IG-64 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 But that is a nonsequitor - you should vote your conscience, regardless if you know that your candidate has a snowball's chance in ... um, whatever. It is like voting for a Republican in Massachusetts. I still believe that the emergence of a strong 3rd party is the only hope for true change and progress in our country ... Mike I don't believe that were in a state of that much desperation. I mean if 50% of america is voting for Bush, and 50% for Kerry, then were in good hands either way, right? Or does that mean america is only half good? >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 I still believe that the emergence of a strong 3rd party is the only hope for true change and progress in our country ... Mike I think you have that right... On a side note, I wonder how many of the people voting here actually live in the US. The poll might be slanted towards Kerry simply because Bush is fairly unpopular with non-citizens (and some citizens too, I admit ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'm voting for bush. I doubt Kerry will make anything better in Iraq. it's not a complete mess over there, which the media would have you believe, and that thing that edwards said about 'the people see that mess over there in iraq on the tv' pfft...that's all they show on the ****ing tv is a mess, but when on tv do you see stuff that isn't a mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 ...I guess I have to go with the incoherent idiot ... he'll take away less of my money and fewer of my freedoms... Ah, I'm not attacking you, but I see that you've become a victim of the Greedy-publican mind trick. Do you really think that W's charge-and-spend policies are taking away less of your money, simply because he fronts you with a bunch of cash right now? It comes with a price, my friend. You realize our multi-billion dollar deficits, which are mostly to blame from excessive tax cuts, are financed with loans, right? You also realize that one of the largest components of government spending is paying interest on the loans needed to finance the national debt, right? In fact, 20 cents of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on the debt. So, if you don't like government waste, then you can thank W for an extra-large helping of waste. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t like paying taxes anymore than the next guy. But our government has to pay for the services it provides. I mean, seriously, tax-and-spend, or charge-and-spend? It’s no different than a credit card – which one do you think ends up costing all of us more? I vote for tax-and-spend every time. There’s only one thing I hate more than paying taxes, and that’s paying interest – it’s just totally wasted money. And consider this - if W had left taxes where they were, we'd only have about 6 more years left before all our debt would have been paid off, and then we could all enjoy a 20% tax cut. But that's an opportunity missed, thanks to W's short-sightedness. Besides, how do you think W would answer this question (how would you answer it): “Please describe a situation where you feel it would be the proper course of action for the government to raise taxes?” I think I know what W would say, “Never”, which is an irresponsible response. If he does not possess the cognition to recognize the appropriate circumstances to both lower and raise taxes, and then act accordingly, then, in my judgment, he does not have the competence to have graduated college, much less be president of the United States. And as far as taking away less of your freedoms, you do realize that he's actually proposing a constitutional amendment that would, for the first time ever in the history of our nation, take rights away from a group of people by preventing homosexuals to marry? Now, being gay is not my thing (not that there's anything wrong with that), but if you're truly interested in a government that takes away fewer freedoms, then it's hard for me to see how you can support W, when that's exactly what he's trying to do - in the Constitution of all places! I haven’t heard Kerry talk about taking away peoples’ rights – unless you consider everyone owning an assault rifle some sort of inalienable right required in order to attain life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Originally posted by txa1265 ...But that is a nonsequitor - you should vote your conscience, regardless if you know that your candidate has a snowball's chance in ... um, whatever... In any ideal voting system, such as where people could vote for more than one candidate, ranking them in order of preference, then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But with our current voting system - the two-party system, it is in every voter's best interest to vote for the major-party candidate that more closely matches their views. In the 2000 presidential election, too may people got swept away with their idealistic principles by voting for Ralph Nader, resulting in the election of a president who was about as hostile as one could be to many of those principled voters' views. So, is it everyone's right to vote their conscience? Sure. Is it in their best interest? It's definitely in the interest of the party that is more diametrically opposed to such voters' personal beliefs. But given our current voting / political system, I contend that so-called principled voters are better served by choosing the viable candidate that more closely supports their views, rather than hurting their cause by indirectly helping to elect a candidate that is more opposed to their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Ok, um, Mr. Vagabond, I clearly stated that this is not a Bush/Kerry discussion, and you seemed to have completely ignored this, and in doing so you have created a very extensive post that could spark many a flame war. So, could you just like, cut and paste that somewhere else, in the senate maybe? [EDIT] Sorry, your name is Vagabong, not Vegabond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Ok, um, Mr. Vegabond, I clearly stated that this is not a Bush/Kerry discussion, and you seemed to have completely ignored this, and in doing so you have created a very extensive post that could spark many a flame war. So, could you just like, cut and paste that somewhere else, in the senate maybe? I shall ask this, it's kind of hard to not debate about who you vote for even after you say not to be debated, is it not? Besides, the poll is very limiting as are the debates as it's just two candidates, so are choices are very limiting at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 First of all, IG-64, I'm confused about how you can misspell my name when it's spelled out for you. Secondly, I was politely, and thoughtfully responding to comments in the thread that supported one position. True, the purpose of this thread is to poll people on the election, which is a great topic. But after the vote, the overriding purpose of these forums is promote discussion. And it only seems natural to me that people will want to discuss this topic in this thread. So long as flaming does not occur (not to be confused with civilized debate), there's no harm in allowing discussion. But, yes, I will keep an eye on this thread, and if it appears that people have forgotten these forums' basic rules of conduct, then consideration will be given to moving any necessary content and / or discipilnary action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Treacherous Mercenary I shall ask this, it's kind of hard to not debate about who you vote for even after you say not to be debated, is it not? Besides, the poll is very limiting as are the debates as it's just two candidates, so are choices are very limiting at that. I simply wanted to gather some information about the percentage of pro-Kerry/pro-Bush swampies, as I have wondered this. If you are offended by the choices, then I am sorry, but I did not wish to gather that certain information. As you can see, I am trying to be as civilised about this as possible, and if all you want to do is complain about the choices given, or start arguments, then I suggest you leave the thread before you get it locked, and a bunch of people angry. [EDIT] In my past experiences, I have observed that discussions about Bush and Kerry usually end up in flaming and being moved to the senate. This is clearly not what I want, so I'm trying to avoid discussion all-together in the name of learning more about my fellow swampies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Seroiusly, IG-64, I don't see anyone appearing angry. Nor does discussion interfere with your gathering of data. As I just said, discussion will be allowed, unless there is some conduct violation. And at this point I would be more inclinded to consider disciplinary action over locking the thread or prohibiting discussion. Again, these are discussion forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 I am not inquiring that discussion is againt any rule, I am simply trying to avoid discussion as to prevent any flaming and locking and moving ect. As this is usually what happens. There has not yet been any hostile posts, but I can spot several points in your first post that could spark a flame war. For example the subject of homosexuality, there have been many an ugly argument over that subject alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Well, all I can say to any potential posters to this thread, is that if they can't post with maturity and civility, then I urge them not to respond. As a reminder: 1. Don't attack other members 2. Respectfully discuss the pros and cons of different viewpoints 3. Don't express hateful or obscene comments It's very, very simple. And the consequence of noncompliance is just as swift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Vagabond Secondly, I was politely, and thoughtfully responding to comments in the thread that supported one position. I had no problem with what you said, and I think that should be the 'litmus test' for replying ... I may disagree with some of what you said, but I thought you did so in a thoughful, polite and organized manner. Remember - there's more than one way to take your money Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR-0927 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Gah!! I completely hate Bush. I'm all for Kerry, yet I can't vote, I'm only 15... Vagabond, ET Warrior, and other Kerry supporters, I have one word for you: word. Nader would be the best, but he'd never win, and he is taking votes away from Bush. Kerry is definitely the best option. I mean, unless Nader had a chance of winning. I'm a 100% Hardcore Liberal Democrat. Did you know that conservatives were the people who were pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and anti-black rights? Basically, they were the racists. Liberals were good, fair people, anti-racists as well. Abe Lincoln was a Republican, meaning he was conservative, right? WRONG. Republicans before the 1900's were liberals, and Democrats back then were Southern conservatists, but they switched around in the early 1900's. JFK was a liberal as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Well, thanks, txa1265 I was hoping you'd bite the bait and we could have a little debate, but that's cool. Maybe we'll have more to talk about after the presidential debate this evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Majin Revan ...Vagabond, ET Warrior, and other Kerry supporters, I have one word for you: word... Thanks for the vote of confidence. Originally posted by Majin Revan ...Did you know that conservatives were the people who were pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and anti-black rights? Basically, they were the racists... To be fair, I don’t think it’s accurate to imply that all Republicans today are racist, anti-feminists. I think there may be some that could be – Tom Delay comes to mind – and there are probably some on the Democrat side, though I’m guessing to a lesser extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Majin Revan JFK was a liberal as well. JFK was more conservative than Bush, IMO - he supported an aggressive stance with regard to the enemy (USSR at the time) strong military, low taxes, respect for the country and a strong sense of personal accountability. Unfortunately, his party has become one where appeasement of enemies is the rule, where betterment of the needy is obtained by taking pulling down others instead of raising up those in need, where the way to fix the failed social experimentation is to throw more money at it, and the way to obtain that money is not to fix the tax code but to disproportionately tax away the 'american dream', which is being redefined as the right of foreigners to illegally enter the country and collect money and benefits without working or paying taxes or speaking the language. And Bush - in the guise of trying to be a 'compassionate conservative' - has simultaneously increased social program spending more than Clinton while also cutting taxes in an equitable fashion (i.e. closer to a *fair* tax code) for conservatives, which has ended up increasing the deficit considerably, which benefits nobody. It hasn't helped him that he inherited a terrible economic 'bubble burst' that started under Clinton, as he ends up looking like Dukakis in '88 ... And then there is the war, on which neither side looks very good ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 I guess I have to go with the incoherent idiot ... he'll take away less of my money and fewer of my freedoms, and is less likely to make Spanish the national language ... but there is a price ... Mike Now THAT'S friggin' funny stuff right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 ...And Bush - in the guise of trying to be a 'compassionate conservative' - has simultaneously increased social program spending more than Clinton while also cutting taxes in an equitable fashion (i.e. closer to a *fair* tax code) for conservatives... The thing I want to point out about the so-called more "fair tax code", is that yes, on the surface it may seem like it's more fair. After all, we should pay the same rate of taxes, right? Why should someone who's very wealthy be required to relinquish a larger share of their income to the government, than someone who's not as well off? The answer is because those few percentage points of tax cut are not going to change the standard of living for someone earning millions every year. Heck, it's not going to really change the standard of living for those making over $200K. Therefore, those who have been blessed with good fortune should be required to help out more. This should not be confused with taxing the wealthy to the point where their standard of living is significantly impacted - after all, being wealthy needs to continue to be a benefit and goal for everyone. But maybe this example will help bring the point home is this: To someone making $20,000 per year, $20 is a lot of money. To someone making $200,000 per year, $20 is nothing. Those less fortunate should be taxed less, while those more fortunate should be taxed more. I think the graduated taxing method, while far too complicated with exception upon exception, is still the correct and most fair model. I'd love to see it vastly simplified though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR-0927 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 JFK was for black rights and equality though. At that time, conservatives weren't. The world gets more liberal as time passes by. Bush is too hidebound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Yes, W does strike me as being excessively stubborn. I imagine a fictional summer vacation with the Bush family, where he was supposed to take that left at Albuquerque, but went right instead. When Laura points it out to him, he goes, "I've made up my mind, and we're going this way, even though you've pointed out irrefutably that I'm wrong. So, we'll just drive the 28,000 miles it takes us to go around the globe to get to where we're going. But at least you know where I stand and that I don't flip-flop" (codeword for changing mind, which is somehow a bad thing??? because learning = bad???). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Vagabond Yes, W does strike me as being excessively stubborn. Nice analogy, BTW Bush *is* excessively stubborn, but by contrast to Clinton and Kerry are extremely flexible to the point of appearing unpricipaled(not so much Gore, he was actually pretty steadfast until he went psycho four years ago ... to think I liked him a lot back in '88). Take Clinton (please! ) - it is well documented that while he could have done many things about Iraq and Al Queda and other terrorist things, he couldn't change his underwear without a poll, and the polls showed that people weren't so worried about those things so he didn't do it. He didn't do things that were unpopular intentionally, and when things he did were unpopular, he changed course. Kerry has attempted to appease all sides - appearing socialist for the NAACP and their ilk, and more moderate for so-called soccer-moms. This is why I wanted more choices - I like someone who is now wishy-washy but who is determined and steadfast ... but not boneheaded about it. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by Vagabond The answer is because those few percentage points of tax cut are not going to change the standard of living for someone earning millions every year. There I fundamentally disagree. I believe in the basic constitutional principles of 'equal protection under the law' and that 'separate but equal is not equal'. Therefore I believe that a graduated tax system is inherently anti-constitutional. Originally posted by Vagabond Therefore, those who have been blessed with good fortune should be required to help out more. But they already do - the richer people in our society contribute tremendous amounts *voluntarily* to help those less fortunate. I think that the government is the worst and least efficient - and least caring - charity. Originally posted by Vagabond But maybe this example will help bring the point home is this: To someone making $20,000 per year, $20 is a lot of money. To someone making $200,000 per year, $20 is nothing. Perhaps - but under the current code, the $20k person would get a check for ~$2500, whereas the $200k person would be paying >$20k to the federal, ~$10k to the state, ~$14k to FICA, and so on ... so there's the comparison - getting paid $2500 versus paying ~$45000. *THAT* is fair and equitable?!?! Originally posted by Vagabond Those less fortunate should be taxed less, while those more fortunate should be taxed more. Which is *exactly* what would happen under a 'flat' tax system with basically no exemptions. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 Nice analogy, BTW Bush *is* excessively stubborn, but by contrast to Clinton and Kerry are extremely flexible to the point of appearing unpricipaled(not so much Gore, he was actually pretty steadfast until he went psycho four years ago ... to think I liked him a lot back in '88). Take Clinton (please! ) - it is well documented that while he could have done many things about Iraq and Al Queda and other terrorist things, he couldn't change his underwear without a poll, and the polls showed that people weren't so worried about those things so he didn't do it. He didn't do things that were unpopular intentionally, and when things he did were unpopular, he changed course. Kerry has attempted to appease all sides - appearing socialist for the NAACP and their ilk, and more moderate for so-called soccer-moms... Thanks Regarding Kerry's (and Clinton's) flexibility, I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you saying that Kerry doesn't have an opinion of his own on certain subjects? If so, I'm not sure I agree with you, as he has shown distinct differences between him and W. But I can see where you might think that. For example, I was against this war in Iraq before the first U.S. soldier ever touched foot on Iraqi soil, because of they way W rushed into things and his lack of diplomacy. So, especially in light of recent revelations regarding the lack of WMD, when Kerry was asked knowing what he knows now, would he authorize the president to go to war again, I just about screamed when he said "Yes". And then later he changed his tune on that, which really bugged me, not that he changed his tune, but that he seemed to change his tune as a result of the outcry that he didn't change his tune the first time - if that makes sense (but who's on first?). So, I do see how you might form that opinion. Of course, this could easily lead into a whole different side-debate about whether the president should do whatever he wants while he's in office for the benefit of his party's platform, or whether he should be considered a representative of the entire nation, and actually try to match most of his policies to the wishes of the overall population Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 ...There I fundamentally disagree. I believe in the basic constitutional principles of 'equal protection under the law' and that 'separate but equal is not equal'. Therefore I believe that a graduated tax system is inherently anti-constitutional... I understand, but the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to agree with you. Originally posted by txa1265 ... the richer people in our society contribute tremendous amounts *voluntarily* to help those less fortunate. I think that the government is the worst and least efficient - and least caring - charity... I think you hit the nail on the head – you’re talking about charity, while I am not. Those more fortunate should pay a much larger portion of all federal taxes, which is then distributed to pay for all federal services, among them the national defense, interest on the debt, social security, and the welfare system, etc. Furthermore, I prefer a secular entity be the distribution point for aid to the less fortunate. Originally posted by txa1265 ...the $20k person would get a check for ~$2500, whereas the $200k person would be paying >$20k to the federal, ~$10k to the state, ~$14k to FICA, and so on ... so there's the comparison - getting paid $2500 versus paying ~$45000. *THAT* is fair and equitable?!?!... I believe this is fair. What is left unsaid is that the wealthy family still has $155K to live very comfortably, while the unwealthy family has $22.5K with which to live. I know which family I would rather be. Originally posted by txa1265 Me: Those less fortunate should be taxed less, while those more fortunate should be taxed more. You: Which is *exactly* what would happen under a 'flat' tax system with basically no exemptions. The measure you’re referring to is only the numerical amount of dollars, rather than the relative burden imposed on the families. The tax on a family earning $50K, while it generates numerically far fewer dollars than the tax on a family earning $200K, the burden is greater in comparison. It’s greater still if one compares the relative burden of a family earning $50K to a family earning $2 million. Again, I’m not saying that the wealthy should be taxed such that everyone’s standard of living is neutralized. But I’m saying that the relative burden should feel about the same. I know that’s subjective, but it best conveys the concept I’m trying to communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediJohn Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 im in england but i prefer kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.