Debate the issues here

[NJDevil]

I've been getting a little fed up with all of these silly threads that have nothing to do with what matters: the issues.

George Bush has spent his four years doing what he thinks is best for the nation. John Kerry thinks he can do a better job. Here is where we can talk about the actual plans that they have for the country.

In case some of you are do not know all the stances of the two candidates (feel free to throw nader and other candidates in the mix), here are some websites that can help.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.bush.new.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.kerry.new.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

http://www.georgebush.com/Agenda/

Please keep this on topic, and ignore people like Riprorin who will likely try to derail the thread by turning it into a flamewar, and no one likes those.

I guess i'll start it off.

I consider myself more conservative when it comes to all issues but social issues:

I am for gay marriage, but I understand the opposition to it, and would definitely agree with civil unions for homosexuals as a means of compromise. I am for less restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research (no,they do not create embryo's just for this, they use ones that would be thrown away anyway).

I was for the Iraq war because I thought Bush presented a good case that Iraq posed a threat to the world and that terrorists would be able to obtain WMD from him. I am now against it, but realize that we have to stay there until the nation is stable.

Economy -> Tax cuts are not very beneficial, my parents (i'm only 19) make a very respectable income, enough to pay for my sister and I going to a private school during High school (and now college), but we got 700 dollars from each tax cut (about that much). However, the income lost during the past four years has been at least 80K thanks to the pretty damn bad economy.

Anywho, whose are just two of my stances, feel free to disagree with me, but do it reasonably and I am open minded and will debate with anyone.

Enjoy this thread as a welcome thread from all the crap in this thread.

:beer:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Are you sick of these silly threads/posters who go off topic and don't bother talking about the issues?

What issues???

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What issues???

Indeed. I think when you get down to it, there's not really a whole lot of differences between any of the major candidates, which may be why we hear so much about who may have missed his duty 30 years ago and other such trivial matters. The nation is not progressing very well. That's why I have begun urging people to vote 3rd party this year. We obviously won't win, but we need to start thinking further ahead than just the next 4 years. We don't currently have a lot of viable alternatives currently, but that could change slowly over time.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What issues???

Indeed. I think when you get down to it, there's not really a whole lot of differences between any of the major candidates, which may be why we hear so much about who may have missed his duty 30 years ago and other such trivial matters. The nation is not progressing very well. That's why I have begun urging people to vote 3rd party this year. We obviously won't win, but we need to start thinking further ahead than just the next 4 years. We don't currently have a lot of viable alternatives currently, but that could change slowly over time.

No Thank You. Everyone already knows that would lead to there not being a Regime change.

Thanks for showing your true colors, obvious Bush Supporter.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No Thank You. Everyone already knows that would lead to there not being a Regime change.

Thanks for showing your true colors, obvious Bush Supporter.

Ah, always the optimist, no?

Ok, let me restate that, if you are in a state where it is pretty much a given fact that a particular candidate will win by a large margin (ie: not a swing state), then go ahead and consider voting 3rd party to get our numbers up.

Is that a bit better? I'm not exactly a Bush supporter - if I had to rank all the candidates, Bush would not be at the top, but he would be a rung above Kerry, that's all. But in a two-party system, a rung above means #1, unfortunately. *shrug*

 

[Gravity]

I'm against gay marriage because I think it's undefined. If you allow same sex people to marry, then why would you limit to just two? That's my only question there.

I'm more conservative than liberal. I don't believe that the president has much control over jobs or the economy.

Kerry and bush both have pretty good hair.

Kerry's wife is a bit more flamboyant than bush's so that might be entertaining.

Kerry seems more aloof, bush less intellectual.

Bush has the benefit of a crew of highly diverse and pretty experienced cabinet leaders, most of which have served him well. Kerry will bring in some of the same but maybe some loose canons or also rans.

I don't like Kerry's speech cadence, I abhor bush's misuse of his native language.

Kerry served in 'Nam, Bush seems to have evaded that. I'm not interested in debating either's record.

Bush has shown very well on t.v., kerry has had to play "catch the incumbent."

I'm pro-life so I'm not exactly struggling with who to vote for, simply noting some differences.

No ad hominem attacks here,,,,,just issue stuff.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No Thank You. Everyone already knows that would lead to there not being a Regime change.

Thanks for showing your true colors, obvious Bush Supporter.

Ah, always the optimist, no?

Ok, let me restate that, if you are in a state where it is pretty much a given fact that a particular candidate will win by a large margin (ie: not a swing state), then go ahead and consider voting 3rd party to get our numbers up.

Is that a bit better? I'm not exactly a Bush supporter - if I had to rank all the candidates, Bush would not be at the top, but he would be a rung above Kerry, that's all. But in a two-party system, a rung above means #1, unfortunately. *shrug*

No, that's not better.

You've been listening to Rush and Hannity too.

They're telling all Repugs to vote even in States they are a shoe in to win because they don't want to see the Popular Vs Electoral count happen like last time.

Nice try though, as CAD always used to say, try again

 

[Kibbo]

The two major issues in the campaign are the economy and the issue of terrorism.

I think that Bush has mishandled both.

Tax cuts to the rich can have alot of good consequences to the economy, but they are far from the best tactic for Keynsian stimulation. And the productivity benefits that can arise are abandoned if you have to run a deficit to acheive them. They can be helpful because the higher savings rate of the rich leads to increased investment, which leads to increased worker productivity, which leads to higher wages and growth. The thing is, investment is a result of total national savings, so the deficit is basically negative savings. This takes away from any overall increase in the savings rate caused by the tax cuts. And for Keynsian stimulation, a higher savings rate among the primary beneficiaries of the policy undercuts the first round stimulative effects of the policy. If the economy were good, they would (arguably) be a good policy. When the economy is bad, they are not.

Bush's reaction to 9/11 was exactly what Al Queda was hoping for. They wanted the US to create a situation where they are hated by the Arab world. This gives more support for the terrorists. The only way that strategy could work is if they demolished the infrastructure of the terrorist groups. However, Iraq was not the primary source of terrorism. Thus, it was not the best choice for invasion. The only way it can be painted as a good thing for the US's interests is if other countries start to tow the line after seeing what happened to Saddam. This seems to be working for Lybia, but not in Iran or North Korea.

Thing is, according to their platforms, neither Bush nor Kerry seem to have a great plan for recovering from these mistakes. Since your economy is growing, now is not the time for fiscal stimulation, so one wants to eliminate the deficit as soon as possible. Raising taxes or cutting spending is the only way to do this, but the huge military spending neccessary because of Iraq might make this impossible. And neither of them advocates a large-scale withdrawl from Iraq (a good policy IMO). Since job growth is a problem despite your economic growth, I would advocate subsidies to re-education and relocation in order to speed the structural transition your economy seems to be going through. But then you have to pay for that. Too much of an increase in taxes could further decrease your already low savings rate. You could implement a sales tax or consumption tax, but that would be very unpopular.

You guys are in a pickle, and neither candidate seems to have a plan on how to get you out of it. Hopefully, the inherent strength in the American economy will return (very likely IMO) and save whomever is in office at the time. Personally I like Kerry, because I'm a lefty and he wasn't the one who made the mistakes. Then again, he didn't really oppose the mistakes either. Right now, I'm just glad I'm not facing your choices.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't mind pointless threads here in P&N, but the fact that Meet the Press was wasted on the Swiftboat Vets crap last week really bothered me.

but at least it was balanced out by an appearance of my second favorite senator (Corrazine -- sp)

 

[Moonbeam]

To me the issue is a choice between an immature emotionally infantile, Hollywood cowboy punk and uninspiring wishy washy go along to get along. The former, in my opinion, if far more dangerous.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

No, that's not better.

You've been listening to Rush and Hannity too.

They're telling all Repugs to vote even in States they are a shoe in to win because they don't want to see the Popular Vs Electoral count happen like last time.

Nice try though, as CAD always used to say, try again

Nah, I guess I give this one up. You obviously know me better than I know myself. I thought that my only interest was to give some momentum to some candidates that actually have some novel, yet practical ideas, instead of those that just volley around insults and promote practically the same garbage. I guess it turns out that I'm just another brainwashed neocon shill.

I am rather impressed that Rush and Hannity have managed to brainwash me, despite the fact that I only listened to Rush's radio program for about a week during Clinton's first term, before I realized what a hateful, little man he was. And I've only seen Hannity once after reading Al Franken's book and not believeing that anyone could be that much of a partisan braggard. (I was apparently wrong.) I keep forgetting that liberal-mandated caveat that anyone who disagrees with them is an unintelligent, brainwashed fool. Silly me. Perhaps I should investigate into some of their brainwashing. I mean, it seems to have caught you hook, line, and sinker, as you get to denounce all opposing beliefs with a simple flick of the wrist and a mention of some random right-wing nutjob, despite not having to stop and consider such inconsequential things like rational thinking or common sense. It's a very attractive cult you've joined. Do they have some reading material I could look at?

And I'm still failing to see the link between Rush and Hannity "telling" Republicans to vote in every state and my recommendation to vote for a 3rd party candidate if you want. But then again, it's probably just that brainwashing I'm not aware of. I sometimes wish I could be as unilaterally unwaivering in a belief as you, as the burden of logical reasoning and self-doubt is sometimes confusing to me. Oh well!

 

[alchemize]

Didn't take too long for Dave and Moonbeam to come in and thread crap, eh? Oops I was supposed to ignore the trolls...

OK I would say that when it comes to either candidate on most issues that matter, there is relatively little difference.

Neither one is in support of massive spending/taxation/entitlements reform - heck any kind of reform.
Neither one is in support of smaller government.
Neither one support states rights.
Both care about social issues that don't make a smattering of difference to 90+% of the population.
Both are owned by special interest groups.

To me really the only 2 differences I see are:
1) Pro/Anti-War & Foreign Policy direction
2) Pro business/pro union

And everyone is voting based on their positions of 1 & 2, IMHO.

OH, and on the silly threads bit. I'm generally sick of them, but I guess if this became a structured debate forum, I'd get bored of that faster. Where's the fun in debating if you can't cuss out your opponent? Guess that's why I never made the team

 

[Gravity]

OH, and on the silly threads bit. I'm generally sick of them, but I guess if this became a structured debate forum, I'd get bored of that faster. Where's the fun in debating if you can't cuss out your opponent? Guess that's why I never made the team

True enough!

I hadn't noticed but neither is touting shrinking the government machine so that we taxpayers can keep more of what we earn. Where is THAT candidate? Nader? Smith?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

No, that's not better.

You've been listening to Rush and Hannity too.

They're telling all Repugs to vote even in States they are a shoe in to win because they don't want to see the Popular Vs Electoral count happen like last time.

Nice try though, as CAD always used to say, try again

I thought that my only interest was to give some momentum to some candidates that actually have some novel, yet practical ideas.

and you think that is the incumbent that has had nothing but failures for "practical and novel" ideas???

That's a "momentum" this Country has had enough of, Thank You very much.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
and you think that is the incumbent that has had nothing but failures for "practical and novel" ideas???

That's a "momentum" this Country has had enough of, Thank You very much.

I read this three times before I realized what was going on - you've become paranoid and somewhat daft. I'm sorry for you.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I'm against gay marriage because I think it's undefined. If you allow same sex people to marry, then why would you limit to just two? That's my only question there.

Who came up with this argument oh so many years ago? I really want to know.

Whoever it was had a real taste for herring.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Gravity
I'm against gay marriage because I think it's undefined. If you allow same sex people to marry, then why would you limit to just two? That's my only question there.

Who came up with this argument oh so many years ago? I really want to know.

Whoever it was had a real taste for herring.

As you are one of the more rational posters I've seen here, I have to ask for your reasoning on this. What's the logical difference in changing the "arbitrary" limit on the sex of the people who can marry to accomodatee a certain 'alternative lifestyle' (homosexuality) and changing the "arbitrary" limit on the number of people who can marry to accomodate another 'alternative lifesyle' (polygamists)?

I'm not necessarily for or against both of those, but how can you only support one and not the other?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Gravity
I'm against gay marriage because I think it's undefined. If you allow same sex people to marry, then why would you limit to just two? That's my only question there.

Who came up with this argument oh so many years ago? I really want to know.

Whoever it was had a real taste for herring.

As you are one of the more rational posters I've seen here, I have to ask for your reasoning on this. What's the logical difference in changing the "arbitrary" limit on the sex of the people who can marry to accomodatee a certain 'alternative lifestyle' (homosexuality) and changing the "arbitrary" limit on the number of people who can marry to accomodate another 'alternative lifesyle' (polygamists)?

I'm not necessarily for or against both of those, but how can you only support one and not the other?

how can you support marriage between a man and a woman but not support the marriage between a man and two women?

or how can the government support 21 year-olds drinking alcohol, but not 20 year-olds?

all of our laws are based around arbitrary definitions. changing one arbitrary definition for another one doesn't open up the floodgates.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The two major issues in the campaign are the economy and the issue of terrorism.

I think that Bush has mishandled both.

Tax cuts to the rich can have alot of good consequences to the economy, but they are far from the best tactic for Keynsian stimulation. And the productivity benefits that can arise are abandoned if you have to run a deficit to acheive them. They can be helpful because the higher savings rate of the rich leads to increased investment, which leads to increased worker productivity, which leads to higher wages and growth. The thing is, investment is a result of total national savings, so the deficit is basically negative savings. This takes away from any overall increase in the savings rate caused by the tax cuts. And for Keynsian stimulation, a higher savings rate among the primary beneficiaries of the policy undercuts the first round stimulative effects of the policy. If the economy were good, they would (arguably) be a good policy. When the economy is bad, they are not.

Bush's reaction to 9/11 was exactly what Al Queda was hoping for. They wanted the US to create a situation where they are hated by the Arab world. This gives more support for the terrorists. The only way that strategy could work is if they demolished the infrastructure of the terrorist groups. However, Iraq was not the primary source of terrorism. Thus, it was not the best choice for invasion. The only way it can be painted as a good thing for the US's interests is if other countries start to tow the line after seeing what happened to Saddam. This seems to be working for Lybia, but not in Iran or North Korea.

Thing is, according to their platforms, neither Bush nor Kerry seem to have a great plan for recovering from these mistakes. Since your economy is growing, now is not the time for fiscal stimulation, so one wants to eliminate the deficit as soon as possible. Raising taxes or cutting spending is the only way to do this, but the huge military spending neccessary because of Iraq might make this impossible. And neither of them advocates a large-scale withdrawl from Iraq (a good policy IMO). Since job growth is a problem despite your economic growth, I would advocate subsidies to re-education and relocation in order to speed the structural transition your economy seems to be going through. But then you have to pay for that. Too much of an increase in taxes could further decrease your already low savings rate. You could implement a sales tax or consumption tax, but that would be very unpopular.

You guys are in a pickle, and neither candidate seems to have a plan on how to get you out of it. Hopefully, the inherent strength in the American economy will return (very likely IMO) and save whomever is in office at the time. Personally I like Kerry, because I'm a lefty and he wasn't the one who made the mistakes. Then again, he didn't really oppose the mistakes either. Right now, I'm just glad I'm not facing your choices.

Correct and well stated, but our economy will not continue to grow as long as oil prices keep rising. Every US recession since WWII was proceded by a spike in oil prices, and in the same time no economic recoveries have occurred during a period of rising oil prices.
I'm a conservative, but GW has IMO fscked us over but good from a fiscal and economic standpoint. He's not entirely responsible (not by a long shot), but he has been anything but a strong or intelligent leader. I'm voting him out, but I don't have much higher hopes for Kerry.

 

[theblooms]

This election IS important for two reasons:
#1 and most obvious, terrorism. Before you push the vote button, ask yourself one question:
Who would bin Laden rather see in office? (hint: it's NOT Kerry because Kerry would have never dropped any bombs for fear of offending anyone.)
Vote the other way unless you are a terrorist apologist ("We have to understand why they are angry at us and change our ways.") or sympathizer ("Israel is the biggest terrorist regime on Earth!")

#2 and just as important for the long term outcome of this great country:
Rehnquist and O'Connor are about to retire. The future of the country is at stake BIG TIME there. Do you want people who read the Constitution and "interperet" it to mean whatever they want it to mean at the time (ie. the utter fallacy of the "Seperation of Church and State." NOWHERE is that written in the COTUS, in spite of what is being taught in public schools. Go ahead, try to find it. Seriously, go ahead!), or do you want people to read the Constitution and follow what it says. Period.

Just my $0.02

Michael

P.S. the next time someone refers to the USA as a Democracy, I am going to SCREAM. America never was, never has been, and HOPEFULLY never will be. We are a Constitutional Republic.

M.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I'm against gay marriage because I think it's undefined. If you allow same sex people to marry, then why would you limit to just two? That's my only question there.

I'm more conservative than liberal. I don't believe that the president has much control over jobs or the economy.

Kerry and bush both have pretty good hair.

Kerry's wife is a bit more flamboyant than bush's so that might be entertaining.

Kerry seems more aloof, bush less intellectual.

Bush has the benefit of a crew of highly diverse and pretty experienced cabinet leaders, most of which have served him well. Kerry will bring in some of the same but maybe some loose canons or also rans.

I don't like Kerry's speech cadence, I abhor bush's misuse of his native language.

Kerry served in 'Nam, Bush seems to have evaded that. I'm not interested in debating either's record.

Bush has shown very well on t.v., kerry has had to play "catch the incumbent."

I'm pro-life so I'm not exactly struggling with who to vote for, simply noting some differences.

No ad hominem attacks here,,,,,just issue stuff.

Might I ask that if Kerry were pro-life would he get your vote? That seems to be the crux of your support. Would I vote for Kerry if he were pro-life? You bet your as$. That is how significant I find the pro-life/pro-choice movement. I would not impune one candidate based on that one stance. I am a firm believer in one strike, your out. Bush has had 4 years to stop turning a blind eye to the problems facing this country. I am tired of the smoke and mirrors. Time for a change. And if Kerry pulls the same $hit, it will be time for him to go as well.

I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who I know for a fact, is my intellectual inferior. We have all had bosses in our lives that we just knew we could do a better job. This is no different.

Dump Bush, vote Kerry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Didn't take too long for Dave and Moonbeam to come in and thread crap, eh? Oops I was supposed to ignore the trolls...

OK I would say that when it comes to either candidate on most issues that matter, there is relatively little difference.

I said, "To me the issue is a choice between an immature emotionally infantile, Hollywood cowboy punk and uninspiring wishy washy go along to get along.", which is exactly what you said but somehow I'm the troll.



geez!