Which party for you?

Want to chit chat about anything, do it here ... posting here won't increase your post count (or shouldn't!). Please do not post any "phpBB" specific topics here unless they do not fit into the category above. Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests!
Forum rules
Please do not post any "phpBB" specific topics here unless they do not fit into the category above.

Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! No really... Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! Doing so will make Bertie a very sad bear indeed. :(
Natan
Registered User
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Which party for you?

Post by Natan »

Naderman,
If its true as you say (and I don't doubt it) that 9/10 people will say Bush is bad without knowing why, then we already know the answer to your vote. Ok fine, so the rest of the world says Bush shouldn't be in office. What you're saying is that it really doesn't prove anything. Nine out of ten people don't know why Bush is bad!
grrrlromeo wrote:Natan: When an action has a greater consequence on another country or region then it does for us, we should at least consult with that region.
We did! Israel had been saying for years that Iraq was trying to produce weapons. They even said that in the months before the US finally attacked Iraq that they had been discreetly moving all their weapons to Syria.
grrrlromeo wrote: That is to say, if we have made the US more safe (which we haven't) but have made the world as a whole less safe what have we really accomplished?
First of all, we did make the US safer. We've since enacted the Homeland Security Department and have taken amazing strides towards personal security. And by showing that SOMEONE is willing to take a stand against all terrorism has to stand for, they know that we will hunt them down if they choose to attack us. Why do you think Arafat and Hamas are endorsing Kerry? They know that he'll back down from terrorists.
grrrlromeo wrote:And if our actions have a negative impact on another country, they're not going to like us.
That is nothing new whatsoever. They always have and always will hate Americans. Its part of their culture. I've seen quotes by leading Arab Mullahs saying "Anytime you see a Jew or an American, kill them! Kill them! Butcher them wherever you see them!" And this was before 9/11. So again, they will hate us no matter what.
grrrlromeo wrote:And you can say that doesn't matter, but it does matter in every way. It affects our ability to trade with other countries, it affects our economy and it affects our safety. A country without allies is a vulnerable country.
But we do have allies! Did England start hating us? Last time I checked, they didn't. Neither did Australia and many other countries. China will never cut off their exports with us because they export most of their goods to us, and without the US, their economy would be crippled.

Roberdin, see my above comments to naderman and grrrlromeo.
"You may only be one person to the world, but you may also be the world to one person."
grrrlromeo
Registered User
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:31 am
Contact:

Re: Which party for you?

Post by grrrlromeo »

Martin Blank wrote:
grrrlromeo wrote:I do dislike the Republican party. But the reason why is not because they're them. It's because I'm a lesbian and wish to destroy the sanctity of marriage. The Republican Party has made it clear what their platform is. And I don't like their platform.
So you choose to dislike a certain group of people because they carry a label, rather than taking them as individuals? I think Jim Kolbe would find that disappointing.
Republican isn't an ethnicity, race or religion. It's not even a label. Conservative is a label. Republican is a political party. Political parties have platforms. Platforms are made up of the beliefs and issues a party will try to legislate. Legislations that will affect my life.

Now it is true that on occassion a politician won't agree with his/her parties platform and won't vote the party line. If that happens with some amount of frequency then perhaps that politician should change his/her party affiliation. I'm far more disappointed with Jim Kolbe then he could ever be with me.

Bush got more gay votes then any other Republican in a presidential election in the history of the United States (over 2 million). There was a lot of gay outreach and "compassionate conservative" rhetoric in 2000. But when push came to shove he bowed down and kissed the feet of his party. We won't be fooled again.

The Federal Marriage Amendment didn't have a chance in hell of passing. It was nothing more than a pony show. Republicans have admitted that it's purpose was put it down on record just who supports banning same-sex marriage. It's going to be used as a political tool for years to come. "Well my opponent says he's a Republican but it's right here on record that he voted against protecting the sanctitiy of marriage." Please, we know when we're being used as a wedge issue.
Natan wrote:We did! Israel had been saying for years that Iraq was trying to produce weapons. They even said that in the months before the US finally attacked Iraq that they had been discreetly moving all their weapons to Syria.
It's already been proven that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Plus our very own weapons that we had stored in a bunker in Iraq have been stolen. If terrorists have weapons, they're probably our weapons.
Natan wrote:First of all, we did make the US safer. We've since enacted the Homeland Security Department and have taken amazing strides towards personal security. And by showing that SOMEONE is willing to take a stand against all terrorism has to stand for, they know that we will hunt them down if they choose to attack us. Why do you think Arafat and Hamas are endorsing Kerry? They know that he'll back down from terrorists.
The 9/11 Commission found that we are not safer. Plus, our borders are wide open. 3 million illegal immigrants are expect to flood into this country due to our weakly protected borders. Other countries have been fighting terrorism for years. We only jumped on the boat when we were successfully attacked on our own soil. We're not the leaders on this, we're actually the late comers. By the way, Iran is endorsing Bush.
Natan wrote:But we do have allies! Did England start hating us? Last time I checked, they didn't. Neither did Australia and many other countries. China will never cut off their exports with us because they export most of their goods to us, and without the US, their economy would be crippled.
Tony Blair may not be coming right out and saying it, but the people of the UK have made it pretty darn clear they don't like Bush. One British paper actually wrote "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?" Of course I don't agree with that, but I think that says how they feel about Bush.

And it's not simply a matter of countries taking our exports, but foreign shoppers can read labels too, and if they don't like us they might think twice when they see a "Made in the US" label.

I get the feeling from your post that you believe that attacking Iraq was attacking terrorism. That's actually not the case. The terrorists have cells in numerous countries, including countries that are our allies. These terrorists don't actually have a nation of their own. Terrorism exploded in Iraq AFTER we attacked them. Iraq was a country that had a bad leader. Lots of countries have bad leaders but we don't touch them. There was no link between Saddam and the terrorists that attacked us.
I can't delete my signature.
User avatar
cyberCrank
Registered User
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:38 am
Location: Ethereal Bliss

Re: Which party for you?

Post by cyberCrank »

Because Bush is winning the polls in my state, I do not have to worry about voting, :) but if I were to vote, I would at least vote against Kerry... :)
Natan
Registered User
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Which party for you?

Post by Natan »

grrrlromeo wrote:
Natan wrote:We did! Israel had been saying for years that Iraq was trying to produce weapons. They even said that in the months before the US finally attacked Iraq that they had been discreetly moving all their weapons to Syria.
It's already been proven that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Plus our very own weapons that we had stored in a bunker in Iraq have been stolen. If terrorists have weapons, they're probably our weapons.
This entire story is a fabrication put on by the left wing media to try and hurt Bush. How do I know this? First, CBS didn't know that the NY Times was going to break the story, and they were planning on airing it on election eve! If they already had the story, shouldn't and wouldn't they want to report it right away? The answer is obviously no, because their goal is to do whatever they can to hurt Bush. Look at the fake Guard Memo's. Only after a few weeks did they finally admit that they were forged. Second, NBC was with US troops when they arrived at the site of the supposed missing weapons, and they said that the weapons were already missing before the US Army even got there! (video clip)
grrrlromeo wrote:
Natan wrote:First of all, we did make the US safer. We've since enacted the Homeland Security Department and have taken amazing strides towards personal security. And by showing that SOMEONE is willing to take a stand against all terrorism has to stand for, they know that we will hunt them down if they choose to attack us. Why do you think Arafat and Hamas are endorsing Kerry? They know that he'll back down from terrorists.
The 9/11 Commission found that we are not safer. Plus, our borders are wide open. 3 million illegal immigrants are expect to flood into this country due to our weakly protected borders. Other countries have been fighting terrorism for years. We only jumped on the boat when we were successfully attacked on our own soil. We're not the leaders on this, we're actually the late comers. By the way, Iran is endorsing Bush.
Three million illegal immigrants is a lot less than what was coming in before. Did you listen to the third presedintial debate. Bush, who was a border state governor obviously knows what he's talking about, and he said that there is a lot more state of the art equipment that helps track these people. The border has always been an issue. Did you ask President Clinton about the borders when he was in office?
About the claim that Iran is backing Bush, can you back that up? According to my sources, Iran could care less who wins.
grrrlromeo wrote:
Natan wrote:But we do have allies! Did England start hating us? Last time I checked, they didn't. Neither did Australia and many other countries. China will never cut off their exports with us because they export most of their goods to us, and without the US, their economy would be crippled.
Tony Blair may not be coming right out and saying it, but the people of the UK have made it pretty darn clear they don't like Bush. One British paper actually wrote "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?" Of course I don't agree with that, but I think that says how they feel about Bush.
Yes, I'm aware of the article that wrote that, and it was printed by The Guardian, a well known liberal, anti-Bush newspaper.

I'm not denying the fact that there are those in England who hate us. On the contrary, I know it as a fact. My question to them ties into what I posted above to naderman, do they really know why they hate Bush?

How about if I turn the tables. Why are you voting for Kerry? Can you name me at least three things that he has done good for our country in the twenty whole years that he has been in the Senate? And I don't consider voting to raise taxes over 350 times as a good answer.
# Kerry voted 98 times for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion.
# Kerry voted at least 126 times against tax cuts totaling more than $5.3 trillion.
# Kerry has voted 73 times to reduce the size of a tax cut.
# Kerry voted 67 times for smaller tax cuts (Democrat alternatives).
# Kerry voted 11 times against repealing tax hikes.
grrrlromeo wrote: And it's not simply a matter of countries taking our exports, but foreign shoppers can read labels too, and if they don't like us they might think twice when they see a "Made in the US" label.
Which is exactly what I do when I see something from France. I don't hear them complaining.
grrrlromeo wrote: I get the feeling from your post that you believe that attacking Iraq was attacking terrorism. That's actually not the case. The terrorists have cells in numerous countries, including countries that are our allies. These terrorists don't actually have a nation of their own. Terrorism exploded in Iraq AFTER we attacked them. Iraq was a country that had a bad leader. Lots of countries have bad leaders but we don't touch them. There was no link between Saddam and the terrorists that attacked us.
I respect the fact that you recognized that I do indeed believe that we are attacking terror, and not Iraq. If there's one thing that bugs me most about Bush, I'd say its the fact that he's in bed with the Saudi's, who have been proven to support, fund, and reward suicide bombers in Israel. And while it irks me to no end, looking at Kerry's record makes me want to hope to God that he isn't elected. I'd rather have someone who will confront and fight terror, than someone who wants to just get the hell out of Iraq. Saudi Arabia does arrest a few terrorists here and there, so I guess its better than nothing, but I still would like to see Bush confront them about this. It reminds me of when Rudy Guliani turned down a $10 million offer from the Prince of Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Rudy really gained my respect after that.
But back to what you were saying, if Al-Queda = terror, and terror = Sadaam Hussein, then I really think that Al-Queda = Sadaam Hussein. The only reason there is terrorism in Iraq now is because under Sadaam, they wouldn't dare do such things. But compared to a few deaths here and there, I think its better from when they were under Sadaam, because under his rulership, he was creating one mass-grave after another. Just recently they found a mass grave with babies holding onto their baby toys! Thats sick! Obviously its hard to justify one over the other, but in my opinion, it was really worth it to go after Iraq.
"You may only be one person to the world, but you may also be the world to one person."
grrrlromeo
Registered User
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:31 am
Contact:

Re: Which party for you?

Post by grrrlromeo »

Natan wrote:This entire story is a fabrication put on by the left wing media to try and hurt Bush. How do I know this? First, CBS didn't know that the NY Times was going to break the story, and they were planning on airing it on election eve! If they already had the story, shouldn't and wouldn't they want to report it right away? The answer is obviously no, because their goal is to do whatever they can to hurt Bush. Look at the fake Guard Memo's. Only after a few weeks did they finally admit that they were forged. Second, NBC was with US troops when they arrived at the site of the supposed missing weapons, and they said that the weapons were already missing before the US Army even got there! (video clip)
What you've said there is a lot of time discrepencies and strategic timing for releasing new stories (which is not something I support). But it doesn't change the fact that once upon a time there were weapons there, and now they are gone. Perhaps Saddam moved them before we invaded, but either way we've lost track of them. We knew where they were before the war when there were inspectors there, and now we don't know where they are.
Natan wrote:Three million illegal immigrants is a lot less than what was coming in before.
No it isn't. It's the largest wave of illegal immigration into the country since 2001. Please see the cover story of the September 20 issue of Time magazine.
Natan wrote:About the claim that Iran is backing Bush, can you back that up? According to my sources, Iran could care less who wins.
Sure. Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran Oct. 19, Associated Press
Natan wrote:How about if I turn the tables. Why are you voting for Kerry? Can you name me at least three things that he has done good for our country in the twenty whole years that he has been in the Senate? And I don't consider voting to raise taxes over 350 times as a good answer.

# Kerry voted 98 times for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion.
# Kerry voted at least 126 times against tax cuts totaling more than $5.3 trillion.
# Kerry has voted 73 times to reduce the size of a tax cut.
# Kerry voted 67 times for smaller tax cuts (Democrat alternatives).
# Kerry voted 11 times against repealing tax hikes.
Oh gosh where to start. Kerry didn't vote to "raise taxes" over 350 times. It's completely incorrect to say that. Voting for a smaller tax cut isn't voting to raise taxes.

Those numbers include voting to not cut taxes on cigarettes and voting not to cut taxes on manufactures to pay for hazardous waste cleanup. (Instead the money to pay for hazardous waste cleanup would've come from somewhere else, and as far as I'm concerned if you make the mess you should be the one to clean it up.)

Those heavily bloated numbers include multiple votes for the same bills. Voting on a single bill 10 times is not a vote to raise taxes 10 times. It's one bill, one tax increase.

43 votes were on setting targets for the budget, not a vote to actually raise taxes.

16 votes on a single package for raising taxes on the wealthiest 2%.

6 votes to raise taxes on cigarettes or keep them the same.

7 votes on one budget resolution to raise taxes on corporations and people making over 140,000 in order to increase funding on Medicare, veteran's benefits and education.

11 times he voted, not to raise taxes, but to close corporate tax loop holes. But apparently the Bush campaign considers that an act of raising taxes. The money from closing those loopholes were to go to Medicare, veteran's benefits, education, the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

All in all, many of the votes to raise taxes the Bush campaign sites are tax increases on the wealthiest people. Which is pretty much what Kerry has promised to do all along. The increased fundings noted above are more than 3 things I believe were good for the country.

Kerry voted to increase the minimum wage in 97. He added an amendment to the 93 Crime Control bill to add 100,000 new police officers. He voted to reduce the deficit in 93 which resulted 23 million new jobs. In 97, he helped balance the budget for the first time in a generation.

Bush has cut taxes for what? To drive our nation into the deepest debt ever. We ARE going to have to pay it back eventually you know. It's not just going to magically disappear. I mean, I wish I could toss my bills in the garbage and not pay them.

And what was Bush doing while Kerry was serving our country in the Senate? Oh I dunno...snortin' cocaine, drinkin', going to AA meetings, driving companies into the ground.
Natan wrote:But compared to a few deaths here and there, I think its better from when they were under Sadaam, because under his rulership, he was creating one mass-grave after another. Just recently they found a mass grave with babies holding onto their baby toys! Thats sick! Obviously its hard to justify one over the other, but in my opinion, it was really worth it to go after Iraq.
Now now, are you trying to pull my liberal bleeding heart strings? Gosh, we have to save those poor, poor Iraqis. I just love those darn muslims so much I think we should drive our country into massive debt and sacrifice over 1,000 American troops to save them. It just makes me want to grab an Arabic speaking taxi driver and say "I love you, man."

This was not meant to sound callous. But if you had asked me about issues that concerned me before 9/11 I would've named oppression of the Afghan people, the Kurds being killed by Iraq as well as Turkey (Turkey is our ally even though they killed Kurds just like Saddam did.) I also would've mentioned my concern for the hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans killed by the Latin American soldiers that we, the US, trained on US soil with US money.

I would love nothing more than to believe that the US would like to help countries that are oppressed. (Help, not destroy.) But I know that is not the reason we attacked Iraq. We attacked Iraq because we don't like them. And I have high doubts that if you asked any Arabic-American if they think they're loved in this country they would say yes.
I can't delete my signature.
User avatar
olger901
Registered User
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 4:57 pm

Re: Which party for you?

Post by olger901 »

grrrlromeo wrote:I'm voting to eject Bush out of office....and any other Republicans too. So, I'm not really voting for anyone, rather I'm voting against a party.
Yup and the sooner the better, want to make a Big Eject button to push that launches his chair right through the roof of the white hoouse :lol:
-
Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:44 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Which party for you?

Post by Roberdin »

Natan wrote:But we do have allies! Did England start hating us? Last time I checked, they didn't. Neither did Australia and many other countries.
Hate is too strong a word, but the majority of people here no longer respect the US Administration or Army, indeed, both have become somewhat of a joke. No comedy programme on TV can resist taking a shot either.


And another thing, you can't take tax votes out of context like that - they might be to fund defence for all you know. Pay your taxes with pride.
Rob
Martin Blank
Registered User
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 11:17 am

Re: Which party for you?

Post by Martin Blank »

I can't believe the partisan politics that have arisen in the US in the last four years, and often from people I believe to be relatively intelligent.

grrrlromeo and Natan are both using information garnered from their respective political sources, and are both showing pretty clear errors in their fact sets. Among them are several of the issues that grrlromeo has already corrected from Natan, but it would be incorrect to suggest that the budget has ever been balanced. If it had, then the debt for at least one year would have gone down, which it hasn't.

It would also be disingenuous to suggest that Kerry's 1993 vote to reduce the deficit was in any significant way responsible for the additional jobs added in the 1990s. A lot of people seem to ignore that the internet's explosion in use, and the accompanying stock market growth, were far more responsible for economic growth at the time than anything else. The same thing has happened in several other instances of significant technological change over history (usually at a somewhat slower pace, but still there) such as with the invention of a steam engine usable in shipping.

And if you're referring to the stolen explosives story that was recently reported in the NY Times and elsewhere, those were Iraqi explosives that had been tagged and sealed by UN inspectors as part of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program long ago.

Kerry also has absolutely no intention of lowering the deficit. He can't do it at all with his plans. Even if he does restore the top two tax brackets to their old level (which would break his promise of only increasing taxes on those making $200,000 or more), he'll add a mere $224 billion over the next ten years. His health plan alone will cost $895 billion over that time. (Source) He's not leaving Iraq, and it's folly to think that he'll be able to get any significant help from other nations there. France and Germany have already said that a Kerry presidency would not change their positions; France's Defense Minister Michel Barnier has said, "As everyone knows, France did not approve of the conditions in which the conflict was unleashed. Neither today nor tomorrow will it commit itself militarily in Iraq." Germany's Gerhard Schroeder has stated flat out very recently, "To be clear, we will send no troops to Iraq."

And neither one of them is doing anything about the border at all. Kerry wants to do an amnesty. This failed miserably in 1986 to stem the tide of illegals, and it's not going to get any better. Bush's is just shy of a true amnesty, but it's still essentially that, and isn't going to help. In fact, the House's version of the 9/11 Commission bill has numerous provisions in it (no driver's licenses for illegals, easier and more rapid deportation of those here illegally, and changing some asylum rules, among other things) that would make it more difficult for illegals to either get into or remain in the US, but the White House is backing the Senate version, which does not have those provisions.

I don't particularly care for either one. What most people are getting worked up about are points that don't matter all that much. There will be no Constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage anytime soon, because the 2/3 barrier in both houses isn't going to be breached, and even if it were, it would have to get past 3/4 (38) of the states within its designated lifetime (usually seven years). The Equal Rights Amendment couldn't get 38 states, even when its seven-year legislative lifetime was extended by three years. There will be no outright abortion ban, because the limited bans that are passed ignore the guidance of the Supreme Court and so get overturned not by "activist judges" but by judges acting on precedent that they know isn't likely to change.

Here's what should be cared about:
  • Government bloat: There's no reason at all for us to have a $2.2 trillion budget. A cut of at least 30% is in order -- and would bring us into an easy surplus.
  • Protection of the country: We have the world's most powerful military, so we're safe from that perspective. Even China couldn't win a war. But 9/11 wasn't a military action. It was an action by terrorists who snuck into the country. And how many others have entered through the open borders? We should have at least twice as many agents on the borders as we have now, supplemented with drones. If they work in Iraq and Afghanistan, they'll work on the Mexican and, if necessary, Canadian borders.
  • Getting out of the pyramid scheme that is Social Security: You want me to invest 12.5% of my income into a retirement fund? Fine. I'll do it. But I bet I get a far better return than the government does. All they use it for now is funding bloated programs.
  • Skipping morality legislation: Stop trying to tell us whom we can marry, and lighten up on what we can do to our bodies. Get away from hate legislation, and stop trying to plug what are seen as "lapses" in state laws with federal laws. No, there doesn't need to be a federal law for everything. Learn something about double jeopardy, will you please, Congress?
The only thing I like about a possible Kerry presidency is that the deficit is likely to grow more slowly than it is now, since Congress will likely remain controlled by Republicans. That's it. It would also (I hope) get people to STFU about the 2000 election. Other than that, I'm hoping John McCain will run again in 2008.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
SamG
Registered User
Posts: 1241
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm

Re: Which party for you?

Post by SamG »

Martin Blank wrote:The ... thing I like about a possible Kerry presidency is that ... t would ... (I hope) get people to STFU about the 2000 election....

One can only hope ...
"I hate trolls!" - Willow Ufgood
grrrlromeo
Registered User
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:31 am
Contact:

Re: Which party for you?

Post by grrrlromeo »

A large portion of my previous post came from information at factcheck.org, CNN and Time. Only a single small paragraph with 3 sentences where I sited good things Kerry has done came from the Kerry camp. I more than aware that campaigns bloat and distort just about everything and I put little trust into what any of them say. Believe me, if I had found a credible source that discredited those 3 sentences I wouldn't have posted them.

When people talk of a balanced budget, we're really speaking in the simplest terms. That is when the government doesn't spend more than it receives in a fiscal year. The public debt is more complicated and includes government bills, notes, bonds that the public holds and any borrowing the government has done. I'm sure most of us know that we can balance our check book, and even have money in the bank afterwards and still see our debt grow. The Balanced Budget act was only projected to stop the deficit from increasing by 2007.

Partisan politics has exploded, and I'm going to be partisan again and blame that on the Republicans. Things like the Marriage Protection Amendment which I know would've never passed and stated that earlier, served no other purpose than to make the parties walk the party line. Abortion and stem cell research issues do the same thing. They are the wedge issues that parties can hold up and say these are the differences of our party. They can be simplified and painted black and white. The economy and the Iraq war is far more complex.

Bush has come out and said recently that he doesn't agree with the Republican party's opposition of civil unions. He said he believes states should be able to legislate civil unions if they want. Which is actually the same position that Kerry holds. Never the less, he supports his party platform...even though he doesn't agree with it. And that is what partisan politics is all about. That's why party platforms are more important than the personal beliefs of a politician.
I can't delete my signature.
Post Reply