Who are you voting for?
- Thread starter Dan_Lahav
- Start date
Daniel_Runyon
Well-known member
Re: Who are you voting for?
[quote author=natob2 link=board=Offtopic;num=1094667637;start=0#2 date=09/08/04 at 11:30:47]It's just too bad all the Democratic party could come up with was Kerry and Edwards.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote author=natob2 link=board=Offtopic;num=1094667637;start=0#2 date=09/08/04 at 11:30:47]It's just too bad all the Democratic party could come up with was Kerry and Edwards.[/quote]
Agreed.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Who are you voting for?
I'm Canadian
I'm Canadian
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Who are you voting for?
I don't know how it is in the states, but in Canada, with our elections, you can refuse a ballot. So they check you off as having voted, but you effectively voted for nobody. In theory, if everybody did this, they would need to do a re-election. It's the best way to make a stand if you don't think any of the candidates deserves to win - and that way you're still voting.
I don't know how it is in the states, but in Canada, with our elections, you can refuse a ballot. So they check you off as having voted, but you effectively voted for nobody. In theory, if everybody did this, they would need to do a re-election. It's the best way to make a stand if you don't think any of the candidates deserves to win - and that way you're still voting.
Re: Who are you voting for?
I wish there were a "neither" you could vote for in the us, but since people are too lazy to go to the polls to VOTE, they would be WAY too lazy to go to the polls to not vote.
That said, Kerry all the way. I don't care if he's pandering on the issues (he is) because it's too important that we get some respect back and stop pissing off and attacking random countries. (Iraq was random, Afganhistan justified, imo.) Plus, look at the economy. It's not all Bush's fault, but enough of it is that it's time we had a change.
I wish there were a "neither" you could vote for in the us, but since people are too lazy to go to the polls to VOTE, they would be WAY too lazy to go to the polls to not vote.
That said, Kerry all the way. I don't care if he's pandering on the issues (he is) because it's too important that we get some respect back and stop pissing off and attacking random countries. (Iraq was random, Afganhistan justified, imo.) Plus, look at the economy. It's not all Bush's fault, but enough of it is that it's time we had a change.
)Re: Who are you voting for?
"That said, Kerry all the way. I don't care if he's pandering on the issues (he is) because it's too important that we get some respect back and stop pissing off and attacking random countries. (Iraq was random, Afganhistan justified, imo.) Plus, look at the economy. It's not all Bush's fault, but enough of it is that it's time we had a change."
Iraq was not random. That's just what the liberals want your to believe. Just look at all those Al-Queda operatives taking American and allied soldiers in Iraq hostage, demanding that we and other countries leave the country. I think its pretty obvious that Al-Queda has serious interests in an Allie-free Iraq!
And as far as the economy goes, accusing Bush and his administration of its sufferings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. In times of recession nothing fuels the economy like putting money in the hands of the people AND increasing government expentiture. This is just what Bush did. It's simple economics. Allen Greenspan would agree (and surely did), and I don't know many economist who would disagree with good old Allen.
"That said, Kerry all the way. I don't care if he's pandering on the issues (he is) because it's too important that we get some respect back and stop pissing off and attacking random countries. (Iraq was random, Afganhistan justified, imo.) Plus, look at the economy. It's not all Bush's fault, but enough of it is that it's time we had a change."
Iraq was not random. That's just what the liberals want your to believe. Just look at all those Al-Queda operatives taking American and allied soldiers in Iraq hostage, demanding that we and other countries leave the country. I think its pretty obvious that Al-Queda has serious interests in an Allie-free Iraq!
And as far as the economy goes, accusing Bush and his administration of its sufferings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. In times of recession nothing fuels the economy like putting money in the hands of the people AND increasing government expentiture. This is just what Bush did. It's simple economics. Allen Greenspan would agree (and surely did), and I don't know many economist who would disagree with good old Allen.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Who are you voting for?
I wish people would stop using terms like "liberal" when referring to the comical notion of a shadowy democratic or leftist conspiracy.
Liberalism is an ideological approach, not a political movement based upon specific issues, but people are twisting innocuous terms into slanderous labels for people they wish to single out. Thus we are taught to believe that “conservatives” and “liberals” are to blame for everything when few people in either group even qualify ideologically.
We should all aspire to use less divisive labels and consider issues rather then parties…you might find yourself to be surprisingly flippant in your party affiliations when contrasting on an issue-by-issue basis.
Also, not to start a political debate here, but it could easily be said that our presence in Iraq has presented the destabilizing conditions that allow insurgents like the legendary Al Queda to gain a significant foothold. Before our invasion, Iraq was very stable as far as the middle east goes, so you can’t really say that we’ve eliminated a terrorist opportunity through our actions. If anything, we’ve temporarily invited a terrorist opportunity by creating a destabilization in the region.
With that being said…am I the only one that thinks Al-Queda bears a striking resemblance to the COBRA forces from GI JOE? I remember thinking when I was young how completely unrealistic it was to have GI Joe fighting the shadowy forces of a world-wide terrorist organization…now it seems the cartoon wasn’t so far fetched.
Now if we can just catch Destro.
I wish people would stop using terms like "liberal" when referring to the comical notion of a shadowy democratic or leftist conspiracy.
Liberalism is an ideological approach, not a political movement based upon specific issues, but people are twisting innocuous terms into slanderous labels for people they wish to single out. Thus we are taught to believe that “conservatives” and “liberals” are to blame for everything when few people in either group even qualify ideologically.
We should all aspire to use less divisive labels and consider issues rather then parties…you might find yourself to be surprisingly flippant in your party affiliations when contrasting on an issue-by-issue basis.
Also, not to start a political debate here, but it could easily be said that our presence in Iraq has presented the destabilizing conditions that allow insurgents like the legendary Al Queda to gain a significant foothold. Before our invasion, Iraq was very stable as far as the middle east goes, so you can’t really say that we’ve eliminated a terrorist opportunity through our actions. If anything, we’ve temporarily invited a terrorist opportunity by creating a destabilization in the region.
With that being said…am I the only one that thinks Al-Queda bears a striking resemblance to the COBRA forces from GI JOE? I remember thinking when I was young how completely unrealistic it was to have GI Joe fighting the shadowy forces of a world-wide terrorist organization…now it seems the cartoon wasn’t so far fetched.
Now if we can just catch Destro.
Re: Who are you voting for?
It's interesting that ever since the Democratic party became a ridiculous joke, liberals have done their best to distance themselves from this political party and instead refer to themselves as an "approach" as opposed to a "political movement".
I agree with your statement that "Lberalism is...ideological..."
Liberals=idealist, Conservatives=realist
And if only Al-Queda knew how bad the COBRAS got their asses kicked but GI Joe...
It's interesting that ever since the Democratic party became a ridiculous joke, liberals have done their best to distance themselves from this political party and instead refer to themselves as an "approach" as opposed to a "political movement".
I agree with your statement that "Lberalism is...ideological..."
Liberals=idealist, Conservatives=realist
And if only Al-Queda knew how bad the COBRAS got their asses kicked but GI Joe...
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Who are you voting for?
There's no need to bait each other here. I do my best to distance myself from every political party.
What I was trying to say is that both "Liberal" and "Conservative" are words being abused in a slanderous way with regard to members or adherants of both political parties.
I just don't see the point in dismissing one group or another by relagating their opinions as universally "conservative" or "liberal". We don't leave enough room for people to have considered individual opinions when we apply some arbitrary standard of position to them.
Thus, everyone's head starts to hurt when a "Conservative" like Dhick (censored the correct spelling) Cheney states publicly that he doesn't believe there should be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Instead of considering the idea that he's a complex person with opinions about issues, we expect him to toe some party line and become agast when he shows a bit of individuality.
More importantly...how does COBRA even expect to win? Our hovercraft is WAY better then their little two-seater with the machine gun. Come on, COBRA...give it up!
There's no need to bait each other here. I do my best to distance myself from every political party.
What I was trying to say is that both "Liberal" and "Conservative" are words being abused in a slanderous way with regard to members or adherants of both political parties.
I just don't see the point in dismissing one group or another by relagating their opinions as universally "conservative" or "liberal". We don't leave enough room for people to have considered individual opinions when we apply some arbitrary standard of position to them.
Thus, everyone's head starts to hurt when a "Conservative" like Dhick (censored the correct spelling) Cheney states publicly that he doesn't believe there should be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Instead of considering the idea that he's a complex person with opinions about issues, we expect him to toe some party line and become agast when he shows a bit of individuality.
More importantly...how does COBRA even expect to win? Our hovercraft is WAY better then their little two-seater with the machine gun. Come on, COBRA...give it up!
Re: Who are you voting for?
[quote author=natob2 link=board=Offtopic;num=1094667637;start=0#10 date=09/09/04 at 07:41:09]Iraq was not random. That's just what the liberals want your to believe. Just look at all those Al-Queda operatives taking American and allied soldiers in Iraq hostage, demanding that we and other countries leave the country. I think its pretty obvious that Al-Queda has serious interests in an Allie-free Iraq!
And as far as the economy goes, accusing Bush and his administration of its sufferings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. In times of recession nothing fuels the economy like putting money in the hands of the people AND increasing government expentiture. This is just what Bush did. It's simple economics. Allen Greenspan would agree (and surely did), and I don't know many economist who would disagree with good old Allen.[/quote]
Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
No, Iraq was not RANDOM, but the motivation was pretty iffy and the war is not justified. George W just wanted to finish what has father had started and secure more oil in the middle east. There were plans to attack Iraq far before 9/11 and the "weapons of mass distruction" fiasco. And Al-Qaeda may have a few people in Iraq, but they have FAR more in other countries, like Pakistan. Iraq wasn't totally random, but it was pretty arbitrary nonetheless.
And while the groups in Iraq beheading innocent Americans may be dogmatic Muslims, they are not necessarily directly tied to Al Qaeda. If someone invaded your country, I'd bet you'd be pissed off, too. They are simply fighting back (in an incredibly disgusting and barbaric fashion, though.) Beyond this, we can't look at these few people and think all of Iraq is like them. There are dogmatic extremists everywhere.
If there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Hussein wanted to use them against us, I could understand the war. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Hussein--though he is a terrible man, clearly--had no plans to attack the US simply because he was unable to. A shock and awe campaign against a trivial military power is pretty barbaric, too.
I agree that spending in times of recession and saving in times of surplus is indeed basic Keynsian economics and a very good approach to managing the country's economy. However, we are giving the money back to the wrong people. The rich save money at a much greater rate than do the working class and the poor. The poor need money so they spend it readily. Giving money back to the people DOES boost the economy, but giving the majority of it back to the wealthy takes a lot of money virtually out of circulation, stagnating the economy further. Giving a larger percentage of money to the working class is not only a kinder gesture, but also a way to ensure a much faster and more permanent stimulation of the economy. Trickle down economics never worked before, and they still don't now. A lot of big CEOs are pushing very hard for Kerry because, while they will lose some of the laissez-faire business practices Bush is pushing for, they will see a more stimulated economy which will help both the people and business. It won't much help large oil companies, though, and it seems those are the only businesses Bush (and Cheney in particular) care about.
This has been discussed to death, but if you want to get in a rebuttal just PM me so as not to waste more space in this thread.
Otherwise, just relax and check out super-timor: http://www.hibou.qc.ca/supertimor/supertimor.mpg .
[quote author=natob2 link=board=Offtopic;num=1094667637;start=0#10 date=09/09/04 at 07:41:09]Iraq was not random. That's just what the liberals want your to believe. Just look at all those Al-Queda operatives taking American and allied soldiers in Iraq hostage, demanding that we and other countries leave the country. I think its pretty obvious that Al-Queda has serious interests in an Allie-free Iraq!
And as far as the economy goes, accusing Bush and his administration of its sufferings is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. In times of recession nothing fuels the economy like putting money in the hands of the people AND increasing government expentiture. This is just what Bush did. It's simple economics. Allen Greenspan would agree (and surely did), and I don't know many economist who would disagree with good old Allen.[/quote]
Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
No, Iraq was not RANDOM, but the motivation was pretty iffy and the war is not justified. George W just wanted to finish what has father had started and secure more oil in the middle east. There were plans to attack Iraq far before 9/11 and the "weapons of mass distruction" fiasco. And Al-Qaeda may have a few people in Iraq, but they have FAR more in other countries, like Pakistan. Iraq wasn't totally random, but it was pretty arbitrary nonetheless.
And while the groups in Iraq beheading innocent Americans may be dogmatic Muslims, they are not necessarily directly tied to Al Qaeda. If someone invaded your country, I'd bet you'd be pissed off, too. They are simply fighting back (in an incredibly disgusting and barbaric fashion, though.) Beyond this, we can't look at these few people and think all of Iraq is like them. There are dogmatic extremists everywhere.
If there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Hussein wanted to use them against us, I could understand the war. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Hussein--though he is a terrible man, clearly--had no plans to attack the US simply because he was unable to. A shock and awe campaign against a trivial military power is pretty barbaric, too.
I agree that spending in times of recession and saving in times of surplus is indeed basic Keynsian economics and a very good approach to managing the country's economy. However, we are giving the money back to the wrong people. The rich save money at a much greater rate than do the working class and the poor. The poor need money so they spend it readily. Giving money back to the people DOES boost the economy, but giving the majority of it back to the wealthy takes a lot of money virtually out of circulation, stagnating the economy further. Giving a larger percentage of money to the working class is not only a kinder gesture, but also a way to ensure a much faster and more permanent stimulation of the economy. Trickle down economics never worked before, and they still don't now. A lot of big CEOs are pushing very hard for Kerry because, while they will lose some of the laissez-faire business practices Bush is pushing for, they will see a more stimulated economy which will help both the people and business. It won't much help large oil companies, though, and it seems those are the only businesses Bush (and Cheney in particular) care about.
This has been discussed to death, but if you want to get in a rebuttal just PM me so as not to waste more space in this thread.
Otherwise, just relax and check out super-timor: http://www.hibou.qc.ca/supertimor/supertimor.mpg .
Re: Who are you voting for?
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=Offtopic;num=1094667637;start=0#13 date=09/09/04 at 10:06:32]Thus, everyone's head starts to hurt when a "Conservative" like Dhick (censored the correct spelling) Cheney states publicly that he doesn't believe there should be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Instead of considering the idea that he's a complex person with opinions about issues, we expect him to toe some party line and become agast when he shows a bit of individuality.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but if Cheney's daughter were not a lesbian I doubt very much he would feel the same way he does. Still, it's brave of him to break with party lines, just as it was brave of McCain to work so hard on campaign finance reform (which is being totally abused by both parties, but it was a noble effort at least.)
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=Offtopic;num=1094667637;start=0#13 date=09/09/04 at 10:06:32]Thus, everyone's head starts to hurt when a "Conservative" like Dhick (censored the correct spelling) Cheney states publicly that he doesn't believe there should be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Instead of considering the idea that he's a complex person with opinions about issues, we expect him to toe some party line and become agast when he shows a bit of individuality.[/quote]
I agree with you there, but if Cheney's daughter were not a lesbian I doubt very much he would feel the same way he does. Still, it's brave of him to break with party lines, just as it was brave of McCain to work so hard on campaign finance reform (which is being totally abused by both parties, but it was a noble effort at least.)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Who are you voting for?
Guys, do we REALLY need another political thread here?
I know everyone wants to speak freely, but our past history shows that when the subject turns to politics, it starts getting divisive, then sooner or later the insults start flying, and then someone calls someone else a derogatory political name, and then (the cardinal sin) the wrath spills out of this thread and into other parts of the forum.
Theoretically there should be nothing wrong with discussing something like this in the cafe, but history shows that it gets ugly and it starts to infect the whole board.
There are a bazillion political groups on the web that anyone can freely partake in. Let's keep DVXUSER as politics-free as we can, okay?
Guys, do we REALLY need another political thread here?
I know everyone wants to speak freely, but our past history shows that when the subject turns to politics, it starts getting divisive, then sooner or later the insults start flying, and then someone calls someone else a derogatory political name, and then (the cardinal sin) the wrath spills out of this thread and into other parts of the forum.
Theoretically there should be nothing wrong with discussing something like this in the cafe, but history shows that it gets ugly and it starts to infect the whole board.
There are a bazillion political groups on the web that anyone can freely partake in. Let's keep DVXUSER as politics-free as we can, okay?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Who are you voting for?
I don't think it can be done, Dan. Politics is too incendiary and too personal. Too much emotion tied up in it.
There's a reason that at family gatherings you stay away from three subjects: politics, religion, and Mac vs. PC!
I don't think it can be done, Dan. Politics is too incendiary and too personal. Too much emotion tied up in it.
There's a reason that at family gatherings you stay away from three subjects: politics, religion, and Mac vs. PC!