot act which is ripping the constitution which I love apart...
Every major issue for me the two parties are identical and on suicide paths. Voting for either would be throwing my vote away. I believe Kerry is going to take this election in a landslide, and I am hoping that after 4 years of the identical policies and direction many on the left can start waking up and realizing what many on the right realized when the Republicans finally got all levers of power. Both parties are controlled by the big money and will gladly take away your rights and your money without a second thought.
Last edited:
C
Casey
Guest
randolf said:
Neither Kerry or any other senator voted "to go to war". They voted on a bill that gave the constitutional powers to the president to go to war pending Bush had exhausted every other possibility. Since we now know Saddam was no immediate threat, and Bush pulled out weapons inspectors outta Iraq to prepare for bombing.
What Kerry says is knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted for the powers of war to be given to one man, the President. To me that is crazy. If he would have known what Bush was going to do, and there was no threat or WMD's or connection to 9/11, he still would have given the authority to Bush.
Kerry is playin right into Bush's hands. Kerry has let Bush marketing machine define Kerry in almost every aspect. Now the Republicans biggest single contributor is part of a organization that is smearing Kerry's war record. The same people who took a shit on John McCain in the 2000 Pres. Race, and to Max Cleland in Georgia's senate race.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
Randolf, I understand your points, but often I feel that economic history is a clear indicator of current or future events. An economics student knows that aside from a few baseline matters, economies, and the study of them, are mutable to a maddening degree.
suggesting we switch back to a gold standard is a fairly radical viewpoint; as is comparing the economics of the US to that of the Roman Empire. There's never really been an economic entity like the modern US before, so historical examples hold limited wisdom. Your ideas on the matter are interesting but very much carry the tone of a student being exposed to all kinds of new ideas and insights, but remember that functionality and practicality are the core components of economic reality.
That being said, not all increases in spending are necessarily counter productive for the functionality and viability of our government. Simply slashing spenind won't necessarily enrich or stimulate the economy, as you probably know. The question is what level of spending is most constructive - I believe Kerry's greater focus on enricing health services, education, and public programs. I believe that increasing the training level, education, and eventual spending power of the public is a better economic stimulus than Bush's "trickle down" model, which seeks to bolster growth and job creation by spending at the corporate level. I do not believe that has ever been effective since it was really was developed under Reagan.
A presidential candidate can't head up either party without taking a standard position on the drug war; Kerry is intelligent, he understands it's not working. Most of the voting block, however, doesn't really understand the issue, and just coming out against it would allow Bush to destroy him politcally (add would read "John Kerry: He Supports Drugs!"). It's not a campaign issue this year, or regrettably just about any other year. You had better believe Kerry will support the appoinment of more sensible and reasonable federal judges and an attorney general, drug czar, ect.
So far as the patriot act, I Kerry has no intention of leaving it as it is, and has said as much. Even Bush would have to rework it when the bill stands up for revue; it's just too unpopular and publicized. The patriot act has many functional and non-invasive portions that do expediate our ability to identify and prosecute terrorists. You can also count on the fact that a person like Kerry won't fill his Justice Department with right wing radicals eager to use it for anything other than what it was intended for, which is a far more questionable thing under Bush.
It is wise for Kerry to not yank us out of Iraq, as well as the responsible thing to do. We created the situation there; it is our duty to secure the region and and restore order. If we were to pull out and Iraq's government were to fall to radicals or suffer any setbacks really, our already thin international credibilty would be shot and anti-American sentiment would skyrocket further. The fact is, we're already there. We might as well stick it out and try to see that things go our way. Bush took us in with no clear exit strategy, and now we are suffering the consequences Just retracting our presence from teh region, however, would be a diplomatic disaster.
I do not agree with your statement that they agree on every major issue, this statement is grounded in what your opinions about what these major issues are and what the proper way to deal with them is. As a voter though, you have every right to prioritize what you feel is important and to use this as your decisive factor. I urge you to consider the issues beyond the limited perspective of a few econ history courses. An interesting professor or book can sell you on teh total validity of a few ideas, but don't let that limit your contemplation of politics, history, and society.
suggesting we switch back to a gold standard is a fairly radical viewpoint; as is comparing the economics of the US to that of the Roman Empire. There's never really been an economic entity like the modern US before, so historical examples hold limited wisdom. Your ideas on the matter are interesting but very much carry the tone of a student being exposed to all kinds of new ideas and insights, but remember that functionality and practicality are the core components of economic reality.
That being said, not all increases in spending are necessarily counter productive for the functionality and viability of our government. Simply slashing spenind won't necessarily enrich or stimulate the economy, as you probably know. The question is what level of spending is most constructive - I believe Kerry's greater focus on enricing health services, education, and public programs. I believe that increasing the training level, education, and eventual spending power of the public is a better economic stimulus than Bush's "trickle down" model, which seeks to bolster growth and job creation by spending at the corporate level. I do not believe that has ever been effective since it was really was developed under Reagan.
A presidential candidate can't head up either party without taking a standard position on the drug war; Kerry is intelligent, he understands it's not working. Most of the voting block, however, doesn't really understand the issue, and just coming out against it would allow Bush to destroy him politcally (add would read "John Kerry: He Supports Drugs!"). It's not a campaign issue this year, or regrettably just about any other year. You had better believe Kerry will support the appoinment of more sensible and reasonable federal judges and an attorney general, drug czar, ect.
So far as the patriot act, I Kerry has no intention of leaving it as it is, and has said as much. Even Bush would have to rework it when the bill stands up for revue; it's just too unpopular and publicized. The patriot act has many functional and non-invasive portions that do expediate our ability to identify and prosecute terrorists. You can also count on the fact that a person like Kerry won't fill his Justice Department with right wing radicals eager to use it for anything other than what it was intended for, which is a far more questionable thing under Bush.
It is wise for Kerry to not yank us out of Iraq, as well as the responsible thing to do. We created the situation there; it is our duty to secure the region and and restore order. If we were to pull out and Iraq's government were to fall to radicals or suffer any setbacks really, our already thin international credibilty would be shot and anti-American sentiment would skyrocket further. The fact is, we're already there. We might as well stick it out and try to see that things go our way. Bush took us in with no clear exit strategy, and now we are suffering the consequences Just retracting our presence from teh region, however, would be a diplomatic disaster.
I do not agree with your statement that they agree on every major issue, this statement is grounded in what your opinions about what these major issues are and what the proper way to deal with them is. As a voter though, you have every right to prioritize what you feel is important and to use this as your decisive factor. I urge you to consider the issues beyond the limited perspective of a few econ history courses. An interesting professor or book can sell you on teh total validity of a few ideas, but don't let that limit your contemplation of politics, history, and society.
Thanks for your detailed and rational response Swank. I believe I should not have said I was an econ student... I agree most of what they teach there is pretty much bs. Like we will spend two weeks graphing and 'proving' a point that to me is just a statement of the blatantly obvious. And there are different schools of economics that contradict each other on thing slike monetary policy. Infact most of my professor's I just blatantly disagree with on the monetary policy.
I realize it sounded like I was saying I have taken a few courses therefore I know best... which is why I should have left it to the facts, instead of argument from authority fallacy..
I have been on message boards for about 7 years debating and being a political junkie, which luckily also let me find this site
. In that time I have had to look up hundreds of graphs and statistics, and read thousands of other people's statistics they have added. Without fail nations with a limited government prosper more so then ones with a large government. In the last 50 years the nations to advance from third world to first all had limited government or massive amounts of oil. And I have read history of many many nations over the last 2000 years, and a fiat currency spelled the economic disaster for every single one. We fully detatched from precious metals in 1974.
Its all a matter of perspective as well if you generally speaking agree with the areas the government is in now, you aren't looking for major change more a change of leadership. Which would definately help at least for making alliances. You couldn't support major tax cuts because that would require getting rid of large chunks of education, social security and the military, well even after you cut down the bureaucracy.
For the war on drugs I know a major party candidate can't come out against it, but that is the exact problem. If we never choose alternatives the status quo will stay forever, and actually imo get worse as both main parties seem to have a lust for power. For example it was the Democrats who were in power when the war on drugs came into being. At the fundamental level both parties believe they know better how you should live your life, then you do. Which of course gives them huge power which imo is what they both are after.
I don't believe Iraq is solveable, unless we are willing to commit 500,000+ troops, maybe even as many as a million and leave them there for 5 years. In post war Germany in our area we had 1 soldiers for every 17 German citizens. In Iraq we have one soldier for every 200 citizens. I think it is arrogance that we believe only we can solve their problems, yet Iraqis can't figure out what to do on their own.
For the patriot act how could I trust the people who voted for it in the first place, to be the ones to remove it. They might, they might not I personally would bet that they won't. As there will be some new disaster that comes along and they will justify why it needs to stay.
I realize it sounded like I was saying I have taken a few courses therefore I know best... which is why I should have left it to the facts, instead of argument from authority fallacy..
I have been on message boards for about 7 years debating and being a political junkie, which luckily also let me find this site
. In that time I have had to look up hundreds of graphs and statistics, and read thousands of other people's statistics they have added. Without fail nations with a limited government prosper more so then ones with a large government. In the last 50 years the nations to advance from third world to first all had limited government or massive amounts of oil. And I have read history of many many nations over the last 2000 years, and a fiat currency spelled the economic disaster for every single one. We fully detatched from precious metals in 1974. Its all a matter of perspective as well if you generally speaking agree with the areas the government is in now, you aren't looking for major change more a change of leadership. Which would definately help at least for making alliances. You couldn't support major tax cuts because that would require getting rid of large chunks of education, social security and the military, well even after you cut down the bureaucracy
. For the war on drugs I know a major party candidate can't come out against it, but that is the exact problem. If we never choose alternatives the status quo will stay forever, and actually imo get worse as both main parties seem to have a lust for power. For example it was the Democrats who were in power when the war on drugs came into being. At the fundamental level both parties believe they know better how you should live your life, then you do. Which of course gives them huge power which imo is what they both are after.
I don't believe Iraq is solveable, unless we are willing to commit 500,000+ troops, maybe even as many as a million and leave them there for 5 years. In post war Germany in our area we had 1 soldiers for every 17 German citizens. In Iraq we have one soldier for every 200 citizens. I think it is arrogance that we believe only we can solve their problems, yet Iraqis can't figure out what to do on their own.
For the patriot act how could I trust the people who voted for it in the first place, to be the ones to remove it. They might, they might not I personally would bet that they won't. As there will be some new disaster that comes along and they will justify why it needs to stay.
Casey said:
Well it was blatantly obvious that Bush was going to go into Iraq. I knew the decision had been made in December 2001, at the highest levels. The other thing is under the constitution congress doesn't have the power to allow the President to declare war. Only congress has the power to declare war. By 'giving' the power to the president to decide when, they violated the constitution and were dodging responsibility.
And exactly what you are saying.. knowing what Bush was going to do he still would have supported it, is crazy. Basically I believe the DNC knows it has won the anti-war voters and the leftists. Therefore it is going as far right on issues as it possibly can, and as pro-war as it can possibly get away with.
Nader's campaign is finished he is not even going to be on the ballot except in possibly only 3 states. The greens decided to only run in 14 non-swing states so as to not cost Kerry the election. The Dems are taking the anti-war votes for granted and reaching out to hell even pro-war people.
As soon as you stand up to the powers that be you get smear jobbed. Howard Dean had raised 50 million dollars of which over 90% was donations of 100 dollars or less. Kerry had raised about the same, all from super rich people and mega corporations. Dean looked certain to win. And had a much stronger anti-war stance hence an actual choice at the ballot.
Then two weeks before the primary Dean groaned once. The attack dogs distorted the sound, and played it on the media for two straight weeks to discredit him. Then the establisHydromaxent in the DNC finished him in the primaries. Yet whne polled something like 80% of dems agreed with Dean the most and only 20% with Kerry. The argument for working from the inside is gone now imo.
I used to support the Republicans and thought Bush actually was for a limited government. I couldnt' have been more wrong, he was actually way way worse. (from my liberty minded perspective)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Solved