US President Elections:BushvsKerry

[Keal]

I thought someone said they'd vote Nader. The 1 greater of 2 evils was a joke.

[John D Harris]

I'll be voting to re-elect President Bush, I agree with his position on taxes, and the tax cuts he spear headed trough Congress. The Economy of the USA has grown and is growing at rates not seen in nearly 20 years. Faster and stronger then the economy of the 90's after the last tax increase. I like that President Bush is not afraid to make a decesion(sp?), I believe he has done what he thought was best given the information he had to defend and secure the USA as he is charged with doing under the US Consitution. President Bush or any US president is not charged with doing what other countries think he should do to defend and protect the USA. Presidents are charged with doing what they believe is the best course of action for the USA. I don't care what other countries or their citizens think of the USA, if they are not willing to back their thoughts up with actions, their thoughts are of litte to no consequence. What the "Hale" are they going to do? Invade us HA! Stop selling and buying good with us HA HA HA that would lead to the destruction of the worlds economies and their leaders know that. So they are left with the only thing they can do and that is yap about things, "hale" I'll sell them the damn mircophones so they can yap all they want. Anyone that doesn't like the way the US economy is going show me an example of anyother nation's economy that is doing better! One that has lower unemployement, lower inflation, faster economic growth, higher medium income. What is the home ownership/car ownership/TV ownership/AirConditioner ownership/home computer ownership percentage of those people in their countries living in"Poverty"? In the vast majority of the world the poorest in the USA would be consider wealthy, so don't even talk to me about how tough it is being poor. My wife & I raised 2 daughters, bought a house and lived on only one income of $7.50 hr. in the early 90's. It's not the high cost of living IT'S the cost of living high. $420,000,000,000 defiect out of a $15-20,000,000,000,000 economy give me a break that's 2-3% debt. I bet any of you would wish to have only a 2-3% debt a year, if you have any doubts check out your credit card balances, do the math, then get back to me.

Now I can't help but notice so far it's not been I'm voting for Kerry for "a,b &c", where "a,b,&c" are positive things(by the writers standards). But instead it's I'm voting for Kerry because Bush has done "d,e,&f", where "d,e,&f" are negative things(by the writers standards.)

For those non US citizens don't even talk to me about the election, you have "no dog in this fight". I don't talk to you about the politics of your country, so I'm living by the same standards I am promotting.

For US citizens not planing on voting yap all you want the 1st admendment gives you that right, it also gives me the right not to give a rats-rear end about what you say, or you about what I say. So agian I'm expecting the same standards by which I live.

[Keal]

John's right.

But I have something to add to your statement about people complaining that their poor. My parents are trying to raise 5 sons, with only around $500 coming in a week. If you think that's a lot, subtract almost $375 in doctor's bills alone every week.

[ 08-03-2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Keal ]

[uss]

Originally posted by Ziroc: On Election day in America, I will post the Official 'Ironworks Voters' Poll and on it, will have all the choices that the real ballot will. Now I know we'll have people voting that are not in America, but it may still reflect the 'overall' feeling in America kinda. So it'll be interesting.

I think you should put separate options for American and non-American citizens(Or people who can and people who can't vote). It would be more precise - I think there are more Bush haters in other parts of the world than in the US.

Or would that make too many options? I have no idea how many candidates there are.


Just a suggestion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, quite the fine rant Mr. Harris. Let me bend your ear on one issue though -- the debt. First, I note that you use "deficit" when I think you meant "debt." Just to clarify for people, "debt" is how much you owe in TOTAL, whereas "deficit" is how much further you fell behing THIS YEAR. Annual deficet plus existing debt = total debt at the end of the year.

Anywho, I don't think you got those mixed up. Just clarifying.

Now, erm... the point, yes, the point. Every month, every year, we spend as much money floating the deficit (which is a LOAN and carries INTEREST we must pay) as we spend on health care and education and the environment COMBINED.

That's a pretty frikkin expensive loan. Boy, think of the tax breaks we could have if we could pay off the debt and have that money back in our Gov-ment's pockets every year. We're talking a lotta beans there.

[ 08-03-2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Keal]

There are 3 that I know of, and a lot of people in other countries do hate bush.
5 Bush
3/4 Kerry (4 if the Any but bush wants kerry)
2 Anyone but Bush (yours isn't getting changed yet, let me double check your post.)
1 Nader

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Keal: John's right. But I have something to add to your statement about people complaining that their poor. My parents are trying to raise 5 sons, with only around $500 coming in a week. If you think that's a lot, subtract almost $375 in doctor's bills alone every week.

Well, here you've hit one of my hot-button issues. Bush's meager limp-wristed effort at changing health care was merely signing a big check to the Drug Companies -- except for the part where he was more nefarious and limited states' rights to haggle with Insurance Companies for lower prices.

That's the wrong answer. Kerry's answer is only marginally better, but at least he'll let us go to Canada to buy cheaper drugs -- which will ultimately result in those companies lowering prices here. He also intends to take the HMO/Insurer's control away regarding approval of medical procedures. He will put the control back in the hands of the - duh - DOCTORS. Anyone who has had to deal with our health care system anytime in the last 5-10 years can tell you it is broken and needs fixing. So, Mr. Harris, here is one issue where I am "for" Kerry.

Long term, however, more needs to be done. We need to do what Canada does and put price caps on what these oligopolies can charge for drugs. Then, we need to cap what the InsuranceCo's can charge doctors for malpractice insurance.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oblivion, you've bought into the NRA knee-jerk to any gun legislation hook, line, and sinker. I haven't.

Did you read the two documents in question? All gun control is illegal, period. Within the Constitution there is also the supremacy clause, which states that no state or local body may pass a law in direct contravention to the constitution. The ninth and fourteenth ammendments. It isn't a knee-jerk response.

It's admitted, by the ban's own sponsors, that the ban is shallow, meaningless, and bans cosmetic features over actual lethality modifiers, and could at best affect 1% (or less) of the violent crimes committed with firearms annually. Even though bans have no causal effect on crime in the positive, only provably vulnerablizing the law-abiding.

Furthermore, I just read the legislation, and raw material surrounding the debate. I've never actually been to the NRA's webspace.

Besides, can you name one case where a legally owned machine gun was used in a crime, ever? I can. A cop murdered a drug dealer with his legally owned and registered MAC-10, while off duty. The only such offense committed since 1934.

It's that simple.

Actually, it isn't simple at all. The whole thing is a damned mess rife with disinformation and lies. I'm not a one-issue voter either. Both candidates are quite lilly-livered on this issue, as most politicians are. One more reason for me to vote Libertarian. As if I already didn't agree with their platform totally.

Also, if you're concerned about the environment, why not go after the biggest polluter?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: I am not ignorant of Christianity

Your generalisations and mislabelling suggest the contrary
[/QUOTE]Wrong. I have routinely gone out of my way to avoid generalizations. You cant force me to accept your opinions so you attack me instead. You have mislabeled me.

quote: and I am not anti-Christian.

Your frequent attacks and persistent derisions suggest the contrary.
[/QUOTE]Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You cant tolerate or respect my opinions, so you label them as attacks and derisions.

Continue with the character attacks and my only reply shall be to tell you how wrong you are. [/QUOTE]I'm only reading what's written. If there's miscommunication, try writing different words. It's not only me who reads things as I've said. I'm giving you feedback. You can say all you like you're not attacking or deriding Chrisitians or Christianity, but your wording, phrasing, and sentence choices have frequently communicated attack and derision. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cheers.

[Timber Loftis]

Reference to the "biggest polluter" escapes me.

I'd vote libertarian too, if they stood a chance. I'll vote for a change first, to get something *closer to* what I want, and then I'll work for what I really want.

As for the "any gun control is illegal" argument, that's highly debatable. For instance, the right "shall not be infringed." Does "infringed" mean "denied totally" or does it mean "imposed upon at all?" I know your opinion on this, but I'm just pointing out it's debatable.

So many things you see when you study law make you simply aghast at the horrors of our legal system. Federal Agencies were not provided for in the Constitution -- technically all agencies are on pretty shaky legal ground. I mean, Congress makes an agency which is governed by the executive but which has regulatory (legislative) and quasi-judicial powers. So, from the "purely constitutional" standpoint, all agencies, from the FAA to the FCC, the EPA to the DOJ, the USDA to the FDA, should be ripped assunder right now. This instant. Oh... wait, how will our world run if we do that?

Or what about the 8th Amendment? -- that Amendment basically doesn't exist anymore. At all. Period.

Or what about all those articles online teaching people how they don't really have to pay their income taxes, based on the constitution? There are quite a number of folks in jail who tried real hard to make that argument.

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that as a lawyer, you learn early on that getting too far into the pointy-headed stuff will simply drive you mad, so you start being more practical.

From a practical standpoint, even if the law outlaws the cooler-looking guns, we can still arm ourselves. From a personal practical standpoint, in my state and city, even if the federal assault weapon ban lapses, my local prohibitions will still apply, so I still won't be able to own that H&K G3 I want under my bed.

And, be it a favor to Bush or Kerry, a vote for a third party this election is a vote for whoever you don't like. But, you live in NY, so go ahead and cast your vote for whomever. Make the loudest statement you can. The Democrats will take your state no matter what you do. Just like mine.

Now, back to this polluter issue...