• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Best choice for President is..............

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
I disagree with Bush on legalizing drugs too. I agree with Libertarians on almost every issue. But I inadvertently helped put Clinton in office by voting for Perot in '92. And don't forget, if it wasn't for Perot, we wouldn't have had the balanced budget right now. He's the one that put that issue on the top of the list. Both Dems and GOP took it up when he entered the race. Just gotta give him credit for that.

Gotta give him credit/blame for putting Clinton in there too. Hmmmm, but you gotta give Hilly & Billy credit for putting the GOP in charge of Congress in '94. Those two sure headed for the "middle of the road" after that! :p

Top 1% get too much back, huh? I wish Bush would keep hammering these numbers:
  • "...Let me give you one example. A family in Allen town, Pennsylvania, I campaigned with them the other day they make $51,000 combined income, pay $3500 in taxes. Under my plan they get $1800 of tax relief. Under Vice President Gore's plan they get $145 of tax relief.

    You tell me who stands on the side of the fence you ask whose plan makes more sense. There is a difference of opinion. He would rather spend the $1800 and I would rather the family spend that money."
Trickle down my ass! That's over $100.00 per month extra money for that family. Gads, the crowd here is overjoyed by getting a "Hot Deal" from Buy.Com and saving $20.00 here and there. If you ask me, Bush gives you a heavy duty "Hot Deal" in your pocket every single month! All it costs is a vote cast the right way. And it's your money in the first place. It's not like Washington is actually "giving" you the money! :|
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Believes environmental standards must be based on sound science, solutions based on market driven technologies

For the more dense Dems among us, that means you don't shut down mult-million dollar projects because a damn furry brown fly calls the building site home. Not that complicated to understand for the fiscally responsible.

"Offer the Voters money in the form of tax cuts." Typical Democrat. It IS our money! Get that through your head!
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
<< Environment:
George W. Bush -- Believes environmental standards must be based on sound science, solutions based on market driven technologies >>
Talk about a good idea, better then Gores don't listen to any scientists, ignore the companies that are involved and come out with unworkable, overpriced laws that do more harm then good.

Q]Homosexual issues:
George W. Bush -- Bush opposes the extension of hate crime laws to protect gays and homosexual adoption. >>
Yep, we NEED more laws on the books to put someone in jail for the same offense.(sarcasm in case you missed it)

<< Moral issues:
George W. Bush -- Proposed spending at least as much on abstinence education as on teen contraception programs. >>
The govenment should be spending money on condems for high school kids? 1) this issue should be dealt with by the parents. 2) I really don't like the idea of the govenment bying condems for some snotty nosed kid so he thinks it is right to try lay some underage girl. 3)Teaching him to keep it in his pants is a better idea.

Tax cuts,
Yea, about time I got to keep some of my money instead of letting Washington waste it. Pay off the debt, shore up that entitlement program Social Security and let me keep a little more. Sounds good.

Rest of your post Red is just smear, not worth addressing.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
This is typical Democrat mind think. The government NOT taking as much of our money is considered spending. They are NOT giving anything back! They would NOT be taking as much the next year. Only a Democrat could construe that as &quot;spending&quot;!

If paying down the debt is that big of a priority, cut the spending. THE REAL SPENDING. That's big government programs that have to go. Don't tell me that would bother you!

Bottom line, quit taking so much of my money and pay down the debt by reducing programs. That is a Rx that no Democrat politician would comply with!
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
I wonder how many Bush supprters here are in the 39% tax bracket that would enjoy that &quot;across the board tax cut&quot;?

I would think the majority who are bashing Gore here are in the 15%- 28% bracket,middle class hard working individuals who will get tax cuts in Al Gores proposal.

If I were so blessed to have earned enough to be placed in the 39% tax bracket,I would not be so greedy as to think I am being taxed to much. By then ,I would probably have all my toys and my future secure,so the tax burtden would not be as big a factor as the right would make it seem. Thats not to mention all the loopholes I would have enjoyed all the way to that high tax bracket. :)

Good Morning!
 

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
<<< Environment:
George W. Bush -- Believes environmental standards must be based on sound science, solutions based on market driven technologies >>
Talk about your &quot;Politico&quot; double speak. >

Sounds like common sense to me. Deciding if it really is in our best interest to protect the rarest form of say for example, rodent, in the world or keep several thousand people employed, or put enough food on the market to feed thaousands.

<<< Evolution:
George W. Bush -- Believes both evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects... >>

Pandering to the Lunatic Fringe called the Religious Right. What a puppet>

That isnt pandering. Neither side can conclusively prove which is correct. I would prefer that the local school districts decide, based upon the will of the parents sending kids to that school.

<Q]Homosexual issues:
George W. Bush -- Bush opposes the extension of hate crime laws to protect gays and homosexual adoption. >>

What the hell does Hate Crime Laws have to do with Homosexual adoption? aside from the stupidity about the adoption, why shouldn't Homo's be protected under the Hate Crime Laws?>

First, the answer was orney's. He put two of Bush's positions as an answer to one question, dont blame Bush for that.

Second, IMHO, using more legislation to accentuate the difference between people, divides people against each other. Plain and simple, you should get the same punishment under the law, no matter who you murder. It's stupid to think that a person will think &quot;well he's gay, and there is law against murdering him, so I'll go murder somebody that isnt gay&quot;.

Clearly opposition to homosexual adoption is a religious issue, based purely on fear and personal beliefs.


<<< Moral issues:
George W. Bush -- Proposed spending at least as much on abstinence education as on teen contraception programs. >>

And you accuse the Democrats or frivilously spending money? Again Bush pandering to the out of touch Lunatic Fringe called the Religious right.>

This looks to be a good idea, that in practice may mean squat. But surely you can see that not having sex will prevent STD's from spreading as well as teen pregnancies. In the end this could be money very well spent.

<<< Gun control:

Yada Yada >>

A real uninmportant issue at best!!>

Keep that thought....



<<< Tax policy:George W. Bush -- &quot;Read my lips,This is not only no new taxes, this is tax cuts, so help me God...&quot; >>

America's the one that's going to meed God's help if this Moron is elected.>

If you think you are actually smarter than Bush, that's one thing. I for one would like to see you prove it. Run for Govenor and do better than he did. Run a baseball team, even a bad one better than he does. Run for president and do better he does. Put up or shut up. I dont like Gore, and I think he does have a problem will getting into lies that he doesnt have to, but I wont ever believe his a moron.

<More Bulls!t. The politics of Greed. Offer the Voters money in the form of tax cuts.>

As opposed to scaring them into thinking they will lose the money the fed gives them, or losing medicare, thats the politics of terror. The dems play the politics of greed just as well by promising more Social programs, and freebies.

And since you forgot again, a tax cut is not giving me money back, it's actually not taking it from in the first place. I'm never going to get money back that I already paid them, they spent it, the tax cut means i will pay less taxes in the future.

<Man, and I thought Gore was a lying sack of sh!t.>

On this one, you are correct.

<This just goes to show that Both major political candidates are typical lying out their ass bought and paid for Politicians. You sheep that are all excited over little Ornery's post are blind.>

Right, then do something about it. Not voting is the wrong thing. You cant influence either party by not voting. Get involved in politics and force a change. You have much more leverage by joining a party and then telling the candidate, &quot;see it my way or I vote for somebody else.&quot;.
The parties see that as worst case, you are not just refusing to vote for them, but are voting for the other. In turn each party sees the value in that vote. One side can take a vote away from the other and gain one for themselves. If you say that you wont vote for either or any party, then they really dont care what you think. All the parties care about is getting enough votes to win, and that means if that just 1 person voted in the presidential election, that one person is all they would care about, why make promises to make people that wont vote?

All I do the bitching on AT wont influence the Republican party stand on any issue as much as my telling the local campign guy, &quot;hey look, I dont agree with the party stand on issue X, i'm going to vote for the guy.&quot; . When he hears that, he hears a two vote swing, enough voters say that, they change their position. In contrast if I was to say, &quot;hey I never vote, I'm not voting now either cause I dont like either party.&quot;, he isnt going to care because it isnt a vote that is lost or cast for the other guy.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Not even Rush can take credit for &quot;mind think&quot;. That's courtesy of George Orwell.. Apparently the Dems have grasped that concept very well!

I guess what I should do is let AlGore keep my money and trust him to do what's right. Still trying to figure out how hanging on to what I've earned would be interpreted as &quot;greedy&quot;. More Democrat &quot;Double Think&quot; I guess...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Corporations and the wealthy have no representation in Washington. That's why Republicans want their tax money back. Everything they send to the government is eaten up by subsities to the poor. There isn't even an army to keep foreigners from taking back what we steal. We're also sick and tired of having to pave the streets in front of our businesses so we can ship goods etc. Our kids don't have any schools to go to. Give me my money back. I know what to do with it better than the collective. Screw everybody!!! Give me my money. Give me my money!!! I an an island, I am a rock, I am a myopic jerk.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Moonbeam

Well, you're correct on at least one point - you are a myopic jerk.

Does somebody who makes $100K/year use the roads any more than a person who makes $20K/year? Is the military doing more to defend the life of the person who makes more? Then why should they pay more in taxes? If taxes are suppose to be &quot;paying your fair share&quot; then the progressive tax code isn't a very good way to represent that.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Any comments on what those heartless myopic jerk Republicans wrought here:
  • Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

    Last year's (1996) federal welfare reform is leaving many state governments with millions of extra dollars, budget analysts report. Some states are taking advantage of federal welfare aid to cut their own spending and use the funds to help pay for tax cuts...

    ...Experts say reform programs in the successful states have some elements in common: a serious effort to move welfare recipients into jobs -- preferably in the private sector --...
  • The evidence suggests that some already had jobs secretly and simply stopped applying for payments when the rules were tightened.
  • Recipients who once militantly claimed that welfare was a &quot;right&quot; dropped that mantra and quickly found jobs in the booming U.S. economy.
  • Recipients who had always secretly felt the welfare stigma were goaded by their consciences -- reinforced by the nation's anti-welfare mood -- to seek work.
  • Early data suggest that the number of unwed teenage women -- some of whom once sought pregnancy as a route to benefits -- is declining.
My, my, what else do those heartless Republican bastards have up their sleeves?

Oh, and tax cuts for the GOP isn't just an election ploy. It's their goal, part of their platform, day in and day out for as long as there has been a GOP. They've been working on removing the marriage tax penalty, excessive estate taxes and Capital Gains Tax reform for years.
 

thebestMAX

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
7,457
106
106
TOM, RED, BOBBER-

Please dont stop posting.

Im so confused!

Well, actually Im not but I like to hear the oppositions arguements and try to reach a middle groud. You all know my standing by now and I love to hear reasonable dissent that makes me think. Lets keep out the wakkos and agree to disagree or whatever.

MAX
 

whateverdude

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
514
0
0
Corporations and the wealthy have no representation in Washington.

thats a laugh...you dont know sh*t obviously
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
OK Bobber, maybe I shouldn't say myopic jerk, but it is quite obvious that the wealth of the nation is built upon many factors including publicly created infrastructure. Does the president of GM profit more from public highways than you do. You decide. My point is that so many of the tax carpers work for corporations that know very well how to manipulate the system to their profit advantage. Lots of taxes go to the creation of more wealth. We can test the value of taxes by reducing them to zero, but lets pay off the debt first.

whateverdude, I don't know sh*t and you don't know irony. Hehe :) Oh boy.

Ornery, you've almost convinced me. Please show me the evidence of how much better off companies are now that we've eliminated corporate wealfare and I'll be a believer. Oh that's right. Nader didn't win.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Red,

You?re not gonna get the republicrats or demlicans to change a system that works to their favor. So to begin, each of us must start voting for third parties now if they ever want to see a change to our rather lame electoral voting process. Most of the old fartage that inhabits these forums realize major change won?t occur in their lifetime, so they?ll continue to vote down party lines. It?s up to the rest of us to help change the idiotic situation.

<< posts here by the supporters of one Candidate or the other talking more about the negatives of the opposing Candidate ask your self why. If you do you will clearly see that the reason is they can't real say anything positive about their Champoins because there is nothing really positive about them! >>

Damn straight. This simple paragraph is worthy of repeating! I'll even bold the words.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Moonbeam

You're right, the wealthy business owners can twist the goverment to help them create more wealth. And because we live in a democracy (I know, representative republic, whatever) the majority who are not wealthy business owners can vote to take from those who are.

A book that I find fascinating and opened my eyes quite a bit was The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. If anybody wants to know where I stand on taxation and government, that book is very close to my beliefs. It's a short book, only 75 small pages, and you can probably even find it on-line in its entirety. I'd definitely recommend reading it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
That might be true Bobber, if a vote was as good as a contribution. Remember, in a representative gov. our politicians represent those who represent themselves. Money is speach, the loudist voice is the biggest bill. You don't like paying taxes. Imagine contributing to a politician and not getting what you wanted. Anyway, I'd probably read your book if I run across it. I argue certain points, but I'm open to other points of view.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
The Law
by Frederick Bastiat
  • Preface

    When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will still be read &quot;a hundred years from now.&quot; The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.

    Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before - and immediately following -- the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic.

    The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are -- word for word -- equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.
 

unxpurg8d

Golden Member
Apr 7, 2000
1,373
0
71
Just wanted to thank all of you, but ESPECIALLY Ornery and Red Dawn for this thread - it's going off to an eighth grade Social Studies class in the morning. I'm really impressed by the erudite viewpoints expressed, and think that this thread'll be an educational experience for the kiddies who were recently forced to watch the Presidential debate with not a clue as to what it was about. Hopefully after reading this the kids will have a better idea of what real people consider the issues and choices to be. Again, thanks! :)
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
Wow Reds last post was excellent and everyone else is being civil as well............is everyone OK? :D Great thread, but the fact remains, even though Orenry's idea of who/what Harry Brown and the Libratarian Party are about is a little off, Harry Brown and the Libratarain view is better than whats being presented to us now. I conced that Harry Brown can't win, I conced that not everything the Libratarians believe in I support 100%, but hell 3 parties HAS TO BE BETTER THAN 2! :)





SHUX
 

Aquaman

Lifer
Dec 17, 1999
25,054
2
0
Not being an American (but of North America) Bush would be the best choice for my country (Canada). I was watching CNN &amp; apperently his is really high on free trade........... so thats better for us up here ;)

ps. I still think Bush is as dumb as a stick ;)

Cheers,
Aquaman
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81


<< really high on free trade........... >>

sure thats all he &quot;high on&quot;? LOL





SHUX
 

whateverdude

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
514
0
0
you know, Harry Browne has some good ideas...too bad they would only work in a perfect world. save for legalization of soft drugs, which personally, id like to see that ;)
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
GentleFolk:

Bastiat has three things to recommend him:

1. He was French;
2. His works are written in French;
3. He is a pretty good satirist.

Bastiat has numerous failings:

1. He was a mediocre economist, at best;
2. He disagreed with Rousseau on most major issues-which I consider a major failing;
3. He was not a champion of universal suffrage. Women, non land holders, and 18 year olds wouldn't vote in his world;
4. Most of his views are reactionary, even for 19th Century France;
5. Almost none of his economic ideas were original, but his ability to bring old ideas to life with satire did make him popular.

I'm not surprised that people who are conservative find reading his short tracts a salve for their prejudices. But Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge are better, more timely, and much more inflammatory. :p :p

NB: When quoting text, quotation marks are recommended.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY