Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Cadaver

Did Kerry Cheat?

Recommended Posts

Yes the two-party system is a BIG part of the problem. The US should (in my oppinion) look at other countries experiences with many-party systems. Then take what you like and "steal" it. The way other countries does it probably won't work in the US but, it could be inspirational.

 

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm voting Libertarian.  I realize that some of you will call that a "wasted vote", but I can see no other way of letting the Big Two Lying Political Parties that I'm not up for dealing with their BS anymore.  I hope those of you who are voting for Kerry only because he isn't GW take that approach as well.

The problem, though, is that if you want to protest with your vote AGAINST Bush by voting, say, Libertarian, it will be ineffectual because there are not enough people that will go this route, and if enough people are swayed to this POV, may actually hurt chances of getting Bush OUT of office.

 

Personally, I don't think the Libertarians are a viable alternate political party for the US. Some of their stuff sounds interesting...but then they just go too far, and the solution is utterly unrealistic. Maybe if the Libertarians moderated their conservatism they might get more votes...

 

Besides, I remember reading a Lo-ong article a while ago about how the Libertarian candidate is a nut-job. Don't know how true it is...

 

Damon.

To be honest, I would rather have Bush stay in office as opposed to having Kerry in. I really really really dislike Kerry. Moreso than Bush.

 

I'm for anyone who will reduce the size of government, reduce my taxes and fight to keep the government out of my life. Government is a necessary evil, but I sure as hell do not need them to tell me what to to think and how to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest, I would rather have Bush stay in office as opposed to having Kerry in. I really really really dislike Kerry. Moreso than Bush.

 

See, I feel the same way...but opposite. I cant stand Bush and if I were able to vote last election, I would have voted for Gore. I just dont like him and I think he is a moron, but that is just me. I dont like big business and I feel Oil is one of the worst pigs in the industry.

 

 

Okay, that is enough being political, not my bag.

Tag, your it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jah. i'd really like a proportional, parliamentary system of gov't.

 

The US got an amazing number of things right in the initial constitution...but i'm pretty tired of people assuming they got it all right as if the constitution was some unalterable holy writ.

 

Hel-lo? anyone remember 3/5ths of a person?

 

In order to insure continuity, they did provide for means to amend the constitution, but the two-party system (which is not constitutional, but rather a matter of power-maintenance by those who hold it) is not a good thing for the US.

 

Because we can amend it piecemeal, it never quite fully breaks - at least in most people's eyes. But we would be better served by amending the constitution to provide for proportional representation rather than districs in the House of Representatives...then leave the senate, vp, & presidency the same.

 

With that, we wouldn't have to touch anything else, but it would allow for development of multiple parties who more directly represent the views of the people...and provide them experience and a base constituency that would make it possible to run for higher office later.

 

I think that that is the smallest change we could make to undermine the current system that is so corrupt.

 

btw - thanks for the compliments.

 

And MY point Cadaver, is that it doesn't really matter what it was - pen or crib sheet or credit card. It's mere existence is not evidence of bad character. It could be evidence that a republican got access to his suit-jacket just before someone else put it on him (he doesn't carry his own coat around, y'know) OR it could be evidence that his aide is absent-minded OR it could be evidence that Kerry forgot to tell his aide to empty his pockets before he goes out on stage.

 

The existence of an object has no direct reflection on his character. While I'm no Kerry-campaigner (i'm undecided, but it's possible I will vote for him), I'm annoyed that people go from existence of object = questionable character when there are DOZENS of alternative explanations.

 

The determination to cherry pick from the rules, find something that may or may not be a violation of them, and then to claim that that PROVES something (as many right-wing news sources & opinion-shouters have done) about his character is so grotesquely obvious in it's obvious leaps over barriers of natural logic that it offends me that such things are taken seriously.

 

If people know they are getting their news from a partisan source, why not read the rules individually instead of trusting their "paraphrase" of the rules? Why not think through the logic step by step to see if - even if their assumptions are true - that what they say is in fact "evidence" of the truth of their hypotheses.

 

I see too many people who have abdicated responsibility for critical thinking to other people. Me, I keep hoping for a resurgence of people thinking for themselves.

 

That and proportional representation in the House :poke:

 

The two together would make a heck of a positive difference in the US - and around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CripDyke would get my vote if she were running.

I am the biggest fan of her political satire. ^_^

 

You've said you write or used to write articles for

some publications. I'd love to read some of your pieces.

 

In cases of controversial subject matter, PM me.

I'll not be offended. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm for anyone who will reduce the size of government, reduce my taxes and fight to keep the government out of my life. Government is a necessary evil, but I sure as hell do not need them to tell me what to to think and how to act.

Um...

 

did you notice that Bush has INCREASED the size of the US Gov't by tens of thousands of jobs??

 

Did you notice that he ran up massive debts? - You DO know that it's cheaper to pay for something the first time than to buy on credit & shell out interest for years and years....

 

I mean, our annual interest payments are of a similar size to our military budgets. With a few years of genuine belt-tightening, we could pay down our debt, get rid of the deficit, and THEN we could have had BIGGER tax cuts than Bush sponsored - and that would merely balance the budget, it wouldn't increase the debt at all.

 

Hey, i'm as fiscally conservative as they come. Let's get rid of the debt and then get me a HUGE tax cut - without needing to cut any services at all. If we find ways to cut services (like, say, taxpayer funded advertising campaigns for private companies - like McDonald's)...then things just get even better.

 

Bush has taken the "Increase the Gov't while setting the stage for a fiscal crisis in the future which will necessitate unpredictable, sudden and massive tax increases" approach.

 

As for butting out of people's lives...

 

Pro-choice: leaves the individual to make the decision & keeps the gov't out.

 

Patriot Act: authorizes the Gov't to make a list of anyone who buys or checks out any book on a "watch list". The gov't is further authorized to make a secret decision about whether or not any of those people will then be placed on a "no fly" list - the Gov't makes a decision about when, where and how you can ride on planes.

 

Which candidate is for which of these positions? What does that tell you about butting out of people's lives?

 

I tell ya - Bush is not a conservative candidate. A conservative would make sure that he paid his bills. A conservative wouldn't care less about what you read.

 

If those are your reasons for picking Bush...

 

Well, you get to pick any candidate you wish, but your logic is not obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US got an amazing number of things right in the initial constitution...but i'm pretty tired of people assuming they got it all right as if the constitution was some unalterable holy writ.

Well, at the time it was written, the Constitution was just what was needed. It addressed all the issues that were raised during the time of rebellion against England. I do agree, however, that changes are necessary to it, and I think those changes should be spelled out. Currently, the "left wing" likes to change the Constitution by interpretation, which to my reckoning leads to more problems than it solves. Things start getting pulled out of lawyer's asses and held up as law by the Supreme Court which aren't spelled out in the Constitution (Right to Privacy, for example). Now, don't get me wrong. I think that some of those rights are perfectly valid. But I think they should be spelled out in the Constitution, so that there's no doubt, and take the power away from the trial lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there ever been a politician who didn't cheat, lie and steal? The words "Honest Politician" are an oxymoron. You just have to sort among the haystack to find the piece of straw that is the least sullied from it's time in the horsebarn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Libertarian...but I also am a realist...and know that the Libertarians have a chance in Hell of ever being a major power...unless we have a split in philosophy that divided the Democratic party in 1860 that allowed the Republican party to gain strength and be formed...

 

So this Libertarian...will vote Republican...as long as the major issues that I feel are the most important are being supported by the Republicans and not the Democrats...(If I had my way...we would still be part of the United Nations...but force some other country like France or Germany to host and foot the expenses of it...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did you notice that Bush has INCREASED the size of the US Gov't by tens of thousands of jobs??

 

Did you notice that he ran up massive debts? - You DO know that it's cheaper to pay for something the first time than to buy on credit & shell out interest for years and years....

 

I mean, our annual interest payments are of a similar size to our military budgets. With a few years of genuine belt-tightening, we could pay down our debt, get rid of the deficit, and THEN we could have had BIGGER tax cuts than Bush sponsored - and that would merely balance the budget, it wouldn't increase the debt at all.

 

Hey, i'm as fiscally conservative as they come. Let's get rid of the debt and then get me a HUGE tax cut - without needing to cut any services at all. If we find ways to cut services (like, say, taxpayer funded advertising campaigns for private companies - like McDonald's)...then things just get even better.

 

Bush has taken the "Increase the Gov't while setting the stage for a fiscal crisis in the future which will necessitate unpredictable, sudden and massive tax increases" approach.

Ah, but ultimately Bush is for a smaller government since we're going to either need to raise taxes or cut government spending ... or more likely both, just to pay for what we're doing right now. He's just taking the long view. :wacko: It's kind of like maxing out all of your credit cards before you die because you know that your kids are going to just spend the money on junk (and actually being able to pass your debt along to them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the above thread is why we ban POLITICAL discussions on every other MB I'm a member of...

 

Holy Smack Attack people!

 

*is now very sorry he even read this thread...*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, but ultimately Bush is for a smaller government since we're going to either need to raise taxes or cut government spending ... or more likely both, just to pay for what we're doing right now. He's just taking the long view. :wacko: It's kind of like maxing out all of your credit cards before you die because you know that your kids are going to just spend the money on junk (and actually being able to pass your debt along to them).

and that's conservative???

 

or is that just theft from you kids??

 

and how do you really know he's REALLY for smaller gov't??

 

You believe, apparently, that he'd DELIBERATELY wrecking the entire us economy in order to avoid a public debate on whether or not gov't should be smaller.

 

You believe, apparently, that someone sneaky enough to wreck the entire US economy instead of just following up on his beliefs by, say, proposing a smaller budget...is actually telling you the truth??

 

I'm just curious here - You're saying that you can trust someone who wants to destroy the democratic process along with the economy...because ultimately we won't be able to afford the services that you don't want?

 

You do understand that taxes won't be cut, dont' you? In the scenario you imagine, we can't pay for programs because all our money is going to pay for interest on the debt.

 

Plus - it dramatically increases the chance you will lose your job, since the US economy will be wrecked.

 

And this is the reason you believe you can support Bush? Because you're hoping that someday - in order to get the smaller gov't you wish - that your taxes will increase in order to pay for the train wreck of debt that Bush created?

 

Wow. I'm reading what you're saying - but it's hard to understand how that's an argument for Bush.

 

I mean, this is you, right: "Ultimately...we're going to have to raise taxes or cut gov't spending...or more likely both."

 

Don't you believe in your principles of smaller gov't strongly enough to believe that you can just win a debate - rather than wait for the US gov't to default on loans, thereby driving up the rates on your mortgage, car loan, & credit cards?

 

Okay. Really. You can have it any way you want it. If this is an argument for Bush in your mind, that's okay with me. Your vote is yours.

 

But I actually believe in Democracy & think that proposing larger government/budgets when you say you want smaller government/budgets is kinda, well, dishonest.

 

Enchantra's point is taken, of course, but I wouldn't have the ovaries to make the case that his deception is actually a reason to trust that someday he'll do what he said he would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and the above thread is why we ban POLITICAL discussions on every other MB I'm a member of...

 

Holy Smack Attack people!

 

*is now very sorry he even read this thread...*

awww...Jester! I think everyone here is simply engaging in political debate. Last I heard the FCC hasn't fined CBS for THAT yet!! :poke:

 

I haven't seen anyone being nasty towards anyone else on these boards.

 

True, bad things have been said about politicians (specific and as a group), but the discussion has been civil.

 

Let's just try to prevent any "keyboard malfunctions" people!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did you notice that Bush has INCREASED the size of the US Gov't by tens of thousands of jobs??

 

It's Congress that holds the pursestrings... the most the President can do is sign the paperwork, or veto it. Sure, he can push an initiative, but it takes Congress and the House to make those things happen.

 

Speaking of the House, you mentioned earlier having a proportionate representation... what exactly do you mean? Can you explain, or link me to something that does?

 

With a few years of genuine belt-tightening, we could pay down our debt, get rid of the deficit, and THEN we could have had BIGGER tax cuts than Bush sponsored - and that would merely balance the budget, it wouldn't increase the debt at all. 

 

The question is, which politician is going to actually call for such a thing to happen? I don't really see it happening with ANY of them.

 

Pro-choice: leaves the individual to make the decision & keeps the gov't out.

 

Patriot Act: authorizes the Gov't to make a list of anyone who buys or checks out any book on a "watch list". The gov't is further authorized to make a secret decision about whether or not any of those people will then be placed on a "no fly" list - the Gov't makes a decision about when, where and how you can ride on planes. 

 

While I see the reasoning behind the choice of these two examples, they seem to be very oversimplified to make the point you're trying to make. To an anti-abortion person, the idea of abortion, carried to the extreme, means a parent would have the choice of whether or not to kill their infant if they no longer want them. Also, the way laws are currently written, they simply don't make the same application across the board. A woman can go have a pregnancy aborted, and it's OK; but if a pregnant woman is shot in the abdoment, killing the child, but the mother lives, the gunman is still guilty of murder. If it's not a life if it's aborted, why is it a life if it's shot?

 

The Patriot act was put in place during a period when all Americans were very paranoid and worried about if the boogeyman was going to get them. Also the fact that someone reads a book on a suspect list doesn't guarantee that they're not going to be allowed to get on an airplane, it just means that if they've read tons of books on bioweapons and nuclear weapons theory and the like, that someone is aware of it. There is no expectation of privacy in a public library.

 

 

I tell ya - Bush is not a conservative candidate. A conservative would make sure that he paid his bills. A conservative wouldn't care less about what you read. 

 

:) This is funny, to me. "Conservatives" tend to be stereotyped as the extremely religious; the same extremely religious, who try to have books and music banned for its content, which they consider is "Eeee-vill". How many of us heard about D&D being Satan's game?

 

The stereotype also encompasses the wealthy businessmen. Are you saying you don't think they have huge creditcard bills as well? They're making interest payments, just like our government is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the biggest reason I'm upset with Bus is the growth of the government under his watch. And that silly patriot act had full bi-partisan support, so I don't really see it as a Rep v Dem issue. They're both trying to steal my freedom.

 

One of the inherent difficulties with freedom is that people are free... Free to break the law, free to infiltrate the country for nefarious reasons, free to obey the law, free to defend themselves, etc. You can't have a free and open society without risk. We got burned on 9/11 (I was there, I know). But the Patriot act was a complete knee-jerk reaction that was fed by emotion. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. In all honesty, the fact that we changed our laws shows that the terrorists won a round.

 

I understand your point(s) about Bush, but Kerry's voting record shows he wants to take away an individuals right to bear arms, he wants to integrate more fully with the UN (I obviously do not like the UN ;) ), he wants to raise taxes, etc. He has voted for many of the things I would want someone to vote against.

 

Bush wants to lower taxes and increase spending, which obviously does not work. I would prefer a candidate who says "Well, I can't lower taxes, but I am going to fire anyone who cannot account for every single penny that was given to them from your tax money. In four years, I'll be able to lower your taxes because we have rooted out all the thieves." Then again, I'd like a billion dollars and my own island...

 

I dislike both Bush and Kerry. Kerry somewhat more. /shrug They both suck. They both lie through their teeth and their track record is apalling. They're both known quantities, they both want to increase government and take more money out of my pocket. They both want to take away my freedom. They both want to screw up the world. Whoever wins, it is the wrong choice.

 

That is why I am voting Libertarian. I happen to agree with most of their platform and I can register my disgust with both of the major players in this campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×