Debate aftermath

From around the globe..

Published on October 14, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Stephen Green is pretty ticked off with how Democrats are trying to undermine the US election with their shenegans. Read it for yourself. And here's a running tally of voter fraud.

Slate has some interesting views on the whole Cheney's Daughter is gay thing. My own point is fairly succinct: If Cheney's daughter were suffering from Parkison's disease, would it have been acceptable for Kerry to bring her up as a reason to fund fetal stem cell research? Perhaps you would think that's okay but I wouldn't necessarily want people so lacking in tack and class to be in my home. Talk about an inappropriate time and place to bring up personal family business.

The election will be close. Whoever wins Ohio is going to win the election. Simple as that. So I won't be staying up too late. I'll just wait to see who wins in Ohio.

My wife is going to vote for Bush. I'll probably be reluctantly be voting for Bush. I'm more of a Kerry detractor at this point than a Bush supporter. I really dislike class warfare bullshit. And Kerry seems to be all about that. It really gets under my skin every time he talks about "the tax cut for the rich". Especially from guys who pay little in taxes relative to their wealth because they hardly earn any taxes. Hey Kerry, how about we start taxing idle, unearned wealth more. Where's that proposal? I'm busting my ass earning money, creating jobs, etc. and you want to raise my taxes?

It's also hard to take the foreign policy views of anyone who voted against the 1990 gulf war resolution seriously. I have no doubt that he would return us to the pragmatic, Clintonian foreign policy that led to 9/11. In fact, Kerry's so pragmatic that he's not going to bother to try to do something about Social Security. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if we don't dramatically change the system soon, it's going to collapse when those baby boomers retire.

I've known guys like Kerry. He's the guy who doesn't propose very much but just sits back and bitches about the guys doing something. The Democrats should have nominated Howard Dean. At least he has principles.

Comments (Page 1)

historyishere

on Oct 14, 2004

Hey Kerry, how about we start taxing idle, unearned wealth more. Where's that proposal? I'm busting my ass earning money, creating jobs, etc. and you want to raise my taxes?

Would you support a revised version of the estate tax?

COL Gene

on Oct 14, 2004

Bush is destroying the ability to meet our needs in the future by the debt. We must pay for what is important enough to spend. The $7.5 Trillion Debt is heading to $10 Trillion per the Bush budget projection by FY2008. We simply can not spend at the current rate and have the loss in revenue by cutting tax the way Bush has done. His idea of making the Tax cuts pernanent will be that last straw. We will be looking at annual interest of between $450 and 500 Billion every year because of the Bush deficit.

We need the revenue from the tax cuts to the top 2% to pay for our security . We also need the Republicans to cut Pork which is higher under the Republicans than under Democrats. Buash says Kerry is tax and spend and is to the left. Bush is Charge and spend and ad far to the right as anyone. We need a government in the center. Kerry in the White House and the Republicans in control of at least one house of Congress will produce government in the center. We can not afford to have either the Republicans or the Democrats in both ther congress and the Whitre House!

Phoenixboi

on Oct 14, 2004

Draginol...
Just wondering how much sway the political debates have over there to the final result..?? over here in Oz.. clearly Latham won the debate but didnt win the election, and that went for the last election we had as well.

blogic

on Oct 14, 2004

If Cheney's daughter were suffering from Parkison's disease, would it have been acceptable for Kerry to bring her up as a reason to fund fetal stem cell research?

First of all, being gay isn't a sickness, and I think it says something that people are making that analogy.

The relevant comparison would be if Cheney's daughter were black and open about having a white husband -- but the campaign kept him hidden away (which was true until a little over a week ago) -- and Bush supported a constitutional ban on interracial marriage. Also, if Mary Cheney were an active campaigner for Bush/Cheney (which she is), while the Republican National Committee sent out leaflets warning people that a Democratic victory would mean blacks could marry whites.

Mary Cheney has been very active both in this election and the last. She is a public participant in a political campaign where gay marriage is an important enough issue that it's been brought up by the moderators in two debates.

drmiler

on Oct 14, 2004

Reply #2 By: COL Gene - 10/14/2004 5:26:56 PM
Bush is destroying the ability to meet our needs in the future by the debt. We must pay for what is important enough to spend. The $7.5 Trillion Debt is heading to $10 Trillion per the Bush budget projection by FY2008. We simply can not spend at the current rate and have the loss in revenue by cutting tax the way Bush has done. His idea of making the Tax cuts pernanent will be that last straw. We will be looking at annual interest of between $450 and 500 Billion every year because of the Bush deficit.

This is your personal spin. Bush is touting the debt in half in 5 years.

Daiwa

on Oct 14, 2004

I'm as conservative as most (well, center-right, how's that?) but all this "sky is falling" stuff about the current deficit is kind of silly. For most of my lifetime, we've run a deficit. It'll come around; our economy is stronger than the people with a vested interest in it being bad (Kerry, et al) admit.

One of the interesting ironies to me is that the Dems like to harp on how "Clinton" & the courageous Kerry opposed their own party to balance the budget, but what they avoid telling you is that the stock market boom of the 90's raised tax revenues (from those god-awful rich people) so much they couldn't find a way to spend it fast enough. That was a true demonstration of how economic prosperity fills the government's coffers better than anything else.

The focus should be on how to grow the economy & keep government a reasonable burden, not on how to take more of our money from us, rich or poor. Bush is right, it's our money.

Kerry also made a telling comment about the Constitution - about how it "affords" us rights. That fits in with the general view that Government "has" and "gives" to us, rather than "we" have and "give" to the Government, in terms of authority & taxes. The reality and the intent of our Founders was clearly the latter arrangement. The people, in the form of the Constitution, set forth what powers the people would grant to its government, and just to make sure no one got confused, later enumerated the Bill of Rights.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Oct 14, 2004

Reply #6 By: Daiwa - 10/14/2004 9:34:10 PM
I'm as conservative as most (well, center-right, how's that?) but all this "sky is falling" stuff about the current deficit is kind of silly. For most of my lifetime, we've run a deficit. It'll come around; our economy is stronger than the people with a vested interest in it being bad (Kerry, et al) admit.

One of the interesting ironies to me is that the Dems like to harp on how "Clinton" & the courageous Kerry opposed their own party to balance the budget, but what they avoid telling you is that the stock market boom of the 90's raised tax revenues (from those god-awful rich people) so much they couldn't find a way to spend it fast enough. That was a true demonstration of how economic prosperity fills the government's coffers better than anything else.

The focus should be on how to grow the economy & keep government a reasonable burden, not on how to take more of our money from us, rich or poor. Bush is right, it's our money.

Kerry also made a telling comment about the Constitution - about how it "affords" us rights. That fits in with the general view that Government "has" and "gives" to us, rather than "we" have and "give" to the Government, in terms of authority & taxes. The reality and the intent of our Founders was clearly the latter arrangement. The people, in the form of the Constitution, set forth what powers the people would grant to its government, and just to make sure no one got confused, later enumerated the Bill of Rights.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Careful now, you know your going to hear a lot of flack for this.

Draginol

on Oct 14, 2004

I support the estate tax strongly. I don't like inherited wealth beyond a certain point. However, the debt stuff is nonsense. I don't like deficits or debt either, but our debt as a % of GDP is less than most of the other G8 nations. So let's keep things in perspective.

mgosh

on Oct 14, 2004

We're a huge country with huge expenses. Lets factor in the economic conditions Bush inherited from the .com burst. Then factor in 9/11 and currently the War in Iraq, as much as these political spin doctors try to put it, the economy is very roubost and strong. I wouldn't have thrown in my savings into the market if I felt that things were not going to improve.

mbhammer07

on Oct 14, 2004

I have one thing to say about Kerry. In the second debate, he said that the sanctions on IraQ would have worked, and that Bush rushed into Iraq. Then, not ten minutes later, he said sanctions on IraN would not work. I don't know if anyone else caught that, but I thought it was interesting

Daiwa

on Oct 14, 2004

Careful now, you know your going to hear a lot of flack for this.

It's OK, I'm a grown-up (unless you ask my wife!).

Cheers,
Daiwa

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 14, 2004

"It's also hard to take the foreign policy views of anyone who voted against the 1990 gulf war resolution seriously. I have no doubt that he would return us to the pragmatic, Clintonian foreign policy that led to 9/11."

I think solely blaming 9/11 on Clinton's foreign policies is overly simplistic. Foreign policies going all the way back to the Reagan adminstration helped facilitate that tragic event. There were 3 main players partially responsible for the rise of islamic jihad in Afghanistan (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States). All three countries funded and armed this group as far back as the 1980s. The Reagan administration started a proxy war with the former Soviet Union for their invading Afghanistan as part of the U.S. "containment" strategy during the cold war. This same strategy of containing the Soviets in Afghanistan was continued by George Bush Sr. until they finally withdrew from Afghanistan shortly before the fall of the Berlin wall. The idea was to bog down the Soviet Union in Afganistan with their own little Vietnam war in order to put an economic strain on the Soviet Union's economy and their military for an extended period of time to facilitate the Soviet's collapse. George Bush Sr. continued to fund these islamic groups in Afganistan even after the Soviet Union collapsed, because Afghanistan sort of "fell off the radar screen" after Soviet withdrawl. In fact, at one point George Bush Sr. didn't even seem to KNOW that the CIA was still funding Afghan jihadists! After Soviet withdraw, all the warlords were trying to gain control of the country. The U.S. continued to send arms and money to Afghan warlords whom we thought would be most friendly to the U.S. and U.S. businesses. These warlords were in turn, sending our money and weapons to jihad groups in an effort to gain control of the country. Although this continued to go on during the Clinton administration, CLINTON was the one who finally stopped CIA cash flows to these groups. As you probably aleady know, Osama bin Laden is a byproduct of the Afghan/Soviet mess. He never would have reached "legendary" status in the Muslim world without U.S., Pakistani, and the Saudi money/weapons being sent to Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets. This is very well documented in numerous mainstream books, research, and articles written on the subject...not a "leftist" conspiracy theory. In fact, Pakistan and the Saudi Arabia continued to fund the Taliban and Islamic jihad in Afganistan AFTER Osama attacked the USS Cole and inspite of U.S. pleas for them to knock it off. So, why didn't the U.S. take action against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Answer: A combination of politics and a lack of viable military options.

That's why I think it is absolutely ridiculous when Bush calls the Saudis and Pakistan "strong" partners in the war on terror. Did you know that it was the Pakistani head of intelligence who was the "bag-man" for 9/11? The U.S. knows about it too...which is why he was forced to quietly resign. But he was never arrested and put on trial...just like A. Q. Kahn was never punished for selling Pakistan's nuclear weapons secrets to North Korea. Despite all this...Pakistan gets a free pass by George W. Bush. Economic sanctions against Pakistan were lifted and they were REWARDED with 3 BILLION of OUR MONEY! Go figure...

Anyway, my whole point here is that you can't just place the failure to prevent 9/11 on just Democrats or just Republicans. There were a lot of players involved and blaming one person or one party is simply not fair or accurate. There is a lot of blame to go around...

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 15, 2004

"First of all, being gay isn't a sickness, and I think it says something that people are making that analogy."

blogic, I couldn't agree more. It's comparing apples with oranges.

Draginol

on Oct 15, 2004

What do you call a genetic condition that causes humans to be attracted to members of the same sex? I could care less about the sexual preferences of someone but it is abnormal by definition (affects less than 5% of the population).

The point of my analogy is that one shouldn't use your opponent's family members for political fodder. My family is my own private business. If they're not running for public office, leave them out of it.

Daiwa

on Oct 15, 2004

That Kerry discharge business is very interesting, Drag, particularly the article by Beldar.

For what it's worth, when I resigned from the Naval Reserve one year after being separated from active duty, I simply submitted a letter of resignation and received in return a letter from the Secretary of the Navy (John Lehman at the time) referencing only my resignation and accepting it, a First Endorsement from the CO of the Naval Reserve Personnel Center forwarding the acceptance and requesting surrender of my ID card, and my Honorable Discharge Certificate signed by John Lehman. That was it. Nothing about BuPersMan, Section this or that, or "by direction of".

This was only 3 years after the documents affirming Kerry's discharge were executed, so it is reasonably comparable.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!