Why to vote Republican this time....... [Archive]

mcnabbmcnow

October 23rd, 2004, 05:49 PM

I know many people in Hawaii disagree with George W. Bush on social issues. They may disagree on abortion, gay marriage, social security, health insurance, taxes...whatever. But this election is important because, all these things are secondary to National Security. That's right, if we get attacked in a major chemical, nuclear, or biological way by terrorists groups, all those other issues really don't mean a whole lot.

Senator Kerry believes in a reactionary policy. Wait for terrorists to attack, then respond. President Bush believes in a more pre-emptive policy. Remember, it only takes being wrong once. Senator Kerry claims that George Bush did not do enough to bring together our allies, but as we have recently found out, France and Russia were supplying arms to Iraq for oil at low prices. France particularily had a good business relationship with Saddam and didn't seem to even consider ethics. France and Germany, I believe, have said they would not have authorized force basically no matter what or who was President. So for all Kerry talks about the personality of Bush, the truth is it wouldn't have mattered. We could have went through 17 UN weapons inspections, but the UN was going to veto military action forever, based on their own countries interests and not morality.

What concerns me greatly is that John Kerry talks about bringing allies together. Yet, when the allies of the United Nations all agreed in the early 90's on the Gulf War in Kuwait, Kerry was one of very few who vetoed it, even with broad international support. He voted for the war in Iraq, then against funding the soliders with extra armor and weapons...one of only a few no votes. It's not that Kerry is a bad person but that he doesn't understand the fundamental nature of the problem. Terrorists like Al Quaeda don't negotiate or talk peace treaties. You get them or they get you. I am not trying to fear-monger, but think about what your kids will be doing in 20 years. Kerry's peaceful policy's are short-sighted, whereas Bush is looking long-term, trying to set an example of democracy for the Middle East to follow...the one area of the world that has never had democracies. It will take time...but it is important to protect us in the future. I urge you for the first time in a long time to vote Republican in 2004.

craigwatanabe

October 23rd, 2004, 06:19 PM

You know...I'm a republican but I'm actually thinking of voting for Kerry simply because of his promises he claims to be able to follow thru with.

If he can begin bringing back the troops in 6-months of taking charge and then bring peace to Iraq within his 4-year term plus bring our deficit back into the black, put Social Security on track, get the nation's unemployment to an acceptable low...basically make good on all his campaign rhetoric then I say give the man a chance! Either he'll do it and the nation and the world will be in a safer place, or he'll miserably fail and George W. Bush can say, "I told you so".

If he succeeds then the Democrats have proved once and for all they are the superior party. If he fails, well...party over, literally.

When I used to teach my kids the proper way of doing something and they feel they have a better way, I step back and say, "go for it". They either prove me wrong or they humbly accept defeat. Either way I let them dig their own grave if one is to be dug.

Kerry is promising quite a lot. Personally I don't think he'll be able to accomplish this incredable feat but hey he says he can do it so...I suggest Bush should step back...and say, "go for it" and either accept defeat graceously or step back in and accept Kerry's defeat graceously.

At this point, I say let the democratic party prove their abilities without republican interference thru congress. If they succeed, we as a nation succeed. If they fail, then let the republican party step back in and continue what they feel is proper for the nation. It's fair and it lets each party flex their muscles and prove once and for all what they're made of.

As much as I approve of what Bush is doing so far, I think I'll vote for Kerry simply because he's offering more on the plate (than he can chew) but if he can complete this meal of a term then heck we all win.

But the risks will be high if he fails. The key is no republican intervention where Kerry can point his finger of blame on. And if he fails then so does global/national political/economic stability. But if he succeeds, at least I can say, "Yep I voted for him". The personal win-win for me is that either Kerry succeeds and I benefit from that, or he fails and as a republican I can say, "I told you so". Either way I'll feel good about my vote and the result whatever it may be.

So as a republican I urge all fellow voters to vote for Kerry. Heck it's only four years or impeachment if he sucks as president. That's about as long as it takes to pay off your gas-guzzling SUV. At the end of four years, you'll have 1) a paid off car, and 2) either a greater and safer world or a republican president. How (as a republican) can you lose by voting for Kerry. :)

mcnabbmcnow

October 23rd, 2004, 07:08 PM

Miulang

October 23rd, 2004, 07:40 PM

OK, let's assume that the incumbent administration is voted back into office. Iraq is just one line item in a whole laundry list of problems that this country has been beset with over the last 3 years. Granted, the Administration can't be blamed for all of the problems, but it certainly has done very little to alleviate problems that have cropped up since this administration took office.

The Republicans are trying to get citizens to vote for their party's candidates through fear of terrorism. The fear of international terrorism is real, but I think most Americans also worry about things like the flu vaccine shortage and outsourcing of their jobs. They worry that their kids in public school aren't going to be able to get good educations because "No Child Left Behind" is severely underfunded. The Bush Administration thus far has been long on promises but very short on delivery.

I usually am proactive with things I can control, but I think a pre-emptive attack on a country which had no WMDs at the time we attacked is unconscionable; especially at the expense of being called global buffoons. If the current Administration is re-elected, I predict that Israel will wage war against Iran, and North Korea will get cozier with China. Will we have enough troops to go help our Israeli friends while we continue to mount battles in Iraq and Afghanistan using an all-volunteer Army? If al Qaeda had mounted an attack on the US and landed hordes of troops on our soil, I myself would pick up a rifle and defend this country. But I cannot see spending billions of dollars overseas in a "pre-emptive" conflict when we have so many crushing social problems in this country that could have used some of that $200 billion we will have spent in Iraq.

I don't think Kerry would ignore the CIA (which is in total disarray right now) any worse than the Bush Administration has done so in the last 3 years. Heck, even the ex-CIA Director George Tenant (now that he's not under the iron fetters of the Bush Administration) is now coming out saying that we had no business starting that war in Iraq.

And Craig is right about one thing: If Kerry is elected, he and his administration can be voted out in 4 years if he doesn't come through for us. If we re-elect Bush, we can only be assured of the same thing that's been going on for the past 3 years, unless the people really running the country--Cheney and Rumsfeld--are given their walking papers shortly after January. We know that Bush will have to do plenty of hiring if he's re-elected because many of the people who were in his cabinet either have already left in disgust or will not want to be part of the next Administration. Good riddance to bad rubbish, you say? I say if people like Colin Powell leave the Bush Administration, then the psychological war in the US really begins and the brainwashing of the American public accelerates. What I don't understand is why the current Administration thinks its fecal matter smells sweeter than anyone else's? Why can't the Administration admit that sometimes mistakes can be made and that maybe--just maybe--we have erred in our foreign policy?

I personally don't like either Presidential candidate. But I won't waste my vote on Nader, so that leaves me only one choice: to vote for Kerry and keep watching to make sure he follows up on his campaign promises. We can't do any worse for this country.

Miulang

mcnabbmcnow

October 24th, 2004, 03:20 AM

Democrat claims that President Bush is underfunding “No Child Left Behind” are false.

¨ Minority Leader Pelosi and other Democrats have claimed – inaccurately – that President Bush has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion (The White House Bulletin. “House Democrats Charge House GOP Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill ‘Cuts’ Education Funding,” 7/9/03).

¨ In fact, the No Child Left Behind Act did not authorize any specific overall amount for FY2003 and beyond, and there is absolutely no basis for Rep. Pelosi’s claim in existing law.

¨ The New York Times (1/16/03) corrected the Democrats’ spin. After initially reporting Democrat leaders’ claim that the No Child Left Behind Act authorized a specific number ($29.2 billion) for FY 2003, the paper later issued a correction, stating, “An article last Thursday about the debate between President Bush and Democrats in Congress over education policy referred incorrectly to spending provisions in legislation signed by Mr. Bush last year. While the No Child Left Behind Act did authorize specific funding levels for a handful of specific programs, it did not, as some claim, authorize $29.2 billion or any other specific overall amount in No Child Left Behind spending for this fiscal year (FY 2003) or any other remaining years.”

Miulang

October 24th, 2004, 07:59 AM

¨ The New York Times (1/16/03) corrected the Democrats’ spin. After initially reporting Democrat leaders’ claim that the No Child Left Behind Act authorized a specific number ($29.2 billion) for FY 2003, the paper later issued a correction, stating, “An article last Thursday about the debate between President Bush and Democrats in Congress over education policy referred incorrectly to spending provisions in legislation signed by Mr. Bush last year. While the No Child Left Behind Act did authorize specific funding levels for a handful of specific programs, it did not, as some claim, authorize $29.2 billion or any other specific overall amount in No Child Left Behind spending for this fiscal year (FY 2003) or any other remaining years.”
Then why is there a referendum on my state's general election ballot this year asking for voters to approve charter schools? If the public school system was getting adequate funding, why would proponents of the charter school measure think we need to suck something like $30 million out of my state's education budget to set up these schools so underachieving (and gifted students) would get special attention? :confused: And what good is federal legislation without adequate funding and planning anyway? All smoke and mirrors, if you ask me.

Miulang

Konaguy

October 24th, 2004, 09:42 AM

I'm voting for Kerry. I'm 28 and frankly deathly afraid of the path
"W" is taking us down.

1. He has cut taxes for the wealthy
2. But instead of reducing the size of government, he has expanded it
3. Thus leaving us with a huge federal deficit
4. His No Child Left Behind is poor excuse to make our schools better.
Actually in my opinion it is making things worse, irrepairably.
5. He lead us into a no win situation in Iraq. Basing his reasoning on
invading Iraq on false pretenses, where are all those WMD's
6. His policies on fighting terrorism are isolating the United States from
the rest of the world.
7. His domestic anti-terrorism policies are slowly turning the United States
into a police state
8. Bush's trickle down economics policy has been a failure. The economy
is still stuck in mud. While the exportation of Amerian jobs is still happening
at a furious pace.

These are my reasons why I will be voting for John Kerry. I urge people still
on the fence to look closely at the issues above and think if you really
want another four years of Bush.

craigwatanabe

October 24th, 2004, 10:26 AM

1. He has cut taxes for the wealthy What's wrong with that? The wealthy already pay more (percentage wise) than any other socio-economic group.
2. But instead of reducing the size of government, he has expanded it He had to with Homeland Security. Kerry would have had to do the same, and regarding increasing the size of government, if he didn't create Homeland security, he would have been accused of not doing more to protect us.
3. Thus leaving us with a huge federal deficit If the wealthy didn't get tax relief thru tax cuts, do you think they it would have motivated them to invest in our stock market (the engine that runs our economy) and remember Clinton's tax surplus was given back to it's rightful owners, the taxpayers which led us back to a deficit by Bush. If you felt that tax refund check wasn't due to you then you should have donated it back to the federal government instead of buying that computer or whatever you did with it.
4. His No Child Left Behind is poor excuse to make our schools better. I agree there. Bush mandated school reform without providing local support to those agencies (BOE/DOE) that must execute them, all this while teacher morale is at a low due to increased demands on credentials and low teacher pay and the fact that here in Hawaii NCLB is not responsive to our cultural diversiveness that limits NCLB's success even with federal dollars. If the Bush administration had provided the financial resources to have schools comply with the NCLB I think this would have been a marginal success. Implementation of NCLB put a greater burden on local schools to comply without the support mechanism to achieve that goal.
5. He lead us into a no win situation in Iraq. Basing his reasoning on
invading Iraq on false pretenses, where are all those WMD's Remember at that time his actions were based on information that at the time was deemed credible even to Kerry and the UN. The fact that Kerry endorsed military action at that time would also mean that Kerry lied as well. No one lied. Everybody was simply misinformed. But when the democratic party stood behind the president at that time and now have abandoned him when the time turned gloom and doom shows no backbone for better or for worse.
6. His policies on fighting terrorism are isolating the United States from the rest of the world. Remember, there is a coalition of supporting nations as well. The US has always been an isolated nation from the rest of the world. We've had to tend to our own wounds for virtually all of our disasters while we have pumped billions of dollars in support around the world (even to our enemies) for disaster/war/famine/disease relief.
7. His domestic anti-terrorism policies are slowly turning the United States into a police state If we didn't have a domestic anti-terrorism policy(s) would you feel safer flying in an airplane? I don't think this is becoming a police state. Just go to a communist country as an outspoken political opponent of it government and marvel at your government escort everywhere. That's a police state.
8. Bush's trickle down economics policy has been a failure. The economy is still stuck in mud. While the exportation of Amerian jobs is still happening at a furious pace. With home sales up across the country and ebay being a huge success (#1 female CEO) with WalMarts springing up everywhere and job fairs happening almost monthly instead of annually (even in Hawaii) I hardly believe the economy is stuck in the mud. The only exportation of American jobs being showcased in the news are jobs of telemarketing or call centers. I don't believe these jobs represent the greater workforce of the American workplace. With WalMart opening up in Honolulu's super block, hundreds of jobs have been created in just that alone, and along with that, thousands of tax dollars have just been added to Hawaii's tax base.
These are my reasons why I will be voting for John Kerry. I urge people still on the fence to look closely at the issues above and think if you really want another four years of Bush. And remember for better and for worse (Aarons reasons) all of this happened under the Bush administration. Under Bush's administration, I bought my home in cash and retired with a healthy nestegg. My kids are doing better, my wife got her dream job and will complete her masters degree. I think I'm doing pretty good under Bush's administrative policies, heck Aaron, you even got your computer cheaper at that Capitalistic (trickle down economic aided) store called WalMart while working at another Big Box retailer.

Those aren't the reasons why I'm voting for Kerry. I'm sick and tired of him saying everything Bush did he'll do better. Well DUH!! That's a bunch of rhetoric but if he says he's gonna do it, he'd better do it because all of his promises seem inflated to the point of lying but I'll give the man a chance. If he succeeds well we are better off by those promises he claims. If he fails put Bush back in because for everything Aaron stated in his reasons for voting for Kerry, I've offered valid reasons or compelling reasons against them other than NCLB.

Either way both Aaron and I are voting for Kerry but for completely different reasons. I say my reasons for voting for Kerry is more objective and puts political blame out of the equation and limits everything to each candidate's campaign rhetoric. Kerry's got my vote but he'd better come thru for the sake of the world.

His promises are grand (and unattainable in my opinion) but if you were looking at a sales ad for a new car and one brand offered more on the plate for less, you'd be a fool not to consider the savings there. Kerry is offering quite a bit (good bang for the buck) to intice you to vote for him. I'd like to offer this proposition to Kerry...a money (vote) back guarantee offering full refund (step down as president) if we as a country are not satisfied with his promises. That's fair and very reasonable. But before I condemn his promises as empty rhetoric, I'll let him prove me wrong or let him dig his own grave.

Like I said, I win either way. I either benefit from his success or I prove my point as a republican. And yes I voted for Ed Case and Dan Inouye as a registered republican simply because I trust Case (he understands trickle down economic principles) and I know Inouye will bring in much needed federal dollars for our domestic needs. Gabbard hasn't proved much of anything other than his moral beliefs on abortion. The Hare Krishna connection still bothers me as well.

Konaguy

October 24th, 2004, 11:02 AM

Well Craig at least we are on the same page in regards to voting. But the
path we got there is light years different in my opinion.
What's wrong with that? The wealthy already pay more (percentage wise) than any other socio-economic group. Quite a bit in my opinion, can you cite a unbias information source where you got your information.
If the wealthy didn't get tax relief thru tax cuts, do you think they it would have motivated them to invest in our stock market (the engine that runs our economy) That is a very short sided view in my opinion. You won't have to worry about the federal deficit, nor will the rest of the baby boomer generation. But the generation I'm in will and our children.
If we didn't have a domestic anti-terrorism policy(s) would you feel safer flying in an airplane? I don't think this is becoming a police state. Just go to a communist country as an outspoken political opponent of it government and marvel at your government escort everywhere. That's a police state. I guess you never heard of the Patriot Act ?
heck Aaron, you even got your computer cheaper at that Capitalistic (trickle down economic aided) store called WalMart while working at another Big Box retailer. I definitely do not chalk that up to Bush's economic policies. He didn't decide where I work ?
I agree there. To elaborate further on this, as far as I understand if the schools do not meet the NCLB mandates the school is forced to reorganize. Meaning all the administration people are fired and the teachers will have to re-apply for their jobs. I saw a list online of more than a dozen schools here in Hawaii that will have to go through this process.

craigwatanabe

October 24th, 2004, 11:49 AM

Quite a bit in my opinion, can you cite a unbias information source where you got your information. this is my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/cbostudy2.html

and mind you under Clinton's administration he believed anyone with assets something over $120,000 was deemed rich. That included annual salery, benefits, and your home. The home asset alone would have put most Hawaii homeowners into the catagory of rich. He based his opinion on home prices in Little Rock Arkansas where they are considerably less. Needless to say he didn't get democratic approval for that one.

As a former journalist information is never unbiased no matter how factual it is. For every factual statistic compiled, there is always an argument debating it's worthiness or basis.
That is a very short sided view in my opinion. You won't have to worry about the federal deficit, nor will the rest of the baby boomer generation. But the generation I'm in will and our children. It may be short sided but it's true. If you had the money to invest but knew by doing so your tax burden would increase, would you invest it? It comes down to a personal decision.

Remember the baby boomer generation and previous generations have lived under a federal deficit. This is nothing new to many of us who have been around. So don't sweat it, it's nothing new to be in a deficit. Even under the Carter administration we were in a deficit in the trillions of dollars but I don't see anyone blaming him for that.
I guess you never heard of the Patriot Act ? Yes I have and in time of emergency action we sometimes have to give up our personal freedoms for the sake of national security. Would you prefer Martial Law instead as we did after Pearl Harbor?

And it does affect our civil rights but imagine if we didn't invoke some type of screening and did let more terrorists into our borders and provoke more bloodshed on our homeland. If limiting our civil rights to protect my family from terrorism is what's needed, well we have to give up those rights for that protection.

I definitely do not chalk that up to Bush's economic policies. He didn't decide where I work ? That was a sarcastic response sorry for that but the fact that you're still employed instead of outsourced shows that Bush's policies haven't affected you in ways you point out.
To elaborate further on this, as far as I understand if the schools do not meet the NCLB mandates the school is forced to reorganize. Meaning all the administration people are fired and the teachers will have to re-apply for their jobs. I saw a list online of more than a dozen schools here in Hawaii that will have to go through this process. Yes that's true. While Hawaii's public schools grapple with it's diverse culture and SAT testing that doesn't adapt to those cultures, NCLB makes it even more difficult for our local schools to comply and puts many of our public schools in jeopardy.

I'll respond to your response later on. Believe it or not my wife is giving me the stink eye right now because we have to go to WalMart to buy more laundry detergent. I'd have gone to Kmart just for you but we don't have that Big Box retailer (yet) here in Hilo.

Bottom line we're both voting for Kerry. :)

Konaguy

October 24th, 2004, 12:17 PM

I'd have gone to Kmart just for you but we don't have that Big Box retailer (yet) here in Hilo. They were going to build a Kmart in Hilo, but I'm not sure on the specifics but I believe Wal-Mart out bid Kmart to use the DHHL land which the Wal-Mart sits on now.
Remember the baby boomer generation and previous generations have lived under a federal deficit. This is nothing new to many of us who have been around. So don't sweat it, it's nothing new to be in a deficit. Even under the Carter administration we were in a deficit in the trillions of dollars but I don't see anyone blaming him for that. Well the federal deficit along with national security are my number 1 and 2 concerns. The facts as they are under Clinton there was a budget surplus. 4 years later now we have a massive federal deficit. At least from my view you reduce government services if you want to reduce taxes. That is simply good business sense. When you own a business you are in it to make money not to lose money.

Simply put the federal deficit will allways be a concern of mine, since I will be effected by it through higher taxes in the future, reduced or no social security benefits since the government raids that to raise more cash to pay down the deficit.
Yes I have and in time of emergency action we sometimes have to give up our personal freedoms for the sake of national security. Would you prefer Martial Law instead as we did after Pearl Harbor?

And it does affect our civil rights but imagine if we didn't invoke some type of screening and did let more terrorists into our borders and provoke more bloodshed on our homeland. If limiting our civil rights to protect my family from terrorism is what's needed, well we have to give up those rights for that protection. From my viewpoint if we stopped involving ourselves in situations that cause the terrorists to attack us. We wouldn't be having to give up our personal liberties. Yes 9/11 was tragic event, but I frankly do not believe giving up our personal freedoms is right.

The freedoms given us in the constitution and the Bill of Rights have existed way before this terrorism threat. We should not lose sight of that.

for that but the fact that you're still employed instead of outsourced shows that Bush's policies haven't affected you in ways you point out. But it also shows another point indirectly. Our economy is becoming more service based and less manufacturing jobs. Those manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas to China, Japan, Mexico, Canada. This is why the outsourcing of IT jobs is such at hot button issue as it is another well paying job being sent overseas.

craigwatanabe

October 24th, 2004, 09:15 PM

But it also shows another point indirectly. Our economy is becoming more service based and less manufacturing jobs. Those manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas to China, Japan, Mexico, Canada. This is why the outsourcing of IT jobs is such at hot button issue as it is another well paying job being sent overseas.
Remember about a year or so ago when stock market analysists indicated there will be a major adjustment in our soaring stock market under Clinton's administration? I guess 9/11 took care of that. But our manufacturing jobs were heightened when the dollar was artifically devalued under Reagan allowing the Japanese automakers to build their autos in the US (also to get away from the tarifs imposed on import autos). Our steel industry suffered when the Japanese could make steel cheaper than the US but that was because the atomic bomb took out their antiquated steel mills. The United States never upgraded quickly enough to counter that one.

The outsourcing of IT jobs would have happened anyway because those kinds of jobs are importable to begin with. With the advancement of the Internet outsourcing became inevitable (so you can blame Gore for that one since he claimed he invented the Internet).

We were a major industrial nation just before the next revolution, the information revolution sometime in the 50's. Our growing economy meant better wages for blue collar workers. But as third world countries became mechanized/industrialized, their smaller valuation of currency against the US dollar opened the eyes of most manufactures because IT MADE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE TO HIRE CHEAPER LABOR. Outsourcing of jobs in the US was inevitable regardless. But it also shows the point that the US dollar was strengthening against weaker international currencies making those countries a cheaper place to hire labor. Outsourcing means a strong dollar meaning a strong economy against others. Why do you think when the Japanese Yen was 300 to 1 US dollar. Lots of industrial jobs went to Japan including auto and steel manufacturing. To counter that Reagan devalued the US dollar to make it more competative against increasing valuations of international currencies. That's when our manufacturing industries saw profits again. What most analysists didn't consider was that Japan's banks would go broke from the spending power of the Yen. Now with a devaluing Yen and a devalued US Dollar, international economies were threatened.

Enter a stronger US Dollar to hedge that recession. And here we are, strong dollar and a strong economy and the rest of the terroristic arab world hates us for that except OPEC nations who thrive on our robust economy because we buy most of their exports...crude oil.

So...if you want us to stay out of situations that results in terroristic acts against us, we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. So that means we have to stop driving our gas guzzlers wastefully and we must reduce our need for electricity, plastics, cosmetics and everything associated with petroleum-based energy/products. But that also means less US jobs in the auto industry, less petroleum-based manufacturing jobs (i.e. cosmetics, plastics, whatever)

Are you willing to reduce your intake of these products/services to keep terrorists out of our backyard? I didn't think so, so things like the Patriot Act and pre-emptive strikes are necessary to maintain our freedoms. And that's why our servicemen and women are out there dying, so we can drive our SUV's to WalMart to pick up laundry detergent in plastic jugs.

Yes it all comes down to Crude Oil as the anti Bush protesters speculated, but who's using that oil? How did those protesters rally together? Not by electric cars recharged by photo-voltaic panels instead of crude oil powered power plants. Our nation needs crude oil to maintain our appetite of decedance as viewed by our Islamic terrorists.

You want to prove them wrong? Then it starts with our manufacturing industries that use a lot of that black gold. So outsourcing our manufacturing jobs is a good thing then because we reduce our dependance on crude oil by some margin.

Konaguy

October 24th, 2004, 09:25 PM

How bout we call it a draw. It is late and there is a lot of things and perspectives that I disagree with that you mentioned above. The
things that I do agree with is we need to reduce our foreign oil
reliance, maybe slowly find some other alternative energy sources.
More importantly you will be voting for John Kerry which I definately
agree with.

On a more technical note it would've been easier if you bold lettered
your responses like I did. It was hard to discern what I wrote and
what you wrote.

craigwatanabe

October 24th, 2004, 09:29 PM

its hard to bold print when your eyeballs are crying, "sleep already!" Okay draw, at least we're still voting for the same man.

Goodnight!

mcnabbmcnow

October 25th, 2004, 02:46 AM

The Republicans are trying to get citizens to vote for their party's candidates through fear of terrorism. The fear of international terrorism is real, but I think most Americans also worry about things like the flu vaccine shortage and outsourcing of their jobs. They worry that their kids in public school aren't going to be able to get good educations because "No Child Left Behind" is severely underfunded. The Bush Administration thus far has been long on promises but very short on delivery.
If the Republicans are using fear to get peoples votes over terrorism, the Democrats are doing the same thing with fear over losing your social security or a draft. At least the Republicans claims partially hold some water because of John Kerry's past voting record (voted against the Gulf War even though international community was all for it). And just for the record, most Americans think the flu vaccine shortage is a joke. This only matters for people over 75, and even if you get a flu shot, you could end up getting an entirely different strand of flu. Doctors on the news said that the risk of anyone dying from this is incredibly, incredibly small, and usually it is elderly people who have other problems. The average American doesn't even think about flu shots.These are my reasons why I will be voting for John Kerry. I urge people still on the fence to look closely at the issues above and think if you really want another four years of Bush.
I'd look at different reasons.

Miulang

October 25th, 2004, 07:13 AM

If the Republicans are using fear to get peoples votes over terrorism, the Democrats are doing the same thing with fear over losing your social security or a draft.
The Democrats are pushing hope and not fear this year. The hope is that if the Dems win, things will get better for this country, not stay the same or get worse.

And just for the record, most Americans think the flu vaccine shortage is a joke. This only matters for people over 75, and even if you get a flu shot, you could end up getting an entirely different strand of flu. Doctors on the news said that the risk of anyone dying from this is incredibly, incredibly small, and usually it is elderly people who have other problems. The average American doesn't even think about flu shots.. Yeah, and that's why thousands of people wait for hours and hours and hours (at least one woman has died from fainting and hitting her head on the pavement, and others have suffered from heat stroke). That's why up here, people are paying to go on "flu shot cruises" to Victoria, BC because they have stood in line for hours here in the US and have been unable to get a shot.

The only people who don't think it's a crisis are the young people and people who have been brainwashed by the Administration into a false sense of security. And for your information, the CDC recommends flu shots for young children, 6-24 months, women who will be pregnant during the flu season, people of any age with chronic health conditions and those over 65. That's a whole lot more people than just those over 75.

Epidemiologists are predicting that another flu pandemic can occur anytime. The death toll from the last one in 1918 would make the death toll from the last 3 wars (including Iraq) look inconsequential. I'm sorry you're only worried about yourself and not the health of the entire nation. I am worried that if we don't have the ability to protect our citizens against something as "trivial" (in your estimation) as influenza, which we know happens every year, how will we be able to protect our citizens against bioterrorism, which could happen at any time???

Miulang

BTW: I don't know if this is true, but there is speculation that the "contamination" found in the botched batches of flu vaccine in Liverpool might have been some attempt at bioterrorism. Even if that isn't the case, why are we allowing medicines that are meant to protect our citizens, to be manufactured overseas? Why can't we manufacture those things---give the pharmaceutical companies incentives--to produce public health vaccines here in this country and have the government subsidize the cost? Certainly the pharmaceutical companies make enough profit from their other drugs which are advertised all over the place.

Konaguy

October 25th, 2004, 04:40 PM

I'd look at different reasons.

Care to elaborate ?

Linkmeister

October 25th, 2004, 08:00 PM

Regarding the flu, in a "normal" year 36,000 people die from it, according to the CDC. So in a year when many millions of people will not be able to get the shot, that number could rise dramatically.

Kalihiboy

October 26th, 2004, 09:32 PM

First off we changed parties during Vietnam from LBJ to Nixon so you cant say that its essential that we remain with the same administration during a War.

Also I would be shaking in my boots if I was a Republican and read some of these posts by Republicans who say they are voting for Kerry this time.

People always say a incumbent has a good shot at winning re-election and
while that may be true, I can guarantee that Bush has lost a ton of votes this time around based on voters knowing what they get from him, not being happy with the Iraq War, stem-cell research, gay rights, the loss of jobs, recession, etc.

He could potentially have lost several million votes based on people who voted for him in 2000 and cant stand him now and in a close election it could make the difference.

While I see Republicans for Kerry websites, Bush relatives for Kerry websites,
tons of anti-Bush websites and I know for a fact many Republican friends and family members are voting for Kerry this year all makes it that much difficult for Bush to pull out a victory.

KalihiBoy

Karen

October 29th, 2004, 05:14 PM

If this election is not clearly a landslide, we've got a nation of soulless, clueless morons!

Osama admitted for the first time he took down the towers, maiming & killing so many of our people.

Osama WANTS Kerry as president. Sure, I have issues with Bush, but I know that no man is alive today that walks on water, nor that I would agree totally with.

Bottom line which should be the bottom line with EVERyone, is that...

A vote for Kerry IS a vote for Bin laden. Not an exaggeration, nor is it anything but the horrible truth.

pzarquon

October 29th, 2004, 05:51 PM

Osama WANTS Kerry as president... A vote for Kerry IS a vote for Bin laden.Or you could say Osama bin Laden wanted to fan the terrorism flames to bolster Bush's fearmongering and ensure the landslide you're hoping for. After all, Bush is the best thing that ever happened to Bin Laden -- from his global recruitment efforts to... well, his continued survival.

Fact is, Osama's declarations benefit neither side. He made no explicit endorsement simply because it's broad American policy, not any particular candidate, that he continues to rail against. At best the tape polarizes things even more (as your post proves) - Bush supporters will go, "See, this is why we need someone strong on terror!" Kerry supporters will go, "Because of Bush's diversion in Iraq, this guy is still out there sticking his tongue out at us."

Kalihiboy

October 29th, 2004, 09:14 PM

If this election is not clearly a landslide, we've got a nation of soulless, clueless morons!Well consider you one of the village idiots because all polls indicate it will be a close election and not a landslide for either candidate.

Osama admitted for the first time he took down the towers, maiming & killing so many of our people. As if we didnt know that already, what is new?

A vote for Kerry IS a vote for Bin laden. Not an exaggeration, nor is it anything but the horrible truth. Seems like you are no better than Osama and are into scare tactics to convince people to vote for your man.

Despite what this administration says terrorism, Osama, 911, etc. isnt on the minds of Americans each and every second but you guys sure want to keep talking about it because its the only record you can stand on.

KalihiBoy

Karen

October 29th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Hi Kalihiboy,

It isn't the only leg I stand on. I continue to stand on the leg of platform issues. The Dems favor gay rights, abortion, big unions, trial lawyers, & all of the things I am against. I have a lot of issues that keep me from ever voting for any Democrat, from the getgo.

Terrorism is the biggest issue in most voters' minds this election. We have a lot of Dems. voting for Bush in hawaii. They may be voting against Kerry, or for Bush, either way it speaks volumes.

Bin Laden wants Kerry. No, he isn't doing it to keep Bush, but you can claim that as often as you wish. Kerry supporters should be embarassed that terrorists prefer their man. It's a no brainer, but I also understand why many must deny it.

Kalihiboy

October 29th, 2004, 11:35 PM

It isn't the only leg I stand on. I continue to stand on the leg of platform issues. The Dems favor gay rights, abortion, big unions, trial lawyers, & all of the things I am against. I have a lot of issues that keep me from ever voting for any Democrat, from the getgo. Well we obviously disagree on those major platform issues and that is what seperates us and many Americans. I'm glad that terrorism isnt the only issue you care about for I believe the GOP wants to only run on that platform which I think is wrong. I agree fighting terrorism is a strong part of Bush's platform and its a record he should be proud of, but I think there are other things the voters care about.

Terrorism is the biggest issue in most voters' minds this election. We have a lot of Dems. voting for Bush in hawaii. They may be voting against Kerry, or for Bush, either way it speaks volumes.

I respectfully disagree that Terrorism is the biggest issue on voter's mind this election. I'll admit it's factor is in play much more in 2004 than it was in 2000, when neither Vice President Gore or Governor Bush mentioned national security.

People care about their jobs, their salary, their healthcare, the environment things that surround them on a daily basis. I'm sorry but its far more important to balance your checkbook than it is to think about terrorism on your mind 24-7 as if it encompasses your life. That is being paranoid and buying into the GOP propoganda.

9-11 is done and over with, nothing has happened since and I credit Bush for making the NATION safer, but you have to think voters think of 911 as out of sight, out of mind.

If the election were held in 2002, when the GOP did so well during the mid-term elections, Bush was riding the 911 coat-tails, there was no war in Iraq, the world still felt sympathy to the United States for what happened and we were still respected in the world. About the only negative thing Bush had going in 2002 was the poor economy and recession, but I think despite all of that he would have won in a landslide had there been a election in 2002.

Its now 2004 and Bush lost all his 90% popularity (similiar to his father), we're fighting a war in Iraq that hasnt gone good as planned, the wordld doesnt respect us anymore and his administration presided over the worst jobless recovery since the Great Depression.

If I were Bush I would be sweating bullets on election night as there isnt too many good things going for him and he has lost millions of votes I guarantee from people in 2000 who wanted to give him a chance and now know what they get. You see Bush has had 4 years and people know what they can expect, Kerry hasnt had that chance yet and I think the American people are willing to give him that chance and will vote him in on Tuesday, November 2nd.

KalihiBoy

Albert

October 30th, 2004, 04:04 PM

Cheeky bugger, that Osama. His "speech to the American people" was masterful, in its way.

mcnabbmcnow

October 30th, 2004, 06:22 PM

I'm voting for Kerry. I'm 28 and frankly deathly afraid of the path
"W" is taking us down.

1. He has cut taxes for the wealthy

He cuts taxes for EVERYONE. The reason you can't put the weathly in a high tax bracket is that puts small businesses in that SAME high tax bracket, costing jobs, which doesn't help the lower and middle classes.

2. But instead of reducing the size of government, he has expanded it

In response to terrorism, yes.

3. Thus leaving us with a huge federal deficit

Security at this point is more important than the deficit.

4. His No Child Left Behind is poor excuse to make our schools better.
Actually in my opinion it is making things worse, irrepairably.

Is that why test scores have gone up and the achievement gap for minorities has gotten significantly less? Not saying it is perfect, but it is better.

5. He lead us into a no win situation in Iraq. Basing his reasoning on
invading Iraq on false pretenses, where are all those WMD's

Iraq is important and the Middle East is important for the future of our country. Saddam killed 2 million plus people and tried to obtain WMD's. We can't expect to change their way of thinking overnight, but eventually, hopefully they see how a democracy works.

6. His policies on fighting terrorism are isolating the United States from
the rest of the world.

Wrong. Countries like Russia and France were already taking secret bribes from Saddam behind our back of oil, for cheap prices. The UN was more corrupt than even us.

7. His domestic anti-terrorism policies are slowly turning the United States
into a police state
8. Bush's trickle down economics policy has been a failure. The economy
is still stuck in mud. While the exportation of Amerian jobs is still happening
at a furious pace.

9-11 cost us a million jobs and Clinton left us with a 6 month recession. The economy in the US performed at a better rate than economies in other countries in comparison...

These are my reasons why I will be voting for John Kerry. I urge people still
on the fence to look closely at the issues above and think if you really
want another four years of Bush.

You have the right to vote how you want.

mel

October 30th, 2004, 08:42 PM

It isn't the only leg I stand on. I continue to stand on the leg of platform issues. The Dems favor gay rights, abortion, big unions, trial lawyers, & all of the things I am against. I have a lot of issues that keep me from ever voting for any Democrat, from the getgo.

Terrorism is the biggest issue in most voters' minds this election. We have a lot of Dems. voting for Bush in hawaii. They may be voting against Kerry, or for Bush, either way it speaks volumes.

Bin Laden wants Kerry. No, he isn't doing it to keep Bush, but you can claim that as often as you wish. Kerry supporters should be embarassed that terrorists prefer their man. It's a no brainer, but I also understand why many must deny it.

Thanks Karen.

The vocal liberals and others with a liberal slant on this board love to tear down all conservative values, social morals, American traditions, a strong military, fiscal discipline, our nation's aggresive posture to preserve national security to advance their immoral and liberal agenda.

Liberals want more government and more taxes to build and fund their liberal agenda of perpetuating gay marriages, abortion, partial birth abortions, stripping second amendment rights, building transportation systems that hardly anyone uses, among a sad liteny of stuff that is harmful to conservative American tradition, incomes and values.

Why do we continually stick our necks out to offer ourselves as targets for the left wing liberals here? Probably the best thing conservatives can do is to stay away from the politically charged topics of this board. Let the vocal liberals rant and rave without us and play within their mutual admiration society until they are bored silly.

They don't need us because all they want to do is sling vocal arrows in every post that we make that stands up for conservative, traditional American values and principles.

Hopefully this nation will wake up on Tuesday and offer American tradition and values the mandate it so surely deserves. If not, at least a squeaky win for our Presidential team and other Republicans all over the nation and maybe even in Hawaii.

If not we are surely going down the road to hell in a handbasket. :(

God Bless You Karen. God Bless America!

http://macpro.freeshell.org/notax/notax-s.gif (http://macpro.freeshell.org/misc/signwaving1028a.jpg)

Konaguy

October 31st, 2004, 01:45 AM

Mel,
I have to laugh on your posting. You want fiscal discipline and no new taxes.
But low and behold "W" has expanded the federal government while cutting
taxes for the wealthy. Hmmm I see something wrong here, when you cut
taxes if you used fiscal prudence you would cut government services. As the
revenue will not meet the expenses. This is exactly what has transpired here.
"W" has wiped out a budget surplus to a large deficit.Mel you portray the Republicans as leaders of fiscal discipline. I'm still waiting to see evidence of that.

I also see a troubling path in your arguments. Whoever disagrees with you
you characterize them as liberals.Typical Republican tactic when you don't
have a solid record to stand on, you play dirty. I'll give you an example,
Republican Paul Whalen mentioned homophobic comments about his democratic
challenger, that he was gay. Now really if Paul Whalen had a solid record
this mudslinging would be not necessary. Talk about
the real issues like infrastructure, the schools etc, not their sexual orientation.

Konaguy

October 31st, 2004, 01:55 AM

A vote for Kerry IS a vote for Bin laden. Not an exaggeration, nor is it anything but the horrible truth.

That is almost as laughable as Bill Mahers book titled " When you drive a
car you are driving with bin laden'

mel

October 31st, 2004, 06:49 AM

You want fiscal discipline and no new taxes. But low and behold "W" has expanded the federal government while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Hmmm I see something wrong here, when you cut taxes if you used fiscal prudence you would cut government services.

Don't forget it is the so called wealthy, the business owners who provide many jobs in the private sector. Without the wealthy and a healthy private sector there are no jobs for many of the people. You also forget the tax cuts were across the board. My Dad who is a die hard Democrat was very happy when he got his tax break a few years ago. And he ain't rich, just average and happy as a clam to get anything back.

Money that is returned or left in taxpayer wallets benefit us all... you, your friends, relatives and everyone. We have more buying power to do as we please with the money we earn.

And yes, I do believe government services need to be cut in order to help balance the budget. The sad thing in this case is that we are in a war situation and the cost for our homeland security department is immense which we never had before 9-11. Those were unanticipated costs. If the previous president, Willam J. did his job and dealt directly with the same terrorists we are fighting against today, perhaps things would have been different.

Mel you portray the Republicans as leaders of fiscal discipline. I'm still waiting to see evidence of that.

My basis for this lies mostly in local politics. I've been to the legislature and seen the Democrats vote for most of the tax increase bills while Republicans have been the pillar against wasteful spending and tax increases for many years locally.

Whoever disagrees with you you characterize them as liberals.

On a per post basis, the viewpoint opposing whatever I say is liberal. Very simple. On a larger basis, if you count the posts within most of the political topics on this board you will find those with a liberal bias in the overwhelming majority as several of you bear down and pound the conservative posts made here by people such as Karen among others or create topics just to pound away at conservative values. I remember Adri got pounded very hard by the liberal leftists here after he brought up a topic about what was it now... same sex marriage. He learned very quickly not to do this.

That is why I don't start topics in this American Asylum (which should be renamed the Liberal Haven) about the President, Republicans, etc. because all would be invitations for the vocal liberals here to pound the conservatives.

The posts left by the vocal liberals here are very cruel too against conservatives and traditional values... calling the president "Dubya" and all that.

http://macpro.freeshell.org/notax/notax-s.gif (http://www.georgewbush.com/)

Linkmeister

October 31st, 2004, 08:19 AM

calling the president "Dubya" and all that

Mel, one branch of the Republican campaign aimed at women is called "W is for Women." Don't be silly.

Konaguy

October 31st, 2004, 08:53 AM

Mel,
Your spin on it is similar to my grandfather who is die die hard conservative
and is 85 years old. For that reason I never talk to him because he drives me
up the wall. As does die hard liberals drive me up the way. Neither extreme
is right in my opinion. Thus I am in between or have a moderate opinion in most things.Thus I find it offensive you label each opposing view to yours as liberal. Which I am not by any stretch of the imagination.

You probably do not care one cent how the federal deficit has exploded
under Bush's watch. Neither does most baby boomers in my opinion. But I do
care as I will be paying off that debt when you are long gone.

In my opinion if the president wants to reduce taxes regardless for
the wealthy or whoever they should reduce government services equally.
It is not right to be running a large deficit. If you were in business if you
were losing money every month eventually if that was not stopped you
have to shut down. Not with the government they simply raise the debt
ceiling.

Miulang

October 31st, 2004, 09:36 AM

Having nothing to do the last four days but lie in bed with the remote and watch hours and hours of analysis on all the cable networks (yes, even FOX), I have come to some conclusions about the state of this country and the world at this stage of history:

1. The country is deeply divided.
2. There aren't many apathetic people around; everybody's got an opinion.
3. Things are happening outside of this country which will force the US to rethink some of the things it's doing today in order to remain a good international citizen.
4. The chasms of opinions are so wide apart that it may take years for the country to heal.
5. The war in Iraq will continue after the elections and no matter who wins, Congress will be asked for another $70 billion to fund the war machine.

The country is in the midst of a civil war; only it's not one being fought North v. South or with guns. It's being fought with ideology and invectives, neconservatives v. moderate conservatives and everyone else to the left. How did we get there? Was it through laziness? It certainly can't have been through limited intelligence. Was it because we all thought things were going along fine and there was no need to make sure things would continue to go that way?

That everyone has an opinion now is a good thing. That apathy is being mowed down by strong opinions is good. What is not good is when opinions are not carefully thought out, when people voice opinions carefully crafted by professional psychological operatives who know how to play mind games and to use those games to effectively manipulate masses of people into one mindset. When people use their own minds and intelligence and research issues and then can come to an educated opinion, then that voice is a good thing. When someone can only parrot a party line and a "I always have been and always will be a Republican/Democrat" betrays that fact that bothparties have had their shares of pearls and swines.

The US refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even as industrialized countries like Russia and France and Germany and Japan have signed it, means that we refuse to acknowledge that as one of the largest consumers of all natural resources and therefore one of the largest contributors to the Greenhouse Effect, we should join in international efforts to help save this Earth for generations after us.

Yasser Arafat of Palestine is today in a hospital in Paris getting medical attention for some sort of low platelet count condition. There are conflicting reports about his health status. But the fact that there may be an opportunity once again to bring about the peaceful resolution of conflict in the Sinai without having him as an obstacle means maybe the Middle East can start to return to the stability that will be required in order for the world to survive. It was interesting to note that Osama bin Laden made reference to the Lebanon war as the thing that made him join the terrorists.

And how different can our definition of "freedom" be from someone say, in Cuba? I think it all boils down to this: "Freedom" is the ability to be able to have a home, food, a job, to be healthy and safe from military oppression. It has nothing to do with any governmental ideology, no "Communism v. Capitalism" no "Socialism v. Democracy". People who insist that it's "our way or no way" don't understand the thousands of years of cultural and historical influences that shape any country but ours also respect their past; that's why they can't understand when Aztecs mount a protest against Walmart opening a store in an archeologically-sensitive area.

And the war. I was absolutely amazed when I heard that the Defense Department was going back to Congress in January to ask for another $70 billion to support the armed forces in Iraq. I was also appalled to learn that at least 6,000 troops were being ordered to stay in Iraq beyond when they were originally told so that they could provide support for the upcoming Iraqi elections in January. I was even more surprised to hear Bill Clinton, in a rally the other day, tell people that we were going to have to have at least 20,000 more troops in Iraq.

What will each one of us do when all the confetti and the lawsuits have been cleared away and a "winner" of the Presidential election (and all other elections) is declared? Gloat? Tuck our tails between our legs and whimper? Vow never to get involved in the political process again?

America really is at a crossroads this year. Too many "interesting" things have happened, too many "revelations" told for it not to be. My only hope is that each and every one of us takes a moment to pray for us all.

Because I am a firm believer in the cyclical nature of history, I also believe that the pendulum of this country has now swung as far right as we will ever let it. It's now time to let the pendulum fall back to the middle.

Miulang

Konaguy

October 31st, 2004, 09:52 AM

Miulang, of all the stuff you have written what you wrote above makes complete
sense to me and I wholeheartedly agree with all your assessments. In my opinion the nation has swung too much to the right. Thus I strongly feel it is time itswung back to the middle so it is fair to everyone not just for people who
are wealthy or powerful.

mel

October 31st, 2004, 11:43 AM

Mel, one branch of the Republican campaign aimed at women is called "W is for Women." Don't be silly.

Never heard of that one.

http://macpro.freeshell.org/notax/notax-s.gif

mel

October 31st, 2004, 11:53 AM

You probably do not care one cent how the federal deficit has exploded under Bush's watch. Neither does most baby boomers in my opinion. But I do care as I will be paying off that debt when you are long gone.

In my opinion if the president wants to reduce taxes regardless for
the wealthy or whoever they should reduce government services equally.
It is not right to be running a large deficit. If you were in business if you
were losing money every month eventually if that was not stopped you
have to shut down.

You know what, I am all for reducing government services to help sustain tax reductions. We can start with the National Foundation for Culture and the Arts, and on the local level, the State Foundation of Culture and Arts.

Arts is not an essential service and I am sure the private sector does fine supporting the arts on their own.

So on the point of reducing government services I am for it. The Bush administration probably has not come around to doing it but I am sure with some urging from congress I am willing to bet in time that he will do so. I'd rather risk having him in there vs. that of Sen. Kerry as President, because as pointed out in this thread or probably elsewhere on this board, Kerry is not the person we should have in the White House to deal with terrorism and homeland security. The nation cannot trust someone who may want to hand over command of U.S. forces to outside nations or the U.N.

Also one of the main reasons to vote Republican this year, especially on the national level is to insure that when Supreme Court Justices are appointed that those justices be people who have respect for American tradition and conservative values.

Otherwise we are headed to a moral hell of gay marriages and all of that.

http://macpro.freeshell.org/notax/notax-s.gif

mel

October 31st, 2004, 12:01 PM

I have come to some conclusions about the state of this country and the world at this stage of history:

1. The country is deeply divided.
2. There aren't many apathetic people around; everybody's got an opinion.
3. Things are happening outside of this country which will force the US to rethink some of the things it's doing today in order to remain a good international citizen.
4. The chasms of opinions are so wide apart that it may take years for the country to heal.
5. The war in Iraq will continue after the elections and no matter who wins, Congress will be asked for another $70 billion to fund the war machine.

Because I am a firm believer in the cyclical nature of history, I also believe that the pendulum of this country has now swung as far right as we will ever let it. It's now time to let the pendulum fall back to the middle.

I more or less can agree with you on the 5 main items you brought out in your last post. As for a swing to the middle, where is that? It seems no one wants to be there... it is either left or right as far as I see it. I am not ready to sacrifice my values or principles just to be in the theoretical middle.

Konaguy

October 31st, 2004, 12:24 PM

You know what, I am all for reducing government services to help sustain tax reductions.

Amazingly we are on the same page on this one Mel.

The Bush administration probably has not come around to doing it but I am sure with some urging from congress I am willing to bet in time that he will do so. I'd rather risk having him in there vs. that of Sen. Kerry as President

This is where we do not agree. To sacrifice the long term financial future
for short term security issues is extremely shortsided.Essentially what is occuring is the government is morgaging the future to pay for the present.
Which I do not think is fair as your generation won't have to pay it off.
But my generation will.

They are raiding the Social security funds to pay the deficit too. What that means is probably when I retire in 40 years there won't be anything left
as the baby boomer generation will have sucked it all up.

Since Congress is controlled by the Republicans I highly doubt there is any
incentive to to clean up the fiscal mess that Bush has created.

Linkmeister

October 31st, 2004, 12:30 PM

he President's request would raise the Arts Endowment's budget by $18 million from $121 million in FY 2004 to $139.4 million

NEA Press release (http://www.nea.gov/news/news04/AmericanMasterpieces1.html) January 29, 2004.

Let's see. $139.4 Million. Overall Budget for 2005: $2.4 Trillion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/budget2005_020304.html

Um. Talk about some real cuts, Mel. NEA is what... .00001% or something?

Check out this whole section (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/specials/fiscal/) to find cuts that are meaningful.

NEA is manini, but it's been a favorite whipping boy for Republicans since Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich. What they never said was how small a piece of the overall pie it was. Get real.

Miulang

October 31st, 2004, 12:40 PM

I more or less can agree with you on the 5 main items you brought out in your last post. As for a swing to the middle, where is that? It seems no one wants to be there... it is either left or right as far as I see it. I am not ready to sacrifice my values or principles just to be in the theoretical middle.
Mel, win or lose, you live in the same house as the ones you're throwing stones at. It's important to disagree, but it's also important not to be dogmatic or expect to win all the time. If the debate is heated, so be it. But let the debate be one filled with to-the-point factual information and not half-truths and name calling. No one can censure you if you speak your honest beliefs.

What would be more neoconservative than the current leadership of the Republican Party? Nazi Germany? Do we have to go to that extreme before the pendulum swings back toward the center? I truly believe we're only about 3 or 4 ticks short of that extreme end today. We don't have the concentration camps, but we have the beginnings already of a society in decline for the advantage of a few (the Business Elite). We have advisors to the President who feed him only what the ideologues want him to hear, and the policies, we know, cannot be coming from Bush because he was a failed Businessman (more than once), a failed politician, a half-hearted student, a rich daddy's boy who didn't fulfill his military obligation. This man, and most of the people who surround him, are vindictive, hold grudges and totally incapable of admitting to making mistakes.

There is some speculation (I saw this on a documentary on A&E I believe), that the reason Dick Cheney was selected to be GWB's running mate was because the Republican party was afraid that Dubya didn't have the smarts or the experience to handle the national office. So Dick was brought in to "toughen" up George to the ways of Washington, DC. So in some ways, Dubya has grown into a version of Dick Cheney, especially in the area of international relations. If Bush is re-elected, who will succeed him? Cheney might be in jail because of his Halliburton ties, and he himself when asked has always said that he never aspired to Presidential office.

In a lot of ways, I can't really blame Prez Bush for being who he is :malleable, only open to opinions that agree with him, totally vindictive and above reproach for anything. In the very beginning of his tenure, he actually did try to heal the country's wounds by offering key positions within his administration to Democrats; but they all soon left when they were forced into the psychological warfare that is waged on anyone who doesn't agree with the inner cadre of policy makers.

If Kerry is elected, I can guarantee that his administration will be filled with people who will constantly challenge his opinion and engage in honest debate. He will air those opinions openly rather than hide them, only to have them appear in reports in the press later (unlike the current administration). I also believe he will be the first one to admit when a mistake has been made and will do whatever it takes to correct it; that's what someone who cares about others does, whether the wrong was committed against an individual or an entire nation. It's the being able to realize that in every situation, not everything is cast in black and white/ right or wrong and to talk about the varying shades of gray that help bring the pendulum back to equilibrium.

The unfortunate endgame is that the world can no longer support a "winner take all" mentality.

Miulang

mel

October 31st, 2004, 12:53 PM

The liberal majority here on this board don't want to give in to conservative values and continue with the name calling... just like in your post and your reference to the president as "Dubya". Liberals will never be satisfied until gay marriage is the law of the land, the U.S. kisses ass with the United Nations and other third world countries, our military is handed over to the control of outside powers and liberal justices are interpreting the laws from the supreme court.

The nation will go to hell in a handbasket if Kerry is to become our president. I am sure the raving liberals here think just the opposite otherwise none of these long winded posts in various areas on this board would exist.

But that is a given at this sometimes crazy virtual meeting place.

There is no middle groud.

As Aaron S. proudly displays in his signature line: "The game is tonight, We have to play, We might as well win."

There is no option if either side loses. One side will be pushed down like hopeless matchsticks and the other side's agenda will carry the day into our future. I just hope conservatives don't end up being matchsticks.

We cannot afford it.

http://macpro.freeshell.org/notax/notax-s.gif

Linkmeister

October 31st, 2004, 01:17 PM

The liberal majority here on this board don't want to give in to conservative values

Why should I? I don't expect you to give in to mine. Honest discussion is a good thing, don't you think? It doesn't have to be either/or, or "my way or the highway." Politics is the art of compromise, remember?

Miulang

October 31st, 2004, 01:20 PM

Mel, Mel, Mel. I asked this question a few weeks ago: what is the "losing" side of this election gonna do? Tuck their tails between their legs and run away? Whichever side wins had better be watching its back because the "losers" will be keeping such a close eye out for anything looking suspiciously like shenanigans that the lawyers and the media are already salivating.

What's gonna cause the correction back to moderation, if Kerry doesn't win this time, is the horrible backlash that will occur in this country from the voters in the 2008 election, because we all know that if Bush wins, the policies will remain the same. And the backlash in 2008 will have the Republican Party suffering all kinds of defeat in Congress so they are only a shadow of their current force. The pendulum will swing, Mel, it's just a matter of time.

Will you at least agree with me that there can be varying degrees of
conservatives, just as there are varying degrees of liberals? Most of those inbetweens are the undecideds in any election and they also have the longest memories. And just because a "conservative" doesn't agree with your views he isn't necessarily a "liberal"?

My guess is if you took the "Whole Brain" inventory test, you would probably be very left limbic (bottom left quadrant). Maybe even off the scale left limbic. You know nothing about gray. You only know right v. wrong, black v. white, good v. evil. I started out in that quadrant when I was in Hawaii. When I came up here to the mainland, I went the total opposite direction: right cerebral--total space cadet. The object of Whole Brain is to identify your strengths (and weaknesses) so 1) you can work on becoming more moderate (well-balanced) and 2) so you can recognize these things in people and organizations so you can put together a balanced team. A "balanced" team is one with representatives of all quadrants: from the red necks to the space cadets, the bean counters and law enforcers. That way no one group will overpower another with its opinions. We do not have a "whole brained" Administration at this point. It is populated with left limbic ideologues who cannot hear different voices and punish those who dare to speak out.

Left limbics make excellent law enforcement people; right cerebrals are good writers, artists and like dealing with concepts rather than concrete things.

The funny thing is as I've gotten older, I'm seeing myself move back towards being "whole brained" again: I can appreciate dogmatic people (makes me glad I'm not one anymore) and see hope and possibility where others can only see doom. Maybe in some cultures they call this the "wisdom that comes with age". I dunno. I protested the VietNam War in Washington, DC. I marched to keep us out of el Salvador. I was even a member for a short period of time in the Students for a Democratic Society. I think certain things within a government don't change, regardless of who's in power, but the ways that the power is distributed and used (and abused) can mean the difference between our continuing to be considered the "Bright Light in the West" or the "Beacon of Doom".

Miulang ;)