Jedi Council Forums - Official 2004 US Elections Thread

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
Vaderize03 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 7/9/04 4:52pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	Yeah, and Ronald Reagan brought in the Christian Right which may very well tear it apart. A showdown is looming between social conservatives and the "Wall Street" majority; they have very different priorities as to what needs to get done in the US, and I think that eventually this will erupt into open conflict. A similar thing happened to the dems after McGovern, and it will be interesting to see if history repeats itself. Peace, V-03 -----signature----- "Bring your pretty face to my axe....." B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!) "I'm what Willis was talking about"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
liberalmaverick Registered: Feb '04	Date Posted: 7/9/04 5:22pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	I think Jades Fire made a great case for Sen. Edwards as VP, and rebutted all the flawed arguments that the conservatives are hurling at the VP choice. Ender_Sai: It's not Thought Policing, it's keeping discussions on track. I'd agree with your assessment of certain views, but there's little merit in blanket generalisations themselves not based in fact. All statements like "liberals serve Satan" do is, besides make the user look foolish, is cause division and flames and distract from the issue at hand. I understand the need to keep discussions on topic, but to tell people that they can't say this (outside of profanity) seems wrong to me. JediSmuggler: Also, as I said earlier, tort reform will be an issue. People in Florida and Pennsylvania in particular have been suffering because doctors are no longer practicing medicine due to the high cost of malpractice insurance - and the reason for that is the out-of-control malpractice suits and class-action lawsuits brought about by trial lawyers. I think there's another side to tort reform and lawsuits; I read about it recently in Had Enough? by James Carville. I would go into it but I don't think this is the best threat to discuss it in, plus I'm too lazy to fetch the book right now. It is not enough to say, "I would have done it differently." He needs to explain what he would have done differently, and why it is a better alternative than what the current policy is. So far, Kerry is not doing that, and if he fails to do so, he will lose. He has and he is. It's just that what he's saying is not getting out to a lot of voters (including yourself, apparently). Darth Mischievous: This is the most liberal ticket in decades (since McGovern, anyway), and I don't say that in a derogatory sense. Both Kerry and Edwards are more liberal than that bastion of liberalism Ted Kennedy himself. Not according to the Americans for Democratic Action, which rates liberals. As you can see here, Sen. Kerry has a lifetime rating of 92 - which is quite good - and Sen. Edwards rates only 81. In contrast, Sen. Kennedy rates 90, which is higher than Edwards. So, no, Edwards is NOT more liberal that "that bastion of liberalism". What does it matter? Nothing says that a liberal ticket can't win. Or have you forgotten the election of 1964? Obi-Wan McCartney: John Kerry will govern as a moderate, do you really see someone like Kerry getting the reigns and then trying to pull what Clinton pulled when he got elected? Come off it, President Kerry will rule as a moderate despite his liberal voting record in the Senate. Now, say if Howard Dean or say Ralph Nader got elected, I could that as a mandate for sweeping reform, but a Kerry Presidency is a return to normalcy. Good god I hope you're wrong. Galahad_Skywalker: The problem with Kerry is that he has flip-flopped on almost every topic that is important in this election. He voted for the Patriot Act and to send troops into Iraq, and now he's changed his stances on those issues, pretending as if those votes never happened. What's more, he's continuing to blast Bush on the economy, despite the fact that the economy is at last starting on an upswing. I don't attribute the upswing to Bush, but it seems an improper time to be bemoaning the condition of the economy when things are actually beginning to look up. Oh dear. I guess you weren't around in the previous incarnation of the elections thread, so you didn't see that I and other Democrats blew to bits this "Kerry is a flip-flopper" nonsense. Patriot Act: Yes he voted for it, but he did so for the parts regarding consolidation of intelligence and increased information-sharing, NOT for the civil liberties-busting parts. Moreover, he trusted the Bush administration to not abuse its power - a trust that turned out to be ill-placed. Iraq: He did NOT vote to send troops into Iraq, let's make that clear. The Oct. 2002 resolution you refer to would authorize the President to do basically whatever he wants, including sending in troops, but it was not actually a vote on war. Kerry voted for that resolution because he felt that it was important that the President had this blank check so he could threaten the U.N. and Saddam to get their butts moving. The whole point was to get the U.N. and Saddam to go, "Uh oh, we better act or else Bush will attack us, because he has congressional authorization to do so." Kerry actually opposed the use of force, especially the way Bush did it. Economy: The economy is improving, but the effects are primarily benefitting the rich and not the middle- and lower-income classes. A million and a half Americans are still unemployed, and the unemployment rate is still at a steady 5.6%. The space between the rich and the poor is no longer a gap, it's a chasm, thanks to Bush and the Republicans. And if you want world-class political flip-flopping, I'd look at President Bush. TI1420: There's no substantive difference between the two "choices" we're getting.... the "two" parties seem these days to be two fingers on the same velvet-gloved fist. It's like Coke vs. Pepsi. Not much difference. That might have been true in 2000, but is most certainly NOT the case this year. Sen. Kerry is not a DLC slave like President Clinton or VP Gore. I think we really do have a real choice between a real liberal and a real conservative here. There are some places where Kerry and President Bush share ground, like Iraq reconstruction (Kerry probably feels that military withdrawal would be risky) and corporate tax reductions (which I'm unhappy with) but for the most part there's a real difference. ShaneP: Nasty campaigning goes back alot further than Lee Atwater. Indeed. 1800 (John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson) and 1884 (Grover Cleveland vs. James Blaine) stick out as really muddy, nasty campaigns in our nation's history. -----signature----- "I would rather be right than be President." - Senator Henry Clay
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Madriver Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 7/9/04 7:26pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	Economy: The economy is improving, but the effects are primarily benefitting the rich and not the middle- and lower-income classes. A million and a half Americans are still unemployed, and the unemployment rate is still at a steady 5.6%. The space between the rich and the poor is no longer a gap, it's a chasm, thanks to Bush and the Republicans. According to this site, US Department of Labor, the unemployment rate has not been a steady 5.6%, it has been decreasing since June of 2003, from a high of 6.3%. A nice graph is at the link posted above. Also, PPOR the growing chasm between the rich and the poor...no offense but that sounds like class envy baiting.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 7/9/04 8:20pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread - Date Edited: 7/9/04 8:21pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DeathStar1977
	Is this what they mean by gay marriage? http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryk.htm http://www.dailykos.net/images/65fix.jpg
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Crix-Madine Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 7/9/04 9:32pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	The problem with Kerry is that he has flip-flopped on almost every topic that is important in this election. This is what the Republican spin machine puts out and bombards viewers with constantly. It's too bad people don't have the brain power to think for themselves but resort to repeating what they are told over and over. As for Gay Marriage, I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Massachusetts has not been consumed by the fiery depths of hell like some people will tell you. Life it's actually completely normal for most people here. The real difference is that it has made a lot of people happier and they feel like true equals in society. There is nothing bad in that. -----signature----- The will is everything. If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely. Are you ready to begin?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 7/9/04 9:44pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	Not just outspending him and putting negative attack ads, but spreading false rumors that McCain fathered illegimate black children, in pivotal and conservative districts Didn't they also start stories that he had tried to block important Veteran's legislation as well? That annoys me. I'm starting to like Bush ever since he cut ties with the INC and I presume the Neocons; but this is still a sore point. I don't think it's right for his people to even mention the service of McCain or Kerry at all, even quitely. They should just pray to God it's never brought up again. I'd actually like to see Dubya win this election just because I want to see whether or not we can fix Iraq now the counter-productive and destructive influence of the neocons have been apparently marginalised. Note: I'm still annoyed Mr44 didn't run, as '44 in '04 was a kickass slogan and being the 44th President was just ironic! '44 in '04 Because it IS too late! E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Galahad_Skywalker Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 7/9/04 11:10pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	I remember the 2000 election, when I was all for McCain, and I'm still resentful at the way the GOP completely screwed him over. I remember his speech against Pat Roberson's Christian Coalition very well, and still admire it, because even though it was the last stroke that wrecked his campaign (Pat Robertson's sway within the Republican Party is frightening, especially to this Republican), it took a lot of guts to stand up and defy the powerholders of the party. I've considered him a personal hero of mine since the 2000 election, but he's lost some luster this year because of how he is simply backing Bush and refusing to challenge the administration. And the Kerry flip-flopping being echoed from the Right? I don't know who's telling the truth anymore, if neither of them are, or if there is even a truth at all. I have seen too many idealistic, passionate politicians who offer solutions (McCain, Howard Dean, etc.) being rejected by their parties in place of dull, out-of-touch types that I'm quickly having my own idealism sucked dry. There have been enough Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry lineups that though once couldn't wait to be old enough to vote in a Presidential election, I'm starting to wonder if I'll even vote come Election Day (and believe me, that's the last thing I want to do). -----signature----- Currently Reading: Sharpe's Enemy, by Bernard Cornwell
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 7/10/04 1:28am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	I will ask the consensus of Americans here from either party not to gloat or be disrespectful after the results of the election are in, regardless of the victor. If Bush wins, I give my guarantee that no such thing will come out of my posts. I hope the others here who support Bush can do the same. If Kerry wins, I hope that the individuals here can restrain themselves as well. Being happy that your guy won is fine, but there is no need to post exuberance which will only inflame others. Simple request, that's all... -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/10/04 1:41am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	Certainly a reasonable request, DM. I hope we all can follow that. Of course, I suspect it will bear repeating as we get closer to Election Day. -----signature----- "Nothing but the rain."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 7/10/04 1:50am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread - Date Edited: 7/10/04 1:59am (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	KW: Honestly, I think all of the candidates here are patriots, both Kerry and Bush, both Edwards and Cheney. Their different vision of the direction our nation takes is what is going to be decided in the fall. I just hope that all of us Americans here can remember that we should respect one another regardless of ideology after the election takes place. I always think that the best parts of our traditions are the gracious concession speeches from an upstanding candidate who loses a given election. I hope that the board members can be just as gracious and upstanding. My Democratic friends here have my guarantee that I will be gracious no matter who wins. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DeathStar1977 Registered: Jan '03	Date Posted: 7/10/04 10:07am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	DM - Well said.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 7/10/04 10:16am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread - Date Edited: 7/10/04 10:18am (1 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	No way DM. When Nader wins my JC posts will tap dance over those of the republican and democratic ones. -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Fwiffo Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 7/10/04 10:46am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	Will you be serving pork wings and hellsicles with that? -----signature----- ------------- Just remember this one constant: Bonecrusher Hates You
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 7/10/04 11:35am Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	LibMav, You, perhaps correctly, rally against the dangers of party spin (well, one party at least..) Can you not recognize your own blindness though? Let's look at some statements: I think Jades Fire made a great case for Sen. Edwards as VP, and rebutted all the flawed arguments that the conservatives are hurling at the VP choice. He has and he is. It's just that what he's saying is not getting out to a lot of voters (including yourself, apparently). Patriot Act: Yes he voted for it, but he did so for the parts regarding consolidation of intelligence and increased information-sharing, NOT for the civil liberties-busting parts Iraq: He did NOT vote to send troops into Iraq, let's make that clear. The Oct. 2002 resolution you refer to would authorize the President to do basically whatever he wants, including sending in troops Kerry voted for that resolution because he felt that it was important that the President had this blank check so he could threaten the U.N. and Saddam to get their butts moving. That might have been true in 2000, but is most certainly NOT the case this year. Sen. Kerry is not a DLC slave like President Clinton or VP Gore. etc.. Even with allowable partisanship that is healthy, do you honestly think Kerry has done nothing wrong, that some people might have valid concerns with him? Your statements, taken togther basically say "Anything good is because of Kerry, anything bad is because of everyone else.." I mean really, let's look at this again: "Yes he voted for it [Patriot Act]... NOT for the civil liberties-busting parts.." Kerry was selectively enforcing his votes now? He either voted for it, or he didn't.. Maybe the Patriot Act isn't as bad as you think, so the entire point is moot? Same with Iraq, economy, the other issues you brought up. In your eyes, are there no valid criticisms about Kerry that can even be discussed? -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 7/10/04 1:02pm Subject: RE: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
	MFwiffo, lol. "not the civil-liberties busting parts" One mans "civil liberty-busting" is another mans "order and security." -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 » - Previous | Next | Reload