| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Bush vs Kerry: who is your choice? |
| Bush (US-citizen) |
|
21% |
[ 10 ] |
| Kerry (US-citizen) |
|
19% |
[ 9 ] |
| Bush (non-US) |
|
10% |
[ 5 ] |
| Kerry (non-US) |
|
47% |
[ 22 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 46 |
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
Wow, what a silly thread. Both sides are resorting to name-calling and much silliness.
Here's my 2c without trying to delve into all that. (My own opinion, and all that normal disclaimer, etc.)
I'm an independant, and I'm going to vote for Kerry. Why?
It all boils down to this: I have never been ashamed to be an American before, until Bush became president. I think Kerry as president would work towards fixing that, and try and prevent further damage.
Do I hate Bush? No. Do I think another four years of Bush will destroy the nation? Of course not. Do I think anyone who says they will move to Canada if he wins is absurd? Certainly. Do I blame the economy on Bush or Clinton? Not really.
What (major things) has Bush done during his presidency that I like?
*Healed the country after 9/11. While I may not agree with all of his methods, I think that what he has done helped the average person cope with the loss.
*Petty as it is, I didn't mind a couple extra dollars from a tax cut. But I didn't NEED it.
What (major things) has Bush done I haven't liked?
*The Patriot Act. Freedom is what makes our country great. Terrorists need to be stopped, but not by reducing freedom in America.
*The Iraq War. Saddam was a bad, bad person. But going to war in Iraq when he did was the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.
What does the next president have to do:
*Iraq War. We're there, we're committed. Make Iraq a safe place to be. Perhaps humble ourselves to the rest of the world and get some help?
*Foreign Relations. Repair the image of the United States abroad.
*Terrorism. See foreign relations. Increasing security isn't enough, we need to stop being so damn hatable.
*Balance the budget. Bring the budget back to black. If deficit spending improved the economy, now that it is on the mend, fix the budget.
Things I don't care about:
*The flip-flop vs. stubborn thing.
*Military service of either candidate.
-vaticide |
Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:34 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Vaticide, I agree and think that you are right for the most part. You have such a reasonable and rational argument.
But...
We are not being rational in this thread. It won't be long before someone tells you...
--That were are going to get bombed if Kerry wins.
--Or they may say that Bill Clinton is responsible for everything bad that happened in George W. Bush's term and that George Bush is responsible for everything good that happened under his term.
--Or they will overlook the fact that when the budget is running a net deficit the country is doing net borrowing, as it is now. But when the budget is running a net surplus the country is undergoing a net debt reduction.
Neither point is rational or based on complete facts but all have been made or implied. So, why respond to opinions based on half truths and spin with rational points. I am having much more fun spinning everything just like George W. Bush and the Republicans do. I have learned to duplicate this method from reading Dubya's new book Strategery 3000: What ya'll know about dem Texas Boys.
Before I resume my enjoyable spinwork. Val (with all spin left out), while I doubt whether your job gain was a direct result of the Bush tax cut. I still stand by this statement:
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
As far as any President is concerned, if it happens on his term it is his responsibility, period.
The buck stops at the current President he gets all the credit and all the blame. Whether you got hired or fired, a tax cut or tax increase, or whether terrorists blew up a building or a firecracker, the current President gets all blame and all credit. But methinks that no matter what I say or what Bush says (short of becoming a Democrat), you will still support Bush. Methinks that if I show you a video of Bush playing golf with Bin Laden while they both sign a deal with the devil, you will still support Bush. Therefore, I shall spin. It is more fun, and Dubya's book has taught me so well.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:41 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
And your alternative is???
You are reading the Kerry playbook line for line. You're not putting out any facts of your own, just disputing what's already there (right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter). You're not putting out any policy recommendations of your own, just dismissing what's already there (right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter). You're simply throwing darts (right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't really matter) at what we've got without a single viable alternative. You seem to have skipped the chapter on "Telling the Masses What They Want to Hear", but I expect we'll get there soon enough if this discussion chugs along.
Which is further evidence of my original statement-- this is an election between "Bush" and "Not Bush". Kerry is nothing more than a placeholder in the equation. It's actually a good strategy for the Democrats- "Not Bush" is a bigger voting block than "For Kerry", maybe big enough to get a win.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:56 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
...
Which is further evidence of my original statement-- this is an election between "Bush" and "Not Bush". Kerry is nothing more than a placeholder in the equation. It's actually a good strategy for the Democrats- "Not Bush" is a bigger voting block than "For Kerry", maybe big enough to get a win.
The whole 'Anyone but Bush' thing has me perplexed too. I think it is a good way NOT to defeat Bush. It unites people under a common cause with no common outlet of that cause, thus fractionating people. 'Anyone but Bush' is quite a few people. I've thought it was a bad strategy for them from the start.
-vaticide |
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:11 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Elections are always about the 20% undecided. 40% of the population will vote for each party without much consideration to the issues at hand. I'm not sure "Not Bush" is that many folks in this election. Nader is barely a blip on the radar this time, and he's the biggest third party threat there is. I expect part of the strategy for the Democrats was to paint this as a two horse race.
I think the Democrats have decided that "Not Bush" gives them the bigger slice of that 20% than "For Joe Schmo" does. A fair amount of those 20% are going to be unhappy with the way things are right now (from another discussion we've had, I'm convinced it's human nature to be unhappy). The Demo's figure "Things will be different" is a much easier sell than "Things will be better". It doesn't require you to put forth and defend much in the way of policy. They just might be right.
It's unfortunate that Dubya is such a putz. I think (strictly biased opinion here) this election wouldn't even be close if Bush was even remotely competent as a public speaker.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:55 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Vaticide, the whole, "anyone but Bush thing," is not a strategy of the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign. It is a strategy of the Bush campaign to cause people to only consider Bush as a viable candidate. It is nothing but spin. Rush and others started with that "Anti-Bush" idea before it was clear who would win the Democratic nomination.
Dteowner, you asked for my opinions. Before I begin I want to point out that you hedged yourself against all possible responses. By using the phrase "Chapter on telling people what they want to hear," you have already dismissed any Pro-Kerry point before it is made. It is a very convenient frame of mind to be in if you are determined to support Bush no matter what. Still, in the spirit of discussion I will respond with my policy suggestions, why Kerry and why not Bush. I apologize for the length, but you asked for alot.
Fact: George W. Bush was predisposed to cutting taxes. He never really stopped to consider whether a tax cut was BEST for the country.
Fact: Tax cuts are easy to sell. But they redistribute the income in ways that may not be best for the country.
Fact: The number and percentage of people who live in poverty have increased each year G.W. Bush has been in office.
My suggestion: Actually, examine the economy before you set fiscal policy. Kerry suggestion: a rollback of the tax cut on the richest 1%. It is easy for me to support because I am not in the richest 1%, but it is also fact that a dollar in the hand of a poor man will be spent quicker than a dollar in the hands of a rich man. Economies need customers who spend. Redistributing wealth to poorer people will create more spenders.
About Bush: When I first saw Bush in a public debate against Al Gore I was concerned, and when I saw him in the last round of debates my concerned changed to worry. George Bush is clearly not one of the smartest people. dteowner, you said he was not a good public speaker but it is deeper than that. I have seen him in speeches, State of the Unions, etc. and he is not that bad in speeches. When he is standing across from another person and has to navigate around their challenges to his ideas he gets frustrated and angry; and he can not articulate an idea. This is important because eventually diplomacy will be required of a President. Bush can't effectively exchange ideas with a person of equal status and keep his cool. Attitudes in organization filter from the top down, ask any manager. If the Pres. is averse to negotiation, his staff will be averse to negotiation. I don't want us fighting another war because the President is uncomfortable in a negotiation. Fighting wars is easy, you don't have to respect to other person. However, terrorism is an idea. You can't kill an idea with a bomb or a tank, you have to communicate a message. George W. Bush can not do that.
About Kerry: I can't tell you about what Kerry did when he was President, because he has never been President. But I can tell you my impressions of his proposed policies. On the fiscal side has proposed a selective tax increase (already mentioned), and an expansion of Medicaid, which according to non-partisan sources will NOT interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. He as also mentioned allowing import medicine from Canada. I agree with both plans as they address problems that are growing. Bush has offered nothing to address either problem.
Kerry is poised, intelligent, and has command of the issues. He can discuss the all at random, and support his case with names, number, and dates. He can handle himself under pressure. And a President is constantly under pressure.
On the internation side, Kerry speaks of building alliances, which is always good, according to Sun Tzu alliances are the second highest form of warfare. Bush contends that it is not possible. I don't buy the impossible bit. A man of faith such as Bush should know better. I am particularly impressed by Kerry's stand on North Korea and our reaction to it.
Currently, the US is delegating that tasks to talks with six other nations lead by China. Kerry proposes that we engage them in bilateral talks, insisting that we can do both the bilateral talks and continue the six party talks. Bush says that bilateral talks would undermine the six party talks. What I want to note here is that this is a national security issue, and Bush is delegating that responsibility to another country. Bush is being inconsistent with one of his so-called bedrock principles, that we will not depend on other countries to handle our security issues. Kerry says that if he is elected we will not rely on other nations for our security issues. Bush accuses Kerry of wanting to rely on other nations, but Bush is doing exactly that and is defending the policy. Kerry is inclined to use diplomacy. Bush is averse to diplomacy.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:36 am |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Vaticide, the whole, "anyone but Bush thing," is not a strategy of the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign. It is a strategy of the Bush campaign to cause people to only consider Bush as a viable candidate. It is nothing but spin. Rush and others started with that "Anti-Bush" idea before it was clear who would win the Democratic nomination.
And this is merely unsupported counterspin. For all your posturing, you're being just as dismissive as you're accusing me of being. And really, if you think about it, this spin argument doesn't really help your cause much. Spin is a scam tool used by talented politicians, yes? Since you claim (and I agree completely) that Kerry is a far better politician than Bush, that would imply that he's more likely to use spin to dodge issues than Bush... 
Your discussion is well-considered. I doubt either of us will switch sides any time soon, but the mental exercise is worth an electron or two.
I agree with your point that the tax cut may not have been a good idea. I think, at the core of that issue, the real question is whether you believe in our government as it stands today. Specifically, do you truly believe the budget surplus (which was wiped out by the cut) would have been used to pay down the national debt. I have exactly zero faith in elected officials doing what's right for the country. Doing what's right for the country doesn't get you re-elected. Americans like handouts from Uncle Sam, plain and simple and generally elect people that will give it to them in some manner. I figure $600 in MY hands is far more likely to be spent to my benefit than $600 in the hands of Congress. If I was guaranteed that my $600 was going completely and totally to paying down the national debt, or to improve education, or to properly equip the soldiers fighting and dying for me in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd be interested in leaving it there.
Specific to Mr Kerry's so-called policies... you're chastising Bush for the deficit (I'd be interested in seeing what that deficit numbers would have been had 9-11 not happened--since you say Kerry would have responded against al-Qaida, it's entirely possible he would have run a deficit as well), and yet you're cheering for the expansion of Medicaid. If Kerry is serious about the deficit, how in the heck is he going to pay to expand one of the biggest entitlement programs in the nation? Not to mention that "smells like national healthcare" he threw out in the 3rd debate. Either he'll run a deficit just like Bush which pokes a big hole in his campaign rhetoric, or he'll have to pull the plug on handouts which makes him a flip-flop liar telling people what they want to hear.
Similarly, you chastise Dubya for taking action against Iraq before finishing with Afghanistan, and then turn around and chastise him for not taking action against Korea before finishing with Afghanistan and Iraq. You can't have it both ways, and yet that's a pillar of Kerry's rhetoric. Once again, I think Kerry is trying to lay claim to any ground Bush isn't standing on, whether it really belongs to Kerry or not. Unhappy Bush ignored the international community-- vote for Kerry. Unhappy Bush relied on the international community-- vote for Kerry. Or should I say, "vote for Not-Bush"...
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:04 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Hmm.. interesting.
Well, looks like I've joined the ranks of the "voting against the despised" club. 
Yes, of course I'm still voting issues and party first. Kerry and "Ter-ayyzaa" in office really does send a shiver down my spine tho, and I simply cannot stand John Edwards for more than a minute. I'm not going to sit here and pound out the talking points, you all know where I stand by now. But make no mistake about it, this election is quite personal by now. Not only do I want to win, I really do want to see them lose. Big Time. Horribly. Kicking and screaming. I want wailing and the gnashing of teeth. I want the drama queens to really kick it into high gear and give me a show I'll never forget. I want those suicide hotline numbers jammed up on election night with distraught lefties everywhere. I want to see them totally defeated.
I want the American people to raise a collective middle finger to the Left, to the Hollywood quislings, and all their movies, books, 60 Minutes segments, and everything else they've thrown at this President. Tell ya, it will really make this Tiger's day ='.'=
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:14 am |
|
|
tolgerias
High Emperor
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 770
Location: The Netherlands |
I know im a little bit off topic but why are you guys talking about Al-Queda?
Since the Taliban was driven away they hardly have any support and no base of operations, which makes them pretty much harmless. I mean all the terrorist attacks that happen now are the work of other small terrorist groups and the only role Al-Queda has is the role you give them in your head 
IMO the only goal of this groups is to spread fear and destabilize the western world and your paranoid comments about threats from Al-Queda only helps them in this goals.
I really think you should ignore them as much as possible and go on with your life, let the secret service handle this terrorist and stop giving Al-Queda the satisfaction of accusing them for things they cant even do
_________________
If you can't debate without namecalling then don't bother visiting us. -Myrthos |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:41 am |
|
|
Amelia
City Guard
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Ong's Hat, New Jersey |
Choosing between Bush and Kerry is like choosing between a life preserver filled with iron and a life preserver filled with bricks.
_________________
The real secret of magick is that the world is made of words. And that if you know the words that the world is made of, you can make of it whatever you wish. -Terence Mckenna |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:07 am |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
quote:
Originally posted by tolgerias
I mean all the terrorist attacks that happen now are the work of other small terrorist groups and the only role Al-Queda has is the role you give them in your head
Tell that to the people getting their heads cut off in Iraq by al-Zaqarwi's (sp?) group, which is a documented part of al-Qaida. I'm sure they might disagree with the wisdom of an "al-Qaida is dead" approach.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:23 pm |
|
|
maic_ro
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 113
Location: Always at work |
do you really think that the head cuting campain will stop if that particular org. will be crush....really...or if any of the candidats will be elected...That has nothing else to do but with the presence of US trops in Irak..and will stop only if that will not longer be the case. |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:49 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
quote:
Originally posted by maic_ro
do you really think that the head cuting campain will stop if that particular org. will be crush....really...or if any of the candidats will be elected...That has nothing else to do but with the presence of US trops in Irak..and will stop only if that will not longer be the case.
I doubt that type of thing would stop if every US troop left tomorrow, to be honest. Seems to me that the terrorists will just come up with another rationale for their actions. That wasn't the point of my post, though. I was responding to the thought that al-Qaida has been reduced to "monster under the bed" status, which is quite simply laughable.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:27 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
I doubt either candidate can easily fix the situation in Iraq, so the question is "Who created that situation?" The answer is BUSH, so why would we let Bush continue to mismanage Iraq for four more years?
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:27 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Well obviously it wouldn't be Clinton and the beloved UN that let Saddam do anything he wanted for 8 years by not enforcing anything... *sigh*
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:36 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
