The election

The real solution to the mid-east is to dig out the remaining oil and wave the residents a hearty farewell and goodbye... it's like quicksand for any outsiders who want to get involved, no matter how good their intentions are.


Anyway, I don't like either party.
 
This thread sucks. It will do nothing but polarize us and
get everybody pissed off at each other. I vote we
abandon political argumentation. I so want to respond
to all the hate mongering going on, but will refrain for
the sake of this fellowship.

Charlie
 
I second that. Like many other folks, I am a political junkie. But let's have at least one site where we all can get away from it.
 
This is for CHUCK-LYN and unclemick. First I agree this thread "sucks" and I would prefer to avoid politics here,
realizing they are bound to creep in anyway. For unclemick,
I was musing that if De Gaul married the Norwegian widow and they retired using this calculator, would
you call it French FIREs?

Ouch! That was even worse than some of TH's stuff.

Apologies to all...

John Galt
 
Well John

Keep trying - but it's going to be tough to beat your dryer sheet flag motto.
 
Cut,

I could reply point by point but what's the point?
I would not convince you of anything and my comments
would just "disgust" you. Your post just proved my
prior point. Get the point?

Cheers,

Charlie
 
Cut-Throat

I'm not so sure it's the glasses of wine. Maybe the water.

Me - western Washington - lumbermill lunch bucket Dem. - long line. Brother in law - eastern Washington - farm country Republican - long line.

I think there's a reason for why the Cascade Mountains are where they are. When we get together we talk about trucks, not politics - since our minds are made up. Although he is partial to Fords and I drive a Chevy Silverado. The Nephew is independant and drives a Toyota truck.  
 
Ouch! That was even worse than some of TH's stuff.

It is NOT! My stuff is MUCH worse. :p

As far as the rest, I dont mind a little politics, as long as the opinions are observational rather than side-taking.

I crapped on both candidates equally, and I've voted both democrat and republican, so I think thats allowed.
 
I tempted to side with the "no politics here" crowd... mainly because a few other message boards I reside on become all but unusable during the election season.
 
Thank goodness the presidential elections happen only once every 4 years here. If the SRW isn't enough to draw blood, politics certainly could be!

Anne
a liberal who prefers to shy away from the bloodier discussions
 
Perhaps I can interest you people in a nice data based Safe Candidate Selection tool that can help you determine which candidate will be best for us for the next two terms?
;)
:p

There are a lot of discussions where you'll never get two people to agree no matter what the content of the discourse is. Its because the beliefs and opinions are not consciously data and situation driven. Its because most beliefs and opinions are influenced by serial subconscious layers of inflection that are built from the day we're born. We're largely unaware of most of them, but without realizing their existence they largely create our uniqueness and our approach to life.

These are our learnings and 'intuitions'. And also our contradictions.

These discussions are good if you keep them to content, and away from 'rightness' or trying to convert the other side, and if you can park emotions at the door.

They stink when someone says they're open minded when they're not, considers the other persons arguments 'wrong' or 'shifty' if they dont agree with their own, or feel attacked or like attacking during the course of the discussion.

Not to mention perfectly good friends and acquaintances can suddenly turn into mindless jerks upon the mere touching of a particular topic. Sex, religion and politics are the primary three areas where most people have a huge buildup of subconsious filters and influences.

Thats why they're usually good to avoid. Hardly anybody wants to play fair in them.

I avoid all problems by hating everything and everybody equally and considering everything I encounter with a certain level of disgust and annoyance :D
 
Geez, guys, at least let's be productive.

I'm with Chuck, I'd rather we restrict this stuff to Intercst's board's politics forum.

But if political junkies must post here, let's make it more productive.

Persuade me: should I vote for Bush or for Kerry?

Don't bash one or the other. I'm not voting for a candidate just because his opponent's a loser. I want to vote for the guy that's presumably capable of doing a better job.

I've voted for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Colin Powell. I also voted for a rich haole Jewish woman to be our governor (which has turned out to be a good thing). I think Al Gore has learned a lot about being human these last four years, but I won't be patronized, condescended to, or lectured.

I voted Florida absentee for many years and was disgusted to learn that most (if not all) of my votes were discarded because the military's postage-paid ballots weren't postmarked. This is my first national election as a Hawaii voter so I'm ready to sling those four electoral votes with wild abandon.

I can't see much to be impressed about with the current administration, but keeping an eye on them in the White House is probably cheaper than incarceration. Unlike Kerry's Krewe, they've had to make real-time decisions on insufficient & inadequate data (that's their fault!) but I can't fault them for making a decision that had to be made. I also agree with Th that anyone who shoots movie footage of himself in Vietnam for future political use is probably not the kind of person I'd want to give access to nuclear weapons. And three Purple Hearts? I can understand one or even two but THREE?!? Was he paying attention to the training where they teach you how to take care of your sailors and to stay low?

But I digress. Let's focus on "why I should vote for this guy", not "cuz the other guy's such a loser". Your persuasive & compelling presentation will buy my vote and perhaps millions of others.

OK, have at it.
 
I don't work anymore, so I don't have to kiss anyone's ass.
Exactly right. And Cut-Throat, I'd be willing to bet the farm that you didn't kiss anyone's ass when you were working either. The world could use more like you.
 
Well, I never kissed any asses either, which resulted in my own ass being fired several times. I did kiss a
couple of fairly homely girls in my younger days, but
that's a different kettle of fish :)

John Galt
 
Bush vs. Kerry
My vote is for Kerry based on the following issues.

- Economy (advantage Kerry)
As Bush came into office the US economy was slipping into recession. Bush's tax cut provided a much needed stimulus and helped to expand GDP growth. However, the administration has been unable to control spending. This is true even though republicans hold a majority in both houses of congress. Spending under Bush's administration has increased 2x faster than under the Clinton administration. As a result the deficits are growing, weakening the dollar, and putting pressure on interest rates and inflation. Bush's answer seems to always be lower taxes. In reality, this isn't practical as the government needs to finance it's activities.

I'll give Kerry a shot at a reasonable budget. I think that no matter who's elected, they'll have to raise taxes.

I'm on the fence on the 'free trade' issue. I can see both sides of the argument. What I don't like is the hypocrisy of claiming that the US is for free trade when the government subsidizes many industries. Bush/Kerry are likely to be similarly hypocritical on this issue.

- Security (advantage Kerry)
Bush led the US into the war and occupation of Iraq. The costs have been staggering.

* The Iraq war undercut has the hunt for Bin Laden and the war against Afghanistan. Now Afghanistan is a mess, and it just blows my mind that we're leaving it to Pakistan (another military dictatorship) to hunt down Bin-Laden.
* Focus on Iraq and the policy of disengagement with North Korea allowed the North Koreans to more forward with the development of real nuclear weapons.
* The US relationship with many allies has been tarnished.
* US credibility throughout the world (which was high after 9/11), has been squandered.
* US credibility as a champion of human rights has been squandered.
* About 1,000 US soldiers killed, 6,000 US soldiers wounded, and at least 10,000 civilians killed.
* A staggering cost of $13,000,000 (that's billion) for the initial troop deployment. Plus $9Billion PER MONTH for combat operations, + $5Billion when forces are withdrawn, + $1-4B PER MONTH for the occupation which could last many years. For example, if the combat operations last until the end of March 2005, and the US continues a occupying force for 5 years, the cost would be:
$384 Billion Dollars = 13B + 24* 9B + $5B + 5*12*2.5B.

Bush's strong handed unilateralist approach is a good example of a part of the problem, and not the solution. Bush's explanation: 'they hate us because we're free' is ridiculous. I believe this strategy is breeding terrorists faster than they can be killed.

Kerry has been more forthcoming about the 'oil' issue. He's more likely to build relationships and work with allies to combat terrorism.
 
Part II

Liberty and Human Rights (advantage Kerry)
As a civil libertarian I resent Bush's efforts to have government intervention in our personal lives. Examples include:
- 'gag' rule witch prevents any international organizations that receive US funding from discussing abortion as an option for terminating pregnancy.
- constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
- a desire and efforts to roll back abortion rights
- refusal to honor the Geneva conventions
- efforts to undermine Habeas Corpus
- efforts to promote religion (for example, giving government funding to religious institutions)

The Bush administration seems oblivious to the fact that the Bill of Rights protects each and every one of us, no matter what the 'majority' thinks. Just because the majority are Christian, and that our nation was founded by mostly Christians, does not mean that the government should promote religion in any way. 'The congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.' I believe that the Atheist that brought the 'pledge' to the supreme court is right on.

I expect Kerry is more likely to keep government out of our personal lives, to honor international law, and honor the US tradition of 'separation of church and state'.

Education (no advantage)
I don't think there's much of a difference here. Education policy is largely set at the state level.

Health Care (no advantage)
The health care situation in this country is in trouble. The costs are very high and consumers have few choices (largely regulated at the state level.) I disagree Bush's approach of limiting malpractice suits. If frivolous lawsuits are a problem, than the laws that describe what it means to be negligent need to change.

Experience (advantage Kerry)
Bush has never been very successful, at school or in business. His accomplishments are largely a result of his family ties and political connections. Kerry's accomplishments (Yale, Vietnam, law school, prosecutor, Lieutenant Governor, and senator) had stronger ties to his intelligence, ability, and work ethic.

Integrity (no advantage)
Bush is a flip-flopper. Kerry is a flip-flopper. Bush has either deliberately mislead the country into war with Iraq, or exercised very poor judgment. Kerry and the democrats stood silent, afraid to stand up against the Bush. The democrats have a lot to thank Howard Dean for. He stood up against the war in Iraq before it was popular to do so, once he did, and gained support, other democrats followed his lead.

Steady leadership in time of war (advantage Kerry)

The portrayal of Bush as a strong and decisive leader is a myth. His advertisements and rhetoric claim otherwise, but his actions in time of crisis speak for themselves. Compare Bush's actions on 9/11 to Kerry's actions when he lead a gunboat up the Mekong Delta in Vietnam.

Watch the video of Bush when he was told that the 2nd plane crashed into the WTC, and that the nation was under attack.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm. He sat there, reading a children's book for a full 7 minutes, waiting for someone to tell him what do to. Is this how a strong decisive leader acts?

Compare to Kerry who earned the Silver Star Medal in Vietnam. Kerry's boat was under attack. He ordered that the boat engage the attackers, jumped off the boat and perused and killed a Vietcong solder who had a rocket launcher. Kerry also earned a Bronze for jumping off the boat exposing himself to enemy fire to save a fellow soldier who had fallen overboard.

Bush supported the Vietnam war, but used his fathers connections to get into the Air National Guard (he jumped to the head of a long waiting list), where his attendance was spotty.


Favorite Pet Peeve:
The USA Patriot Act has a provision that exempts the Ely Lilly corporation from all lawsuits related to the preservative 'Thermerisol'. Not a single senator or congressman will take credit for this, yet it passed.
 
As far as nuclear weapons, I'd like there to be a stipulation that you can actually pronounce the ****ing word before having access to them.

I groan every time I hear one of these supposedly college educated legislators say "nucular".
 
Picky, picky, picky. There are too many people
anyway. One thing that scares the hell out of some folks is that while Bush is often wrong, he is never in
doubt. Personally, I love it! Oops, I was drawn back into politics. Sorry :)

John Galt
 
August 6th was the aniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. 170,000 people died instantly and then a bunch later on through the years.

Although most of us probably have not heard anything about it there is a spending bill before congress to make nuclear weapons "more usable". I think they mean smaller so we can drop them on neighborhoods and small cities I suppose. Make fun of nukes all you want but it's probably the biggest problem we face today. Since we no longer have MAD (mutually assured distruction) with the Russians and the US is willing to use pre-emptive strikes it forces all others to use the same strategy. How long can it go on? Even Warren Buffet says the nuke genie will eventually be unleashed since given enough time even this low probability event will come to pass.

And remember, just one nuke can really screw up your portfolio.
 
I've always said that my biggest nuke fear is human error. I think the probability of somebody screwing up is close to 100%. Of course, when the Big Screwup happens, I don't want to be anywhere near it. So imagine my chagrin when I find out that a nuke near me is *almost* my worst nightmare:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/164280_nuke11.html

(Another good reason for Californians to stay out of WA :))
 
"He sat there, reading a children's book for a full 7 minutes, waiting for someone to tell him what do to."

He wasn't even reading! He was just sort of staring!
 
Damn, I'm only gone 24 hours and we are back on
politics. Reminds me of the old horror flick. "The thing that wouldn't die!"

John Galt
 
Damn, I'm only gone 24 hours and we are back on
politics.   Reminds me of the old horror flick.  "The thing that wouldn't die!"

I don't like it either but if they can be contained here then that would be acceptable. It's the thing that has mostly done in the Motley Fool REHP board.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom