| 1
members are viewing this topic |
| >Guest |
| |
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
MrTarzan 
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 27 2004,6:08 pm |
|
   |
This thread is to get us into the spirit of the election. Because of past experience on BBS's, I can say that nothing get more heated and out of control faster than a debate on politics so here are some ground rules.
Back up your arguments with facts and cite were the facts were found. Limit your ramblings to around 500 words per posting. Don't post pages of articles, just excerpts and links,
try to keep it civil, and remember that people reading what you wrote, may be undecided voters. If you address this the way you would a room full of undecided people, you might pick-up quite a few voters to your side.
Let the debate begin. 
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Daisy Duke
Group: Members
Posts: 147
Joined: Mar. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2004,1:10 am |
|
 |
I think Bush!!! Do you like Bush?? 
--------------
Life is too short, SO play naked
The supreme reality of our time is the extreme vulnerability of our planet.......JFK
Naughty, Naughty Kool-Aid............comedian Dane Cook!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Daisy Duke
Group: Members
Posts: 147
Joined: Mar. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2004,1:13 am |
|
|
Seriously on all counts Bush is the man, Don't let Kerry fool you. He is a complete socialist from the get go!!
--------------
Life is too short, SO play naked
The supreme reality of our time is the extreme vulnerability of our planet.......JFK
Naughty, Naughty Kool-Aid............comedian Dane Cook!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2004,5:24 pm |
|
|
I do like Bush better than Kerry. As of this moment, realizing that some scandal or other could change things, I am voting for Bush. I don't like some of Kerry's earlier dealings, more than I don't like some of the things in Bush's past. I also admire some of the tough decisions Bush has made since taking office. Maybe the difference between some of the Bush lovers I hear from and me is that he is a rich kid that I don't think understands the average Joe. I could easily have been won over by a more humbled background candidate. For instance, I wanted to hear more of what Edwards had to say. He was interesting. If anyone disagrees, like I know that Liberal and CPU_Slave will, convince me to make the other choice. I am not a zombie of the Bush campaign. I will listen with a very open mind.
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2004,5:27 pm |
|
|
Oh Daisy Duke, to get this thread going properly, what do you mean he is a socialist? Where are your references. Remember in a good debate, you have to show your reasons. I don't need to prove they were both rich, have always been rich and will always be rich. It is common knowledge. Socialist? I have heard that charge, and I am not sure that Kerry is a Socialist. Please feel free to prove it.
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2004,7:29 pm |
|
|
I doubt I can change your mind about Kerry, there's probably a greater chance of you changing my mind about Bush. I'd always voted GOP and I thought Bill Clinton was a joke until halfway through his first term.
And then I actually became a liberal convert after reading "A Short Treatise on Political Power" by Dr. John Ponet, Bishop of Rochester. (I know I've brought it up several times, but, I believe everybody should be required to read it)
A Short Treatise on Political Powers
Here is the first paragraph of the first chapter.
| Quote |
Chapter I. From Where Political Power Grows, for what purpose it was ordained, and the right use and duties of the same: & etc.
As oxen, sheep, goats, and other such unreasonable creatures cannot for lack of reason rule themselves, but must be ruled by a more excellent creature, that is man: so man, although he has reason, yet because through the fall of the first man, his reason is radically corrupt, and sensuality has gotten the upper hand, he is not able by himself to rule himself, but must have a more excellent governor. Those of this world thought that this governor was their own reason. They thought that they by their own reason might do the things they lusted for, not only in private matters, but also in public. They thought reason to be the only cause that men first assembled themselves together in companies, that commonwealths were designed, that policies were well governed and long continued: but those of that mind were utterly blinded and deceived in their imaginations, their works and inventions (though they never seemed so wise) were so easily and so soon (contrary to their expectations) overthrown
A Short Treatise on Political Powers
|
It's a little calvinistic, but, if you can get over that and read it with an open mind it's great reading. Even if you're a hard core conservative you'll understand the liberals point of view much better if you read it.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2004,10:46 pm |
|
|
I do know the writings. I do understand the Liberal way. I grew-up during my Mom's Liberal period when she became militantly anti-establishment.  I am willing to listen to any point of view because of it. Had I grown up with strict conservative Republican party faithful (who can be very militant too), I might not know that Liberals really want to make the world a better place, to the fault of recklessness. I will not demonize them. Their ideas don't always fail, most of them are decent, good or even brilliant. A lot of them do fail, however well intended though.
A main reason for my objection to Kerry, besides feeling he is not solid in his beliefs like Bush is, his past dealings that came under scrutiny, such as his fun-raising problems with the Chinese. I don't want a Marge or Paul in the WhiteHouse. If someone proves that Bush has done something as shady, I will reconsider him.
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 29 2004,9:10 am |
|
|
The best man for the job either isnt running, or its Ralph Nader. Why do we always have to make this choice? Its like decideing if you want to die by drowning or be set on fire, niether choice is appealing.
I am an independant, on all issues except taxes, I agree with Kerry. But Bush's tax cuts did go mostly to the wealthy, I dont like that.
But the one thing I cant get over with Bush, is the fact that dont feel I can believe aword that comes out of his mouth any more.
The two Bush presidencies, both ending in defeat after one term, will surely go down inhistory as the two of the worst presidents in our history. Just check the economy in both, and check and see how many of their buddies got rich off your tax money.
Its sad to say, but at this point, almost anyone would be better than four more years of Bush.
My advice to all, if it says Demacrat or Republican in front of their name, choose one that doesnt. Those people are already bought and payed for, they owe someone for them being here, and they will pay it back with American lives or your tax dollar. Like I said, not much of a choice, Is it?
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 29 2004,11:23 am |
|
|
One thing I do like about Kerry is his plan to stop companies from moving offshore. In the last couple years we've lost nearly a quarter million jobs just to overseas call centers and it sure would be great if I could speak to an american when I have a problem with my bank that is located 1/2 mile from my house.
Around Christmas time I had ordered a cell phone for my daughter and I needed to activate the service and it took me 45 mins on hold to get this guy that sounded like Bob Marley. I was trying to understand his thick jamaican accent as he was activating the phone and asking me questions(I must have asked him to repeat himself a dozen times) about 10 minutes into the phone call he was telling me about something that had to do with, "boxing day". I asked him to repeat himself 2-3 times because I couldn't understand him at first and then when I did understand the words "boxing day" it just didn't make sense at first. So after a long pause it hits me, "boxing day"... he's english and he means the first working day after Christmas. So, like a true Homer Simpson I think out loud and say "Oh.. Boxing day , I get it.. you're english", and he freakin calls me a name and hangs up on me!
I was an hour into that phone call and he thought I insulted him and hung up on me. So, I wasted an hour of my life because a call center was offshore, and the person spoke different english language than I did.
The call center jobs are just the start of companies moving offshore and if we don't start looking at ways to keep jobs here we'll eventually have no jobs left for unskilled labor.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 29 2004,3:11 pm |
|
|
Laying politics aside for the moment, how would anybody prevent U.S. companies from going overseas? Would we put up an "Iron Curtain"--("You're a U.S. company, you cannot emigrate--and if you do escape, we will make things very difficult for your relatives left behind"?  What is to stop companies from establishing foreign subsidiaries in other countries, and simply shipping products here? Volkswagen does it worldwide--including factories in China.
Globalization is not strictly an American problem--it is worldwide. Back in the days of Colonial Empires--trading with undeveloped nations or colonies was profitable for the mother country. India, for example, grew cotton--it was shipped to England to be made into textiles, and sold worldwide, including back to India. The genius of Ghandi was to see that India could make its own cotton much cheaper than the raw materials could be sent to England, processed, and returned--so India became a major player in international trade. Once colonies (or undeveloped countries) developed the ability to do things for themselves, they ceased being dependent on the mother country, and became a LIABILITY to the Empire--requireing defense, infrastructure expenditure, governance, etc.
That same "coming of age" has happened to the U.S. Though we didn't have colonies, we DID trade worldwide--supplying goods, advanced machines, and technology to undeveloped countries. Those countries are now becoming our competitors.
The competitive playing field is not level. The problem with NAFTA, or "Globalization", is that we do not insist on foreign competition carrying the same regulatory and taxation burden that we place on our own companies. Most foreign companies, for example, pay no corporate tax. Most do not have the stringent environmental, safety, labor, or unemployment laws that we do. Remember when Wal-mart proudly stated "all goods made in America"? Wal-Mart had to change--people demanded cheap goods--they couldn't be competitive. Remember the flap a few years ago, when Kathie Lee Gifford was castigated for putting her name on "sweat shop" labels of clothing? You don't hear the term "sweat shop" any more--it's "free trade" with undeveloped countries. As long as people demand cheap goods, Wal-Mart will sell them, and countries will produce them.
Many would say that the answer is in re-establishing tariffs--but selling in the U.S. isn't the only answer--there are plenty of other willing buyers around the globe. The answer is not in prohibiting companies from establishing overseas divisions--that will only ADD to corporate flight. The answer is to PARTNER with overseas companies. American Honda is an example--make the plant so efficient, and the product so good, that foreign companies establish U.S. divisions.
"Stopping big corporations from taking American jobs overseas" makes for interesting campaign rhetoric, but is hardly credible domestic policy. Less rhetoric--more specifics needed.
I
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
