-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Has anyone read George W's response to the DNC yet?
- Thread starter Brian2by2
- Start date
Yup.....Kerry is a flip-flopping baffoon. And Bush is a liar and a war criminal.
Too bad Barak Obama isn't running for president....I really liked what he had to say (minus the bit of Kerry-praising he did which no doubt was required in order to be allowed to speak at the convention). Maybe he will run next time.
Looks like I'll be voting for Nader again......sigh.......
Too bad Barak Obama isn't running for president....I really liked what he had to say (minus the bit of Kerry-praising he did which no doubt was required in order to be allowed to speak at the convention). Maybe he will run next time.
Looks like I'll be voting for Nader again......sigh.......
That article is disheartening to read, especially for my friends and I who have just graduated. Sometimes I wish I'd just stayed in school an extra year because the economy is so bad right now.
A lot of industry in America is taking hits not because of Bush, but because major corporations and this whole off-shore hiring crap. Many of these "low pay" jobs that people are complaining about not being there are being shipped off. Now, I do believe that Bush needs to make some sort of policy/law on that, but we'll see.
As for Kerry, well, he might....but he might not.....then again I think he wants to, but he did vote against it 14 times....I don't know
As for Kerry, well, he might....but he might not.....then again I think he wants to, but he did vote against it 14 times....I don't know
These "free trade" agreements need to have fine print which states that the agreement only applies to countries that have a decent minimum wage and proper labor laws.
It is rediculous that a company like Spaulding can move their factories to Burma, pay off the tyrants which control that country, use free slave labor to make their products, and then import them back into the United States without having to pay any kind of taxes or tarrifs. No surprise that the "Bush/Cheney 2004" shirts being given out at campaign rallies and sold at their website were made over there.
But this will never change as many of the governments of such countries are supported by our State Department specifically because they do not have labor laws. Opposition leaders which speak out in favor of such laws are often squashed, or they are branded as "communist" such as was done with Chavez in Venezuela or the rebels fighting against the King of Nepal.
It is rediculous that a company like Spaulding can move their factories to Burma, pay off the tyrants which control that country, use free slave labor to make their products, and then import them back into the United States without having to pay any kind of taxes or tarrifs. No surprise that the "Bush/Cheney 2004" shirts being given out at campaign rallies and sold at their website were made over there.
But this will never change as many of the governments of such countries are supported by our State Department specifically because they do not have labor laws. Opposition leaders which speak out in favor of such laws are often squashed, or they are branded as "communist" such as was done with Chavez in Venezuela or the rebels fighting against the King of Nepal.
The problems of the world will not be solved by the minds of those who created them.
SCS2k said:
once again SCS2K..."good stuff".
digimanoc said:once again SCS2K..."good stuff".
I'd love to take credit for it but I saw it on a bumper sticker and I liked it as well.
NSXLuvr said:The sad thing is that most of us will pick between "Lesser of two evils". Both parties/Candidates have there own agenda for us, and USA.
truely sad.
There are more than 2 candidates/parties on the ballot. If you are not happy with the 2 major choices, then at least register your vote as a protest vote and vote for another candidate.
Eric5273 said:
Thats smart...lets vote for someone who we know very little about. Ross Perot anyone? Who knows what would have happened if that man won because half the people who voted for him didn't know the difference between the Bush and Clinton, they just know they liked everyone else jumping on the independent band wagon and were like lemurs to the sea.
I can see how some are thinking its voting for the lesser of two evils, however, I think Bush has been much more honest with a lot of things, while Kerry just rubs me the wrong way. Of course I'm biased, but I thought Clinton did an OK job (even though I think most of it was just reaping the benefits of Reagan and Bush) and Clinton was a little to relaxed when it came to foreign policy and, in my humble opinion, much of this terrorist uprising could have been slowed by the Clinton Administration.
You gotta also remember that very few Presidents have ever been faced with something as severe as 9/11, and again in my opinion, Bush did a GREAT job in responding to it. Of course everyone isn't going to be happy. It's funny though that so many Americans still on American soil are complaining about our boys being over there, yet many of our 'boys', or at least the several that I personally know and have heard speak seem to support America being over there and support Bush.
Lets face it: people don't like Bush because they think he lied about 9/11 and they think we don't need to be in Iraq.
They love the fact that Kerry is crying that we need more intelligence in order to prevent such an attack and that we need to get out of Iraq and "goto war when we need to".
Why did he vote against budget increases for intelligence? Why were ALL of his proposals on intelligence budget cuts rejected by Dem/Rep's alike?? Why did he miss 38 out of 49 Senate Select Intelligence hearings??? Why did he vote FOR the "use of force in Iraq" resolution, along with Mr. Edwards???
I just don't understand this man...Bush 4 Prez
I don't love Bush, he isn't the smartest man out there, but I like his clarity and willingness to stand behind his decisions. He is tough on terrorism and won't raise taxes. Will Kerry do either of these?
I think the latest polls say it all, Kerry has gotten no boost from the DNC.
I think the latest polls say it all, Kerry has gotten no boost from the DNC.
Brian2by2 said:
No, that would be just as dumb as voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Some of us can read, and are able to find out about the other candidates even though they are not invited to speak on the fair and balanced Fox News Network.
Eric5273 said:that would be just as dumb as voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Some of us can read, and are able to find out about the other candidates even though they are not invited to speak on the fair and balanced Fox News Network.
I take it you missed Nader's interview last week on Fox News?
Eric, i think its great that you're voting for Nader. I believe that if you asked anyone they would honestly answer that they're tired of the two partys and how screwed up our politics have become. I would almost vote for nader for that reason alone if it weren't that his view is completely opposite mine on almost every issue.
And I'm sure Fox News would love to interview Nader, because hes giving W. that extra edge to make sure he stays in office
And I'm sure Fox News would love to interview Nader, because hes giving W. that extra edge to make sure he stays in office
Sig said:
Yes, I must have missed that one. But I wasn't specifically referring to Nader. Here are a few others:
http://www.votecobb.org/
http://www.badnarik.org/
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/wwelect0603.php
http://www.peroutka2004.com/
paladin said:
What they need to do is what almost every European country does and what many states do in their state elections: We need to get away from the delegate system, and have fair elections where only a majority wins. If no candidate gets a majority, then there is a run-off between to two highest candidates.
If this kind of system is implemented, then people would not be affraid to vote 3rd party the first time around. They would know their vote is not "wasted" since they could vote for the major candidate the 2nd time in the run-off.
For example, someone could have voted for Nader in 2000, and then for Gore in the run-off. This year there are many people who will vote for Kerry even though they prefer Nader. If there was a system with a run-off, they would be able to vote their conscience.
But this will never happen. It's doubtful that the two major parties would ever implement a system which decreased their stranglehold on power.
- Joined
- 29 July 2004
- Messages
- 251
if all you bush lovers have grown up poor(on almost many gov't assitance programs) like me, you would understand why i will never vote republican. Republicans and Democrats are the same for the middle class but the republicans would rather help(give special privileges and cut taxes) and befriend the the rich in hopes that the freebies the rich are getting will "trickle down" to the lower classes. well has anything trickled down yet, NO, instaed the rich guys are "outsourcing" jobs to other countries to make themselves richer and america is now left lesser jobs. The Democrats want to tax the rich more and even more for those who wants to outsource jobs and also help the poor. I hate taxes like all americans but you(the $500,000+ anual salary people) shouldnt get tax breaks if you can afford to pay more taxes and even if you(corporations) get tax breaks you shouldnt outsource jobs. Bush should better stop befirending and helping these corporations and start kicking their asses(control what they are doing) for what they are doing. i wealthy now and this is all thanks to the Democrats , until the democrats stop helping the poor , i will always vote democrat or a party that would rather help the poor over the rich.
For elections i would go with a system like this:
each county(population at least 100,000) you win you get 1 pt.
each state you win you get 2 pt.
each 1,000 votes you recive you get 0.1pt
NOTE these numbers are just randomly chosen and if thoughtfully chosen would make the election system more fair.
For elections i would go with a system like this:
each county(population at least 100,000) you win you get 1 pt.
each state you win you get 2 pt.
each 1,000 votes you recive you get 0.1pt
NOTE these numbers are just randomly chosen and if thoughtfully chosen would make the election system more fair.
ADNOH said:
Wow, it is obvious that you have an extensive understanding of the political parties and what they believe. Perhaps you should write a dissertation for us
Back to reality, your descriptions of both parties are inaccurate.I like the way they talk about these "tax breaks" As if the upper tier people are somehow paying less a cut of their income.
When person A, who makes 200k a year is paying over 50% of his income, and person B, who makes significantly less pays around 30%. Bush and co. say "We're going to give a break to guy A, who is paying through the nose in taxes, and knock him down to say, 45%"
Why do people go insane and talk about giving the rich freebies?
The biggest problem i see is that the more people attempt to gut American corporations, the more are going to move to other contries and become an international business.
You probably think Robin Hood is a hero dont you?
When person A, who makes 200k a year is paying over 50% of his income, and person B, who makes significantly less pays around 30%. Bush and co. say "We're going to give a break to guy A, who is paying through the nose in taxes, and knock him down to say, 45%"
Why do people go insane and talk about giving the rich freebies?
The biggest problem i see is that the more people attempt to gut American corporations, the more are going to move to other contries and become an international business.
You probably think Robin Hood is a hero dont you?
paladin said:
Business is like water, it follows the path of least resistance. Nations (and States for that matter) with the most regulation, will have the biggest challenge growing their economy. It is no coincidence that the quasi-socialist govt's of France and Germany have been struggling to grow their GDP even fractionally. Further, why do you think so many California based companies have fled? On the flip-side, Nevada and Delaware are the meccas of new business registrations.
Effective oversight is necessary in business, however too much and the whole economy suffers.
They need to end the corporate welfare. In the last 3 years, twice as much money has been spent on corporate welfare as on social welfare. What the republicans want is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
As far as the outsourcing of jobs, that has nothing to do with taxes. They leave to go to other countries because they can pay a Mexican 10 cents per hour or use slave labor in Burma.
As I wrote above, they need to have clauses in these free trade agreements that make them only valid if the country in question has a proper minimum wage and labor laws (no child labor, safe work conditions, etc.) -- otherwise there should be taxes/tarrifs on all imported goods.
Since the United States is by far the largest market in the world, I don't think corporations would be running to other countries no matter how high the taxes were if they were charged tarrifs to sell their foreign produced goods here.
The problem is that the current government sets its policies by what will help the corporations, not what will help Americans -- and this goes for both Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party that ADNOH refers to is the one from 20-30 years ago. The Clinton years were when the largest cuts to social programs took place (i.e. "welfare reform"). We need a new government.
As far as the outsourcing of jobs, that has nothing to do with taxes. They leave to go to other countries because they can pay a Mexican 10 cents per hour or use slave labor in Burma.
As I wrote above, they need to have clauses in these free trade agreements that make them only valid if the country in question has a proper minimum wage and labor laws (no child labor, safe work conditions, etc.) -- otherwise there should be taxes/tarrifs on all imported goods.
Since the United States is by far the largest market in the world, I don't think corporations would be running to other countries no matter how high the taxes were if they were charged tarrifs to sell their foreign produced goods here.
The problem is that the current government sets its policies by what will help the corporations, not what will help Americans -- and this goes for both Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic party that ADNOH refers to is the one from 20-30 years ago. The Clinton years were when the largest cuts to social programs took place (i.e. "welfare reform"). We need a new government.
