Been reading a lot of *HATE* lately...

[Hitman56]

1) Getting a job for myself (neither)

2) Getting a job for myself (neither)

3) Getting a job for myself (neither)

4) Getting a job for myself (neither)

[chomerics]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

PS,

I also read the link you provided on Kerry's "Plan" for national security.

It's just as I said... All talk about reforming alliances, yet no path to get there.

again, I ask, what if those countries say "No" to Kerry the same way they did to President Bush?

It is a good question, but we do hold a LOT of power in the world. I know this, with Kerry, we at least have a chance to repair some broken alliances, with Bush, we do not. In fact, if we continue down the same path of isolation, it may cause other countries to realize that they can indeed survive and even thrive without us. Then in 4 more years we're in worse shape in the worlds eyes than we are now.

There is literally no definable difference in approach between the two. Bush did in fact ask the UN for action. He was declined for the obvious reason of France, Germany and Russia not wanting to be busted in their back door ties to Sadaam.

Sorry but the DNC talking points you provided still have no substance beyond talk.

The Bush doctrine is about might of right. "You're either with us or with the terrorists". Remember that? We did not TRY for a UN vote, we displayed NO semblance of politics. We simply stated this is the way it will be, if you don't like it tough. He did the opposite of what his father did.

Bush ALWAYS fails to comprimise on any matter. Just look at his platform, he has not moved one inch on any matter. He alone is the reason for the polarization of America post Iraq. He is a DIVIDER, not a UNITER as he once claimed. Remember the compassionate conservative? Where has that gone?

I want a leader who will listen to all sides of a matter and make up his mind informed on the issues, not a president who knows his position before all the information is in and uses only bits and pieces of information to prove his beliefs.

As for this "myth"

He was declined for the obvious reason of France, Germany and Russia not wanting to be busted in their back door ties to Sadaam.

Yea, the good old weapons for food, it was all about money with those three. Well, if it was all about money, which would benifit the people more, being shut out of Iraq entirely, or jumping on board with us and getting part of the $200Billion dollar rebuilding program? It wasn't about money, no matter how much Rush, Hannity and Fox tell you it was, for if it was just about money, they'd have jumped on board with us and made more.

Funny how it's only about money for other countries and it's about the terrorists for us huh? Does anybody find it ironic that the other countries were right and now they're money greedy liars and we are liberators?

[Predicto]

1. Civil rights and liberties - favor Kerry. Ashcroft has been a disaster. I also can't help getting the feeling that this administration simply lies a lot, even when it doesn't need to.

2. Security abroad. Kerry. Bush's aggressive and heavy-handed neo-conservative policies are breeding an entire generation of future terrorists. The Afganistan invasion was an appropriate use of force, and the world supported us. Using that as an excuse to jump Iraq next was a sham. We have blown 60 years of good will aroud the world in just two years.

3. Economy - Even. I think Bush's tax cuts were stupid even though they benefited me personally. However, the economy does appear to be improving these days, and credit must be given even I doubt that the tax cuts had anything to do with it.

4. Fiscal responsibility - Kerry. Taxing less and spending more is bad. Placing additional burdens on our grandchildren is bad. This administration has been very fiscally irresponsible.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Matt Kyriacou

:1stplace:

Post of the day chiefhogskin48 .

I second that.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by chomerics

The three that I have heard of have all involved drugs. In the patriot act, chemicals which can cause harm or death are counted as a chemical weapons.

A NC man was arrested under the patriot act for supposedly having a meth lab. The difference in penalty is 12 years mandatory for possesion of chemicals which can cause death or harm, compared with the traditional 6 months.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540572/

A Nevada strip club owner was arreated for laundering money to county commissioners who in turned passed favorable laws for him.

From various sources on the internal investegation.

I also find it extremely ironic that Rush Limbaugh, a Patriot Act yahoo, is fighting the law tooth and nail to keep his medical records sealed because of his drug addiction.

I definitely respect your take on this one.

I guess my issue is that those situations the Patriot act was used, still involved individuals who broke the law. Personally, I don't see this as abuse at all. I don't think 12 years is outrageous for having a meth lab.

there is potential for abuse, but I think the powers that monitor these issues would be able to differentiate when an abuse really happens and when the law is used to catch a real criminal.

Jury is still out, but until abuse happens I don't see a rights violation issue.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

I definitely respect your take on this one.

I guess my issue is that those situations the Patriot act was used, still involved individuals who broke the law. Personally, I don't see this as abuse at all. I don't think 12 years is outrageous for having a meth lab.

there is potential for abuse, but I think the powers that monitor these issues would be able to differentiate when an abuse really happens and when the law is used to catch a real criminal.

Jury is still out, but until abuse happens I don't see a rights violation issue.

Personally, I think the Patriot Act has a lot of great things, but it gives the government a lot of power over its citizens. It is the ability for the Patriot Act to be used as a tool by law enforcement when terrorism isn't involved that scares me. We are already starting to see "abuses" of the act, although they were all aledged illegal activities, it doesn't make it right. When the Patriot Act is used against a strip club owner for playing politics, it's going to far.

I also understand your point when there are criminals involved in a crime, they shouldn't complain if they were caught doing something illegal. Personally, I think this gives us too much power and it's a slippery slope which is easy to fall off when some "minor" instances of abuse are found, espically in the partisain world of today.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by chomerics

Personally, I think the Patriot Act has a lot of great things, but it gives the government a lot of power over its citizens. It is the ability for the Patriot Act to be used as a tool by law enforcement when terrorism isn't involved that scares me. We are already starting to see "abuses" of the act, although they were all aledged illegal activities, it doesn't make it right. When the Patriot Act is used against a strip club owner for playing politics, it's going to far.

I also understand your point when there are criminals involved in a crime, they shouldn't complain if they were caught doing something illegal. Personally, I think this gives us too much power and it's a slippery slope which is easy to fall off when some "minor" instances of abuse are found, espically in the partisain world of today.

Hey Cho,

Thanks for the engaging commentary! I think we both see it closely, except for the end result part.

Good posts overall though!

[J Thomas]

While I think it's obvious that Bush is by far the lesser of two evils considering Kerry is nothing but an opportunist hippie (i.e. his work trashing our military in the early 70's), I don't plan on voting for either of these two men and I suggest that you do the same. I am personally tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Is there going to be much difference between a Bush presidency and a Kerry Presidency? Other than foreign policy, no. The two parties like to cast themselves as polar opposites, when in reality, both try to hedge as close to the center without losing their constituency on the left and the right. What the hell kind of choice is that?

What this country really needs is term limits for all elected officials. It would allow for the serious work to get done by people who are truly interested in fixing our woes, without becoming permanent fixtures on both the state and federal government that are pawns of special interest. What difference does term limits for the President make when some bumpkin can stay in the House or Senate for 20 years? If you can't get it done in under a decade, let someone else have a stab at it.

Secondly, all elections need to have the choice of "none of the above." I want to vote so my voice can be heard, but if I am simply holding my nose and choosing the less offensive candidate, I might as well be home watching the Simpsons! What better way to let the power brokers know that we care but don't care for them?

Ahh, it's nice to rant and know someone got mad.

__________________________________________

"I think she did too much coke."

"Oh, do you think so doctor?"

Boogie Nights, 1997

[chomerics]

Originally posted by chiefhogskin48

If this is true, great. I would love to see it happen. After all, my main issue with the Democrats is their regressive economic/tax policy. But with all of his social programs, how will he decrease the size of the federal government, or even keep in within manageable levels? He could cut military spending, but I could not support that. He could cut social spending, but that will never happen. I think the most likely way of funding his programs will be to raise taxes. And that's just like telling us that we don't know the best way to spend our money, so our federal government will spend it for us.

But we'll see. If he can manage a Clinton/Gingrichesque balanced budget and spending halt, he will go a long way towards securing my vote and my support. If he does what Clinton tried to do in his first two years in office-- proposing universal healthcare and a vast expansion of the federal government-- then he will be a disaster on the scale of Carter or LBJ in the eyes of most Americans.

Hopefully he has the good sense to appeal to the middle. Economic conservatism and social libertarianism would be a weclcome recipe.

I agree with your last paragraph and I think he will stay in the middle. It's starting to be more in line with his campaign.

Personally, I think he will provide the spending halt we need, if nothing more than a Republican controlled Congress won't let social expansion of government take place. It's hard to pass a social bill without Congress on your side. I think the Repubs will revert back to their balanced budget and fiscal frugality ways if for nothing else than to oppose Kerry.

I think the cuts will be across the board, we ALL know there's WAY too much pork barrel spending going on. It's real easy to save money, and to get the budget balanced, we're talking about a 2-4% spending reduction, it's actually easy. I think Kerry will be strong on the military, but he will probably get rid of overbloated programs, ie missle defense. He's focus on technology and troop improvement rather than the big spending bonus' for Lockheed and Boeing as under Bush.

I could be wrong on all of it, but I don't think so. The one thing I do know is that we were better off 4 years ago than we are today. Is it Bush's fault? No, but I don't thing the majority of Americans care if it was or not, only that we are not going into the right direction.

[ross3909]

War on Terror - Easily Bush. Kerry would only act against other nations with the worlds support. The only reason that he would do otherwise is if we were successfully attacked. IMO that is too late when you are talking about the new threats that we live with in a post 9/11 world. I still dont think the Dems get that the world changed that day. By the way, France Germany and Russia were in bed with Saddam and were going to loose billions in lucritive illegal contracts if he was removed.

Education - Wash. I think with more funding for Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act it could be somewhat successful. With another term, we would find out. Kerry is going to divert more money into the bureaucracy of Educational programs but who knows if that will ever trickle down to actually helping our kids. We have thrown alot of money at this problem before and most of it never leaves Washington DC.

Immigration - Kerry. I dont like Bush's stand of letting everyone in and making them legal citizens.

Tax Cuts -Another easy one, Bush. Kerry is like most on the liberal side of things, they believe in the Robin Hood theory of economics. However, income redistrubution is not what our system of Capitolism is founded on and if you try to modify it, watch out.

Health Care -Bush. There is no such thing as free health care. Some one will have to pay, either in deteriorating service or giving up 60-70% of your paycheck before you even see it.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by ross3909

War on Terror - Easily Bush. Kerry would only act against other nations with the worlds support. The only reason that he would do otherwise is if we were successfully attacked. IMO that is too late when you are talking about the new threats that we live with in a post 9/11 world. I still dont think the Dems get that the world changed that day. By the way, France Germany and Russia were in bed with Saddam and were going to loose billions in lucritive illegal contracts if he was removed.

How many "Billions" are you talking about? If they were going to loose "Billions" don't you think they'd have jumped on board with us to get some of the $200+ Billion in rebuilding money? That wouldn't make sense would it? I posted earlier, for Russia, Germany and France it was all about money, but for us it was all about liberation. Doesn't make sense does it.

As for Bush's war on terror, tell me why we've had over 100K MORE troops in Iraq fighting Saddam than we EVER had in Afghanistan fighting Al-Qaeda.

Education - Wash. I think with more funding for Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act it could be somewhat successful. With another term, we would find out. Kerry is going to divert more money into the bureaucracy of Educational programs but who knows if that will ever trickle down to actually helping our kids. We have thrown alot of money at this problem before and most of it never leaves Washington DC.

Bush's bloated programs that don't work are "good" yet Kerry's ideas are creating more bureauracy? Question for you, how much has Bush cut out of the Department of Educations budget since 01'?

Immigration - Kerry. I dont like Bush's stand of letting everyone in and making them legal citizens.

Bush doesn't want to make them citizens, just allow them to work for cheap labor.

Tax Cuts -Another easy one, Bush. Kerry is like most on the liberal side of things, they believe in the Robin Hood theory of economics. However, income redistrubution is not what our system of Capitolism is founded on and if you try to modify it, watch out.

So the current round of tax cuts which is nothing more than income redistribution in an upward trend is O.K. with you?

Health Care -Bush. There is no such thing as free health care. Some one will have to pay, either in deteriorating service or giving up 60-70% of your paycheck before you even see it.

???

[chiefhogskin48]

Originally posted by chomerics

So the current round of tax cuts which is nothing more than income redistribution in an upward trend is O.K. with you?

Sorry Chomerics, I can't let you get away with this one. It's absolutely, positively, 100% inaccurate and deceptive. The graduated tax system IS, quite somply, income redistribution from the rich to the poor. Efforts to cut taxes for the middle and upper tax brackets are simply making it less redestributive. To make it "redistributive in an upward trend" would require a situation where the poor pay, for example, 30% and the rich pay 20%. That would be literally "regressive", so to speak, and thus unfair. Progressive taxes likewise are technically unfair in an objective sense. But, what we as a nation have decided is that "progressive" taxation is socially desirable.

Theoretically (notice I said theoretically), only a system in which everyone pays the same exact marginal tax rate is fair. Therefore, no discrimination based on income.

After saying all of this, I would say it would be impossible, nor would it be desirable, to institute a flat tax system. The graduated tax system has become ingrained in US society, and it at least slows down potential class warfare stemming from the growing gap between rich and poor. (In the case of a gap, it doesn't seem to matter that our "poor" live better than 99% of humans on earth, because it's easy to perceive a gap if you can only afford a Civic while the guy from the 'burbs drives a Mercedes.)

[BG]

1. Domestic Education as well as a push for a global effort at educating the world's youth - neither

2. The War on Terror and an effort to put America back into a position which she is feared and revered- Bush's cabinet and Bush to an extent

3. Trying to ease the burden of taxes on the middle class so I can buy some stuff and save some $ here and there. Making it possible to start a family without going into the hole immediately.

- Bush

4. Develop a clear comprehensive, step-by-step startegy to make our environment safer by using the knowledge that we have gained so far. Give breaks to those that make a serious effort and follow the step-by-step plan. Give larger companies breaks for paving the way in making a serious effort at cleaning up and protecting the environment.

- neither

[88Comrade2000]

So there's a lot of hate. The Clinton-Bush eras will go down as the era of hate. As much as their hatred towards Bush today in the U.S.; there was and still is as much hatred towards Clinton.

Two polarizing figures.

AS to your question:

Style of Governing: Bush seems to let his underlings to most of the work; Kerry seems to want to be involved in everything. Now niether approach maybe the best; Bush really seems like his father. Only interested in a few simple things and not details.

TAXES: Most of Bush's taxes really hasn't benefited the middle glass. Despite what Kerry says now, he intends to raised everyones taxes.

DRAFT: Neither one is telling you that the draft will be reinstated in the future. So it's a wash there.

WAR ON TERROR: Bush's arrogance and lack of understanding about the world won't help things. Kerry seems to think it's a law enforcement problem only. Kerry also thinks the world will really help us, if he's president; though in reality the world probably is secretly jumping with joy. I'd say a wash.

Nothing changes my opinion of either of them.

Bush will continue to be a puppet president if reelected. Kerry will be nothing more than the usual big spending democrat. The country will not be any better if either gets elected.

There's still hope. The democrats and republicans can nomimate someone else.