PDA

View Full Version : Who would make the best pres?


Mi_chief_fan
09-08-2000, 11:19 AM
Who do you think would be the best choice for President of the US?

Granted, I don't think anyone would agree that either of the choices we have would be the best choice out there? And try to state a reason as to why you would think he/she would be the one.

For those of you who like Gore check this link out:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/9/7/223905

------------------
bk

[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 09-08-2000).]

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 11:23 AM
I don't know if any one person is qualified.

Maybe we should use President-by-committee!

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 11:30 AM
Seeing that Dub-ya would have problems matching wits with a common tree slug, I have to go with Gore. Maybe I set my standards too high, but I just can't shake the belief that the leader of the free world has to be able to spell 'cat' without somebody spotting him the 'c' and the 't'.

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 12:03 PM
Nowhere is it written that the pres has to be a Rhodes scholar. Apparently the current one isn't all that smart.

Bush is sincere, has a proven track record and seems to be honest. He doesn't have to split legal hairs about 'no controlling legal authority', pay Naiomi Wolf to teach him how to be a man, or reinvent himself umpteen times.

Policy wise Bush favours privatising social security, lower taxes, a stronger military, and less regulation. That's more than enough for me.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 12:10 PM
Bush couldn't even praise his parents without it sounding canned. He's the most finely tuned political robot in the history of the land. His image is a lie-- he drives around that Texas ranch as if he's spent years breaking his back trying to get at the fat of the land-- yet the reality is that he's an silver spooned, east coast preppy, Ivy Leager, who probably hasn't touched a cow in his life. There is nothing sincere about that.

Plus, he's dumber than a post. Sure, you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar, but you also should be smarter than the average garden impliment. Bush ain't.

Mi_chief_fan
09-08-2000, 12:13 PM
Hey Donk!

Don't bronc fans know how to read, or do they not understand what they read. It isn't a post to bash a candidate, but to state who you feel would be better qualified and why.



------------------
bk

Smltheppl
09-08-2000, 12:21 PM
I think I'd rather vote for Lieberman or McCain rather than Gore, Bush, or Chaney. I want someone with a strong sense of dedication to serving this nation and a moral backbone. I also want them to have a history of standing up to their own party and crossing the 'line' when their convictions call for it. I want someone who understands that the executive branch is not there to circumvent the legislative process or judical system. Someone who understands that judges should not be appointed according to political views on popular issues. I want someone who will balance free enterprise and government regulation. I want someone who can help pick our constitution up off the floor and make it the center of our government again.

Unfortunately, I rank both Gore and Bush pretty low in these departments. Should I be forced to choose between dweedle dee and dweedle dum I'm not sure who I'll pick.

------------------
1) Crush your enemies
2) See them driven before you
3) Hear the lamentation of the women

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 12:28 PM
Okay, Gore because he ain't nearly as dumb as Bush.

I'd rather have McCain or Bob Kerrey, but those aren't options.

Jim Wilken
09-08-2000, 12:32 PM
I plan on flippin' a coin on election day......sigh......

Jim Wilken
09-08-2000, 12:33 PM
I plan on flippin' a coin on election day......sigh......

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 12:33 PM
My last reply to Drew since it is off topic.

You talk about Bush being an East Coast canned preppy. Lets see, Bush has worked in the oil business in TX, has owned and ran the Texas Rangers in TX, and has been Gov of TX in TX. About the only East coast preppy about him is the fact that he went to Yale.

Gore on the other hand was raised in a DC hotel, went to exclusive DC prep schools, and enjoyed all the rank and privilege of being the son of a Senator in DC. All the while he waxes about his boyhood in Tenn. It would seem Gore FAR outranks Bush on the phony meter. This isn't even mentioning the various re-inventions of himself in the last year.

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 12:37 PM
Why does it matter where a candidate grew up? ALL politicians are phony...it's a requirement of the job.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 12:37 PM
Why does it matter where a candidate grew up? ALL politicians are phony...it's a requirement of the job.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

htismaqe
09-08-2000, 12:39 PM
Bush, I guess. I don't like either one, but he's a little less phony than Gore.

One thing I don't understand about Bush... he's behind Gore in the female vote department. Knowing this would be the case, why didn't he pick Elizabeth Dole to be his running mate? Women would have been falling all over themselves to get to the voting booth if he'd done that...

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 12:53 PM
Actually I know of several women that are seriously turned off by Liz Dole. They say she comes across as too harsh and snobby. I don't see it myself, but several women with nothing in common have said it to me.

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 12:56 PM
If the candidate doesn't make an issue about where he grows up then it doesn't matter Clint. Gore's 'I'm a Tenn farm boy' when in fact he's nothing of the sort is what makes it matter. It's a bald faced lie and proof to me of what Gore is all about.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 01:02 PM
Forget about where they grow up and what they claim to be: I can just see Helmut Kohl and the the Summit of 7 guys tricking Bush out of Oregon or something as a prank. If Bush were one of your headlights, you'd be going to the parts store about now. He's got that same intellectual spark in his eyes that my wife's inbred cat has. That's my issue.

[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 09-08-2000).]

CHIEFCOW
09-08-2000, 01:24 PM
Who would be my first choice for Pres?
Alan Keyes.
1)Very high moral standard.

2)Extremely intelligent and articulate.

3) Strong Conservative beliefs.

4) Was an Ambassador, he is very strong on foreign policy.

Donít tell Robert on the other BB who I picked. He is convinced that I am a racist.

I WILL vote for Bush over Gore any day. Why? I donít believe in one single policy (that I can think of) that Gore supports. We are diametrically opposed in our political views. So even if he wasnít a slimy fool headed liar I wouldnít vote for him.

Donkey,
Dumb? Stupid? Which candidate was it that:
-Said he invented the internet? (is he so stupid that he thinks people donít know differently or so arrogant that he thinks were too stupid to know any better?)
-Said that he and his wife were the inspiration for the movie Love Story.
-Didnít know that the large bag of money that he picked up from the Buddhist Temple wasnít for the campaign?

Just a few examplesÖ


------------------
GO CHIEFS!!!!

nmt1
09-08-2000, 01:34 PM
Best choice for Pres? Any republican that will cut my taxes so I can quit buying all those brown bagged 40's for all those Raider fans that are drawing monthly wellfare checks.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 01:34 PM
Gore is guilty of poor judgement. However, he doesn't have that same glazed look as the banjo player in Deliverance like Bush. Bush ain't a bright man, and it wouldn't be prudent at this juNKture to vote for him. Na' gonna do it. Naaa' gonna do it.

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 01:38 PM
Drew, Bush isn't stupid. You don't rise to the point in life that he has risen, regardless of your parentage, without some level of intelligence. He may not be Einstein but he's not Howdy Doody either. Your comments that he is simply imply your own lack of gray matter.

Gore is not guilty of poor judgement. He is guilty of unabashed arrogant bald faced lying. Much like his finger wagging boss.

[This message has been edited by ck_IN (edited 09-08-2000).]

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 01:47 PM
Donkey Drew,

Why is it that all of the Gore Supporters (oh, excuse me... the "well Gore's not as bad as Bush" people) don't talk at all about policy, philosophy, or the future direction of our country? What is Al Gore's vision for our future? Do you even know?

Why is it that this group of people (more than any other) throws relentless insults based in nothing? Calling someone stupid, or a coke head, or Ivy League pampered without any evidence or basis in reality is at best irresponcible.

Why do you do it? Do you really not care about the future of out country? Do you feel so left out of things that you truly feel that you have no control? I would really like to understand this "let's trash the person because it's the cool thing to do" mentality.

So please enlighten me.

Luz
McCain is a fraud and Keyes was the best man...

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 01:48 PM
Okay, Ck_IN, whatever you say. I just hope if he wins he's surrounded by good people. I wouldn't want that simpleton making national welfare decisions on his own. It wasn't so long ago that he couldn't answer the question-- who were the combatants in World War I. And this guy might be President? Scary if you ask me.

nmt1
09-08-2000, 01:50 PM
ck_IN, right on brother...Donkey has been breathing too much of that liberal air up near Boulder.

nmt1
09-08-2000, 01:53 PM
Donkey...Why are you so concerned about welfare decision? Is it you Donk fans that have been rapping me of my tax dollars instead of those rotten Raiders?

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 01:54 PM
LUZAP:

Probably cuz people like you are so cute fired up like that. Besides, don't give any policy squat-- the GOP has spent the last eight years stalling so they don't have to talk policy. They'd rather talk about cuban cigars and third hand allegations. The reason is that they're sunk once the two major party platforms face off against one another. The Democrats are in touch with the Country while the GOP is in touch with each other. I'm sure your policy minded GOP is digging hard for another scandal as we speak. After all, they gotta do something quick because it looks like they're on the verge of blowing yet another sure thing.

nmt1
09-08-2000, 02:00 PM
Donkey,

They have to stall on policy cause every fuggin bill they pass gets vetoed by that slimy herpes infested, impeached, dirt bag currently in the oval office.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 02:01 PM
Jj80:

Distinguish between welfare and decisions of national welfare. That's what I'm getting at-- do we want a simpleton calling the shots at nut cutting time? I think not.

nmt1
09-08-2000, 02:06 PM
The reality is that very few bills and policies every get put in place by the sitting president. Congress does 99.9% of the substance, the sitting Pres just has the option to stop it with a veto...

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 02:07 PM
Donkey Drew,

You're doing a good job of proving me right. No one has questioned your ability to hurl insults.

I AM questioning your knowledge of this campaign. Do you have any idea what Gore's vision for America is? What specific policy is it that Bush supports and Gore opposes that you want to discuss?

You either understand the issues and feel strongly about one side or the other, or you're acting like the class clown that doesn't understand the lesson so he disrupts everybody else instead.

So if you can figure out how to communicate your objections to Bush based on something other than what you heard other people saying, I would be interested to listen.

Luz
thinking for yourself will give you a wonderful sense of freedom...

Mi_chief_fan
09-08-2000, 02:08 PM
It would truely be nice if the bills would only have one or two items, and eliminate the tag-on crap.

------------------
bk

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 02:10 PM
bkkcoh,

Now that would be true legislative reform ~ eliminate the omnibus bills.

Our elected officials, however, would then need to spend MUCH more time actually making decisions!

Luz
what a concept!...<BR>

Mi_chief_fan
09-08-2000, 02:14 PM
Luzap,

But it is so much easier to make a vague bill that doesn't make the difficult choices. Also, I would like to see the baseline budgeting crap end and the representation (or understanding) that a 5% increase in spending instead of 7% increase is not a 2% decrease. What idiots taught math the reporters to get them to understand it that way.



------------------
bk

Mi_chief_fan
09-08-2000, 02:25 PM
Luzap,

I would like to really be able to understand the reasoning for not having a tax cut for everyone. It is not an inflationary process, the money would just be going back to the rightful owners. But Clinton said, that he new better what to do with the excess than we did. What a slap to the intelligence of the people of the USA.


Also, I saw the Fox News channel when they were asking why would it cost $700.00 a month to insure children that didn't have insurance. Hell, when I was paying for COBRA, it was only costing $530 a month for a family of 5. The spokesman could not explain why it was soooo expensive. That really pi**ed me off.

bk
would know what to do with $1400 more.... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 09-08-2000).]

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 02:37 PM
Luz:

The reality is-- and if you pay attention you know it already-- that the candidate's stands on the issues are just well formulated spins based on the overnight polling. Bush and Gore are both for whatever combination 51% of the electorate agrees on. Whoever finds that formula first wins. Then they'll get into the Whitehouse and our disgrace of a congress (no matter who has the majority) will stall and distract until the next President comes along. Thus, the key to the Presidency anymore is what he can do without the consent of congress, which isn't a whole lot. From an ideological standpoint, I favor Gore because he's more likely to appoint judges and agency heads, etc. that are more in line with my moderate way of thinking. But don't fool yourself-- the issues these guys pretend to care about are a smoke screen. They know none of the biggies will ever get solved because political courage in this country died years ago.

Shootr
09-08-2000, 02:44 PM
You know this is one of the reasons I don't visit the star BB all that much anymore. All the non football related threads. But just the same lord help us all if Gore is elected. He'll finish off the military as an effective fighting force FWIW, And I envision a whole slew of gun laws coming down the pike. Nope I've always voted Republican but I am seriously concidering becoming a Libertarian. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 02:53 PM
My taxes have never dropped at all. Ever. Even if by some miracle taxes are reduced, you will have the money taken from you in another way. The govt., no matter who is in control, isn't about to try and make due with less.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

nmt1
09-08-2000, 02:56 PM
Donk,

Good to hear that you are at least a moderate...However, you have been badly fooled if you think Gore is anywhere near your territory...If he leaned any further left he would have to give his speeches laying down.

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 03:00 PM
I still absolutely cannot believe that anyone thinks there is a nickel's worth of difference between these 2 jerkoffs.


Just curious: How much influence do you think the oil industry would have over Bush, as opposed to a President that wasn't involved in the industry prior to being elected?

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

wutamess
09-08-2000, 03:05 PM
Clint-

Here's how to decide between them if you despise them both:

Who do you want appointing Supreme Court justices?

xoxo~
gaz
reluctantly voting for Bush.<BR>

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 03:09 PM
Gaz said it best. However, in the same light, I'll reluctantly vote for Gore. I believe our founding fathers were liberal in their intentions.

wutamess
09-08-2000, 03:11 PM
Drew-

Since we are going to cancel each other out, we might as well stay home on election day.

xoxo~
gaz
saved himself a trip to the poll.<BR>

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 03:16 PM
You're entitled to your opinion Drew but think about this.

Jefferson's model was a state oriented govt with very limited powers given to the federal branch. His vision was a responsive local govt handeling the day to day with the fed govt dealing mainly with foreign issues and little domestic. His biggest supporters were Thomas Paine and John Adams.

That's a polar opposite of Gores and the Demo vision.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 03:16 PM
Except its those electoral votes these guys need. Not the measley individual ones we provide.

chiefsnathan
09-08-2000, 03:17 PM
I think we're screwed either way.

I heard a story about Bush, where his daughter was involved in a fender-bender. Bush not only sued the driver of the other car, but allegedly sued the rental car company of the car that his daughter was driving. All this over a tiny accident where no one was hurt! Bush refuses to justify the frivolous suits because of his policy of not discussing issues regarding his family. Sounds like an a-hole to me. Has anyone else heard this story? I caught it on Austin talk radio (not too reliable really).

Is Gore any better? Probably not.

I really don't care about the pres, as long he isn't a damn Chiefs fan!!!!!

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 03:18 PM
And what influence do you think the radical environmentalists and big labour will have over Gore Clint?

All pols have their consituents. Citing one over the other is a foolhardy exercise.

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 03:21 PM
Of course environmental activists will influence Gore, but the oil industry has more money and power than any other industry on Earth, and they've already shown a total disregard for the environment.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 03:31 PM
ck_IN:

More so than size and influence of government, I'm concerned about the mounting conservative attack on the seperation of church and state, and conservative selectivity when it comes to individual freedom. These are the two philosophies that I believe define this nation, along with freedom of speech. However, more and more, conservative groups are trying to chip away at them. That's why I'd rather have a Supreme Court sat mostly by Democrats.

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 03:33 PM
And radical environmentalists have shown a complete disregard for people and their livelyhoods.

In some way or another we all owe our way of life to big oil. That's not to say we should revere them and they like any other special interest group should be watched. But they shouldn't be demonized over any other group. Especially one that has demonstrated disregard for people and jobs.

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 03:36 PM
DD,

I agree. Religion has no place in government, IMO. I think removing the word "God" from our currency is extreme and unnecessary, but I don't want any important decisions being made the govt. being influenced by religion.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 03:41 PM
I agree, I'm guilty of using as many petroleum products as the next guy (insert Vaseline joke here), but eventually we will all pay the price for our excess if an alternative to oil isn't found in the not-too-distant future. I know some people think there is no way that humans can harm or destroy the environment, but I disagree. If we screw the environment up too much, the rate of employment will seem paltry in comparison.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 03:49 PM
Interesting qualms Drew. Here's my take on them.

None of the Founders that I know of were atheists. Their concept of seperation of church and state meant no state sponsored religion. Models of state sponsored religion would be Iran, or Sudan. (If anyone can think of a non Moslem example please add it)

The Founders intended for the people to worship as they saw fit without the govt forcing a religion on them. The GOP isn't forcing a religion on anyone that I'm aware of. They are simply trying to allow you to worship in public if you wish. I'm not Jewish but the sight of a Menora doesn't bother me. I assume me doing a Hail Mary wouldn't offend a Jew.

The Dems on the other hand seem to want to banish public displays and replace it with some form of atheism or state worship. I fail to see how this is an extension of freedom.

conservative selectivity when it comes to
individual freedom.

I'm not sure what you're referring to so I can't cite a specific counter arguement, but the GOP vision of giving greater power to the states and people while giving less to the fed govt could only increase personal freedom.

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 03:55 PM
Oil execs live on this planet to Clint.

Industrial accidents happen and the occasional oil spill will occur. When it does questions should be asked and preventitive measures taken. If these measures can prevent the accident then better yet. However the recent forest fires have added far more air polution in a few months than cars probably did last year. These fires occured in part because of 'no burn' policies backed by the environmentalists.

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 03:58 PM
I have no problem with people worshipping in public, but I also don't understand one thing: Why can't these people wait until they get home or to church to worship? Worship isn't like going to the bathroom, for pete's sake!

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 04:03 PM
I think you're losing the context of my meaning Clint. I'm not talking about folks sitting on the bus doing Hail Marys (unless a wreck is imenint)

I'm talking about the Supreme Court outlawing a prayer before comencement or a high school football game. That's absurd but a true happening in the current liberal no-religion environment.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 04:15 PM
One example: The posting of the 10 Commandments in public schools. Although I am a Christian I am also an American, why should my muslim-American cohorts, or buddist-American cohorts, etc., be subjegated by the symbolic implication of posting a Jewish/Christian set of ideas? The whole idea is that little Johnny can pray whenever he damn well feels like it. As soon as the governmemt starts setting aside time to pray, the government is endorsing and perhaps cohercing prayer. It's a line that cannot be crossed. The beauty of this country has always been that you can worship the Duckbilled Platypus if you wish, or you can worship nothing. Its a private matter.

[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 09-08-2000).]

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 04:16 PM
CK,

I agree that that's silly. There should be no laws regarding that issue one way or the other. It should be neither banned nor encouraged, IMO.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

[This message has been edited by Clint in Wichita (edited 09-08-2000).]

kcmax
09-08-2000, 04:24 PM
Those support Gore, please read this
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html

and reply honestly if none, any, or all of it bothers you. I can understand a "lesser of two evils" vote. What I cannot understand are the people who weren't all that enthused, UNTIL THEY SAW HIM KISS HIS WIFE [gasp]!!

Democracy is a great system, but it is disheartening that crass imagebuilding can be so effective on a populace that knows more about Chandler Bing than their elected officials.

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 04:27 PM
You are not going to win any votes for Bush. You might as well give up now.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

King_Chief_Fan
09-08-2000, 04:31 PM
Ok Drew, if they wanted to post a Torah or Koran would you object?

The ten commandments are simply guides to good behaviour. They may not be specificlly in your religion but I'm sure the church of the Platypus has something similiar. Posting something that guides Johnny in proper behaviour seems harmless to me. I'm also sure that Johnny won't be converted by a posting of ten rules vs whatever religious instruction Mom and Dad provide.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 04:33 PM
JC:

I think the deal is this: Bush is everybit as contrived and fake. The guy can't and won't answer a question that isn't in the script. It is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 04:38 PM
ck_IN:

No, I wouldn't want them posting anything religous. It's not an attack on christianity, its preservation of the needed seperation. Allowing the Ten Commandments just creates the argument for whatever is next in line. Is that saying the Lord's Prayer after the Pledge of Allegiance? Is it singing a wholesome Christian hyme? The fact is, the U.S. is not a Christian country-- its a religously free country and its in our best interests to maintain that.

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 04:55 PM
Donkey Drew,

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, this country has always been a Christain country.

The seperation of Church and State is designed to protect the Church ~ not the State.

Drew, these are two simple tenets of our country. The first is easy to learn, the second requires a little more reading, but both can be found in the writings of the founding fathers. If you are seriousely interested, I can tgry and narrow it down a liitle more for you.

This is, however, a perfect example of what bothers me. Liberals in this country have been trying to teach the ideas you just reflected for generations now, and apparently they've been successful.

I have no doubt that you are a sincere person, but you are sincerely wrong. These are not opinions, they are facts that you can verify by just a little research.

It takes a big man to stand up and consider the possibility that he has been taught wrong, but only a coward to hide from the truth http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif.

Luz
your perception of what has made this country great seems to be a little bit skewed...

flowergirl
09-08-2000, 05:03 PM
This country has always been Christian?

Oh, THAT must be why they keep finding crucifixes at Indian burial grounds, right?

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Dog Day
09-08-2000, 05:05 PM
Luz,

With all due respect, many of the pilgrims ran from religous opression. Those opressors were Christian. It is very arrogant to claim that this country, founded on individual liberty and freedom, favors any religion over another. The beauty of this country is that a decent human being can live his life as he sees fit, as long as he does not forsake the pursuit of liberty or happiness of his cohorts. This his holds true for pagans, muslims, buddist, hindus, whatever. The biggest danger to this country is the people who have forgotten that.

Gotta go. I'll catch up next week.

Hoover
09-08-2000, 05:11 PM
"I'm sorry, but with all due respect, this country has always been a Christain country."

Thanks for offering to "narrow things down for us." Wow, self righteousness and ignorance can make nasty bedfellows! While I consider my religious beliefs to be primarily Christian in nature, and while I cannot recall any Founding Fathers who were noted atheists, many of them were not traditional Protestant Christian in their faiths. Hell, Benjamin Franklin founded his own church.

Mark-
shudders at anyone who attempts to circumvent the First Amendment.

Smltheppl
09-08-2000, 05:45 PM
And what influence do you think the radical environmentalists and big labour will have over Gore Clint?

well, 'radical' environmentalists are wacko by definition and would have no influence. I assume you mean the guys that would bomb someone, spike trees, or other radical stuff. There are wackos taking extremes on every issue. Assuming you're pro-life, it's like the pro-life snipers who go around bombing clinics. I'm hoping you don't support those sort of actions. I will assume those sorts of radicals won't have influence with Bush.

Big Labor is a misnomer. Labor has little influence anymore and what they have they earned with the blood of innocents in coal mines and getting shot down by pinkertons. What is so wrong with a group of people saying "we're all gonna quit at the same time cause your mistreating us." Likewise, the corporation should be allowed to fire everyone who quits.

[This message has been edited by KC Jones (edited 09-08-2000).]

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 10:12 PM
For revolver808, Donkey Drew, or anyone else that might be too lazy to go look it up (or too arrogant to think they're wrong)...

The fact that we're a Christain country means that we're persecuting other religions? Give me a break. Why do I get the feeling that history might not have been one of your favorite subjects?

When we put 'In God We Trust' on our currency, what God do you think we had in mind? When we wrote in the Constitution that, "all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights... " do you think they were refering to Mohamed or Buddah?

They were refering to the Christian God, of course. It doesn't mean that everybody has to be Christian, but history does not ignore the fact that 80 plus % of all people in this country are Christian.

We are refered to, in history books all accross the world, as a Christian country. It seems that everybody (but a few liberals) knows this. How is this a threat to you or anyone else?

I'm sorry to sound so hard and inflexible, but to think that calling our country Christian is violating the First Amendment is pure ignorance.

Luz
do people that don't know what they're talking about know that they don't know what they're talking about?...<P>

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 10:19 PM
Amendment I. to the Constitution of the United States.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

This is clearly written to protect religion (all religions) from the government, not the other way around.

So what exactly is so threatening to you about the acknowledgement of the majority religion in this country, and how does it harm you for the majority of people to openly practice it?

Luz
no nation on earth can take our freedoms away from us; we can only lose them through our own ignorance and corruption...

Dartgod
09-08-2000, 10:27 PM
If you really want to know who would be the best president, look no further than Alan Keyes.

Listen to the man talk, he is intelligent and will give you a complete answer to any question. He may not give the answer you want to hear but it is an informed answer to the question.

It's too bad that the media ran him out of the election before the whole U.S. got a chance to hear him speak on key issues.

I'll write in Alan Keyes, it won't be a wasted vote, Bush and Gore will claim all of those.

------------------
Remember Joe Delaney?
Some of us do and are acting on our belief that he was a hero.
This is a bandwagon that all are invited to jump on!!!

37 Forever

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-08-2000, 10:37 PM
There is no question in my mind but that Alan Keyes was the best candidate running, but to vote for him now would be the same as voting for Gore ~ Keyes would not approve of that.

He is a conservative and hates what the current administration has done to our country. If you truly respect this man, then do what he has asked his supporters to do and vote for Bush (and yes, do get out and vote!).

Luz
this is an important election...

AustinChief
09-08-2000, 11:53 PM
KC "Labor has little influence anymore"

Where do you come up with this, little dem pamphlets?

When is the last time management won a strike? And who pays for those increase in wages and the inevitable losses the companies suffered? It sure as hell isn't the company or the poor misunderstood laborer.

Bob Dole
09-09-2000, 05:13 AM
Tom-Ditto what you and Luz said about Alan Keyes! There is great wisdom in what Luz said about a write in, if you believe in what Keyes stood for, vote for Bush. Anything else at this point is a vote for alGore.

Smltheppl
09-09-2000, 06:59 AM
And who pays for those increase in wages and the inevitable losses the companies suffered? It sure as hell isn't the company or the poor misunderstood laborer.

If you're such a consumer advocate why aren't you backing Nader? Corporations have a right to charge whatever they want for a product, that's the nature of a free economy. Likewise employess may leave their jobs whenever they want, including doing so en masse. I still don't see why labor unions are the enemy or need to be broken up. If it wasn't for the history of the cruel inhumane treatment of employees during past centuries there would have been no need for labor unions.

Yosef_Malkovitch
09-09-2000, 08:15 AM
KC Jones,

I can go along with you as far as saying that we should have a few basic agreements as to minimum working conditions (and we could probably have some huge debates about what are basic minimums) but, when you start bluring the distibction between the workers and the owners (stockholders) you lose me.

The wokers don't 'own' the company and are not entitled to anything more than what the company offers up front in fair exchange for their services. For an organized workforce to demend more than that is extortion. There is a political system that advocates this; it is called Socialism.

Do you advocate Socialism, or do you deny that forcing the owners to share a greater share of the proffits is Socialistic?

Luz
i need to ask because earlier on this thread, some were denying that we arte a Christian country!...

b-squared
09-09-2000, 10:06 AM
I agree that we have been left with limited options. I will lean towards the Bush side. Gore is on TV everyday making his promises, many of which were made by him and Clinton 8 years ago. I don't believe that we need to give them 4 more years to try. The Presidential campaign is all about how many promises each candidate can make.

I am most tired of the Democrats using the same tax cut excuse.

Example.....

Republicans propose tax cut......
-Democrat answer.....only benefits the rich

etc. etc. etc.

COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT EXCUSE TO TAKE OUR MONEY.
At least the Republicans are trying. The Dems. complain that it benefits the rich , but never come up with a plan to benefit anyone. They are more worried about the surplus that has accumulated because we were over taxed in the first place.

Hoover
09-09-2000, 06:01 PM
47Mack-
I have not always been a total Gore fan, per the fact that it seems he has waffled on some key points throughout his career. However, the platforms between these two candidates offer clear differences.

Gore has proposed a plan of tax cuts targeted to help the average working person, for ex. tax exemptions for college tuition. He has also proposed plans shoring up social security and paying off the national debt we owe to our own citizens.

Bush, on the other hand, has proposed an unwieldy tax break for the very wealthy supporters such as Dick Cheney who have propelled his campaign thus far.

Mark-
knows that Gore is no FDR, but between these two the choice is clear.

King_Chief_Fan
09-09-2000, 06:41 PM
Apparently Gore has issued a new tax plan. The one I've read would only effect a narrow band of people, most of whom are democratic consitutients. It would offer almost nothing to the middle class (outside of college breaks) and would most likely require a tax accountant to realize full advantage. I imagine the cost of the accountant would negate the tax break.

Bush's tax plan cuts taxes for everybody. Sure some will realize greater gain than others. Nobody said life was fair and no one is going to make it such. People below your pay grade could say you'd gain unfairly.

Bush's plan is simple and ensures a tax break for all. Gore's plan is complex and limits tax breaks to a lucky few.

In the sake of fairness, the only fair choice would be Bush.

King_Chief_Fan
09-09-2000, 07:00 PM
As for Gore's plan to 'fix' social security, it amounts to nothing more than using more of the surplus to fund the same pyramid scheme that got us into this mess in the first place. This is assuming that the surplus really comes to pass and Gore's other spending plans don't suck up the money first.

Bush's plan is to privatize a portion of Social security, using surplus money to pay transition costs. This plan has been tried in many countries and has achieved excellent results in every one.

Paying off the debt? With what? The new spending plans Gore is proposing would outstrip any projected surplus that I've seen. If Gore enacts each spending plan he's proposed he'd have to raise taxes or increase the debt with deficit spending.

King_Chief_Fan
09-09-2000, 07:06 PM
As for Gore's plan to 'fix' social security, it amounts to nothing more than using more of the surplus to fund the same pyramid scheme that got us into this mess in the first place. This is assuming that the surplus really comes to pass and Gore's other spending plans don't suck up the money first.

Bush's plan is to privatize a portion of Social security, using surplus money to pay transition costs. This plan has been tried in many countries and has achieved excellent results in every one.

Paying off the debt? With what? The new spending plans Gore is proposing would outstrip any projected surplus that I've seen. If Gore enacts each spending plan he's proposed he'd have to raise taxes or increase the debt with deficit spending.

King_Chief_Fan
09-09-2000, 07:07 PM
Apparently Gore has issued a new tax plan. The one I've read would only effect a narrow band of people, most of whom are democratic consitutients. It would offer almost nothing to the middle class (outside of college breaks) and would most likely require a tax accountant to realize full advantage. I imagine the cost of the accountant would negate the tax break.

Bush's tax plan cuts taxes for everybody. Sure some will realize greater gain than others. Nobody said life was fair and no one is going to make it such. People below your pay grade could say you'd gain unfairly.

Bush's plan is simple and ensures a tax break for all. Gore's plan is complex and limits tax breaks to a lucky few.

In the sake of fairness, the only fair choice would be Bush.