Election

[Aristarchus]

I do have strong feelings regarding the upcoming election, and will be voting for Bush. I'm not a really big fan at all of his domestic policy thus far either, but I blame that on a misjudgement of his political opponents, thinking that if he compromised with them to a degree, that they'd be more civil. For example, the education bill passed under this administration. Bush pretty much allowed Ted Kennedy to write the bill, and as a result, the US spends more on education now than it ever has in the past--a sum which exceeds the budget for national defense-- and still you hear the Democrats carrying on that we don't do enough for education...

As far as foreign policy is concerned, I think that the notion that Gore, or another democrat would have handled life post 9/11 in the same fashion is horribly misguided. That somebody doesn't explicitly spell out what they would have done differently does in no way imply that they would have done things the same. Kerry goes about saying that he'd do foreign policy better, that he'd do education better, that he'd do the laundry better, but he never explains himself, except to say that he'd "do it better" or "get more international support." Saying that you'd do something better without saying how is utterly hollow and meaningless. As an engineering student, if I give answers without showing how I obtained them, I fail my classes. Why should a prospective leader of our nation be held to a lesser standard? Bush is willing to state his underlying principles, and stick by them, even when polls and focus groups say that people don't like his ideas. The same can't be said for John Kerry.

As far as Iraq is concerned, there is no question in my mind that Bush is the better candidate. Kerry says that he would have gathered more international support... From whom? Does anybody remember a year or so ago, when Saddam's forces fired a bunch of rockets at a hotel in Baghdad? If I remember correctly, those rockets were French made, AFTER the arms embargo imposed on Iraq. Have you done any reading on where the money from the "oil for food" program went? It sure as hell wasn't making it's way to the Iraqi people. Oh, and that program was personally administered by Kofi Annan, the big cheese in the UN. By the way, who is represented in the UN? Everybody who wants a say in it. That means Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and every other regime that cares to build itself upon the sufferings of its own citizens, alongside those nations who retain a degree of civility and concience. Beyond all that, people are coming to the conclusion that because there haven't been large stockpiles of missiles clearly labeled "weapons of mass destruction" that such things aren't and never were there. This is like saying that your wallet doesn't exist because you can't find it in the morning. It's a question of where the WMD's are, not if they are. Saddam gassed his own citizens in the 80's, so he had WMD's then. Does anybody believe for a moment that he grew a concience overnight, and decided to stop trying to find a way to annihilate Israel, which was a stated desire of his? One last thing-- what do WMD's look like? You don't clearly label things that you aren't supposed to have. I've seen reports of large stockpiles of pesticides habitually being discovered near ammunition dumps. It so happens that industrial pesticides are precursors to modern nerve agents. If there's truth to these claims, it's like having graham crackers, marshmallows, and Hershey's bars next to a campfire while whittling a stick, and saying that you aren't planning on making smores...

On financial policy, Bush inherited an economy that was on a long-overdue bust after a hollow dot-com boom. For the last several months, there's been very respectable growth. People are actually doing quite well, and have a bit of their own money back as a result of the tax cuts Bush implemented. Kerry wants to repeal those tax cuts, and raise some more taxes, and bring about a socialized health care system that would make Medicare look like pocket change. Make no mistake about it, you're gonna take home a hell of a lot less of the money you traded your life for if you elect Kerry.

So anyhow, I've ranted long enough. I'm voting for the guy who sticks to his principles even when it's not popular, instead of the guy who checks the polls every morning to see what tie to wear...

[Aristarchus]

Originally posted by Chasing Sophia:
... I am sure, very, very sure, that if Gore was prez, or any other Democrat, his actions would have been nearly the same following 9/11...

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ June 25, 2004 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Chasing Sophia ]</font></font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm taking this to mean that you were stating that the response to 9/11 would have been essentially the same, regardless of who was in the white house, and citing the lack of specifics on how things would have been done differently as evidence that things would have been the same.

I was trying to say that it would be misguided to conclude that somebody who doesn't offer an explanation of how he/she would have done things differently would have done things the same. To put it differently, if you set some sort of example, and I don't offer a detailed explanation of how I would have acted differently, it does not follow that my lack of explanation implies that I would have taken the same action you did.

I have a feeling that we're tripping over words, here, although I could be wrong... It happened once before... [img]wink.gif[/img]

[babelfish]

Hello. I am going to stick my two cents in here. There is a lot riding on this election. Some people say that Bush is taking away civil liberties and screwing up in Iraq. First of all, Bush has done no different than other presidents (democratic, republican) in other wars. We never hear about all the good that has come out of us ousting Saddam either. A majority of the iraqui people are happy that Bush did what he did. They also have things like "clean" drinking water for the first time in how many years. What Saddam did to his people should never have been allowed.

Second, Bush hasn't been taking away our civil liberties....he's been protecting our moral values; God's values. The last bit of decency for our country is hanging by a thread. We will either have four more years of a good fight...or we will start heading down hill. Right now, we have the right to worship freely the way we want. If Kerry or another liberal person like him gets in power, we are going to see the stripping away of our "religious freedom" which is ironically what this country was based on! God's values are important to Him. Look at what this country is doing by killing babies abortion)....and trying to legalize homosexual marraige! I'm sorry if this ruffles feathers but it's the truth. Look what God did to Sadom and Gamorrah in the old testament. Our country is heading that way. I believe that Bush is trying his best to keep this country "moral." Unfortunately, he is only one man. This country is split down the middle right now. We need to fight for what is right as long as we can.

Besides....John Kerry is scary. He has lied and changed his mind on many issues. I don't want a man like that leading my country.

I hope this wasn't too ruff for this board. I get passionate. And sorry for any spelling errors.

-Fish-

[[email protected]]

Fish:
I agree with your reply. As an "ever trying" Christian, it's hard to watch people acting so foolishly. Especially the ones that are outwardly expressing their beliefs in God. Yes, I understand that we are all human, but come on....

My thoughts are pretty clear when deciding who to vote for. I decide what is important to me (whether I agree that the subject should be a political issue or not is another story, but...) I try and follow simple rules. I believe that the bible is the word of God, in its entirety (period!). So homosexual marriage is wrong (no two ways about it); killing is wrong; glutteny is wrong; drunkeness is wrong; we could go on and on. As a person that likes to eat and occassionally drink a little more than I should, it certainly would be easier for me to be able to pick and choose the parts of the bible that are "comfortable" for me. As we all know, this is not how it works. So I honestly cannot say that I support someone that gives a woman the right to choose - murder is murder is murder. I also cannot support someone that is not outwardly protesting homosexual marriage. We as a country need to preserve our rights as Americans and all that this land was founded on. Does anyone remember our motto "In God We Trust". Let's trust in God while at least attempting to follow the rules that he's set forth.

That's all.

[chasingsophia]

Happy Reformation day, all.

Just thought I'd resurrect this thread with Tuesday coming quickly upon us.

Can't wait to see what happens.

Heard the best pre-election Sunday sermon I've ever heard today. Main points are as follows:

The so-called "Moral Majority" has failed, and cannot succeed, because socio/cultural change cannot be effected by political means.

There is no such thing as a Christian nation, and the United States is no exception.

Jesus emphatically denies the notion that His Kingdom is ushered in by political means. In front of Pilate, Jesus said that if his Kingdom was a matter of politics, his followers would take up arms to rescue Him from the Romans and to bring about their desired political change. But this is exactly what His followers must not do: try to establish the Kingdom by political means, because Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 31, 2004 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Mastedon Farm ]</font>