What if Gore had won instead of Bush?

[skywalker]

Gaelic

So where it is not "OK" for me to call Bush an idiot, it is fine for you to call "Hillary, Bill, Al and their cronies in the Senate" horrible.

You know, I never said I had a problem with the Republican ideals, I'd have no problem with a Republican President, just not Dubya. He is NOT the best "conservative" for the job. The right wingers out there (not necessarily anyone on this forum) just love to have someone they can manipulate and Bush is just the man for the job!

Mark

[This message has been edited by skywalker (edited 08-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by skywalker (edited 08-11-2001).]

Well there wouldnt be quite so much blatent pandering to the whims of multinationals and the rich like with missile defence, which was just to create jobs and contracts in america, But Bush is merely a puppet president like reagan, ruled by his advisors. The fact he spends most of his time on holiday is very telling.

------------------
Helm Watch Over Thee upon Thy Quest

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Gaelic: The problem is that liberals believe the government exists to proactively go out and do a bunch of things because people are not able to take care of themselves while conservatives believe that people have the right to do for themselves and have the government available to solve problems that arise and maintain the conditions of an orderly society. The democrats essentially want to socialize everything and make the people dependant upon the government while conservatives want people to have the opportunity to succeed and be more than "average." I cannot sit quietly by and let horrible people like Hillary, Bill, Al, and their cronies in the Senate ruin a fantastic nation by stealing from people who have worked hard and earned success and giving to those who have not just to ensure their own political futures and personal power. Those people represent the greatest threat to our country since the civil war.

Oh please.

It seems one of the favorite strategies of vocal internet conservatives is to stack the argument by slanted definitions.

Notice how the above quoted portrayals take the worst aspects of some liberals and pretend such are the essence of "liberalism," while taking the opposite approach with conservatisim. What a joke.

Why don't we define conservatism by the same approach and see what happens? Here goes: Conservatives are intolerant religious/moralistic bigots, possibly racist, who worship money and large corporations, at the expense of everybody and everything else.

It is a FALSEHOOD that conservatives really stand for smaller government. What they say and what they do are two very different things. If you look at how so called conservative republican congressman actually vote on bills, you will find that they are just as spend-happy, pork barrel addicted as any of the liberals. If there are differences it is in how they choose to spend the money, not the fact that they spend it. Conservatives simply place a greater emphasis on things like military spending and corporate welfare, rather than welfare for poor people. That is the difference.

Now, you might claim that "conservatives" as I have stereotypically described them above are not "true conservatives." Well, the same reasoning applies regarding the use of the word "liberal" doesn't it?

"Liberal" used to mean something very different than it does today. I would describe myself as a "classical liberal" in the old Jeffersonian sense. In the same way it would be unreasonable of me to insist on that old definition in taking about "liberals" today, it is equally unreasonable to insist on older definitions of "conservatism" when talking about "conservatives" today.

The truth is that neither modern liberals nor conservatives, as reflected in the makeup of our current republican and democratic parties, pay anything more than lip service to the idea of changing the current governmental establishment.

Sometimes I find it difficult to tell them apart at all. Rather than presenting the public with a significantly meaningful choice, increasingly they seem the parties of Tweetledee and Tweetledum.

I agree with those who said above that the choice between Gore and Bush was a sad choice indeed. Nader would have been better than either one.

In our two party system, we frequently hear the term "the lesser of two evils" as a method of choosing between them. A more accurate perspective would be "the evil of two lessers."

[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 08-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 08-11-2001).]

[John D Harris]

Skywalker,
I have no problem with you calling Bush an idiot, since you have defined that as your opinion.
Diogenes Of Pumpkintown,
That is how conservatives are difined openly in the media. Durring the affirmative action "brew-ha-ha" in Califronia a couple of years ago the leading conserv. Ward Connely (sp?) was called all of those names by the leading liberals in the news on the air. Al Gore called the conservs. those very names and worse in one of his debates with Bradley (in N.Y. if I remember correctly).
Let a conserv. (Rep) politican call a liberal a hate monger or any name and sit back and watch the fireworks. If you don't believe me I offer this historical anticdote. Remember Sen. Packwood of Or. drummed out of the senate because he made sexual advances towords his staffers. Even though erevy woman that said "NO" to Sen. Packwood all said that was the end of the advances and he NEVER HELD IT AGAINST THEM PROFESSIONALY, in other words there was NO work related consequences, several still were working for him when he left. The media was all over Packwood, N.O.W. was screaming bloody murder, as were other "liberal" orgaizations. A woman accuses a well know "liberal" Pres. of sexual advances and she is called "trailor trash". Please don't make me go into historical facts showwing this double standard, because I'll be unmerciful.
As for the conserv. congressmen, if you are indeed a Jefferson liberal then you will understand T.J.'s statement that when the people discover that they can vote things (money, goodies, and the like) for themselves the republic is DOOMED.(paraphasied by me)
Speaking for my self as a conservative I would like to send what tax money I send to Washington D.C. to my own state capital. And send what taxes I send to Montgomey,AL to Washington D.C. For a simple mathimatical reason, in Wash. D.C. My voice is 1 of 280+ million, in Montgomery, Al my voice is one of 4-5 million. It carries more wieght in Montgomery than in D.C.
In my opinion the Fed. govt. ought to do two things 1) keep foreign govt's off my back (military) 2) Keep the states from violating my Constitutional rights (Fed. courts and Justice Dept.) everything else is fluff. Let the states take care of it, the states that are run the best will by nature be the most successful, and will retain their population. Poorly run states will lose their population to the better run states, and their tax base. Poorly run states populations will learn to vote for better people. Nothing in life is free everything has consequences. We only hurt people in the long run if we do not remember that fact. Help people yes, but don't hand them everthing on a silver plater.

------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[Jafin]

I think both Bush and Gore were poor choices. Neither had great outstanding qualities. It almost seemed as if they were the same person. I really didn't know which would be better, I still don't. However, it seems to me that Bush is doing a good job so far. I really would rather not speculate as to who would have been better because, frankly, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest. What really matters is what is happening and making sure you and your loved ones can live long and happy lives. That's all you can do really. The government of course has an effect on this which requires that you do what you can to keep or put those in power that will help you, your loved ones, and the people in your community who have the same basic needs. This is what's REALLY important. As far as I can see, Bush is doing what is necessary for that so all the more power to him.

Diogenes Of Pumpkinton, I would appreciate it if you didn't insult anyone by using the terms "Oh please" and "What a joke" when refering to someone elses posts. That is their opinion and you have NO right to insult them. If you disagree, fine, argue your point if you want, but don't insult them.

-Jafin

------------------

I am Jafin, arch-mage of the HADB clan!

[Sentinel04]

Woah Woah...

Guys, Cheney is President. It's fairly obivious. That is, if he doesn't have a heart attack and die.

I thought both candidates were poor choices. The reason I voted for Gore was the Tax cut. A tax cut in general would not have been too bad, but christ, Bush's tax cut was basically payback to the extremely rich people who put him into office. The tax plan basically helps the highest 1%, and does relatively nothing for anyone else. And please, don't give me the trickle down ecomonics exuse, we saw how that worked in Reagonomics(ie it didn't).

I would not have a problem with conservatives if they would start helping everyone, and not just wealthy white people. You can say what you want about the Demorcratic party, but at least they help everyone. Take the tax plan for instance, it helped rich people. That in itself isn't so bad, but it little else for the poor(the people who need help).

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: I agree with those who said above that the choice between Gore and Bush was a sad choice indeed. Nader would have been better than either one.

If anyone thinks our economy is in bad shape now, just imagine what it would have been like with Nader as the Supreme Commander! We'd all be on welfare, because no one could work, unless they were a bureaucrat.

Al Gore is a stuff shirt, who likes to throw big words around and show how smart he is. Can't and never could stand him since I became an adult. at least with Bush, we get to see Will Farrow on SNL a lot more! Besides, Bush has done a good job as President. Clitler, I mean Clinton, himself said the other day that he was a great politician!

Someone mentioned Colin Powell as a president. I think he would have made a fine one!!! He definatly would have got my vote!!! I think the world of him!
Truely a great man!!!

Kyoto Treaty... Never happen, regardless of who became President. Clinton, only gave it lip service at best and never truely supported it. If he had we would have probably signed it.

Also someone else said something earlier about Bush saying and doing anything for a vote. You don't think Al Gore wouldn't either? How many times did Al Gore say one thing in one place and turn around and say the opposite in another, during the election. They are all politicains. That's what they do.
It doesn't matter if it's here in the States or in Australia. They are all a like.


------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[This message has been edited by Sir Taliesin (edited 08-13-2001).]

Both parties should realize that obstruct and delay has replaced advise and consent. Forceing epic struggles between the two.I sense frustration in peoples lives everywhere concerning appointed representatives.
Let me give you an example. There is a continuing Judicail comfirmation crisis going on now. Democrats understandably are concerned about stacking the bench with right-wing ideologues. Ideological and partisan disagreements in the Senate have transformed into a "tennis" match much like when Clinton got in office. This is not fair to the people who face longggg delays in backlogged courts.
I think that we all need to be aware of the World as a smaller place and keep voting for the best person. No what title they carry. I dont think lip service is acceptable. Vote on your representatives voting record related to your convictions and beliefs. I know that the "checks and balance" system seemingly is spiraling downward but just not voting will not make anything any better.(I think I just convinced myself to stay with it anyway)

------------------
*\Conan/*

[This message has been edited by Conan (edited 08-13-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: If anyone thinks our economy is in bad shape now, just imagine what it would have been like with Nader as the Supreme Commander! We'd all be on welfare, because no one could work, unless they were a bureaucrat.

What basis do you have for making such a claim? You profoundly misunderstand Ralph Nader and his political philosophy.

[Donut]

This is a passage from a speech given by, possibly, the greatest President that the US never had - now why couldn't you elect him?

'I put the hammer to farms in Concord, in Salem: you guys got rogered, but good. Today, for the first time in history, the largest group of Americans living in poverty are children. One in five children live in the most abject, dangerous, hopeless, backbreaking, gut-wrenching poverty any of us could imagine. One in five, and they're children. If fidelity to freedom and democracy is the code of our civic religion, then surely the code of our humanity is faithful service to that unwritten commandment that says we shall give our children better than we ourselves receive.

"Let me put it this way. I voted against the bill because I didn't want to make it harder for people to buy milk. I stopped some money from flowing into your pocket. If that angers you, if you resent me, I completely respect that. But if you expect anything different from the president of the United States, you should vote for someone else."




------------------

Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas