PDA

View Full Version : Election 2002, anyone voting next week?



derek
10-28-2002, 11:14 PM
since i became elgible to vote in 1992, i have voted in every election, but for the first time i am really considering not voting next week. i don't mean to sound cynical, but i really don't think it really matters who is in office, nothing really changes, the government gets bigger and bigger, and i don't feel represented. the republicans sound like liberals and the democrats sound like socialists.

here in texas, for example, our republician governor gave into leftist pressure and signed the so-called "hate crimes" bill, even though we do a pretty good job of punishing those who do commit violent crimes regardless if they are "hate induced".

i can't vote for someone who gives in to the left on feel good laws like "hate crime" legislation, but surely can't vote for the democrat candidate who will surely raise taxes.

2-1B
10-29-2002, 02:15 AM
They're running a pair of jackasses for governor in Wisconsin, I don't want either of them in office . . . so I'm going to "throw my vote away" and cast a ballot for one of the people who have no chance of winning.

Jedi Master Silas
10-29-2002, 02:42 AM
I'm about ready to jump on the "I'm not voting " band wagon. Here in WVa we arent hearing about what our canidates can do for West Virginias or our state... it's all mud-slinging campaining that I'm totally sick of. Money talks in the political ring. They dont care about us (the people) anymore.

QLD
10-29-2002, 10:57 AM
Not much point in voting for the governors race in GA this year either.

We haven't had a republican governor in 150 years. So, no matter who I vote for, the democratic candidate (incumbant) will always win.

Rogue II
10-29-2002, 11:07 AM
I'm not living in the state I am a resident of, so no, I'm not voting. I know, I could do an absentee ballot, but I really don't follow politics enough to vote. Besides, Colorado usually votes Republican anyway.

JON9000
10-29-2002, 12:43 PM
I am voting for General Zod. www.generalzod.net

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-29-2002, 09:39 PM
I have voted everytime possible since I first registered in late 1997, with my first election I was allowed to participate being the general election of Nov. 1998. The only time I missed voting was the general election of 99' and that was because I was 25 miles away from my house at school. I did however drive from school to my house the day of the 2000 presidential primaries and general election. I even ditched my Theology film class early at 8:00 pm so that I can make it at home in time before the polls closed at 9pm (I made it with 10 minutes to spare).

I am very troubled by the spate of candidates that has been running lately, and how America has been alarmingly reelecting incumbents. Namely the governor's race in NY has gotten be a little peeved. George Pataki, the GOP nominee, is seeking a 3rd term in office. Pataki is remarkably liberal for a GOPer, but he has to be to be reelected in NY. The thing that gets me is the fiscal irresponbility that has plagued NY.

NY, the 'Empire State', was once the most populous state in the nation. I remember reading that if you would seperate NY as a country, it would be the 9th greatest economic power in the world. Times have changed though. Under Mario Cuomo in the 80's, NY raised taxes and spent through the roof. Sometimes that is acceptable, but the 80's were a bad time for Upstate NY and the result was a steady flight of it's citizens downstate or more likely out of the state. Pataki when he ran in 1994 promised that he would ease the tax burden on business, create jobs, etc. He beat Cuomo.

Pataki has actually lowered taxes in NY, especially on business. However something Pataki has done that very few people know is something called an 'unfunded mandate.' Basically, an unfunded mandate is something the state decrees and the counties must implement at their cost. For instance, let's say NY state passed a law saying that all counties must give free health insurance for low-income school children ages 6-18. A noble thing. But what the state will do is not provide the county with the money to implement this program. As a result, the county has to fit the bill without state aid.

Under Pataki, NY's unfunded mandates have grown drastically. Niagara county, where I live, is facing a 20% tax increase in it's county taxes for the year. One major reason, is all of the unfunded mandates that counties must pick up. And I am not even sure how many tax increases we've had over the past 3-4 years, but the majority of them have been double digit.

The thing about Pataki is that in all of his ads, he says "George Pataki has cut taxes 337 times during his tenure blah blah blah." What they don't tell you is the fact that he is just passing those tax increases to the counties. People are still moving out of Upstate at a feverish pace.

What can change this? Well for one thing, an Independent candidate is running for Governor, Thomas Golisano. He promises to ease the burden on the counties, cut government spending, and revitalize sluggish Upstate. Well, in a latest poll, Golisano has 10 - 15% of the vote. Not good enough.

What sickens me is the amount of people who are saying "Yes, he's done a good job running the state, everything's fine blah blah blah." He will get reelected. I want to hit these people over the head with my shovel (including my father who is one of them).

The same thing goes for the state legislature which is controlled by Democrats, every year since 1970 and Republicans which have controlled the State Senate since the 1950's. They've redistricted this year and guess what? They've basically drew their map to protect every seat. The sad part is, that of all the elections for the assembly and the Senate, which happens every 2 years, One seat, out of 150 Legislatures and 60 Senators, one seat, has changed hands. Pathetic.

Redistricting is a sham, and is used to protect incumbents. Some (who am I kidding, many) districts can run a cadaver, and as long as that person is affiliated with that party, he/she will get elected.

Things will continue to get worse in NY. Eventually, they will put in a Democrat and not much will change. The status quo stays as it is.

Getting back to the point of this thread, this is why I will be voting Independent for Congress, Governor and much of every other seat that is up this year. I should hope that you should do so to. Maybe if enough of us do, we can stop the stranglehold of the two-party system on America.

QLD
10-29-2002, 10:03 PM
I have, for a while now, been very much in favor of the abolishment of political parties altogether.

Let each man run on his own merits.....not their party's.

The 'Xir
10-29-2002, 10:11 PM
I never vote if I don't think there are any qualified people on the ballot, or ones that I just don't believe in! I think the way we vote should be changed! Actually I'd get rid of the idea of voting altogether!
Here's my idea: Whoever wants to handle this responsibilty as a representative of his community should volunteer. Then on a rotating basis they take turns serving. We the communities would then treat them only as messengers, empty shells or drones if you will relaying the needs of the community to the powers that be! Meaning a prior overall consensus (either through town meetings or say internet polling and email suggestions)would prioritize the needs and issues of the community and then the acting representative just takes these concerns to town, county, state, and federal officials/agencies to carry them out! This way everyone would be represented(even children), it would encourage people to take part in government more(because if you don't get involved and speak your mind then you can't complain if your needs aren't met), and lastly important issues would finally be addressed instead of being held-up by political red-tape of some crooked politicians hidden agenda(s)!

derek
10-29-2002, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
I have, for a while now, been very much in favor of the abolishment of political parties altogether.

Let each man run on his own merits.....not their party's.

i'm all in favor of political parties, or organizations, i just wish they would be a little bit more honest. the republicans and democrats, despite what tycho will tell you;) are so close they are almost one.
they only disagree on the details of growing government bigger.

what we actually need are honest political parties. if there was a true socialist party and a true capitalist party, then there would be clear distinct choices. until then, we'll get neo-liberals like george bush running as a republican and socialists like al gore opposing him. but in the end, both are for huge government programs.

maybe more people need to consider the libertarian and green parties as true alternatives.

EricRG
10-30-2002, 12:17 AM
Is there such a thing as a "throw-away" vote? I do not think so! If enough people "throw away" their votes, perhaps the "two" political parties currently in power will be forced to listen to what some of these smaller parties have to say. They would have to. Here in California we have a full slate of candidates for the Green Party. I plan on "throwing away" my vote for most of them, as well as voting for a few "Democrats", just as I have "thrown away" my vote in the last two Presidential elections by voting for Ralph Nader - the same thing I will do in the NEXT Presidential election. You should consider doing the same.

Lord Tenebrous
10-30-2002, 12:36 AM
I can't make it back home to vote, and I'm really not in the mood for voting in general. We don't vote in Florida, we engage in shenanigans. In this case, it's selecting the lesser of two evils, because neither McBride nor Bush are qualified to make good on their promises.

Florida should be ruled by dolphins. Everybody loves dolphins, and they're proven to be intelligent. They are prone to affairs and scandals, but I'm willing to take that risk. :)

Tycho
10-30-2002, 02:37 AM
I'll stand with the Democrats on most issues.

It's also 1am and I work in politics, so I will expand on things further later on.

Meanwhile, legalization of marajuana is an issue that's coming more and more onto the forefront of politics - especially here in San Diego, CA.

Major issues here have been the medical marajuana one...

whether or not to lease public land to the boyscouts so long as they do not permit gays or atheists to join their organizations or lead them...

whether or not to fund needle-exchange programs (with treatment for addiction) to reduce the spread of HIV and Hepititus-C in the druggie population...

whether or not to force companies doing business with government to use union labor and pay wages with benefits...

whether or not to make developers build affordable moderate-and low income housing for purchase and rent...

Rent control

Whether or not to raise the transient occupancy tax (hotel / tourism taxes)

Whether or not to build the Chargers a new football stadium, on what land, and funded how?

Whether or not to just screw that team and get rid of our ticket garauntee they conned our city into - buying out all empty seats at home games...

Whether or not to develop more at the beach, charge for parking, ban alcohal on the beach, create or allow off-the-leash dog areas, etc. Build more bathrooms at the beach, etc. etc.

Our City Council elections are non-partisan, but the Democratic candidates seem to be correct on most of these issues for me.

I think I oppose the legalization AND the medical use of marajuana though - and quite strongly. My mother is unfortunately a suffering victim of cancer now forced to endure chemotherapy. She does not smoke marajuna though under California law it is legal for her to do so. She does not want it and does not need it. She says she is not in that much pain and she has a very severe and serious form of cancer.

I still think the drug dealers need a very severe and serious form of punishment. The schools need the anti-drug education programs, and the users need the rehabilitation / treatment programs.

good shot jansen
10-30-2002, 03:31 PM
down here in the sunshine state, my favorite proposed ammendment to the state statutes in this upcoming election is to make it a felony to tether or restrain in any matter a pregnant pig

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

the land of the dangling chad retains it's heavy weight title for providing the best political larf.

:dead:

The Overlord Returns
10-30-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by good shot jansen
down here in the sunshine state, my favorite proposed ammendment to the state statutes in this upcoming election is to make it a felony to tether or restrain in any matter a pregnant pig

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

the land of the dangling chad retains it's heavy weight title for providing the best political larf.

:dead:



BWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


Oh god.....I thank you sir....that was the best laugh I've had in days.....

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-30-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Is there such a thing as a "throw-away" vote? I do not think so! If enough people "throw away" their votes, perhaps the "two" political parties currently in power will be forced to listen to what some of these smaller parties have to say. They would have to. Here in California we have a full slate of candidates for the Green Party. I plan on "throwing away" my vote for most of them, as well as voting for a few "Democrats", just as I have "thrown away" my vote in the last two Presidential elections by voting for Ralph Nader - the same thing I will do in the NEXT Presidential election. You should consider doing the same.

Exactly. If you are one of those who say "I don't bother to go out and vote, the candidates are all the same," then you are letting these individuals win. If you don't show up and vote, then you are letting others, (namely senior citizens) cast a vote for you anyway. And think about it. All of these seniors are essentially voting for the future, and they won't be around in 10 years to see it through, but you will!

Even if you don't like the candidates, skip the ballot for that office and vote for others. Or vote Third Party for which I am convinced now that is the only way. If enough of us do, then finally politicans in America will wake up and smell the coffee and that might lead the way to more honest governement and reform.

Vortex
10-30-2002, 06:17 PM
I plan on voting this election year.

Usually I just vote on the Presidents, but we have a huge mess on our hands here in Minnesota with the passing of Wellstone and the sudden push for the old, has been, Walter Mondale, to fill the ballot. And after last nights shameful memorial that was nothing more than a political party rally. I feel I should go cast my lot and help sort this mess out - or at least say I tried.

My views lean heavy toward, and into, Republican territory, but I don't classify myself as either a Dem. or Rep. I feel that every issue and problem should be viewed and treated rationally and fairly, and solved without the additions of the political party spin that always gets attached or used to resolve the issues. Most times the party views don't help the people they are representing and the party views and solutions don't fix the problems. Seems like the need a bill to fix a bill to remedy another bill. Sort of like upgrading your Windows operating system:) The more you try to fix it the worse it gets.

I think its time for a change in our political party system. I wonder what George Washington and Ben Franklin would say about our system and if this is what they tried to create.

Jedi Clint
10-30-2002, 09:00 PM
I found the Wellstone "memorial" disturbing and enlightening. I can see that that particular set of liberals holds absolutely nothing sacred. Power is all that matters to them.

QLD
10-30-2002, 09:02 PM
Yes, that was a completely disgusing display.

Vortex
10-30-2002, 09:48 PM
All day today, that's all we heard on the radio, in the papers, in the local news.

It was quite interesting to hear that even some democrats found it a mockery and disgraceful.

I personally think it did more harm than good, but in this state it doesn't matter too much. The farmers, iron range workers, and the bulk of the people outside the metro area vote along the Dem party lines no matter what. I was quite shocked when Ventura won with the independant party. It might be a sign that things are changing...but we'll see soon enough.

sith_killer_99
11-01-2002, 11:25 AM
WOW, LBC, thanks for the running lecture on the economic and political status of NY over the past 3 decades.;)

GSJ, that was HILARIOUS. But not QUITE as funny as LBC's comment about 3rd parties being the only way. Now THAT was funny.:D

I actually just finished taking my first College Gov. class. Talk about a real eye opener!

It was funny to see the different degrees of Democrats and Republicans. There really are members of each party that seem like they belong on the "other" side. The only difference is that they VOTE THE PARTY LINE.

Anyway, I just don't buy all this hoopla about incumbants having all the power. Al Gore was the incumbant (please don't blame Bill, Al failed on his own).

If you don't vote, then noone really cares when you complain about politics. Sure you have the right not to vote, but you are still giving the politicians your input, and strengthening the votes of others.

Senior citizens VOTE!!! That's why soo many politicians lie and say that their opponant wants to cut Social Security and Medi-care. And they buy into it! Are these the people you want controlling the vote?

I say vote EVERY time. If you don't like the canidates run for office yourself! What's the worst that can happen? People may find out your a NUT and not vote for YOU! hehehe

But seriously. I firmly believe that everyone gets the government they deserve. If people actually get out and vote, then things WILL turn around.

It can be done, don't pre-judge the system. I've heard people say, "our parents didn't make it any better, and the 60's was a radical time!"

So what! Our parents sold out, they gave up on changing the system. As a result we have politicians in office since before we were born!!! I mean, come on WALTER MONDALE!!! And what about Strom Thurman? Some of these guys have been around since the turn of the century...LAST century.

Do you think these guys understand most Americans?

But I digress.

BTW, tj, George Washington opposed a two party system. He felt it would divide the American people too much.;)

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
11-02-2002, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
WOW, LBC, thanks for the running lecture on the economic and political status of NY over the past 3 decades.;)

GSJ, that was HILARIOUS. But not QUITE as funny as LBC's comment about 3rd parties being the only way. Now THAT was funny.:D

I said something funny? :confused:

QLD
11-02-2002, 11:53 AM
I was driving to work today, listening to the radio and the vaious campaign ads.

I have never in my life, been so sickened by campaign ads than I have this year. Every one of them seems to reach for a new low in mud-slinging and name-calling. I am sick of it, and it makes me gag.

Exhaust Port
11-02-2002, 12:12 PM
Over the last 2 weeks I've been bombarded by advertisements from different canidates in the mail. Maybe I've just never noticed it in years before but I get at least 2 a day. Enough already! At least it will end soon.

bigbarada
11-03-2002, 12:10 PM
I did early voting last month just to get it over with. I just voted as I usually do: straight Republican ticket. I have no illusions of the Republicans being any less corrupt than the Democrats. They are both equally corrupt, I just agree with Republicans on a majority of issues. And my stance on the big issues (abortion, death penalty, gays in the military) guarantees that I will never be a Democrat.

Tycho
11-05-2002, 03:10 AM
I think that some of the purposes government serves are exactly the opposite:

government protects individuals against adverse discrimination - as well as sexual harassment.

The gays in the military should not be a question. While not *** and not welcoming any advances made by the same sex, harassment is harassment and punishable under the law. No means no - as to "unwelcome advances in the shower issues." Furthermore, professionalism means just that: heterosexual couples are also not supposed to fool around on the job or express their sexuality either. Bad for morale? If I saw an officer with the enlisted girl or female officer I thought was mine, I'd try to kick the crap out of him, too. Oops - there's that 'conduct unbecoming clause' that means that in general, so as to not even tempt these feelings, an "affectionate hands-off policy" should be in place across the entire board while members of the military are on active duty. If they are supposed to party as a unit, build comradery in their off-time as a unit, then it should also be policy that their time with ANY partner, should be private from the unit. If I'm not with a girl, I certainly don't feel any better seeing my squadmate with his girl. That is NOT a morale booster - and neither is seeing same-sex partnerships. Invite your comrades to your wedding, not your "anyplace is a bedroom" attitude.

I am pro-Death Penalty, and many Democrats are. So we really don't need to discuss anything there. The world needs less of an unsalvageable population and capital punishment gets rid of some of them, abortions get rid of some more of them. I don't think I need to go into my whole theory of the unwanted child resenting being abandoned (even given up for a good adoption) or otherwise neglected as the "poor houses" breed tomorrow's criminals. It's not always the case, but it is logical to start a theory that it could be proven to be more probably statistically. Elminating those statistics, by eliminating those live births, eliminates some un-natural deaths (called murders, in other words - and those victims, at least some of them, we can be sure ARE innocents, not speculate about what they MIGHT become). In the Matrix, the agents said "the human population is like the earth's disease." A plausible analogy, a bit on the pessimistic side. I prefer to think about what we can become for ourselves, for our own glory and self-enlightenment. That is possible, too. But we don't need those of us who damn themselves, or who are likely to, to come along with the ride. The bottom line is the Republicans who are always quick to say that they support government interference in our lives being limited, are the biggest hypocrites when they restrict a woman's right to choose. They sell religion to the poor and hopeless, so that they can get their votes to buy their tax cuts. It's all a sham, but "hope" is such a powerful commodity, that people go to church like junkies, to "get their fix of it."

The other real job of the government is to use the best tools of statistics and science to stabalize the economy and initiate growth and per capita disbursement of the wealth so as to offset the violent, socially unstabalizing effects of "relative deprivation.' That's when you kill someone or commit other crimes because you are convinced your situation is hopeless and you cannot see a way to achieve what you most desire within a time that's comparable to what you believe most others who are more advantaged than you, have to deal with themselves.

This is why black people should kill and rob rich white people. (I am white and writing this sarcastically).

This is why Muslems should kill Americans, Westerners, etc.

This is why men should beat and rape women...

This could get even more controversial if I keep up the sarcasm. The only thing is, in another's mind, it is not sarcasm, it is rationalization.

The Republicans represent the rich who look at the fun in gambling for the short term gain. We should make them spend more and more of their income to secure their property with non-unionized security guards while encouraging the audiences on the Jerry Springer show and blacks and immigrants to attack them and steal from them. We should let them see how bad it can get if they don't stabalize the economy and help other people. Then the value of security will equal what they don't want to pay in taxes.

But they sold the moral pacificisms of Judiasim and Christianity onto the masses, so they can wait for the afterlife to "get theirs."
It's all for the same reasons that the Romans faked the resurrection of Christ and then persecuted Christians only with the actual, secret intention of spreading Christianity.

Ah, but what do I know? Go back to your simple lives. Rush Limbauch is on right before you should be able to catch taped re-runs of Jerry Springer. Go listen to your Gods....

sith_killer_99
11-05-2002, 03:42 AM
:confused:

I'm going to go now...

quietly.

Tycho is scaring me.

scruffziller
11-05-2002, 05:48 AM
Absolutely. However, we can only guide the lesser of 2 evils.
We are going to get one of them, we might as well try to influence
it. Even if noone voted, there would still be an action taken to appoint a person to that office. So anyone not voting is like trying to stop a runaway car(without brakes) from crashing by letting go of the steering wheel. It's going to crash but at least you can help choose the destination with the least pain.

Jedi Clint
11-05-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Tycho

I am pro-Death Penalty, and many Democrats are. So we really don't need to discuss anything there. The world needs less of an unsalvageable population and capital punishment gets rid of some of them, abortions get rid of some more of them. I don't think I need to go into my whole theory of the unwanted child resenting being abandoned (even given up for a good adoption) or otherwise neglected as the "poor houses" breed tomorrow's criminals. It's not always the case, but it is logical to start a theory that it could be proven to be more probably statistically. Elminating those statistics, by eliminating those live births, eliminates some un-natural deaths (called murders, in other words - and those victims, at least some of them, we can be sure ARE innocents, not speculate about what they MIGHT become). In the Matrix, the agents said "the human population is like the earth's disease." A plausible analogy, a bit on the pessimistic side. I prefer to think about what we can become for ourselves, for our own glory and self-enlightenment. That is possible, too. But we don't need those of us who damn themselves, or who are likely to, to come along with the ride. The bottom line is the Republicans who are always quick to say that they support government interference in our lives being limited, are the biggest hypocrites when they restrict a woman's right to choose. They sell religion to the poor and hopeless, so that they can get their votes to buy their tax cuts. It's all a sham, but "hope" is such a powerful commodity, that people go to church like junkies, to "get their fix of it."


Ahhhhh sweet ignorance. Tell me how you can absolutely grantee that an unborn child will be killed or end up a deficit to society. You can't. The issue is not "a woman's right to choose" as liberals and their puppets in the media want everyone to believe. The issue is an unborn human's right to live!

Please provide evidence to support your claim that Republicans "sell religion to the poor and hopeless". I say Democrats sell a false sense of empowerment to the ignorant. :)




The Republicans represent the rich who look at the fun in gambling for the short term gain. We should make them spend more and more of their income to secure their property with non-unionized security guards while encouraging the audiences on the Jerry Springer show and blacks and immigrants to attack them and steal from them. We should let them see how bad it can get if they don't stabalize the economy and help other people. Then the value of security will equal what they don't want to pay in taxes.


I am not rich. I consider myself a Republican. Should Jerry's audience, "blacks", and immigrants attack me and steal from me?
Whose "We"?

I'm sorry, what was the Democrat's magic plan to stabilize the economy? What "other people" should we provide "help" to? Please feel free to pay extra taxes instead of buying that next SW toy. It could go to "help other people" :rolleyes:




But they sold the moral pacificisms of Judiasim and Christianity onto the masses, so they can wait for the afterlife to "get theirs."


Once again I ask that you offer some type of backing for this type of claim.



It's all for the same reasons that the Romans faked the resurrection of Christ and then persecuted Christians only with the actual, secret intention of spreading Christianity.


And this one while your at it.



Ah, but what do I know? Go back to your simple lives. Rush Limbauch is on right before you should be able to catch taped re-runs of Jerry Springer. Go listen to your Gods....

Oh my! So do all conservatives (the majority of Rush Limbaugh's audience) watch Jerry Springer? The science of this statement should be truly astounding. :eek:

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint


Ahhhhh sweet ignorance. Tell me how you can absolutely grantee that an unborn child will be killed or end up a deficit to society. You can't. The issue is not "a woman's right to choose" as liberals and their puppets in the media want everyone to believe. The issue is an unborn human's right to live!



Actually, wouldn't the issue be both?

derek
11-05-2002, 04:32 PM
tycho,

i say this with all due respect, but your world view scares me. i wish you were typing all this in jest, but i fear you actually believe this.:confused:

as for voting, i did vote today, but left with a bad feeling in my gut. i voted straight libertarian, and don't regret that at all. what was sad was i was one of only 3 people voting.:cry: one old man did not even have any I.D. all he had was a bank check. they let him vote anyway!

we also just started using an electrionc ballot, which seems to me, ripe for fraud or honest problems in general. what are they going to do if these machines crash, or a dishonest person hacks into them and decides to delete or add to certain votes?

as a matter of fact, i just heard on the radio that in one north texas county, the electronic ballots were not counting any straight party votes.:confused:

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
I did early voting last month just to get it over with. I just voted as I usually do: straight Republican ticket. I have no illusions of the Republicans being any less corrupt than the Democrats. They are both equally corrupt, I just agree with Republicans on a majority of issues. And my stance on the big issues (abortion, death penalty, gays in the military) guarantees that I will never be a Democrat.

I am completely incapable of understanding what the big problem is with Gays in the military........do those against it feel they somehow can;t serve at the level of straight folk? Can they not hold guns properly?? Will the "limp wrist" impede them somehow??

Jedi Clint
11-05-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


Actually, wouldn't the issue be both?

You're right. A woman can choose whether or not to get pregnant in the first place. My bad.

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint


You're right. A woman can choose whether or not to get pregnant in the first place. My bad.

Lol.......that's a little simplistic....


I'm pretty sure a woman who's raped, and impregnated, had all choice taken away from her.

2-1B
11-05-2002, 04:47 PM
Well, I just voted about an hour ago. :rolleyes:

I only voted in 3 races,

Governor
State Senate
County Sherriff

EVERYTHING else was uncontested, so I just left those blank. They're in anyway, no need for a vote of confidence from me. :D

All of this national coverage doesn't relate to my state directly, because our Senators aren't up again for another 2 years, and our House Rep ran uncontested . . .


But I did my "civic duty", and I'm glad I went. :)

Jedi Clint
11-05-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


Lol.......that's a little simplistic....


I'm pretty sure a woman who's raped, and impregnated, had all choice taken away from her.

LOL *chuckle* *chuckle* hardy har har. ;)

It is no more simplistic than reducing the issue of abortion down to "a woman's right to choose" :eek:

You did bring up the issue of rape and abortion. I am willing to consider individual arguments in such cases :)

QLD
11-05-2002, 05:26 PM
Here in georgia.....they had rampant problems with republican votes showing as democratic votes.

Like they need the help here.... :rolleyes:

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint


LOL *chuckle* *chuckle* hardy har har. ;)

It is no more simplistic than reducing the issue of abortion down to "a woman's right to choose" :eek:



But I didn't reduce it to that. I simply think both views have to be taken into account.

Exhaust Port
11-05-2002, 05:52 PM
I voted today. Did my part to keep some of the real weenies out of office. I don't vote to make people winners, I vote to make sure some people are losers.

The Overlord Returns
11-05-2002, 06:12 PM
gotta love strategic voting!

2-1B
11-05-2002, 06:24 PM
Likewise, my gubernatorial vote was not one in favor of, but rather against a particular incumbent. :)

JON9000
11-05-2002, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by derek


we also just started using an electrionc ballot, which seems to me, ripe for fraud or honest problems in general. what are they going to do if these machines crash, or a dishonest person hacks into them and decides to delete or add to certain votes?

as a matter of fact, i just heard on the radio that in one north texas county, the electronic ballots were not counting any straight party votes.:confused:

Nice to know Florida isn't the only state in the Union with all these problems.

Nexu
11-05-2002, 09:47 PM
www.mainesnextgovernor.com ;)

bigbarada
11-06-2002, 12:20 AM
Hey, Tycho, that was all pretty funny and incredibly ignorant at the same time.

Do you really believe that the Democrats are somehow more interested in the common man and not their own personal advancement? Come on, these are people we are talking about, as long as people run the government, it will be corrupt. Unfortunately, we have no other options right now. Thus a system like capitalism (which is designed to use the natural greed of individuals to its benefit) will always be more successful that communism (which is based on the idea of everyone putting the needs of others above their own all the time).

In any case, the media runs the government. It decides who to display in a favorable light and who to deride and discredit.

BTW, I am a Republican and I don't even like Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Springer is a boil on the butt of our society. Your idea that the Democrats are somehow more enlightened than the Republicans is proof that you have been duped by the media.

Emperor Howdy
11-06-2002, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Not much point in voting for the governors race in GA this year either.

We haven't had a republican governor in 150 years. So, no matter who I vote for, the democratic candidate (incumbant) will always win.


Well, the times they are'a changin, QLD. Consider that cowardly puppet Barnes old news. It was my pleasure voting him out of office today. Same goes for poor old "everybody vote for me, I'm in a wheelchair" Cleland. See ya. Now we have a NEW Republic. We will build a massive army to suppress those that stand against us. The world will know the true power of the Dark Side!!

**Emperor Howdy grips his extended fist tightly :evil:...........















then realizes everybody is watching......clears his throat.......and apologizes ** :stupid:

QLD
11-06-2002, 10:31 AM
Howdy....I voted against Barnes too.....I am still in shock that Perdue and Chambliss won.

Tycho
11-06-2002, 12:43 PM
JEDI CLINT WROTE:


Ahhhhh sweet ignorance. Tell me how you can absolutely grantee that an unborn child will be killed or end up a deficit to society. You can't. The issue is not "a woman's right to choose" as liberals and their puppets in the media want everyone to believe. The issue is an unborn human's right to live!

The United States Constitution garauntees the rights of citizens who are BORN in the United States. That doesn't cover the unborn, nor do I want it to. Population control / reduction is goal I strongly value. I don't want more of any group I belong to, nor of other groups. So "let's breed more (of whatever's desirable to you and your social background)" is not acceptable to me. An unborn has no rights. As to defining a murder of say, a pregnant woman, where the baby also dies, and prosecution wants to win a double-murder. I say forget it, let the death of the unborn child be charged as destruction of the mother's most dearest property, obviously regarded as potential life. But again, we as humans cannot just continue to breed without taking into accont the consequences.

If everyone "should have" say, a son and a daughter, 2 kids for certain, then you would most likely live to see 3 generations of your offspring: 2 kids, 4 grandkids, and 8 grandchildren.

Can you provide 14 jobs? Can you arrange for 14 families' housing needs? Can you garauntee they will all be productive members of society, and not welfare burdens, criminals, drug-users, dead-beat, estranged parents of still others, etc.

No. Only if you are Rockefellar, Bill Gates, David Geffen, etc. - and then it *might* be possible.

Meanwhile, say you have 7 neighbors on your block (8 houses on your street). That's 98 people added to your area's population during your lifetime.

Suppose you are at a traffic light and you are usually 2 minutes through the intersection and to a certain point along your way to school and work (taking into account for existing traffic). Assuming you still drive when your great-grandchildren do - and your neighbors' great-grandchildren do, it will take you 196 minutes or 2 hour and 16 minutes to get through the intersection IF you don't leave a little bit ahead of them. (it does assume everyone's headed to the same freeway artery, and at the same time - so this is an exaggerated example). However, with birth control, there won't be 98 more people added from your street's progeny, reducing the quality of life for everyone already here.

And that's the natural birthrate. Now add immigration, illegal immigration, and migration for jobs and new job creation to the area. Maybe there aren't 98 new births in your lifetime, from your neighborhood, however, there will be more than 98 people coming up the same road you're traveling on when you factor in the rest of the reasons people move to live closer to you.

The same thing goes for drinking water use, electricity use, etc. etc. In nature, starvation creates population control. As a society, we have learned to use the tools of economics and the trait of mercy to prevent this unfortunate situation (in this country), however, it is unnatural and unsustainable beyond so many generations.

The actual US population growth is slowing, and according to some stats, in decline. I credit that to birth control and family planning awareness. If abortion helps, then so be it.

Of course I'm uncomfortable with killing an innocent life, but we'll go into how it may grow up to be not-so-innocent in my next post. It is also a personal choice of the woman's, under Roe v. Wade, so it is not ME killing the unborn baby. In my own particular circumstances, (and I am unmarried), I could afford to take care of the child (though obviously not DURING the pregnancy since I'm a dude), and I would gain custody of my offspring and do the right thing. This does not include the additional stresses caused by marrying my child's mother. That is an entirely different thing. I will partner with her for child-care, and if it is appropriate to expand my commitment to her for MY OWN REASONS - and what I get out of the relationship or expect to find with (or without) other prospects - then I will marry her. She'll make the same decision about me. I've noticed that's how women think anyway. I don't care to put myself at a disadvantage because I'm a guy, or because I'm a father. I'm either in love, or I'm not. It doesn't take love for me to have an interest in sex - but it doesn't take a genius to protect against disease and unexpected pregnancy.

I simply respect a woman's right to choose - and WILL take responsibility for my actions. I can't force her to carry my child either. If you want a kid so bad, I strongly recommend adoption: you already have the qualities to be a great parent, single or otherwise.


JEDI CLINT also wrote:



Please provide evidence to support your claim that Republicans "sell religion to the poor and hopeless". I say Democrats sell a false sense of empowerment to the ignorant.

There is no evidence to support this claim as a fact. It is my opinion. That much should be obvious. However, I can provide my line of reasoning as to why I hold this opinion. I think that is what you are after anyway, right?

Before anything, I have a college degree in economics, and I'm about to teach you some of what I've learned - watered down for an extremely broad audience - because we have kids and teenagers here, etc. I know that some of you also share my background, even though you may or may not share my philosophy, and finally, some of you have more advanced education and experience than I do. I have experience too, btw, but this thread is not about my resume. I'll bring it up if it becomes relevant. I also want to state a belief that more Democrats that I know, show proofs with statistics, math and logic, that policies work or don't work - and that's the way it should be. Statements like "don't tax me" and "don't raise/lower taxes" etc. should NEVER be validated into supporting or not supporting a political party or candidate without understanding the issues. If you DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES, and you're voting, you are the "ignorant polity." People who make decisions without all the facts can see a higher probability of making mistakes by their decisions, so they are stupid to varrying degrees to make blind guesses in the dark. Where stats and math are not utilized to analyze policy, use logic. Real careful logic that deduces all possibilities including ones that do not agree with your hypothesis. Anyway....

First, let's talk about taxes. Income tax is based on percentages. 2% of 100 is $2.oo while 2% of 50 is $1.oo. Automatically, if there are two people, the richer one pays more in tax money if the tax rate is fixed at 2%. However, this effects each person differently:

Budget curves are used to show choices in economics. If I have $50, I'll pay $1 in taxes and have $49 to buy a Republic Gunship (38) and eat. $11 will buy me 2 "Happy Meals" - and let's just say that's enough for 1 day's worth of food.

If I have $100 and pay $2 in taxes, I can buy more Republic Gunships, or have $60 left over after 1 Gunship, and then (if I like the Happy Meals), I'll have $49 left after lunch and dinner. - That's still 50% of my income!

The poor guy has spent all of his - and the rich guy has only spent half. Now he has choices about investment - and we'll come back to that.

Meanwhile, there are all sorts of reasons why one guy is rich, the other poor - and they still could both be working.

However, taxes don't work the way I illustrated in my example. There are varrying rates for different income levels. The poor guy might only pay 1% in taxes, and the rich guy 2%.

However, the loss of the $1 from the poor guy, to let him have more income, cuts down on the money the government takes in. Theoretically, the government is not in operation to make a profit. (Let's assume that is true for the moment and come back to pork barrel spending in a sec). Theoretically, if the government needs $3 from all its households to provide a fire department (or missle defense) then it will not have a balanced budget if it reduces the poor guy's tax rate to 1%. It will have a $.50 shortfall and start going into debt. So it can increase the rich guy's taxes to 2.5% so it gets the $2.50 from him, and the .50 from the poor guy. Now the government still has 3 bucks.

The tax increase affected the rich person only.

This is done for all sorts of social reasons:

1) if the poor guy was highly educated, he might be able to find employment that was worth more money. Since statistically, poor people do not have great education, he may be less marketable.

2) If the poor guy is less marketable, he'll have more stress earning money he needs at lower rates, and if he's less educated, he may not make good decisions - he might be less capable of weighing the pluses and minuses to commiting a crime. For example, if he doesn't read the newspaper (because he can't read, or because English isn't his first language, he may not know that police can find people like the sniper - and the chances of getting caught are much greater than he realizes. (Let's ignore the fact that the Sniper was educated and trained - there were other factors there). So our poor guy will not commit a crime expecting to get caught. Most criminals want to get away with their illegal acts. But the point is, he is not trained in clear thinking or awareness of the world around him through literature and intellectual discussion, and he does think he can get away with shooting you and taking your money because he can't earn enough or have the opportunities that you do.

3) He commits the crime and you are dead. There's no argument about tax rates, etc. now. You're dead. He may be caught and punished, but someone else will come along and commit the same attrocity upon somebody else for the same reasons.

4) Smart government tries to eliminate the motive by helping the people and stabalizing them against reasons to revolt. Armed robbery is a revolt against authority - and I was talking about any deviance from the law, not some kind of political revolution. The deviant himself here is only concerned about himself here, not affecting broad policy changes. Self-concern is an earlier form of psychological awareness we are instinctively programmed with so that we may survive the best we can, if we are left to our own resources alone, from some very young age. Maturity also comes with education, and one begins to think of things bigger than himself. "Don't tax me!" etc. thinks of things only as they relate to you. It is a self-centered, and immature way of looking at things.

But the rich guy says to himself: I'm a man just like the poor guy. He benefits from having missle defense just as much as I do. Why should I pay more than he does for it? The answer is because he's also paying for social stability so that the poor guy isn't tempted to kill him for his money, and abides by the rules of the government.

The rich guy should not be taxed to the point of him losing his incentive to work at his job, however. But he may have a higher paying job for many reasons: often they are more interesting than menial labor - and this is possibly more important than pay. The rich guy might make $100 washing dishes if he worked extra hours at it, but he improves himself so that he can do more varied work like attend a meeting one day, and write a newspaper article the next. He has less chances of getting bored at his job, and he has rewards like notoriety and popularity for what he does in his occupation. He also has developed the skills to do this job for which he is paid more, because of a normal market economy: the fewer good journalists there are, the more they can demand for their pay, so that they don't choose to do some other line of work. Meanwhile, the poor guy works HARDER than the rich guy, to make that same amount of money because he has to work more hours.

This is because he may be less educated than the rich guy, and consequently, less able to deal with his anger at why HE should have to work more while the other guy plays golf.

Well, there are all sorts of reasons:

If he has a child while still a teenager, or commits a crime then, his chances at getting a good education and looking employable are noticably more dim. He has to work extra hours to take care of his kid, as well as try and attend school. If he is especially poor, he'll have to ride the bus. In San Diego, due to our transit inefficiencies, a 15-20 minute car trip could take up to 1 hour on the bus. That's 2 hours round trip, versus, still less than 1 hour by car. Now sorry, the poor guy can't buy a car unless he works. But he is paid lower wages because he's unskilled, and now his wages help take care of his child. And he has less time to do that with, because he loses 2 hours every day from his bus trip.

He is angry about this. He is angry at himself because he had a child so young. He can't deal with his stress. And how can anyone decide to live their life constantly blaming themselves for difficult circumstances they put themselves in, while they are free and are continously trying to work towards their further freedom from these economic burdens. A positive self-concept is crucial to interviewing for better jobs and getting ahead. So the poor guy takes it out on the child. The kid could run away and become another street person eventually, or the poor guy gets mad and hurts other innocent people.

His circumstance might have been from his own mistake from when he was barely a child himself, but how much penance must he pay for it? Can he last 18 years (until he's legally not bound to care for his kid) before he goes crazy? The rich person pays the higher tax rate for protection from the poor guy. If the poor guy's burdons are lessoned, he won't be so prone to anger.

Trust me, I am prone to anger, and I am capable of things you can't imagine doing yourself (though they are things I probably never will do myself). But homicide "as an outburst" like the Sniper's, does fascinate me. I wouldn't pursue it, as I've still got a lot to lose, I've got options and places to go with my life, and I've been educated to think things through and control my anger - and my homicidal instincts and desires. We all came from animals, predators, I believe this, and I also believe that in the state of nature, it is survival of the fittest, on a competative and lethal level. I would use my anger, my Dark Side, and do well living in such an environment. However, society has not come to that just yet. The Sniper's personal circumstances might have been different, but I think he reached the wrong conclusions about it being time for his kind of "venting." It was premature, and hopefully, the time for that sort of thing will be never.

But it could remove the 98 other neighbors out of his way so he wouldn't be frustrated on his way to drive somewhere.

Now what would stop someone on the edge from doing this? Fear of the cops - not always. There comes in religion.

Taxes being raised do not effect the poor, if done right. We just saw that. And the budget has to be balanced so we have missle defense, or perhaps we all die when another nation attacks us. So the rich guy helps pay more of the burden, to buy his missle shelter as well as a stable social order where he's allowed to earn what a rich guy makes. So the poor have no reason to vote against tax increases if they were just explained to that this is not going to effect them. The rich however, cannot be too happy about taxes, especially if they made plans with the $49 dollars they've saved.

In reality, you don't have to worry about income tax increases if you do NOT make over $60,000 - $70,000 a year. But Republicans try to tell poor people they DO have to worry about it. Meanwhile, poor people don't always have an education, and those who don't, may not even know they aren't getting a tax increase. Those that understand this, won't then care about the Republican agenda to lower taxes or fight tax increases. But Republican's can't lower taxes too much - they still need that $3 to pay for the missle defense. It has to come from the Rich guy or the Poor guy. There's only 2 people in our tax example - and they do want the social control and not a lot of personal violence running rampant.

So Republicans will argue supply-side economics. In this theory, the Rich Guy with the $49 extra dollars, will save it, until he can put it into some new idea, that will make him more money, and eventually set up a new source of income so he won't have to work - like a new company, which in turn creates jobs, because somebody has to work to get stuff done. But the justification that either a) the budget for missle defense should NOT balance or b) the poor guy should pay at least equal to the what the rich guy pays because he should be greatful that the rich guy created his job, is not enough.

Logic does not totally, exclusively conclude, that the rich guy, allowed to keep his $49 extra dollars, won't invest it and create jobs, but instead won't just buy an extra gunship and some figures. Sure, that made WalMart and Hasbro employees a little bit richer, because spending transfers wealth. But in the movie "John Q," the purchase is a life-saving operation, not a gunship. Which is more important? Then the poor guy has to have money for his medical services. He can't afford them. They cost too much for his income level. In the movie, John Q gets a gun to get what he wants! In our example, John Q would have to work a lot of hours at Walmart or Hasbro, selling gunships, to get the cash for what he has emergency needs for. There may not be time for consumer-confidence theories, combined with supplyside economics to work.

But we're not even worried about government healthcare in my example, it's missle defense. And it is far better for the government to know logically, without a doubt, that if they take $2.50 from the rich guy, and $.50 from the poor guy, their budget will balance, and they WILL buy missle defense with the cash. That is a verifiable fact. - in a perfect world.

In the real world, there is spending on stupid stuff like community swimming pools named after congressmen. They get this stuff to help themselves get re-elected. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans, though publically, Republicans cry out that instead of raising taxes to balance the budget, cut spending. Usually, they don't want to cut spending on their "pork" like the swimming pool (real life example with the dilemma one offical I worked for faced) so they want to cut programs that support children or the poor - people less likely to vote. On the one hand, I agree with the Republicans, cut spending - but not on social programs. Cut it on the pork. Discipline yourselves! Then, IF and only IF there's a budget surplus, give people TEMPORARY tax breaks according to their tax burdens. (In other words, then it's fair that the rich get the biggest tax return, or tax break - but only for any given year with a budget surplus). Also, if new, SUSTAINABLE social programs can be created that will accomplish the social good that you hope the trickle-down effect will have, it is more logical to do the improvement program yourself (with the government surplus) than it is to hope and wait a tax cut will spur interest. Only in one situation will you know EXACTLY what will happen. But that program must not become too much thought of as an entitlement, because removing it in an budget crisis would become too unexceptable, - though it would have to be done anyway.

Some things, like social security and welfare payments, should always be entitlements. New job creations, and other things the private sector doesn't get up to speed doing, is wherein lie the programs that are nice, but have to be cut out if the budget goes bad.

But Republicans traditionally defend the tax cuts because they want to increase their keep of their own income, versus paying higher taxes to keep up with both the pork, and the inflation on regular government services. There's nothing wrong with trimming the pork (and it's another discussion as to how and why it gets there) but they also often think that other people who are not as rich as they are, are lazy and that is why. These people also do not look like them, they might speak a different language as them, and they have nothing in common with these other people, so they fear them, or feel little empathy towards them, and just think that everyone should pay the same 2% for missle defense without regards to how it may affect different people differently. It's everybody chipping in the same percentage amount for the same pizza.

On the surface they oversimplify everything I've just explained to you: they'd say the same missle defends you as defends me. There's 2 of us, so we each should pay half (50%). If it was pizza, and it cost 10 bucks, and I ate half, would it be fair for me to say you should pay 7 dollars while I'll chip in 3? Of course not. But the analogy does not extend to amounts that significantly affect our budget curves because there are all kinds of circumstances where you could work harder than me, and still not be able to pay for your half of the missle defense program. Not to mention, in this circumstance, you HAVE TO contribute to the tax base, while you didn't have to agree to split a pizza. It was obvious in the example before that even though the poor guy only paid $1 for missle defense, and the rich guy paid $2, that the poor guy had much less manuverability with his after-tax income than the rich guy did - who at 2% still had half his earnings left.

So why should the poor guy vote for the Republican?

Surely there are more poor people than rich ones because some lack education about birth control, many immigrate faster than rich people reproduce, etc.

And rich people cannot get their tax cuts if a majority rules.

So 1) the rich guy pursuades the poor guy to believe "he'll garauntee that he'll invest his savings in a new company that will create jobs - like Enron, Pinnacle, etc. did :rolleyes:

but the poor guy doesn't understand all this - he might not even understand English.

but he understands that he has to call out to someone in the hopelessness. He needs someone to be on his side. Enter God. God will see to it that the poor man who works hard will be rewarded in an Afterlife. God says that life is precious and that the unborn must be allowed to be born (and become little consumers.) And the Republican is trustworthy because he is a man of God, one who you will trust will create those jobs if he gets his tax break. One who offers you hope.

Now since the Democrats seem to offer the poor man hope too: that they won't pay much taxes, if any at all, and that when there's money in the budget, there will be concrete social services they can touch that they'll receive. But they're not offering an Afterlife. They can't (or shouldn't even be) offering any sustainable entitlements, but the barebones like Social Security, Medicaid, etc. They are doing the best with what's real to provide social stability.

The faith in God offers stability in another way. It makes the people fear God and a bad afterlife if they rebel and commit crimes. Like I said, most people who commit crimes are stupid and don't think that they will be caught. They don't fear the police because they think it's the cops who will be stupified - sometimes that's even the case. But if God knows everything, than it's all on the record for judgement.

A good question is why don't the Democrats step up and say that instead, they are "God's party?" I can guess at some reasons, but it's not really important.

But now when the Republicans sold the public hope with their high talk of morals, virtues, and promises for trickle-down effects, they can muster the votes they need - otherwise, they'd never have the majority.

So religion must be sold. The pro-life movement just plays upon the sentimentality that people feel towards cute things like babies. Democrats love babies too, of course, and not a lot of Dems I know really care about population control - that's just me. And it's just me as well, that is emotionally cold to babies. I also think they can be cute, but I have cited circumstances where the child is abused or just cannot be cared for, and I'd rather not see our jails overcrowded, because I'm sure I've studied statistics that show a correlation with prisoners and those who were abused children, or were raised in homes where parents worked all the time and the kids were unsupervised. That's not cute.

Meanwhile, your statement that "Democrats sell false hope of empowerment to the ignorant" is often true and I'll agree with it under some circumstances that are much more common than I'd like. Some people like to climb to power. They will have values in either one way or another (money, religion, doing social work, etc.) but use those values as mere tools to ascend to power. It all depends on which message they're better at preaching - and what the people in their area already believe.

That is shameful of course - and that leads to the pork, which gets put onto bills because favors are traded so one Republican will vote for what one Democrat wants, etc. and vice-versa, if they do each other favors like spend money on the swimming pool, just so they can get re-elected.

I stick with the Democrats, because their programs can be statistically verified and tested to set up a hypothesis, implement a garaunteed program (garaunteed that money will be spent exactly a certain way - not as in the developer's choice with trickle-down economics) and then the Democrat's program can be statistically evaluated and it can be determined whether or not their program is working based on its merit.

Get real. Join the Democrats!

Vortex
11-06-2002, 01:27 PM
Great a Green Democrat...

Jedi Clint
11-06-2002, 01:59 PM
Thank you for the offer. I'll extend the same to you ;) I disagree with some of your supppositions and logic, but mostly I dislike the "sale's pitch" brand of explanation you offer. You never mentioned the "poor guys" ability to empower himself. This "poor guy" lives in a land of many opportunities. He doesn't NEED the Dems to hold his hand.

IMO religion is a personal choice one makes in their life. I don't factor it into my politics in any way. I think many liberals detest everything religious, and as such they are prone to disregard some concepts that benefit civilization.

If considered a method of birth or population control, abortion is barbaric. If you claim that you can't be held responsible for your own reproductive behavior, then perhaps that choice should be taken away from you. The answer is not to destroy the human life you've already created. There is absolutely no formula that exists to support the ideal that an aborted human would have ended up abused, neglected, a criminal, or a deficit to society. They could just as easily end up being someone who brings the world stunning artwork, excellent leadership, or simply a smile for every person that they encounter during one day on this earth.

Part of the raw deal that the Dems offer low income americans, is the ideal that their party will somehow "help" them, and not "help" the wealthy. Their "help" to the poor often comes in the form of hand-outs. Their supporters endorse and benefit from social programs. Anyone who supports a politician expects to get something out of their investment. I don't mean just the investors, although Mark Rich got a li'l something from Denise's investment in the Dems ;). I am aware of Republicans responsibility to their investors as well. I accept their backers over the Dems. I don't have any interest in supporting the over-simplified woman's right to choose crowd, the anti-war crowd (who assumes peace is the method rather than the goal), or the anti-business/anti-capitalism gang. I also won't support them because I feel they have worked very hard to ensure the success of people like Jesse Jackson who in turn pushes their agenda, while working to supress any leader who would serve the AA community without being owned by the liberal agenda. I don't support those who would use tax money to "improve the standard of living for poor people" by funding a shop dedicated to aromatherapy :rolleyes: . The Dems give kick-backs to their constituents, just as Republicans do. The Dems get money from "rich" people and "poor" people alike, just like Republicans do. I don't support the Dem's value system. I do support the Republicans value system. I have proposed this to you before, and it still stands. If you would like to pick a specific issue that we would be on opposite sides of and debate it, then I am game. I can't sum up my value system in a post or two. If you can, then so be it.

Tycho
11-06-2002, 02:09 PM
"Oh great... another Green Democrat!"

What does that mean?

Is everyone going to show the intelligence behind their respective party's position by NOT explaining it, why they personally support it, and of course never debate the principles behind why I'm "a Green Democrat?"

Making thoughtful decisions can take a long time and comes down to understanding something that you didn't know anything about before.

Too often Republicans use soundbytes and oversimplify things - talking but saying, much less proving, anything.

That's what I meant by referencing shows that mirror this philosophy: the guests on Jerry Springer, as well as Rush Limbaugh and his audience.

Back to some of JEDI CLINT'S COMMENTS:


I am not rich. I consider myself a Republican. Should Jerry's audience, "blacks", and immigrants attack me and steal from me?

First, if you are not rich, I'd reconsider why you are a Republican. If it is because of tax relief, forget it. You won't get much if you make about $60,000 or less - and if you do make more - you can be "rich" and not be some type of millionaire, but you certainly are not falling into the category of people who are endangered of being those who DO WORK, but still cannot take care of themselves and their families and find the path to becoming better off from the fruits of their labor, than they were before.

If you are Republican because of religious reasons, you'd know I'd question those beliefs of yours, but I will not attack you for how you chose to worship, or what you think of as the source of your moral strength. If it works for you, than that's great. But please don't let the abortion debate stop you from voting Democratic and helping people worse off than you are. That would be the Christian thing to do now, wouldn't it?

There's a difference between your religious heritage and your making decisions along patterns your clergy or some religious group organized for politics told you to.

Now, no: "blacks and immigrants should not attack you." They shouldn't even have been discriminated against by ME in this thread, but I singled them out as those who are unjustly more inclined to be impoverished partially due to prejudice against them, as well as limitations on their language and education skills (language skills limitations applying to immigrants). But as the prejudice against them DOES EXIST, they are likely to be the groups some single out to decide NOT to help. Some rich, and some whites find a distaste in dealing with people who are not "up to their class," and I think that by endorsing and fighting for policies that keep them there - like cuts in job retraining programs, welfare-to-workfare, etc., sooner or later the rich are going to have to deal with the people they don't want to see - and they'll be VERY angry, and even more scary, and right in their face! - and for that attitude, they do kind of deserve it! What goes around comes around. But you know: compassion and caring for one another could work the same way.

When I referenced "We" - as in:


The Republicans represent the rich who look at the fun in gambling for the short term gain. We should make them spend more and more of their income to secure their property with non-unionized security guards while encouraging the audiences on the Jerry Springer show and blacks and immigrants to attack them and steal from them. We should let them see how bad it can get if they don't stabalize the economy and help other people. Then the value of security will equal what they don't want to pay in taxes.

I meant the real moral majority. We (if as Democrats alone) or "we" as a society including everyone but I guess the super-rich that DON'T WANT to join us, should teach those would-be kings how the other half lives and either make them care, or show them that it is in their best interests to care, or else someone who Has Not, will rob them of what they do have.

I'll specifically address more later.

Jedi Clint
11-06-2002, 02:21 PM
I find nothing moral about Democratic leadership. They turn memorials into pep rallies. They don't see the ill in being touted as the party that supports women's liberation when one of their most respected would trade a woman's sexual favors for influence in finding a job. They don't honor their commitment to their spouse or themselves - "I will not 'stand by my man'!" They don't have a problem with insulting the intelligence of the American people by asking us to, "Define 'is'." or "Define'alone'." They lie under oath. They take money from crooks and give them pardons. The try to dupe us into believing they are worried about countin votes, when they try to discredit them at the same time. As I said......

Lord Malakite
11-06-2002, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
They don't have a problem with insulting the intelligence of the American people by asking us to, "Define 'is'." or "Define'alone'." They lie under oath. They take money from crooks and give them pardons. The try to dupe us into believing they are worried about countin votes, when they try to discredit them at the same time. As I said......

Isn't that all politicians? :D Clinton was just one of the unlucky ones that got caught with his pants down, so to speak. :stupid:

Jedi Clint
11-06-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Lord_Malakite


Isn't that all politicians? :D Clinton was just one of the unlucky ones that got caught with his pants down, so to speak. :stupid:

Actually I do think that many politicians believe they have to dumb down their arguments to win numbers at the polls.

The Overlord Returns
11-06-2002, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I find nothing moral about Democratic leadership. They turn memorials into pep rallies. They don't see the ill in being touted as the party that supports women's liberation when one of their most respected would trade a woman's sexual favors for influence in finding a job. They don't honor their commitment to their spouse or themselves - "I will not 'stand by my man'!" They don't have a problem with insulting the intelligence of the American people by asking us to, "Define 'is'." or "Define'alone'." They lie under oath. They take money from crooks and give them pardons. The try to dupe us into believing they are worried about countin votes, when they try to discredit them at the same time. As I said......

I think the very notion that ANY politician is free of corruption is laughable. For your Bill Clinton indictment, any Democrat could throw up Nixon as a counter. Lying under oath, lying to the american people, abuse of power....the shjoe fits the republican party just as snugly as it does the democrat.

Politicians, by virtue of their field, are corrupt. If they don't enter the ring corrupt to begin with, they soon become so. For every bad thing to be said about the democrats, you'll find an equal number to be said about republicans....


It's much the same here in Canada....though I think we lean a little more toward party voting than americans, on the whole.

derek
11-06-2002, 04:15 PM
if anyone wants to give me the movie version of tycho's last two books, i mean posts, send me a PM!:crazed: ;)

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
11-06-2002, 10:12 PM
originally posted by Quite-Long Dong

Howdy....I voted against Barnes too.....I am still in shock that Perdue and Chambliss won.

It could be just me, but something tells me not to trust anyone with the first name 'Saxby' (or Newt for that matter).

Vortex
11-07-2002, 12:28 AM
Well sincy Tycho can babble and use this as a political soap box, I'm pushing him off and here's my idea...

Ok, here's a rough thought that should solve all our problems and fits into Tycho's theories...feel free to add to it, it's not a perfect system, and hey, this is for the people so I want everyone to join in. It is our country you know...So how does this sound?

We round up all the existing, and past political leaders, any one in office that's taken soft money, charged $500 a plate for dinner, taken "bribes" from special interest groups, passed bills for personal gains and profit. Met behind close doors in a cigar smoke filled room and made backroom policies and granted and asked for favors. Then we take all their support staff and extremely zealous supporters and dispose of them in some humane way. We can leave this to the masses to determine...I think that's fair. And hey, there goes the majority of this countries problems, and it keeps the population down at the same time! Score, 2 at once!

Think of all the energy, land, and millions of dollars we can put into other things. We can save the environment by doing this...

Think of it, no more gas sucking, SUV's, 8 miles to the gallon sports cars, caddies, lexus, BMW's, Lincons, limos, privet jets, going to and from city to city, day to day, pandering to business, lobbyists, drumming up campaign funds, greasing wheels, doing favors, going from city to city giving plastic smiles to give working stiffs false hope. Think of all the pollution we've just done away with and all the fuel we've just saved. Ahhh clean air, and .50 per gallon gas...

Ahhh no more false front businesses set up by politicians that require acres and acres of raw land. No more huge businesses taking up resources, wood veneers and solids, steel beams, concrete, water, waste, expanses of parking spaces because of political ties...cut back in pollution and wasted materials. No more huge buildings like Enron, no political cover up to justify it or support it. No more empty buildings that cost $200 sq. ft. to build and use, and no more displaced workers. No more companies getting tax breaks to relocate to suburbia and start new expensive construction, when what they have is more than ample for 10 - 20 years. What ever happened to remodeling and adding on? We save land, and resources this way.

Now onto energy...think of all the amps and volts of power politicians rack up making phone calls to friends asking for money, favors, tee times, and phone calls to mistresses. All the energy saved from them not being on the computer checking their stocks, e-mail, setting up party websites, and asking for donations or surfing for porn. Think about those TV cameras, lights, batteris for camera flashes, all because they are giving speeches, addresses to the nation, all that extra energy we would get back. Looks like no more rolling black outs for Cali this year:)

And the money...wow, just think of it. The millions from special interest groups can now go into community programs instead of into a personal bank account, or a privately paid vacation to some tropical island. Wow my head is spinning - think of all the money we could re-locate to those that really need it and not into the hands or paychecks or salary increases of politicians...I can't even begin to fathom how many people we can help this way. Businesses would give donations to their local community for support and help instead of giving it to their supporter in congress. Wow, no more huge gap between rich and middle class or middle class and dirt poor. All those new programs free of political tie, or policy. Wait, I would no longer have to give up a few hundred dollars a year to pay for that private jet, that summerhouse in Bali? No more paying for a governors kid to have a wild liquor party at the governorís mansion? Wow...now I can give to a charity of my choice instead of giving it to some fat cat so his daughter can go to Oxford/Yale/Harvard and get by on her last name when she's dumber than dog poop...I can afford the American dream now and not work my fingers to the bone to pay for all these tax increases (aka political salery increase).

Well since we no longer have politicians, I say we nominate a few people to be president. Ya know divide up the world. I would like to be the US president ambassador to Iceland, Scotland, and lets add Germany. And since there are a lot of countries, you guys and gals can pick whom you'd like to meet with and make policies with. As for policies...well we can all get together, write a little thing up about what our respective countries need from us, give a little state of the union address to inform the nation, and we'll put it to a vote every month. I say the entire nation gets to have a say in lieu of a few select people. That way no one feels cheated and everyone gets a say in everything. We let the masses rule the masses. They can vote on-line, call in, do the hanging chad thing again...we'll figure it out as we go. But now our say is important and popular vote rules for once. No more electorial college to f-things up or selectivly pick the new face of the nation. Wait, does this mean no more political flub up? Florida is off the hook for screw ups? No more justice folks and lawyers bending rules and making them up as the go to determine the next president???? Wholly Crap...

Man, we could do a lot, save a lot, and make this country a better place if we do away with all politicians and associates. Could this true Freedom...I shudder to think what a life would be like without being force fed political ideas, and listening on how I should vote...no more adds on TV, no more phone calls asking me for money or to vote a certain way...GET OUTTA TOWN!!!

Now we need a name and a new motto.

And if anyone has anything more they want to add or some other benefit they see with the removal of politics add to the list.

This is our political free future here I can't do this alone...

Anyone else want the soap box before Tycho dusts himself off to spew more political rhetoric? I can only hold him off so long

plasticfetish
11-07-2002, 12:51 AM
Was there some kind of election? All I've watched on the TV is the Cartoon Network for weeks. What's going on? Is the war with Iraq over yet? Oh forget it ... I'm going back to the Powerpuff Girls (that Mojo Jojo cracks me up.)