MonteZuma Posted September 6, 2004 Report Posted September 6, 2004 Why is voting to cut defense spending in the 1990s a bad thing? This was a time just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The start of a new era of cooperation in Europe. And a time of stability and prosperity in Asia. It was also the time of the maturation of the information age. Cutbacks in defense spending were warranted. If the savings were chanelled into addressing the spectre of terrorism and the troubles in the middle east then 9/11 might not have happened. We live in an era when foreign intelligence is more valuable than military.
Aileron Posted September 6, 2004 Report Posted September 6, 2004 Dr. Worthless, that whole post can be summed up in one sentence: John Kerry is THE most liberal member of congress. There is no Senator more liberal than John Kerry. That explains why liberal Europe, Canada, and Australia love him. Seriously though, Kerry doesn't have a shot at winning. The best analogy would be "Pick a number between 1 and 100" The logical response in a two party system would be to say "50" or "51". That way, you have a 50/50 shot of winning. The Democrats said "99" by picking Kerry. He is in the top 1% of liberals in the country. I'd be willing to bet that Nadar is more conservative than Kerry. All the Republicans have to do in order to win is paint Bush out to be a "98". That can't quite be done, but lets just subs!@#$%^&*ute "as liberal as believeable". Bush is about a "48". They chose him to face the "62" Gore. The American public chose "54.9". The Republican can probably get Bush up to about "65" by November. That gives Bush about an % chance of winning, provided the number was chosen randomly. That isn't the best part. The best part is the odds of what number is chosen by the American public. Since the Repbulicans redistricted last, and due to a conservatice public opinion swing to fight the War on Terror, the American public is most likely to choose a number in the high 40s. In any case, they are not going to choose the "82" necessary for a Kerry victory. Simply put and analogies aside: You don't pick radicals of either leftist or rightist variety to run for president, and Kerry is a left-wing radical. The Democrats WANT Kerry to lose so that they can safely run Hillary Clinton in 2008.
»SD>Big Posted September 6, 2004 Author Report Posted September 6, 2004 screw you all, this thread is about the boningness of that kerry daughter, take your politics elsewhere... mmmmmm, femininas
A Soldier Posted September 6, 2004 Report Posted September 6, 2004 Simply put and analogies aside: You don't pick radicals of either leftist or rightist variety to run for president, and Kerry is a left-wing radical.Are you saying Bush is not a right-wing radical?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Are you saying Bush is not a right-wing radical? Yeah, I think he is, and I agree with his opinion. Please show facts that show otherwise. Please don't cite the war with Iraq as proof, given the same intelligence on the day it was given, you to would have chosen to remove Saddam, just like the president and Senate/House did. Other intelligence might have come around after the fact.. but hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.
A Soldier Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Take his stance on religion for exempleor how he dealt with the economy (favoring the richs)or with the environnementwhat he thinks of steam (sp?) cellsamendment on gay marriages etc.. etc.. (I don't know if there is some place that lists all of what he was for/against during his 4 years, but it would help) According to the politcal comp!@#$%^&* analysis, he's the furthest one on the right http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...tionalchart.jpg
Aileron Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Bush's stance on religion: Religion should not be eradicated from society. Nothing radical about that, unless you are a radical liberal who thinks religion has no place in our society. Economy:Trickle-Down Theory. Not really the best plan, but better than Kerry's plan of raising taxes and creating government programs to make up the difference. BTW, that's socialism. Environment:Alright, Bush sucks in that department. Stem Cells:Hey, Bush's party is against stem cells too. Its a controversial issue, and he just happens to be in disagreement with you. Besides, I don't see the point of stem cell research. Its kind of like tearing apart a brand new truck to get parts for some rusting-beat-up piece of junk made in the 70s. You are sacrificing something that could last quite a long time to get something else to last a little while longer. Take a sinking ship for example. If there aren't enough liferafts, you put the children, who have their life ahead of them, on the liferafts and leave the old men, who have lived a full life, to die. Amendment on gay marriage:Hey, two decades ago being gay was considered a mental disease. Besides, the president doesn't add amendments, so it doesn't matter who is elected here. No doubts about it though, if Canadians, British, French, Germans, and Australians voted, Bush would lose.
Guest Recombo Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 If Kerry wins (although he seems to be digging a very deep hole at this point) we won't have to worry about the French and Canadians as his beloved French wife will open the floodgates to immigration. Oh good God, I just wish she would learn how to speak fluent English. Isn't that scary?
»SD>Big Posted September 7, 2004 Author Report Posted September 7, 2004 Oh good God, I just wish she would learn how to speak fluent English. Isn't that scary?you're so narrow minded. pig.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Take his stance on religion for exempleor how he dealt with the economy (favoring the richs)or with the environnementwhat he thinks of steam (sp?) cellsamendment on gay marriages Stance on Religion. Basically that Religious organizations have just as much place in society as any other organization. Economy Across the board tax cuts. Letting americans spend their dollars, and control portions of their money in government programs. (Health saving accounts is a VERY good idea, investigate it) By easing the tax burden on the business owners, it frees up more money for them to hire more people. Environment Admitedly it could use some work. He has urged that lots of money be poured into alternative fuel sources, which is :onethumb: Stem Cell Research. I'm not particularly familiar with his stance, I'm not sure if the president is completely against it, or against harvesting embryo's for it. Personally I believe that a child is a human being the DAY it is concieved, and thus should have every right that every other american citizen and human being on this earth is en!@#$%^&*led to. That include not being killed for its cells. Gay Marriage. My Moral beliefs and Civil Rights beliefs conflict on this, so I wont comment, because to be honest I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue right now. The President is against gay marriage, and if that's his belief I would venture to say that his is the same as the majority of US citizens. As for Kerry, What he says during this political race is 1 thing, the way he votes is another. If you don't believe me someone post his stances on these very same issues, and i know for a fact I can find instances where he's (multiple times) voted opposite of his stated opinion.
Vile Requiem Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Environment Admitedly it could use some work. He has urged that lots of money be poured into alternative fuel sources, which is onethumb.gif Just like he urged money for No Child Left Behind, which is currently ~30 billion short, right? Stem Cell Research. I'm not particularly familiar with his stance, I'm not sure if the president is completely against it, or against harvesting embryo's for it. Personally I believe that a child is a human being the DAY it is concieved, and thus should have every right that every other american citizen and human being on this earth is en!@#$%^&*led to. That include not being killed for its cells. Right wing spin is what causes the debate on this issue. Nobody kills babies just to harvest stem cells. Plenty of embryos die every day (miscarriages), no murdering takes place. (Being a biomedical engineer kicks -*BAD WORD*- doncha know). About trickle down economics, show me Reagan's plans worked and i'll show you lying Kerry doesn't support Gay Marriage either, but he DOES support giving gay couples equivilent status under the law (married couples get mega huge tax breaks). Like i've said in the past, anyone who doesn't think most of the federal government is socialist programs is a wackjob. Even Unions are a socialist idea. Social Security is another socialist idea. Bush has opposed importing drugs from Canada and other places where they'd be a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot cheaper. Seeing as drug costs are rising, and SS remains ~250 or so every paycheck, many seniors have to choose food or medicine. A pay in program is going to be the worst failure in American history for 2 reasons: 1) We saw how fast the typical American "reinvested their tax cut in the economy" 2) People who can't make ends meet will have jack and -*BAD WORD*- to put into their SS accounts thus screwing them when they get old. 3) Privitizing Health Care ALWAYS works. Just look at drug prices and the HMO bureaucracy. Even if you have the govt run it, that's just one more layer of government that you're complaining about Kerry wanting to create.
Recommended Posts