 |
|
Pax
|
|
Ned,
Adam Smith has been dead for awhile. I suggest you open up a daily and read about the recent dead and the cause for it. Maybe you can get in touch with reality yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
why in the world would anyone in their right mind vote for Kerry? |
I'll bet the majority of the American dead in Iraq wish they had voted for Gore or regret that more people did not vote for Gore!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Why would you say that, Che? I'll bet that Ned agrees with you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
PAX, you assume that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Right? |
I do not believe that any person other than George Bush would have been able to gather the notion in their brain and garner the support/power to carry out such a plan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuz dead people are incapable of wishing. They are inanimate objects, and completely without the power of thought. |
I'm speaking more of a regret before dying. As if there votes or the votes of others are directly related to their death. Hindsight. Not wishing, to get into any religous or afterlife discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If everyone voted their conscience instead of their fears, this would be a much better country. Vote for what you want, not against what you fear. Until more people of principle take a stand against our current political system, we will never have anything but mediocre politicians pandering to the basest of our fears. It has to start somewhere and sometime. It should have long before now.
The problem with voting your fears is there is always something to be afraid of. You never get to a point when it is "safe" to go for what you want. It's never the "right" time to start a business, have a child, or vote for what you believe in. You simply have to do it and make it the right time. |
You're absolutely right. People should not vote out of fear. I don't think people should necessarily vote strictly by conscience or morals. I think that they should also use their brain. Take the example of North Vietnam. They infiltrated the Viet Cong, changing it from a democratic organization into a communist one. Simultaneously, bringing about the change that they wanted to occur. A communsist unified Vietnam. If your goal is for Communism to spread then you would need more than conscience and principles. You need a sound political strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
See, I just don't see that. I have listened to kerry and he just has not given me any real reasons why he would be better than Bush. |
At being honest, at being fiscally responsible, at diplomacy, at representing the needs of the people against the needs of corporations, at listening to criticism, at understanding the problems the working class is having, and at many other things Kerry would make a better President.
Somehow I don't think people actually listen and pay attention to what has gone on and what is going on.
This current administration said that a memo entitled "Bin Laden intent on attack within United States" somehow didn't mean that Bin Laden wanted to attack within the United States (that was a pre-9/11 memo and one of the warning signs).
The current administration will take a statement the opponent says, like Global Test (meaning you should give good reasons for your actions, pass the test of honesty/rationality) and removes the context of the 38-word sentence it was in, adds their own different context, and pretends that is what Kerry said. Kerry has done nothing as bad as this.
The current Administration wants to privitize part of Social Security, but we have no money to do so (the money that is coming in is being used to pay for current benefits). This plan, by many estimates, could cost over 2-trillian dollars, and there is no Bush-plan in sight on how to pay for it. Of course, Bush doesn't care about paying for things.
This is an administration that initially opposed the creation of the department of Homeland Security.
This is an administration that ignored intel that Iraq had no WMDs and refused to let the Weapon Inspectors, who were begging for the time to finish their job, have the time they needed.
This is an administration that pulled troops out of Afghanistan and let Warlords rule large parts of the country, whilst not having enough troops to properly go after Bin Laden.
This is an administration that tries to twist the facts to say Bin Laden and Saddam had some sort of collaboration going on, when all the analysis of the intel says the opposite. They even force people to take back statements to the contrary, such as Rumsfeld's.
This is an administration that asks scientists wether or not they support the president and his policies before letting them join comittees and the like. No other administration has ever done this.
This is an administration that gives the wealthy a huge tax cut, then has Bush lie and claim most of the cut went to the middle class.
This is an administration that initially refused to testify to the 9/11 commission. A commission whose purpose was to find out how to avoid things like 9/11 in the future. They only bowed after a great deal of political pressure was applied.
This is an administration that cannot control its fiscal spending. The president has never vetoed a bill and doesn't seem inclined to do anything to stop massive spending increases. The surplus gave us a potentially great way to handle the future social security crises, but he decided to spend it on other things instead of the necessary future. All this while his party has controlled the house and senate.
This administration is horrible, and anyone that thinks Kerry's will be just as bad doesn't realize how horrible the current one is.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Bush
Cheney
Rumsfeld
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
A side note on liberalism:
European Liberalism != American Liberalism
The former is more akin to Liberatrianism.
They both share social freedom, but in America "liberal" has changed to *closer* to Socialism on economic issues.
Closer is relative, and doesn't mean it is the same. Even a big liberal in the US is not a socialist.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-10-2004 20:02
|