LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Libertarians break with Republicans mostly in that they are more socially progressive (i.e. ending the war on drugs, being pro-choice, not wanting government involvement in gay marriage etc.) They are also for as little government as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Well I do agree that they both lie and both are hypocritical. The difference between Kerry and Bush though is that Dubya already lied and failed as president. And say whatever you will about John Kerry, he hasn't failed miserably as president yet... And personally I don't you guys could do much worse than Bush. The idea of Kerry as president truly scares me. I have absolute no faith with his record as a politician and cringe at the thought of seeing him run this country. I can't even think what it will do to the economy. I'm not huge on Bush, but my god I am afraid if Kerry gets in. I just hope Bush can take over, do a solid job and then the conservatives can get a better candidate in, because their economic ideas and the smaller government beliefs are whats best for this country, imo. I don't want to see new social programs, I wnat to see the country get the thousands to hundreds of thousands of programs they have fixed because right now many of the programs are completely f'd up. The last thing I want is more ridiculous programs and more specifically more beaurcrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 I am also hearing from more and more people who are tired of defending him, are just shutting up or saying they are voting for Bush, but will vote Kerry. I also think Bush could have win handily with a VP change and the Dems could have won easily with Edwards. I don't know of anyone who is saying they're voting for Bush but really voting for Kerry. To be honest in my opinion, people who are saying that are just undecided. I go to one of the most political schools in the country and no one here is tired of defending Kerry. If someone is tired of defending their candidate, then apparently they don't feel too strongly about that candidate. I think you're right in that the Dems probably would be in a better position right now if Edwards was the candidate. As for Bush having a VP change and having it help him, I disagree. The Dems would have jumped all over that. It doesn't look very good when the president abandons the man second in line to run the country for someone new. It may have been done in the past, but things are different now. The new VP candidate would also be in a bad spot. Hmm, I know I haven't worded that really well...but my point is the attacks that would have come up due to his replacing Cheney would most likely be more damaging then just sticking with Cheney. Second, to answer Queen's question, the Presidential Debates are Sept 30, Oct 8, and Oct 13. The VP Debate is October 5. The last thing I wanted to say is in regard to the whole "flip-flop" issue with Kerry. It's true that the Reps are pointing out bills that looked to be very alike that he voted opposite on, and it's true that it was smaller things in the bill that caused him to change. But that's not the only thing the Reps are using for this. Kerry has done a lot of interviews, and if you go back and look at those interviews (espcially the interviews during the primaries), you'll notice that he was asked very similar questions and gave very different answers. Making it appear as though he was just saying whatever was popular at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 The idea of Kerry as president truly scares me. I have absolute no faith with his record as a politician and cringe at the thought of seeing him run this country. I can't even think what it will do to the economy. I'm not huge on Bush, but my god I am afraid if Kerry gets in. I just hope Bush can take over, do a solid job and then the conservatives can get a better candidate in, because their economic ideas and the smaller government beliefs are whats best for this country, imo. I don't want to see new social programs, I wnat to see the country get the thousands to hundreds of thousands of programs they have fixed because right now many of the programs are completely f'd up. The last thing I want is more ridiculous programs and more specifically more beaurcrats. See, i'm completly opposite, i'm afraid of another 4 years of bush. I guess what scares me most is the prospect of being drafted. I don't want to be pulled out of college so i can go fight some war i don't think is in our right intrests. Well i could write alot more, but i just got out of class and need to drink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 really bush and kerry are both idiots so you have to look who has the better vice president and id take edwards over cheney who scares me more then bush or kerry.... but overall i wish Bob Dole was up for election because he is just a cool guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 I guess what scares me most is the prospect of being drafted. It'll never happen. But just in case, this article might help you out. AWOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 See, i'm completly opposite, i'm afraid of another 4 years of bush. I guess what scares me most is the prospect of being drafted. I don't want to be pulled out of college so i can go fight some war i don't think is in our right intrests. Well i could write alot more, but i just got out of class and need to drink A draft will not happen until WW3 happens. It is waaaaay to politically unpalatable to get passed into law, there would be people rioting in the streets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 See, i'm completly opposite, i'm afraid of another 4 years of bush. I guess what scares me most is the prospect of being drafted. I don't want to be pulled out of college so i can go fight some war i don't think is in our right intrests. Well i could write alot more, but i just got out of class and need to drink Nobody's going to get drafted. That's little more than a scare tactic used by the left to get younger voters to go in for Kerry. Nobody wants a draft. Not the president, not Rumsfeld, and especially not the military who really dont want to deal with a bunch of people who really dont want to be there. The draft was a proven failure and if the military is pretty adept at learning from its mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 24, 2004 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 Nobody's going to get drafted. That's little more than a scare tactic used by the left to get younger voters to go in for Kerry. Nobody wants a draft. Not the president, not Rumsfeld, and especially not the military who really dont want to deal with a bunch of people who really dont want to be there. The draft was a proven failure and if the military is pretty adept at learning from its mistakes. Attack the technique, not the thought. A draft would make the military too white and that does scare the lilly white Republicans who cannot imagine their kids in the Army. And now they cannot hide their kids in the National Guard. Unlike the scare tactics used to get us in Iraq. Or the scare tactics that the right uses to increase the military budget, or the scare tactic the right uses to force through tax cuts, or the scare tactics Cheney used two weeks ago about a terrorist attack if Kerry was elected, or the scare tactics Bush uses about gay marriage, or the . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Attack the technique, not the thought. A draft would make the military too white and that does scare the lilly white Republicans who cannot imagine their kids in the Army. And now they cannot hide their kids in the National Guard. Unlike the scare tactics used to get us in Iraq. Or the scare tactics that the right uses to increase the military budget, or the scare tactic the right uses to force through tax cuts, or the scare tactics Cheney used two weeks ago about a terrorist attack if Kerry was elected, or the scare tactics Bush uses about gay marriage, or the . . . Tex - I agree with your last paragraph. Your first paragraph is pure bunk. We don't have a draft because the "republicans" are scared to send their "lilly white kids" off to war? That's a terrible statement, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Attack the technique, not the thought. A draft would make the military too white and that does scare the lilly white Republicans who cannot imagine their kids in the Army. And now they cannot hide their kids in the National Guard. Unlike the scare tactics used to get us in Iraq. Or the scare tactics that the right uses to increase the military budget, or the scare tactic the right uses to force through tax cuts, or the scare tactics Cheney used two weeks ago about a terrorist attack if Kerry was elected, or the scare tactics Bush uses about gay marriage, or the . . . The spin never ends eh Tex! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 24, 2004 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 Tex - I agree with your last paragraph. Your first paragraph is pure bunk. We don't have a draft because the "republicans" are scared to send their "lilly white kids" off to war? That's a terrible statement, IMO. Talk of a draft is always poor vs. middle class, white vs. minority. For every Pat Tilman there are thousands of disenfranchised poor with limited options. To believe that every soldier is driven by a patriotic call to duty is totally misguided. Whenever the economy is bad, recruits are up. The reason that it is a scare tactic is it scares the white politicians who like the all volunteer military, especially when there is a continous line of poor minorities willing to serve. Read the names of the deceased, look at their pictures, then compare it to a group shot of the Senate. Hmmm, that Senate shot sure looks pasty white. Why is it always a minority member of the House or Senate that tosses out a press release regarding a draft? Would Congress be so quick to war if Congress knew there was an honest chance we would be sending their own kids? In one national study I read in the McAllen Monitor, white guidance counselors were almost 75% more likely to recommend a minority to the military than a white student with similar grades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 For every Pat Tilman there are thousands of disenfranchised poor with limited options. This is something that irritates me to no end. There are always other options, you just have to be willing to put the work and time in to reap the rewards. I didn't enter the military, but I still went to college. Even though I am a white broad , no one gave me money for school. I managed to get the first two years free because I went to Daley on scholarship - guess what, I was one of a few whites in the honors group that had the scholarship. The people that paid the rest of my college tuition are me, myself and I. At times I worked two jobs and I am still paying off the student loans, but there are always going to be consequences for any road one takes. One might say, college isn't for all. What about trade schools? My fiance went to printing school (yeah, there are actual classes for that lol). A whole slew of our friends are entering the electricians school. There are always options if you are willing to look for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 QP Sing it sister! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 by the way, i thought I would share the true story about Kerry's statement about voting for the bill before voting against it... The republicans of course want you to believe that this guy is crazy and is flip-flopping... totally not true.. the true story is that there were 2 bills that were being voted upon at nearly the same time to give troops the money they requested. The first, which Kerry voted for authorized the money but required Bush to pay for the bill by eliminating the tax cut for the richest 1%. The second bill was a blank check for Bush to spend whatever, whenever he wanted, no matter how much the deficit grew. Kerry voted against that one. The truth never hurts. "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." NOT GWB in 1997 on Crossfire. http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm The truth never hurts. There is nothing in Kerry's past to indicate he would have done anything that differently after 9-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 2 follow up questions to your post... do you honestly think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq after numerous weapons inspectors clearly pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMD's? do you honestly think that if Kerry did decide to invade Iraq that he would have done it so quickly that there would have been holes in his post-war plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 2 follow up questions to your post... do you honestly think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq after numerous weapons inspectors clearly pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMD's? do you honestly think that if Kerry did decide to invade Iraq that he would have done it so quickly that there would have been holes in his post-war plans? Yes. And Yes. Political interests are a b****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Just like Texans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Hey you flippin' Iowan (see your avatar) - are we going to have to censor you again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Yes. And Yes. Political interests are a b****. After seeing John Kerry's history and voting record, and his stances on Iraq even during just this election cycle I have no doubt if the polls would have said to invade Iraq, we would have invaded Iraq. The other thing that is really bothering me right now is that the media and the UN are basically ignoring the genocide in Sudan. No one wants to pay attention, and no one wants to do anything about it. Even the word "sanctions" we deemed to harsh by many of the European countries. It disgusts me that these people's lives are so trivial to the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Hey you flippin' Iowan (see your avatar) - are we going to have to censor you again? Whatever Dubya, . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 2 follow up questions to your post... do you honestly think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq after numerous weapons inspectors clearly pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMD's? do you honestly think that if Kerry did decide to invade Iraq that he would have done it so quickly that there would have been holes in his post-war plans? Depends on which Kerry...is it the Kerry that called Saddam a terrorist or the one that now is backtracking on the whole thing. Or perhaps it is the John Kerry that is now attacking Bush for not giving enough support to the troops to win the war. The same John Kerry that voted against all the bullet proof vesting and what not to PROTECT the troops. I know politics is an issue, but its ludicrous to see him go out on the warpath right now and make all these claims when he's pretty much been the exact opposite on them. Disagree with Bush all you want, but I'm a hell of a lot more confident to get a straight forward answer from him then I am from Kerry and thats something I definately respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Poor ignorant Jason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 24, 2004 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 This is something that irritates me to no end. There are always other options, you just have to be willing to put the work and time in to reap the rewards. Unfortunately based in part on how we fund education in this country the poor do not arrive at college's doors with the same set of tools as others. Funding schools through property taxes has been a great way to continue the class system in this country. Middle class and rich schools can pay for better qualified, more experienced teachers, up do date text books, computers, decent classroom conditions, etc. Highland Park Texas, Kap's neck of the woods, requires a PhD to teach science in their high school. Los Fresnos High School in south Texas finally was able to hire a science teacher under a federal program that will forgive part of a teacher's student loans if they teach in disadvantaged schools. Which student is more likely to be successful in a college Bio-tech program? It isn't always about desire, or hard work. Racism is still alive and well in this country. Companies still discriminate. Small business is the fastest growing segment of the population and largly uneffected by anti-discrimination laws. Is anyone aguing that being born middle class, straight, thin, and white is a disadvantage in this country? The only question is how big of an advantage is it? Anyone have an alternate theory why more minorities die fighting wars in the this country then they are represented in the general population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Poor ignorant Jason. Don't go into it with me. I allow others to have their opinion. But don't call me ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.