• 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."

Does it bother you that Gore is a prick?

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

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Whats funny Red is Bush makes you look like a bacteria when it comes to rational thinking.
 
Apr 5, 2000
13,256
1
0
Why put down other people because of their opinions? Red Dawn is extremely opinionated (I am too) and you compare him to bacteria? Way to contribute to the forums buddy.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
RagingBITCH, HAHAHAHAHA.

You accuse me of putting down other people's opinions? Try checking out some of the other threads Red Dawn has 'contributed' to tonight. What I asked was mild compared to his constant antagonizing.

Technically, you also put down people because of their opinions by calling both communists and anarchists 'bacteria.'

Way to contribute :)
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Balt,

He was wrong in that assessment. Communists are actually a virus.

Russ, NCNE
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Russ,

PEOPLE are a virus. Agent Smith from The Matrix told me so. ;)

I'm just saying, it was rather hypocritical to say I was putting down other people's opinions while doing the very same thing.

Especially after seeing some posts from the original person in question :(
 

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
Is gore a prick?
That depneds on if you define prick as condesccending, arrogant, bullying, and lying individual. If it does, then yes he is.

Many here have mentioned foreign policy, and complain that Bush is not smart enopugh while ignoring Gore's attitude. Think of Gore taking that attitude to the middle east to negotiate a settlement.
Now contrast that to Bush, who will work with both sides without assigning blame. IMHO, Bush looks much better.
Also look at their styles and think of getting laws passed in Congress. IMHO, Bush looks like he will get people to work with him, Gore looks like he will build lifelong enemies of those he hasnt already made lifelong enemies.
 

poop

Senior member
Oct 21, 1999
827
0
0
What amazes me here is the TOTAL lack of issue discussion. Sure, it is important to realize that Gore is a a-hole (most politicians are). It is also important to realize that Bush was a failure most of his life (he has done a lot hte last 12 years, though).

It is more important to vote for the person who agrees with you on more important issues. A few that I think about:
Gun Control
Environment
Taxes
Social Security
Medicare Spending
School Vouchers

I think I agree more with Gore, but I am still kind of split. Partisan 'discussions' like these are the crap I get tired of. Undecided voters such as myself get nothing out of it. If I ask a democrat, he says "Bush is stupid". If I ask a republican, he says "Gore is a prick". What party-driven BS.
 

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
Poop:
<It is more important to vote for the person who agrees with you on more important issues. A few that I think about:>
I'll take Bush's side....
<Gun Control>
Under all the fluff, Bush is very pro gun. Under the fluff, Gore is anti-gun, or whatever stance will get him more votes at the moment.

<Environment>
Gore is environment above all else. Bush is environment as long as it doesnt hurt the US or local economy or threaten national security.

<Taxes>
Basically Gore has a tax cut plan purely to say that he does. Gore's tax cuts are so targeted that it hard for most people to use them. Bush wants to cut taxes across the board and reduce it to 3 brackets. Aside from top 1% you hear from Gore, Bush's plan makes it so that 6 million more people on the lower end of the income scale will pay no taxes at all. The middle class pays about 50% less than they do now. The top 1% get a 6% reduction in tax rates, so if you are really rich, that 6% is alot of money, but they will still pay 33% in income taxes to the federal government.
To find how you would fare, go to www.taxclarity.com.

<Social Security>
Gore basically pumps surplus money into SS to keep it afloat for about 50 years and then it's a problem again. Gore offers a plan that if you meet certain income schedules, the fed will match any retirement plan investments you make. The downside to this is that if it is successful, it will have a huge effect on the budget, and you have to have thaat extra money to contribute to that retirement plan. It's odd he advocates this, because if you have the money to contribute, you get to double your money with Feds maatch, and isnt this the &quot;rich get richer&quot; scheme dems bitch about? In actuality, to get the full benefit, you'd have to have a lower income, and if you had a lower income, you couldnt afford to set that money aside to begin with. If you have the money to put aside, because of a real good income, you arent eligable. As I started with, he has a tax cut purely to say that he has one, not to really help any body. Another example, Gore will allow a 10,000 dollar tax deduction for college education. Well for most people that can afford 10,000 dollars in tuition, they wont be eligable either. Tell me how a middle class family of four sending their first child to college will come up 10K in tuition. How &quot;poor&quot; people will this help?
Bush wants to form a commission to study how to allow new workers to invest a portion of the SS tax they pay in investment plans, and pump surplus money into SS to keep it solvent in the meantime.
My opinion is that if you have a 401k and use it, you know why Bush is right and Gore is wrong.
<Medicare Spending>
Gore will add prescription drugs to medicare, free for the really poor, with reducing benfits as income levels rise.
Bush basically starts with Gore's plan, but also wants to include about 6 health care plans as an option to medicare. Put this way, it is pretty clear Bush has a better idea.
<School Vouchers>
Gore opposed, as a very last resort he said tonight, after every thing else failed he would consider vouchers.
Bush wants to use federal funds, because really that is all he can do as president, to give parents of children in failing schools money (vouchers) to use for tutors, or private school tuition. His ideal on this is that if the school system fails to educate, vouchers would get the children out of that school system and into private schools where the private schools compete on the ability to teach.

Does that help?

 

poop

Senior member
Oct 21, 1999
827
0
0
Well, almost. It is really hard for me to assign credibility in a response from a person so obvisously slighted toward Bush. I don't mean this as a personal offense, but I just want someone to give me facts, and not from any f-ed up, skewed angle. When you end a sentences saying something like &quot;that is why bush is right&quot;, I lose a little faith in the previous sentence.

I have been trying to read up on vote-smart.org, but there is too much info to absorb, it seems.

Sigh, I'll eventually decide.
 

somethingwitty

Golden Member
Aug 1, 2000
1,420
1
0


<< I don't mean this as a personal offense, but I just want someone to give me facts, and not from any f-ed up, skewed angle >>



Actually, MrChicken did a pretty good job summarizing the issues. I support Gore, so I don't agree with his definitions, but the fact is, he states up-front that he supports bush, then does a good job explaining why he does.

As for my &quot;f-ed up, skewed angle&quot;, I support Gore for, among others, his view on pro-choice vs. Bush's (who is pro-life and may try to overturn roe v. wade) and his views on education (I think vouchers are a bad idea) and the enviornment...

But as I was saying, you probably won't be able to find someone who does not have their own bias viewpoint of the issues.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
Why are vouchers a bad idea? This is one issue that I don't get. I don't see how anyone could POSSIBLY be against vouchers. Am I missing something?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,485
4,157
126
Gore will win by a landslide. Bush is saddled by a -230 lb helium balloon for a brain. I make this prediction with the absolute certainty that if I'm wrong nobody will pay any attention (now they will) but if I'm right, I'll look like a genius. I told you so, I was right all along. HAHAHA
 

reitz

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,878
2
76


<< To me foriegn affairs is more important that some Pie in the Sky Tax Cut or Silly SSI plan that also will never see that light of day. >>

Red, I agree with you 100% there. It's funny though; I'm voting against Gore for that reason :)
 

reitz

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,878
2
76
Give me some credit...I never said I think Bushlite knows anything about foreign affairs.

On the other hand, Bore's idea of America's role in the &quot;New World Order&quot; scares the crap out of me. Bushlite may know nothing, but at least there's a chance he could pick a Secretary of State that can do the job for him.
 

reitz

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,878
2
76
I'd rather pay more for gas than have good ol' Al Bore give more technology to China.
 

I'm Typing

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,208
0
0
EngineR9: I am against vouchers, for a lot of very good reasons.
1) They are, in essence, a tax cut for the rich. If you give a $4,000 voucher to a family that makes $25,000 a year, they are not going to be able to use it. Why? Typical private school tuition is much higher, and most people cannot even afford the tuition when you count in the voucher. However, giving that money to a rich family that might already be sending a kid to private school essentially means that their tax burden is reduced. So, who is going to use the vouchers? The rich!

2) You can talk all you want about the vouchers being for the poor, but that reminds me of the camel and the tent analogy: once the camel's nose is in the tent, soon the whole camel is in the tent. Once you start letting &quot;the poor&quot; have access to vouchers, you open up the door to the rich having access to vouchers.

3) Private schools are not accountable to any state or federal guidelines on how or what they teach. They do not have to provide scores that measure student performance under current law--or under the plan that bushlite proposes. So how do we KNOW the kids are getting a better education? (How do you KNOW that the teachers are qualified to teach? The schools do not have to hire teachers with valid degrees or certification.) According to some recent studies, the kids are not?if you check college entrance exam scores, there is no statistical difference between how well the private schools or public schools are doing.

4) Where are people going to go to use these vouchers? In Florida, the capacity of private schools is less than 5% of the total student population. This trend is reflected across the country. It is nice to talk about giving vouchers, but if you can't use them (and with the amount of time it takes to establish new schools, even the near future is an impossibility), what is the point?


If the students leave the public schools to go into the private sector, the federal funding for schools drops (enrollment figures=money). This downward spiral can only mean less education for the people who are not rich enough to take advantage of the vouchers...in other words, the poor get screwed again.
 

reitz

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,878
2
76
Red, I'm more inclined to believe that they'll be less fearful of a continuation of the current policies. With Gore in office, they can continue to illegally fund American campaigns, steal secrets from our wide-open laboratories, ignore their own human rights abuses, and receive more American missile technology. Clinton spent all of his time focusing on multiple smaller situations, and missed the big picture that Kissinger was able to see even during the Nixon administration: the world political system is changing. Gore will, for the most part, continue Clinton's current foreign policy.

The world moved from the bipolar system of power during the Cold War to the unipoloar system we have now with the United States at the top. Unipolar systems are the least stable, and even during the early 1970's, political scientists could see that the world is shifting towards a multipolar system with several [more or less] equal powers. I don't mean to sound paranoid, and don't get the impression that I think the United States should use its power to keep the rest of the world down, but a strong military is essential during a transition such as this.

Clinton cut back on the military far too much, and deployed American forces in record numbers. Even just during the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, the Air Force ran out of modern weapons and had to resort to using WWII era bombs. Our military is spread so thin, and morale is at such an all-time low, that the United States would be unable to stop a push by India or China to be the world's superpower. The last time a country tried to establish its dominace in a multipolar era, WWII resulted with millions of people killed. A multipolar political system offers the greatest stability, but also offers the greatest chance that another country will try to establish dominance if the rest of the world is not prepared.

Gore believes in increasing American involvement in local and regional conflicts (from Presidential debate #2). That can be dangerous in the current era of transition. We are at the beginning of what can best be described as a 6- (or 7- or :cool: way chess game; the US needs to be aware of what the other rising powers are up to, but at the same time can not afford to alienate any of them. Increased American involvement in local and regional conflicts will do just that, and a Gore administration could very well end up destroying American relations with future powers. I do not favor a return to American isolationism in any way; rather I would like to see the US get involved in solving more of the world's disputes as a mediator in cooperation with the regional powers, helping the world's geographic regions to solve their own problems as Bush proposes (from Presidential debate #2).

Like you, I don't give a crap about what either candidate has to say about domestic affairs. Will any of what has been proposed affect me? Doubtful. A $370 reduction in taxes every year? Please. Because of the state of the world, foreign policy should be the most important issue this year. Do I believe that Bush has what it takes to accomplish what is necessary to bring about future cooperation and stability? Of course not. But we've already seen what Gore's idea of foreign policy will contribute to the world political system, and that scares me. I prefer to take my chances with Bush in the hopes that he appoints himself a decent cabinet to help him with foreign affairs. Regardless of who wins, though, I truly hope the next President is only in office for four years.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
I'm Typing

We know for a fact that public schools suck. Private schools certainly can't be any worse. So why not let the parents decide where their kids go rather than a bureaucrat. Or do think that somebody that doesn't know me and my children can decide our lives for us better than we can?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY