WhoDat

Well, if WW really wants to get to know everyone on the board, there's no better way than screaming at each other about politics! (Can ya tell I love a good debate?)

Just tell me who you're voting for and I'll tell you why you're wrong! LMAO ;)

GumboBC

Politics, huh?

First, let me say I\'m not a republican or a democrat.

George W. Bush: I don\'t know what is wonderlic score is, but he sounds too stupid to be the president to me. But, I admire the man to a certain degree. He sets his sights on something and goes after it. He might have misled the public about Iraq, but we need to be proactive against the war on terror instead of using the Venturi \"read and react\" approach. War is always unpopular with a lot of folks once American soldiers start getting killed. But, we all know the price of freedom doesn\'t come cheap!!

I don\'t think Bush had a good plan on how to deal with Iraq after the war was won. I think he underestimated how difficult it was going to be. I don\'t know if Iraq can ever become a democratic society, but you will never know if you don\'t try. Hopefully, Bush has a plan to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

John Kerry: I don\'t think he\'s a bad guy. I just don\'t think he\'s the right man for this time.

My vote will go to George W. Bush.

[Edited on 10/7/2004 by GumboBC]

whowatches

Republican. The older I get, the more conservative I become. When I was younger, I believed that the role of the government should include responding to social issues, and I voted based on my stand on the cultural issues which touched my emotions. I thought that the government should be the balm for societal ills.

I guess a switch flipped when I was in my last couple of years in college, and I realized that when the government attempts to tackle those \"emotional\" issues upon which the majority of Democrats vote, it usually screws them up. The best place for my money is my pocket. And I don\'t mean that in a greedy, hoarding way. But the Constitution grants a majority of governmental powers to the state governments for a reason. More often than not, the Democratic party believes that it should dictate from a national level what is right for all of us even on state and local levels. This policy is not only cumbersome and uneffective but also expensive and inefficient.

Don\'t get me wrong, I am not blind to the numerous shortcomings of the Republican party. I believe they cater to the religious right to a fault (but I understand the strategy), and I also understand that the federal government has not shrunk under W\'s watch as well (although we must acknowledge the unique circustances of his tenure). What\'s more, as a teacher, I absolutely abhor his \"No Child Left Behind\" legislature but will not bore you with that rant tonight.

Overall, I vote Republican in all national elections. I my eyes, if you side with an idealogy, you must support those beliefs by sending enough leaders to Washington in order to allow the system to tilt in that direction.

.02

When it comes to local and state elections, I\'m a tad bit more lenient, but not much.

Btw, thanks for the support, Dat. You didn\'t offer much as far as your own beliefs there, big guy.

What\'s the 411?

GumboBC

WW brings up an interesting point. He says he like his money in his pocket and that\'s the reason he votes Republican. But, IMO, that logic is flawed unless you happen to be a millionaire!!

I\'ve had many folks tell me the samething. But, I ask them how much better off they were under a republican president and all I ever got was a bunch of double-talk. They gave me all kinds of reaons why a republican had the right approach to government but somehow they were no better off and in most cases were worse off. The deficit climbed to record highs. Unemployment was out of control. But, hey, the rich were getting richer and this was going to \"trickle\" down to the average guy. Only it never did!! And never will!!

People look at government programs as a waste of money. But, the thing is, that money gets spent in the economy and it does reach the average guy. You give a person money that doesn\'t have much money and it doesn\'t go in his bank account and sit there forever. It gets spent at you local hardware store, local resturant, grocery store, etc., etc.. And what happens is the economy starts to grow.

I have yet to see these tax breaks for the rich benefit the common folk or the economy. I\'ll wait and see, but it ain\'t looking promising!! Let me know when this happens.

Government has gotten so complicated and I don\'t care how educated someone is or how much they think they know about how something is SUPPOSE to work, it just don\'t work that way. It\'s too many special interests and too much coruption in goverment. And that\'s especailly true on the national level.

The Regan years gave us many things. Money wasn\'t one of \'em. The Bush Sr. were a joke. READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!! Yeah, read my lips, George..BYE!!

In my life time, the Bill Clinton years were the best. Of course, I had folks telling me that the rebulicans should get credit for that. Yeah, ok!!

Still, I\'m not a democrat nor repulican. I just usually go with my gut. I get double talk and promises from both sides.

WhoDat

See, I\'ve been a Republican all my life - but there\'s no way I\'m voting for Bush this time around.... and it has NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Iraq.

I too like the Republican style of government. It calls for spending on defense, a smaller bureacracy, and more concessions for business. My wonderlic isn\'t quite low enough to allow me to believe that business can cure all ills, but I do think private industry will always outperform government.

If people feel strongly enough about an issue to form a business or non-profit to affect change, they will always outperform the government. When those issues are left to government, the decisions are usually based on personal political gain, and executed by workers that are the lowest common denominator (I\'ve been working with municipal government for a year and trust me, it is the LOWEST possible denomnator).

Our government exists to provide me (and you) with freedom. That is their number one goal. The only \"social issues\" that the government should address are those that would infringe upon a person\'s freedom. However, what is the job of a senator or congressman? To make NEW laws! Do you often feel like you can do less and less in this country? It b/c it\'s true. Every new term the congress sets out to make new laws - that\'s their job.

In any case, I was glad that Bush was in office after 9/11 - Gore could not have handled that tragedy well, IMO. I also don\'t mind attacking Iraq. Bush did lie to the public about his reasons, but I didn\'t need those reasons to attack Iraq. Hussien is a terrible man who needed to be unseated for years.

Had Bush done that and focused on the economy, he\'d have my vote again. However he didn\'t. He allowed his religious beliefs to affect his politic opinions andhe further tried to bring about social change to mirror those beliefs.

I don\'t care whether you like his religious beliefs or not, by definition, they have NO PLACE in American politics - especially not from the commander and chief. Further, he\'s attempted to REDUCE the number of civil liberties for gays and women. That is absolutely abhorrent to me. No person should ever seek to reduce the freedoms of Americans. Finally, Bush did this while knowing he had to hold back some so that he could win re-election. My fear is that if given another 4 years and free reign to do what he chooses it will only get worse.

I don\'t like Kerry, but at this point I dislike Bush. My hope is that the Kerry slate get elected and Kerry resigns for health reasons and Edwards takes over.

[Edited on 11/7/2004 by WhoDat]

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

whowatches

This statement is one reason I dislike the Democratic party. Much of their success is bred in this idea of class envy and resentment. I am not rich and probably never will be, but the DP would have me believe that I am oppressed by the upper class who is able to take advantage of special privledges and tax cuts/shelters/loopholes that I am not privy to. Therefore, according to their logic, I should want the government to take more of the rich\'s money and use it to help make my life easier.

I don\'t buy into that logic, and I think that it goes against fundamental American values. The government can encourage the wealthy to contribute to charities etc. through incentives, sure, but governmental redistrubution of wealth IMO is just plain wrong.

Not sure which administration you\'re talking about here. Reagan brought back consumer confidence and stopped inflation all while outspending the Soviets and ending the cold war. Bush 41 did raise taxes and lost the election because of it.

Bush 43 put money in my pocket with his tax cuts and maintained low interest rates (which helped me buy my first house ) in the face of a plummeting economy which was the result of the largest terrorist attack in our history.

A fundamental flaw in the thought process of many Americans is that they don\'t understand that when they receive money from \"the government\", they aren\'t getting money from some magical source produced by the suits in DC. They are getting this money from other people\'s taxes... other people\'s wages.... time.... income!

So, when citizen x says, \"the government should pay for my healthcare, lost wages, food, whatever, \" they are actually saying, \"my fellow citizens should pay for ...\"

Americans are a generous people. We help each other and other countries\' people everyday. The problem now is that many citizens feel a level of entitlement to these types of programs, not realizing where the funding for these programs actually originate. IMO, the Democratic party fuels this feeling in order to increase the tax base and fund new entitlement programs. The guy in the middle (me) pays an inordinate share of these funds while receiving little to none of the benefits.

I have no problem giving Clinton credit for the economy in the nineties. I will not give credit to the Republican congress (sorry, had to say it). Clinton did benefit from the tech boom, but a lack of regulation in the corporate world created a \"paper tiger\" which crumbled early in the Bush 43 presidency (just like it would have under Gore).

Totally agree. This is my one big beef with the Republican party.

What?!!? The trial lawyer??? The biggest threat to business on the ticket?? Horrible choice for veep, and will lose the election for Kerry.

.02

See, isn\'t this fun?

Some of you other Nancys jump in. :P

GumboBC

When 3% of the population has 90% of the money, who do you think can afford to pay more? While it would be fantastic for everyone to pay the same percentage of taxes, it doesn\'t work. What happens is these corporations pay less taxes and supposedly that gives them incentive to create more jobs. But, history has shown that doesn\'t happen. In fact, these big corporations have actually cut jobs and sent jobs overseas to save money and the economy shrinks.

Conversly, when the middle class pays less taxes, that money gets recirculated in the economy and it gives a boon to the economy.

The economy was not good under Regan. Comsumer confidence doesn\'t mean too much. It only means they think the economy is headed in the right direction. And.. how much do we need to outspend the soviets? We already have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100-times over. What advantage did we have over the soviets that we didn\'t have before Regan spent all that money?

How much money did he put in your pocket? How ever much it was, I\'m sure inflation ate most of it up.

Repulicans are strong on defesne and right now that\'s #1 and I just believe Bush is the right man for the job at this time. He\'s a no-nonsense guy that doesn\'t rely on polls to make a decision. I like that.

Democrats, while I think they go overboard with the free handouts, usually have better ideas when it comes to the economy...

[Edited on 12/7/2004 by GumboBC]

ScottyRo

May I just jump in?

I\'m not really going to address the many topics that have been discussed already. Fact is, there are too many things we could discuss and each individual post will get longer and longer.

On the presidential Election...

I consider myself republican, but I don\'t let that interfere with my reasoning of who might be best for the job. However, my first question when I am deciding whether I will vote for someone isn\'t about how much money I have or will have, it is about whether that politician is for or against abortion. If he is for it, I am against him.

There is no greater injustice in this world than to deny children of the chance or opportunity to life. I don\'t care about the costs on society if abortion is outlawed. It is worth it in my opinion. As Americans we are always commending our soldiers for fighting, especially those who give their lives for our freedoms. Yet as a counrty we continue to allow abortion because, for the most part, the woman who chooses to do so does not wish to be inconvenienced by her error of becoming pregnant. Why is her right to not be inconvenienced more important than a baby\'s right to life? If we are going to recognize that death is \"the supreme sacrifice,\" shouldn\'t the women of this country be willing to sacrifice a mere nine months of their lives to allow a child to enjoy an average of 70+ years of life?

Now I know there are deeper philosophical arguments that come up when discussing abortion such as events of incest and risk to the mother, etc. My feelings are that if abortions were banned except in those cases I may still want to go farther, but I will believe a victory had been achieved.

All of this to say there is no way I could vote for Kerry if I understand correctly that he is pro-killing (saying \"choice\" just dehuminzes the act). I\'m not happy with the things Bush has done. I don\'t think he needed to lie to me about going into Iraq. It\'s not like we had the world behind us anyway so he should have just gone in proclaiming the removal of Saddam as the best reason to do so.

The economy is bigger than the presidency. It was turning before Bush took over. Certainly, the president can help it or hurt it, but its ups and downs are natural occurences.

We\'ve had 20 years or so of a pretty good economy (with ups and downs) under both republican and democrat presidents. I don\'t believe that either Bush or kerry is really going to make all that much difference in this area. but I do believe that if we vote on a moral basis from the top of the ticket all the way down to our local elections we can make a difference in the area that is a black mark on our record as a society.

Isn\'t it ironic how civilized we think we are? Yet, at some point in the future, society will look back on our country\'s abortion stance and think of us as barbarians.

canucksaint

Oh boy this looks like fun. I can’t wait for WhoDat to tell my why I’m wrong for who I vote for. I ended up voting for Harper, even though his views are a bit to right for me, but the Liberals under Paul Martin just couldn’t regain my trust. However even he was better that Chrétien.

Ok, that’s enough of Canadian Politics. Now in regards to the presidential election;
Bush’s wonderlic score… do they go into the negatives? Just kidding. I don’t give the guy too much credit for being to smart. But he does know what he wants and goes after it, right or wrong. I hope for all of North America that he doesn’t get back in. I don’t think that his economic policy is viable; as a matter of fact it is quite outdated. It was probably his Dad’s policy left over from when he hoped to get a second term. He will go down in history as probably one of the worst leaders for foreign policy. He has completely severed ties with most of his closest allies, with the exception of the British, however that will end soon, as Tony Blair is even losing more support that Bush Jr. As for him going into Iraq, was it right or wrong? Both. Right idea, wrong pretenses. Saddam was horrible and needed to be ousted, however Bush lied to the population and the world about why he was going in. Billy, you said that you don’t think that Bush had a good plan on how to deal with Iraq after the war was won. Who’s saying the war is won? What was the objective of the war in the first place? Was it to find WMD? Or was it to oust Saddam? How about liberated the Iraqi people. The focus and objective of the war changed every time Bush realized he screwed up again. Bush could have had a good plan on how to deal with Iraq after the war finished (I don’t think it will ever be won or lost). But that would have required him to actually allow the weapons inspectors to finish there job, then he would have been able to get the UN to back him, at least for a chapter 6 intervention. I am very glad that my country stayed out of Iraq, however I am disappointed that Bush is so petty, that he feels it is right to punish his closest allies for not backing him on his ridiculous adventure.
Kerry may not be the best person, nor do I really feel that Edwards was his best choice in Veep. However at this point, he’s got to be better than Bush.
I have very strong feelings also in regards to the religious aspects that the Republican Party brings to the table.
One question I do have; as it is becoming a larger issue up here, and I just can’t understand the argument; why should gays not be allowed to get “Married�. Is it just the word marriage, or is there some other underlying reason. If someone could give me an argument (that doesn’t include the bible, remember the separation between church and state) regarding this, I would appreciate it.

GumboBC

Personally, it\'s not a big issue with me. However, I don\'t support gays. I think it\'s morally wrong. Marriage was created for a man and woman. Some folks have sex with animals. You know, \"beastiality.\" Why not allow a marriage between a woman and a horse? LMAO!! Who is to say that\'s wrong? I mean, I really don\'t care, but it ain\'t right, IMO.

canucksaint -- You bring up a lot of very good points about George W.. When I say we won the war, I was simply refering to the ousting of Saddam. At that point, the \"real\" war was over and now it\'s just comes down to liberating Iraq. But, most of the time that\'s more difficult than the war. This thing is a long way from being over, but we\'re not fighting a war. There\'s always pockets of resistance after every war. But, this thing is a long ways from being over. If it is ever over....

To Bush\'s credit, he did make the rest of the rouge nations stand up and take notice. Libia, for example, completely changed it\'s tune. And I don\'t agree that Bush will go down as the worst president in history either. History has yet to be wrttien. Bush might indeed pull this off. Now, he could fail, but it\'s way too early to judge.

Rightly or wrongly, I\'m supporting Bush. Four more years isn\'t going to kill us. We\'ll still be here. Bush started this thing and I want to give him an opportunity to finish it. Not too many presidents have the courage to stand up for what they truly beleive in. Bush is one that does. I admire him for it.

Courage is sometimes allowing yourself to make mistakes. Show me someone that\'s never made mistakes and I\'ll show you someone that never tried.