Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by K. Wilson Moose, Oct 22, 2004.
Somebody had to do it.
Nither I vote for the one an only my pet Moose you got my Vote..
Not old enough to vote this year, but if I could, definitely Bush.
I will be voting early and often and voting correctly. I am a gun owning free market capitalist and I want less government involvement in just about everything to the point I would almost consider myself an anarchist. Government is bloated with too much inept bureauracy, taxes at all levels are too high and only serve to give the inept bureaucrats too money that they don't know how to properly spend. Unfortunately Attila the Hun is not running in this election. You can draw your own conclusion about who I am voting for.
What is it that you like about him? I'm just curious. How does he appeal to you?
First, my family is pretty strongly Republican, so I've always been more inclined to Republican candidates. If I didn't like either candidate much at all, I would probably just vote for the Republican one because of my family. Secondly, I like Bush's views and policies on different issues (our economy, war on terrorism, abortion, education, etc) better than Kerry's. I think President Bush is doing a good job running our country. Third, and I know this isn't that good of an argument, but I just don't like John Kerry at all. There's something about him that I just don't like. Finally, I am a Catholic, and I am totally against abortion, and there's no way I would vote for a candidate who supports abortion.
I don't even know how to respond to this but I'll try to be nice. I am not telling you to change your views and I am not telling you to vote Kerry. I just need to air this out.
1. Voting Republican simply because your parents vote Republican is fine. I have nothing against that. I just hope that you will actually evaluate both candidates and really think about why you want that person to be president in 2008.
2. I honestly don't see how people could say that Bush is doing a good job running the country. These are probably the same people who think that Saddam was responsible for the WTC attacks.
3. Voting for a candidate because of something as petty and meaningless as his stance on abortion is not very smart. There will be abortions whether or not it is legal. Also, it is irrelevant because it is legal and will remain legal for at least the next four years.
To play devil's advocate:
Bush appeals to many traditionalists who want to keep unnecessary laws out of the economy and keep strong 'moral' traditions alive.
Privatizing social security is probably the best way to save it. Whether it is smart to do it now or later is the question. Baby boomers (most of them) are ignorant on the basics of investing wisely. Therefore, we could see a lot of poverty when they turn old enough for social security if privatization were to happen. The current generation of high school kids are finally being taught in school on the importance of investing (at least in my area). So maybe when it's their turn to pay taxes, that would be the better time to privatize s.s.
Let's face it, the only way to save S.S is to raise taxes or privatize. Nobody's going to choose or vote for the first one.
Bush should be kissing Alan Greenspan's butt. His policies (not Bush's) have saved our economy from recession. However, I highly doubt Bush's (in)actions are the culprits to our economy. There would've been job losses for any President (including Clinton) in this time. It's a pretty big exaggeration to say Bush (and Bush alone) is the culprit for our bad economy.
One of the plusses of the last four years (and I mean that sincerely) is that Bush has indeed made the tax code, in general, more fair. Corporations were double-taxed in many of their operations. One of the more notable ones was the dividend tax. A dividend is a certain percentage of a comapny's profits. Overhead profits are already taxed so it is certainly unfair to tax them again. This is what hurts the smaller public companies the most from being attractive.
I don't agree with providing tax credits to mulitnational companies who operate offshores (outsourcing). The Republican rationale is that these companies already pay taxes in the host country; but that's not the case most of the time as some 3rd world countries don't have the resources to collect fairly on them.
To end this nonsensical rant, I'm still voting for Kerry as there is no mistake Bush's actions in Iraq were a huge and inexcusable mistake but I can't say 100% surely that the economy is his fault. Our economy is picking up as we speak.
There is a lot of b.s and huge exaggerations coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I'll lean towards liberal guys most of the time but I'll gladly vote for someone like John McCain over Kerry by a long shot.
What's wrong with voting based on character and stance?
Kerry is hard to predict and is indeed avoidant on many issues such as education and abortion. All he's done was criticize but offer no real different solutions of his own.
As some has stated earlier in different posts, Kerry might lose based on the fact his votes are really just votes against Bush.
That is the most important issue this year and his supporters just seem to ignore it. I don't see how they can overlook that.
I know people who think Bush's war in Iraq was a big mistake completely unnecessary but will still vote for him because of his stance on gay marriage. It sickens me.
There's a lot wrong with it. If you are not affected by abortion and gay marriage, why should it be a factor when you are voting for a president? There are more important issues to worry about. I don't care if Tom and Harry are getting married or if Shirley is getting an abortion. I care about the real issues.
Real issues? If people are over hear blowing things up, there are no other real issues. If paying $25,000 dollars a blast isn't terrorism, I don't know what is. Let me guess, all of the world's intellegence services were wrong about Saddam. Al Queda is only one of the terror orgs, there are many. Kerry talks about only one, Al Queida. Kerry acts as if there is one terrorist, Bin Laden. Bin Laden is dead, how else would an ego maniac killer keep quiet for so long?
Where would you guys go to fight Islamic fascism? Do you think they hold 5-9 jobs? How do you think they feed and cloth themselves? Where do you think they get bombs and ammo? The money to make bombs and ammo? Governments support them, that is how. Saddam payed U.N. members off to the tune of billions right under our noses. Yet, you seem to believe that he would never pay off a terrorist. I get it, he was just misunderstood. Oh yea, why did his poor innocent sons have to die. Islamic fascism exists in a vacuum huh?
I've seen atleast two Afgani interviews and two or three Iraqi interviews, in which, the interviewed said they would name their children George Bush. The Taliban and Saddam are gone and people have begun voting in both of them countries. People can call that a mistake if they want. There are no democracies where there has been no war. Remember the old saying "evil only triumphs when good men do nothing."
ROFL, silly rabbit.
Al Qaeda took responsiblity for the WTC attacks so we should be going after them. They should be our focus in this so-called "War against terrorism", not Iraq. Iraq was better off the way it was before we got there and they didn't even have slingshots over there.
Here is something to consider. I have already posted this as a response in the other thread, but it this your candidate?
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971
I told myself I was not going to get involved in the TW politics anymore, but that testimony by Kerry in '71 is/was disgracefull!
That is pathetic! How is he even considered fit to potentially run our country?
About half the country felt that way about the Vietnam War back then. It was a touchy subject then and still is now.
By your logic, should half of America in 1970 be deported simply because they felt this way too? Everybody has the right to express an opinion, including presidential candidates.
First, Kerry is accused of 'flip-flopping,' and now being bashed for taking a solid stance against warfare. Geez, hypocrisy doesn't being to describe that.
Jerk, lemme guess, you saw those interviews on Fox News, didn't you? I suppose three people speak up for the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, but hey I guess that's your logic. Try getting your info from somewhere credible like CNN International, at the very least. Here's a credible article on how much Iraq loves Bush: http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/st...tm&photoid=20041021BAG116&floc=NW_1-T
There is absolutely no excuse for Iraq if a country like Saudi Arabia is STILL seen as our ally. Constant news from the CIA and FBI shows that there are PROVEN links between the Saudis and Al-Qaeda, not Iraq's 'maybe' links but PROVEN Saudi links. And yet Iraq gets bombed the hell out of. It isn't a terrorism issue, it's something else.
G.W could've sounded more legit if he just plainly said something like: Hussein's an *******, there's no (safety) benefit to America, and there's a huge number of bigger assholes out there but I just don't like him personally so I'm using up $50+? billions to settle a personal grudge.
Note that Bush has publically stated a plan to attack Hussein starting from Feb. 2000. Do a search in the NY Times. Again, 9/11 was the luckiest thing to ever happen to Bush, at the expense of America.
I don't think people who opposed the Vietnam war should be deported, but people who admitted to committing war crimes should not be eligible to run for president. Would it be a non-issue to you if it were Bush's speech in '71?
Interestingly enough, this would basically disqualify anybody who served in Vietnam.
The soldiers there were ORDERED to commit those acts.
If someone followed orders, he is, according to you, not eligible for president.
If someone did NOT follow orders, he would be either court-martialed or would come off with a black stain on his reputation - someone with a dishonorable discharge from the army would just never get the support necessary to get anywhere in politics, where any challenger would immediately point out how he failed our country in a time of war. He would be labeled as unpatriotic, weak, cowardly, anti-american. Someone with that background would have a hell of a lot of trouble getting anywhere in a profession where his opponents will dig up anything from your past that could be used against him. He would simply never get far enough to ever run for president.
Who does that leave? Someone who dodged the draft and never even went to Vietnam? Someone who found an excuse to not actually go?
It's a lose-lose-lose situation for those who were born in that time period, really.
The people that made the right decision early - to not dodge the draft, to go serve for their country - are the ones that are worst off, since they end up as either war criminals or unpatriotic weaklings.
Max, you make very good points. That was a very tough time indeed, but the links that Kerry went to, to discresdit our troops and really our country by meeting with the Viet in paris was/is wrong. Not everyone that fought in the war was a war criminal.
Al Qaeda doesn't exist on its own, it is a conglomeration of orgs. For instance. the Abu Sayef in the Philippines. There ideology is the same as that which spread Islam throughout the known world in the past. They mention the Crusades quite a bit. In case school teachers don't teach about the Crusades, here it is in a nut shell. The Crusades were Christian Europe's reaction to Islamic expansion. They pushed the Muslims out of western Europe.
The terrorists didn't even need slingshots, they used box cutters. Didn't you see, hear, or read about the latest U.N. report? It said that the evidence pretty much shows that Saddam was waiting for sanctions to be lifted, he had the apparatus. men, and will to start building chem and bio weapons. I still believe he had wmd's. He still hadn't accounted for the ones that other countries gave him.
The Taliban didn't take responsibility either, they just gave sanction. Zarqawi was a guest in Iraq. He went there from Afganistan and was recieved by Saddam. Zarqawi isn't Al Qaeda only affiliated.
I don't know what you mean by the Iraqis aren't better off. If I had lived there with no hope, I would be naming my children George Bush. Havn't you heard any of them stories? Your sources must really suck. The overwhelming majority of Iraq is pacified.
Maybe you're right. I don't know the details.
M2, I do watch cnn international. The name is misleading, cnn internationalist is more like it. The article you posted said that 62% were hopeful. How many said anything before? How many were critical of anything? The numbers are actually good. What do you think the same poles would show here if we had terrorists blowing up our police stations and school buses.
I do listen to Fox. What's the matter, Fox hasn't been caught cheating? CNN got caught in Iraq and Cuba hiding news. I suppose, CBS is your cup of tea.
When is the last time you heard your internationalist news org do a report on U.N. scandal or Saddam's $25,000 blast bounties. I guess blowing up jews and alies is ok. Internationalist is almost synonamous with anti-semitism. I happen to read New York Times. What a rag. I get news all day from everywhere. I have two t.v.'s, and three IE windows open right now.
The soldiers were not ordered to committ war crimes, more internationalist pap. Not only did Kerry lie and call soldiers baby killers then, he is doing it today. He calls the swift boat vets liars. Is he the only officer that didn't lie? Even you don't believe that. Was he in Cambodia, or did he lie again without your non-partisan news orgs reporting it. To say Fox isn't credible without offering a shred of evidence just isn't credible.
Calling Kerry stupid or irresponsible or "an idiot" for speaking out against war criminals is like insulting your mother.
I can guarantee you that any participant in warfare, as long as he is sane, will have regrets and horrible memories from the war. The peer pressure from fellow soldiers is what keeps you going. Can anyone here POSSIBLY imagine how hard it was for Kerry to recal those memories and go against the popular culture and denounce some (he was not calling America a nation of criminals, he was calling the men who ordered lessers to shoot innocent people criminals, he was NOT, however, calling our veterans war criminals) of the actions taken by those men.
Would you rather Kerry just sit there and LIE about it like Clinton lied? Im not saying that Clinton was a bad president, in fact quite the opposite, in my opinion, Clinton was a great president. Unfortunately, he made a bad decision that completely ruined his entire term and blackened his career. I'd rather have an honest man that cares for humanity be president than somone who bombs cities killing many, many innocent people who had stayed behind. This is just my opinion.
Are you insane? Iraq is a chaotic hellhole and it much worse off than it was before we invaded it wrongfully.
why don't you just go away, you bloody troll. All of your 15 posts have absolutely nothing to do with tennis. What's going on? You've been kicked out of the Yahoo's forums?
No offense taken. I actually feel sorry for you, but i am still waiting on your response from 24 hours ago.
I'll check back later.
David, you hit the nail on the head.
I thought Kerry was Catholic. A pro-Choice Catholic. O no, help us, help us.
I think we should go back to the days when abortion was illegal... so more women can be butchered by unlicensed doctors, and fetuses can hang by the dozen on meat-hooks again. Make those women suffer and suffer again for their sins, or force them to have that r@pe baby... after all G-d would have wanted it that way. :evil:
I support Bush, he's an son of _ _ _-- and cluster bombs, buster bombs, smart bombs, mini-nuclear bombs are a much better way to deal with over-population. The morning-after pill is crime against G-d. Support war!!! GRRRR!@! :twisted:
"Humanity is a good thing. Perhaps we can arrange the murder of a sizeable number of people to save it."
Kerry is everything. If you put him in front of a Catholic congregation, he'd definitely be Catholic. He'd probably pretend to be Satanist for a few extra votes.
48hrs. and still no response from david about the kerry/vietnam quote! Still waiting....
Rickson, If not mistaken there was a poll a few weeks back debating if you were a complete ****** bag or not. If memory serves me right YES ganrnered 20-something votes to only 1 no. IT'S UNANIMOUS ON THE TW BOARDS!
What is it? Your little puppet show needs an audience?
The man took a stance in the face of Congress after what he saw and was ordered to do in Vietnam and that's bothering you? The guy was SAFE from harm and decided to speak his mind. Good for him.
Let it go and just remember that the other guy was flying airplanes in the national guard at the same time and took off when he felt like it. If he had been in the sh*t, he might have thought twice about sending 1000 young americans to their death.
17 posts and you still haven't contributed to a single tennis thread...
You asked for a quote or link and I gave you one. What's the problem?? I've got faith in you!
Wow, since when is telling the truth disgraceful? Oh, I guess it is if you want to be a politician...
I think your first reason should become less important as you become an adult and is not a real good reason.
Your 2nd reason is sound. I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion.
Your 3rd reason is sound, too. Trust your feelings and instincts.
Fourthly, I can understand why you, as a Catholic, would feel that way and vote for Bush.
You have expressed yourself in a better reasoned way than most adults and have obviously put some thought into it. You will be a better than average voter as an adult. PS - I'm voting for Kerry.
Were I to vote, it would be for Bush. The main reason? Teresa Heinz Kerry. The following:
To date, Heinz Kerry has declined to disclose her personal tax returns, citing family trusts and privacy. She is estimated to be worth in between 750 million and 1 billion dollars. According to her most recently released income tax of 2003, the Kerrys paid an effective federal income tax rate of 12%. Most of her income was derived from tax free municipal bonds, which explains the low rate.
Heinz Kerry was a registered Republican for most of her voting career, and her first husband, Senator Heinz, ran as a Republican.
Whatever works I suppose.
A) If you have sex, even protected, you are accepting responsibility for your actions. If the birth control fails and you get pregnant, it's not the baby's fault.
B) Most abortions are not due to rape, incest or health.
These numbers are from a study of the reasons for abortions:
Percentage of abortions performed due to life or health threat to the mother: 1%
Percentage of abortions performed due to rape or incest: 2%
Percentage of abortions performed due to health of the baby: 4%
Percentage of abortions performed for social reasons: 93%
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish"
- Mother Teresa
"...accepting responsibility for your actions." So in fact you are putting your morality over someone elses, calling for a standard that is not in the law but one might claim is in your bible. Fine. I don't agree with you about the life of a fetus verses baby either. But fine. So what happens to sinners that don't confess? :!:
And what do you do with the 7% where abortion is possibly needed? Do they live in sin if they don't confess to your G-d? :!:
I agree with the quote. That is a type of poverty. Is it also a poverty to decide that a population must die so you can live as you wish? :!: :!:
How do you feel about the death penalty? How do you feel about mass bombings that kill wedding parties-- including children? :?:
Moreover, celibacy is no solution, not unless you can forever be more perfect then Adam/Eve and their mythological creator. :shock: or :wink:
Kerry has done nothing in his 20 yrs. in the senate. He says he has a plan for Iraq, a plan for healthcare, a plan for the economy, plan this...plan that. Where was is plan when he was in the senate? He talks a good game, debates well, but when you look at his resume..it's crap. It's like someone criticising your tennis game, when they have never really swung a tennis racquet.
Kerry even stated that if our soliders dies without UN support then it would be un-honorable. Our soliders scarafice themseleves not for the UN, but to protect the interests of the United States. Trust me on this. I work for the Department of State and I know our policies. Please remember that we are not friends with other nations. We have interests that we must protect and if it's happens to falls in line with other nations that its' great.
Edwards has no foregn policy experience what so ever and he can't even carry his own state! Do you want someone like that to taken over the presidency if something bad ever happens to the President of the United States?
I don't agree with some of Bush's policy, but I know where he stands and what to expect. Sometimes the grass is not away greener on the other side.
Unfortunately, until the world recognizes an unborn child as a human being, muder laws won't be applied. It's not "my" Bible. Besides, I'm not pro-life because I'm a Christian, although my stance on abortion is very supported by my faith. I'm pro-life because I can't stand the thought of innocent children dying so their mothers, the person most responsible for their wellbeing in this world, can't accept the results of her own actions.
The heart starts beating around 22 days after conception. That's before most people even know they're pregnant.
I think you know the answer to this one.
Abotion is never "needed". Certainly there are times when it makes life more convenient. Even in the case of rape, did you know that the majority of rape victims choose not to abort. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If my wife became pregnant, and her life were at risk...I'd miss her every day of my life. We've had this conversation, and there is no question what we would do.
And what population is it exactly that I'm deciding must die? Women who would go get a risky illegal abortion (assuming abortion outlawed)? If you break into someone's house with the intent of killing them and they shoot you first...good.
I'm for the death penalty, as long as it is due justice. I have issues with the justice system and greatly fear that innocent people may lose their lives. But, that is a separate issue on whether I support the death penalty.
I'm never for the loss of innocent lives...precisely why I am pro-life.
True celibacy certainly isn't a solution. We'd run out of people real quick. But, sexual integrity is THE solution, and that is abstinance when single and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage.
Everyone will believe one day. I pray that you find the truth before the truth finds you.
I find your views somewhat hypocritical, since your signature "Some people are like slinkies; not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs." suggest that you have minimal respect for different people.
The signature is all in good fun. Try not to read too much into it. It's just funny (when not read into a thread about politics and religion...nothing seems funny when people start talking about either subject). It has nothing to do with my respect for "different" people.
If you feel you have to make an entire post apologizing for your signature, then maybe you should choose another signature (or not use one at all). I DOUBT many people would "read too much into it" except for the fact that you brought attention to it with your strange post.
Try reading the thread before you make an uninformed post.
My post was in reply to:
And why, ChrisNC, should I bother to read the thread? I've had enough of presidential election discussions on a TENNIS chat board. I responded to someone else on another thread, and I'm pretty much done with the subject here. But you're right-I read your post out of context. However, I do think that a lot of these "signatures", yours included, should be consigned to the garbage-not 'cause they're offensive, but because they sound stupid and/or pretentious.
come on Phil, you've just posted on the Odds & Ends section of the Tennis Board...a place to talk about anything not related to tennis, you should be able to figure that one out. If you're really want to read about tennis, go to a different section of the boards. No one is forcing you to come here.
Separate names with a comma.