QUOTE
Originally posted by thomez
...(which nobody agrees with)...
...(which nobody agrees with)...
For those who might be new here, that's thomez code for "which thomez doesn't agree with".
hehehe
OT: Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
Thomez, your statements about what Bush would or would not sign regarding abortion are purely speculation, no fact to it at all. What Marc pointed out was correct, being for women's right to choose and pro-life are two distinctly different things, not a flip flop.
Now if you want to get into speculation, I believe that the country will be in big trouble safety wise if Kerry is elected. My speculation is based on Kerry's voting record when it comes to National defense issues. From a conservative point of veiw, he has one of the worst voting records in the Senate on issues of defense.
As far as the programs your so proud of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (sp?), Unemployment, and Welfare, do any of them really work? All of these programs are broken or rampant with abuse, nothing I personaly am proud of. Clinton may have gotten people off of welfare, but it was the Democrats that created the problem and put people on it in the first place.
Now if you want to get into speculation, I believe that the country will be in big trouble safety wise if Kerry is elected. My speculation is based on Kerry's voting record when it comes to National defense issues. From a conservative point of veiw, he has one of the worst voting records in the Senate on issues of defense.
As far as the programs your so proud of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (sp?), Unemployment, and Welfare, do any of them really work? All of these programs are broken or rampant with abuse, nothing I personaly am proud of. Clinton may have gotten people off of welfare, but it was the Democrats that created the problem and put people on it in the first place.
QUOTE
Originally posted by NRath
As a person that would like to know more without spending hours upon hours researching, I'm up for seeing this thread continue. I don't feel that I have enough information to make a truly knowledgeable decision come election day.
I say if we can keep it in one thread, let it go. I also hope to see more people in the debate offering facts than just JayBar, BigMac, and Stones. I for one have nothing valuable to offer, but I am reading it hoping to gain some insight into the people we're voting for.
:usa
As a person that would like to know more without spending hours upon hours researching, I'm up for seeing this thread continue. I don't feel that I have enough information to make a truly knowledgeable decision come election day.
I say if we can keep it in one thread, let it go. I also hope to see more people in the debate offering facts than just JayBar, BigMac, and Stones. I for one have nothing valuable to offer, but I am reading it hoping to gain some insight into the people we're voting for.
:usa
NRath, just vote democrat and trust them to spend your money wisely after they take it all.
Marc
QUOTE
Originally posted by Mjollnir
For those who might be new here, that's thomez code for "which thomez doesn't agree with".
hehehe
For those who might be new here, that's thomez code for "which thomez doesn't agree with".
hehehe
I can say for a fact that I know of no person that agrees partial birth abortions are a good thing....
Jay, while I agree that my ideas on what Bush would do are speculation, I think it is hard to deny that they are true.
I agreed with Marc that the points in the article did not represent a flip flop, but my opinion is, that given the opportunity Bush would instantly sign into law a ban on abortion rights, contradicting his statement that these things are between a woman and a doctor to decide. That might not be published fact, but I can tell you that those people who follow politics and understand the workings of the conservative Christian right, will agree this to be true.
Looking at a voting record is a weak way to assess someones' views. When the bills are put to the table they often have a tidbit of everything in them. When a person votes Yes or No for this or that, then it can be picked apart on a single issue basis and put into a voting record percentage. I do not believe this is an accurate way to ascertain a good idea of a persons' future policies.
I never said that the democratic institutions were perfect, indeed they are not, but I can say that I believe the country is better off with them at a state of partial disfunction than we would be without them at all. That is my belief, and for anyone that is simply a matter of speculation and opinion.
Nrath, (or if Marc thinks you should consider) - if you want to talk about how much money you get to spend, take into account the tax cuts at the national level but also understand that these are offset by raised local and state taxes, not to mention the increasing rises in health insurance and presription drugs. When all is factored in, it is hard to understand why it is so much favored to have lower taxes at the national level when your money is just taken in other ways down the line. The Republican sponsored Prescription Drug Bill, written by the nations drug companies, serves as one example. Instead of buying cheaper drugs from Canada or letting our institutions such as Medicare and Medicaid negotiate better prices for their patients, this bill made these things illegal. Who benefits from this? Only the drug companies. It is obvious to anyone who has purchased a prescription that costs are outrageous and if you have any elderly family members taking multiple pills a day you will understand this hardship. Things do not have to be this way, but the $$$ flowing from the drug companies to the conservatives has put us on this path. I have found no other reason to explain their support for such measures that have no benefit to the average american.
QUOTE
Originally posted by thomez
Jay, while I agree that my ideas on what Bush would do are speculation, I think it is hard to deny that they are true.
Not hard at all for me to deny their true. They are what they are, your speculation.
That might not be published fact, but I can tell you that those people who follow politics and understand the workings of the conservative Christian right, will agree this to be true.
What you really mean is people who agree with your political views will agree this to be true. I follow and understand and don't agree.
Looking at a voting record is a weak way to assess someones' views. When the bills are put to the table they often have a tidbit of everything in them. When a person votes Yes or No for this or that, then it can be picked apart on a single issue basis and put into a voting record percentage. I do not believe this is an accurate way to ascertain a good idea of a persons' future policies.
Then exactly how do you ascertain a good idea of a persons future policies? I will agree that bills often have more than one thing in them, but the bottom line is the people voting on these bills have to determine what they agree and dissagree with in the bills and wether the good outwieghts the bad. The fact is when it comes to defense spending Kerry has a very poor record.
Nrath, (or if Marc thinks you should consider) - if you want to talk about how much money you get to spend, take into account the tax cuts at the national level but also understand that these are offset by raised local and state taxes, not to mention the increasing rises in health insurance and presription drugs. When all is factored in, it is hard to understand why it is so much favored to have lower taxes at the national level when your money is just taken in other ways down the line.
What kind of nonsense is this? Healthcare and prescription drug cost are going up, has nothing to do with federal taxes. They will go up regardless federal taxes being raised or lowered.
Federal taxes have nothing to do with state or local taxes. Your suggesting that becuase the federal taxes where lowered all the sudden the state and local goverments decided that we all have more money so they raise taxes? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
The Republican sponsored Prescription Drug Bill, written by the nations drug companies, serves as one example. Instead of buying cheaper drugs from Canada or letting our institutions such as Medicare and Medicaid negotiate better prices for their patients, this bill made these things illegal. Who benefits from this? Only the drug companies. It is obvious to anyone who has purchased a prescription that costs are outrageous and if you have any elderly family members taking multiple pills a day you will understand this hardship. Things do not have to be this way, but the $$$ flowing from the drug companies to the conservatives has put us on this path. I have found no other reason to explain their support for such measures that have no benefit to the average american.
Jay, while I agree that my ideas on what Bush would do are speculation, I think it is hard to deny that they are true.
Not hard at all for me to deny their true. They are what they are, your speculation.
That might not be published fact, but I can tell you that those people who follow politics and understand the workings of the conservative Christian right, will agree this to be true.
What you really mean is people who agree with your political views will agree this to be true. I follow and understand and don't agree.
Looking at a voting record is a weak way to assess someones' views. When the bills are put to the table they often have a tidbit of everything in them. When a person votes Yes or No for this or that, then it can be picked apart on a single issue basis and put into a voting record percentage. I do not believe this is an accurate way to ascertain a good idea of a persons' future policies.
Then exactly how do you ascertain a good idea of a persons future policies? I will agree that bills often have more than one thing in them, but the bottom line is the people voting on these bills have to determine what they agree and dissagree with in the bills and wether the good outwieghts the bad. The fact is when it comes to defense spending Kerry has a very poor record.
Nrath, (or if Marc thinks you should consider) - if you want to talk about how much money you get to spend, take into account the tax cuts at the national level but also understand that these are offset by raised local and state taxes, not to mention the increasing rises in health insurance and presription drugs. When all is factored in, it is hard to understand why it is so much favored to have lower taxes at the national level when your money is just taken in other ways down the line.
What kind of nonsense is this? Healthcare and prescription drug cost are going up, has nothing to do with federal taxes. They will go up regardless federal taxes being raised or lowered.
Federal taxes have nothing to do with state or local taxes. Your suggesting that becuase the federal taxes where lowered all the sudden the state and local goverments decided that we all have more money so they raise taxes? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
The Republican sponsored Prescription Drug Bill, written by the nations drug companies, serves as one example. Instead of buying cheaper drugs from Canada or letting our institutions such as Medicare and Medicaid negotiate better prices for their patients, this bill made these things illegal. Who benefits from this? Only the drug companies. It is obvious to anyone who has purchased a prescription that costs are outrageous and if you have any elderly family members taking multiple pills a day you will understand this hardship. Things do not have to be this way, but the $$$ flowing from the drug companies to the conservatives has put us on this path. I have found no other reason to explain their support for such measures that have no benefit to the average american.
Written by the nations drug companies? I suppose you have proof of this?
Everything you say here is pure opinion. I suppose a govt healthcare program is the answer? Not in my book.
-
Frank White
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:41 pm
The Motorsports Industry is behind Bush and the Republican Party.
I'm personally involved with lots of Government agencies (Local, State and Fed) between California and Washington DC and would almost NEVER side with a Democrat because they have sided with the Green people of the world and for other reasons.
They are also responsible for lots of other things that I can't disclose.
I have had this discussion with the other manufacturers and we all feel the same way.
Now you know my personal position.
Frank White
ATK Motorcycles
I'm personally involved with lots of Government agencies (Local, State and Fed) between California and Washington DC and would almost NEVER side with a Democrat because they have sided with the Green people of the world and for other reasons.
They are also responsible for lots of other things that I can't disclose.
I have had this discussion with the other manufacturers and we all feel the same way.
Now you know my personal position.
Frank White
ATK Motorcycles
Thanks a bunch for chiming in Frank.
I personally have two main issues and maybe half a dozen smaller ones. The main issues I vote on are Gun Control and the environment. That is, the candidate who has policies closest to mine. Heck, I even voted for a Democrat for my state Senate seat during the last state cycle based on these two things, mainly.
Zack, you say no one you know thinks partial birth abortions are a good thing, but unless I am misunderstanding your previous posts, you think they should be legal? If partial birth abortions are legal; that is, getting a viable child down the birth canal enough to kill it by severing it's spinal cord, then I should legally be able to kill my child for no reason other than I don't want him/her anymore. It is the same thing.
Marc
I personally have two main issues and maybe half a dozen smaller ones. The main issues I vote on are Gun Control and the environment. That is, the candidate who has policies closest to mine. Heck, I even voted for a Democrat for my state Senate seat during the last state cycle based on these two things, mainly.
Zack, you say no one you know thinks partial birth abortions are a good thing, but unless I am misunderstanding your previous posts, you think they should be legal? If partial birth abortions are legal; that is, getting a viable child down the birth canal enough to kill it by severing it's spinal cord, then I should legally be able to kill my child for no reason other than I don't want him/her anymore. It is the same thing.
Marc
You are indeed misunderstanding.
I said that the wording of the partial birth abortions ban was obviously aimed at making all abortions illegal through the back door. I did not support how it was put together, but would support it if put together correctly. The worlding was key, and it showed the intentions of the right by pushing the legislation that way.
BTW: If you can vote R while considering the environment, when GWB denied global warming even existed (as a man made problem) for 3 years, left the Kyoto protocal, etc... I'm not sure what environmental policy you are looking for?
I said that the wording of the partial birth abortions ban was obviously aimed at making all abortions illegal through the back door. I did not support how it was put together, but would support it if put together correctly. The worlding was key, and it showed the intentions of the right by pushing the legislation that way.
BTW: If you can vote R while considering the environment, when GWB denied global warming even existed (as a man made problem) for 3 years, left the Kyoto protocal, etc... I'm not sure what environmental policy you are looking for?
-
Ryanstones
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:41 pm
who started this?!
Shows what a great site this is that we can discuss volatile and important issues without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. I am frequently offended by people that label honest dissent as unpatriotic.
As for the distorted ads regarding Kerry's senate voting record: Many of the votes being misrepresented occurred during the question about what to do with the 'peace dividend' at the end of the cold war. Interestingly, MANY of the bills Kerry voted NO on, at that time, were also opposed by the Secretary of defense then. **** Cheney.
All the advertising by both parties is a distorted twist on reality.
onward,
I'm also completely baffled by the conservative obsession with reduced taxes, yet NO restraint on spending!!!!!!
Many who support the WAR of no purpose, are totally unwilling to PAY FOR IT!! ^&*(%^&*#$%^@@@**&^$#@
This national DEBT will make america impotent.
Also,
Conservatives frequently make the relatively small amount of fraud and waste in our safety net out to be the worst type of thievery.
Yet, nobody crows about the MASSIVE amount of public money going into the pockets of drug co.'s, the military industrial complex, multi-nationals & wall street through favorable 'conservative' legislation.
I'd much rather blow my money helping people than further enriching the richest.
:usa
As for the distorted ads regarding Kerry's senate voting record: Many of the votes being misrepresented occurred during the question about what to do with the 'peace dividend' at the end of the cold war. Interestingly, MANY of the bills Kerry voted NO on, at that time, were also opposed by the Secretary of defense then. **** Cheney.
All the advertising by both parties is a distorted twist on reality.
onward,
I'm also completely baffled by the conservative obsession with reduced taxes, yet NO restraint on spending!!!!!!
Many who support the WAR of no purpose, are totally unwilling to PAY FOR IT!! ^&*(%^&*#$%^@@@**&^$#@
This national DEBT will make america impotent.
Also,
Conservatives frequently make the relatively small amount of fraud and waste in our safety net out to be the worst type of thievery.
Yet, nobody crows about the MASSIVE amount of public money going into the pockets of drug co.'s, the military industrial complex, multi-nationals & wall street through favorable 'conservative' legislation.
I'd much rather blow my money helping people than further enriching the richest.
:usa