In terms of loss of personal freedoms, I look at it this way:
Gore/Lieberman are against guns and "social irresposibility", with regards to the entertainment industry (which boils down to a 1st Amendment issue).
Bush/Cheney are against abortion.
The issue of abortion has made it all the way to the Supreme Court on several occasions and has barely squeaked by on pretty much every occasion. Thus, we are in much greater danger of losing that right than we are of losing the right to bear arms. I honestly don't think Gore would have a chance in hell of outlawing guns any time in the next 8 years, while I could see Bush managing to outlaw abortion.
Especially given the fact that there could be as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices retiring in the next 8 years. That means that the next administration could possibly stack a third of the Supreme Court. If Bush does that, and the abortion issue goes back to the Supreme Court again (which it undoubtedly would), then we take a big step back.
I feel more strongly about the preservation of the 1st Amendment than I do the preservation of the right to abortion. But again, I honestly don't feel that there's any way Gore/Lieberman could really accomplish anything against Hollywood...especially since everyone's been all over Gore's ass about that for the past 8 years, because of Tipper's involvement with the PMRC. You notice that she hasn't said word one about that since he took office?
The issue of personal freedoms aside, Bush is an absolute moron. Yasir Arafat has a better command of the English language than he does, and I'd bet you my liver that George didn't even know who Yasir Arafat was, 8 months ago. The last thing I want is this guy trotting all over the globe, representing our country. I wouldn't put it past him to use "subliminable" messages. Fucking illiterate cokehead.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that Putin has consciously decided to try to bring Russia back to its Cold War Era Glory (tm), and the last thing I want is one of Reagan's old hand-me-downs (Cheney) doing his part to help Putin's plan along.
Additionally, it took the largest recession in 60 years to prove it, but Reaganomics doesn't work. Apparently Bush/Cheney didn't get the memo. They want to upsize the military, increase military development spending, cut taxes for the upper class, etc, etc. It's Cold War/Trickle Down economics all over again. It's a fucking mess.
If Gore hadn't chosen Lieberman, I'd happily vote for him. Now, I'm somewhat begrudingly voting for him. He's still my first choice -- since we can't vote for Clinton again.
even if i thought bush was the biggest idiot, coke snorting, crack whore loving, anal sex with donkey having, bible quote spewing, back street boys music listening, ass zit popping moron that ever lived when it comes to the issues id still vote for him.
when the debates come along i think you may change your mind about how stupid you think he is. i mean, he isnt great, but he isnt as bad as people are saying.
ive known alot of people who have done coke, they are not idiots. some where but they became addicts, bush is not hooked on coke, he hasnt done it in like 20 years. i think that says something good about him, not to mention the fact that he was honest about his party days. know why gore doesnt bring it up? because he had his party days too.
Arguing about politics on the internet is like masturbation--a gratifying but fruitless exercise....
But yes, I am voting for Gore. For more than a few reasons.
First and foremost: George W. Bush is about the most-underprepared, under-qualified presidential candidate any of us here in the US have *ever* seen. He's demonstrated time-and-again during the past few weeks just how insecure, unfocused, and uneducated he is on virtually *all* matters of public policy. His elaborate shell-game with the proposed debates was a blatant attempt to not publicly humiliate himself, as he's destined to do this coming Tuesday.
Al Gore proposes making America a safer society. Travel abroad, ask anyone about their perception of America--you'll hear time-and-again: it's violent. The accessibility of guns is a threat to all American citizens. Are there problems with our existing gun laws? Of course. The fact that earlier this week two teens in New Orleans shot each other on a school playground should be all the proof you need. Access to guns needs to be legislated. Trigger locks should be mandatory.
What about access to birth control? Abortion? The *choice* here is obvious. The so-called abortion pill RU-486, available in Europe for nearly 12 years is finally availabe here in the States. Why? Republican legislators attempted to keep it locked-in litigation. Put a Republican in the White House--your *right* to an abortion will be virtually eclipsed. Particularly when retiring Supreme Court justices start being replaced.
Abortion aside, the Republicans are in bed with the Christian Right. Enough said. But Gore and Lieberman are *NOT* for censorship. Repeat after me, "They are *not* for censorship." They do, however, see that certain forms of mass communication and dissemination should not be accessible to children--including television, film, and our beloved internet. Besides encouraging (NOT legislating) entertainment industries to clean-up their act, they are also pushing the universal adoption of such devices as the v-chip, video game ratings, and on-line registration. If you're over 18, these will affect you in no way whatsoever.
You live overseas? Under George W. Bush's governorship, Texas now leads the nation in air and water pollution. Do we really want to put Cheney and Bush, two oil magnates, at the head of the country?
Bush talks about his compassionate conservatism.... Texas ranks 48th in spending for public health. 47th in delivery of social services; 48th in per-capita spending on public education; 5th in percentage of population living in poverty; 1st in percentage of working parents without insurance; 1st in percentage of children without health insurance (figures gleaned from the WASHINGTON POST, 8/26/00)
Wanna talk economics? Bush's tax plan is essentially a return to the trickle-down economy of the 1980s. Need I remind you that Reagan's tax plan resulted in the recessions of the early 90s?
For these, and a million other reasons, I'm voting for Al Gore.
quote:Originally posted by HELL: even if i thought bush was the biggest idiot [...] when it comes to the issues id still vote for him.
Which issues? I've only seen you mention something about tax breaks and executions. I'm all for executions, though I think the questions about the number of people denied appeals in Texas warrants more investigation. And as far as taxes, go...they're a necessity. I know the idea of keeping more of your paycheck sounds great and all, but the fact of the matter is that running a goverment requires money.
Oh, and it is only some people who deserve tax relief, based on the current system. The upper class is not taxed enough. People get taxed on income, not the value of their assets (commonly referred to as wealth, as opposed to income). You might consider reading a book called The Millionaire Next Door. There's a large section dedicated to developing strategies designed to leverage the current tax laws. Most of the wealthier segment of this country only paying taxes equal to a couple percent of their total wealth. They had a case study of a doctor earning $700k/a year, who, through various investment strategies, was only paying taxes equal to about 3% of his wealth.
Oh yeah, and Greenspan has said that if Bush is elected, he will have to raise interest rates immediately, to counter the inflationary effects of his proposed tax plan and social security restructuring.
[I apologize is this post is obsolete, now, but it took 2 fucking hours to compose it, with all of these coworkers who seem to think that they can just barge into my cube and talk about work.]
I am voting for Gore. This is the first time ever that I've gotten excited about a candidate. If's Bush is elected I just might have to move in with Rav or Pangloss. It was bad enough when his daddy was president. Nobody really wants junior running the country. As for guns, they should be illegal for everyone but the police and the army. How often do you hear about a burglery being foiled because the owner had a gun? Now, how often do you hear about a 10 year old shooting his brother’s brains out, obliterating an entire family? There’s no contest. The NRA always hide behind the constitution, but that was written when there America was fighting the English on Mondays, the French on Tuesdays, the Mexicans on Wednesdays, and American Indians every other day. What else in America lasts two hundred years? What here lasts 50? It is an antiquated law, written by elitist men in a completely different era. There were not crack junkies and serial killers running around every major city in the late 1700’s. It’s time for the NRA to get off its high horse and shoot the fucker. Guns are used for murders, hold ups and rapes way more often than they are used for protection.
What freedoms would I give up? Owning guns in not a freedom in my eyes, it is another form of social terrorism. Giving up the “freedom” of driving 200 miles per hour, or murdering my stupid landlord just because he cut down my beautiful old shade tree is not really a sacrifice if it protects people. An it harm none, do as ye will.
Last response you'll hear from me; debating politics on the internet is pointless.
All figures/stats in my post were from the same WASHINGTON POST article.
You ask about the "children," perhaps with a Rush Limbaugh-like cadence. Gun ownership, the "freedom" you reference, comes with responsibility. Too many gun owners have shirked their responsibilities by leaving their firearms within access of children, seeking to out-arm the authorities (assault weapons and the like), hiding illegal guns via gun shows. The federal government, charged with the protection of the people, needs to step-in.
You seemingly obfuscate the issue behind media/entertainment censorship. The point here is that Gore and Lieberman, supported by a number of Republican officials, including John McCain (who I think the world of) and Trent Lott are attempting to have popular culture mediums begin censoring themselves. For example--do kids at a G-rated film really need to see trailers for R-rated films?
Closer to home, I'm appalled by the graphic violence of some of the video games being played in my college's student union. But those students have every right to play those games if they wish. But I do think that those games should carry a rating system that dissuades minors from playing them.
Likewise the internet. Put what you like on the internet. But should a minor have unlimited access to pornography? Sorry, I don't believe so. And I'm not alone here.... Rather than banning all pornography, there should simply be ID checks, which many sites already carry. These should become the standard for the industry.
Last thing. You and I will disagree forever on the source of the current economic boon--a fiscally conservative Republican congress (you);Clinton's aggressive economic recovery package (me). But Governor Bush's plans to cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans is nothing more than the voodoo economics his father rightly predicted--Cassandra-like--back in the 1980 elections. "The voodoo came true." And the ironic thing is that George Bush was then the president left to mop-up.
To quote a Gore-ism, Bush's ecomomic package has been tried. "It'll blow a hole in the economy."
The current tax system is pretty darn fair, save for the wealthiest of wealthy families who are forking-over mere pittances.
Last, last thing.... Cal's message needs some clarification.
Preven, the so-called morning pill, is just that. It's to be taken within a day or two of unprotected sex. The physical side-effects are really awful.
Unlike Preven, RU-486, can be taken weeks after conception. Until this week, women choosing to terminate a pregnancy several weeks after conception had the sole choice of a surgical abortion. Not so anymore.
I'm off to our community's local Planned Parenthood office to pick up my SO later this afternoon. (She's a counselor.) She tells me the picketers outside are especially intense today. Oh joy!
[This message has been edited by Agoust (edited 09-29-2000).]
The Washington Post is famous for it's liberal point of view. It cannot be considered by any reasonable person to be an objective source of facts. In fact, referencing the Post puts as much weight behind your argument as saying you heard it from a talking cockroach.
I am a little confused about what was written earlier about a man who earned $700k/yr who only paid taxes equal to 3% of his wealth. Do you think that we should pay taxes as a percentage of our net worth?
If the man in your example was worth $100,000,000, he would have actually lost $2,300,000 over the course of that year. Should rich people be taxed at a rate that is higher than their income?
No, the WASHINGTON POST, alongside the NEW YORK TIMES, are the leading newspapers in the United States. They are the two most trusted and respected print media outlets. They are referred to as newspapers of record for the sole reason that they report the news unadulterated and save the editorializing--left and right--for the editorial page.
Hell references the POST"S "famous liberal point of view." No. This is "famous" only among those afraid of a newspaper that asks you to discern for yourself the spin behind a story. Which is why millions of "Ditto-heads" tune-in to Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis.
quote:Originally posted by HELL: I am a little confused about what was written earlier about a man who earned $700k/yr who only paid taxes equal to 3% of his wealth. Do you think that we should pay taxes as a percentage of our net worth?
If the man in your example was worth $100,000,000, he would have actually lost $2,300,000 over the course of that year. Should rich people be taxed at a rate that is higher than their income?
Oops. I think my fingers were moving faster than my brain. What I meant to say was that he was only taxed on 3% of his income. That means that only 3% of his earnings were subjected to income tax. The untaxed portion of said income went directly into assets that make up his wealth.
The point is that, if you have enough money, you can make use of a variety of different strategies that reduce your realized income, that is you can contribute to various forms of investments and whatnot on a pretax basis, thereby spending your money before it is taxed. The end result of which is that the wealthy pay a lower amount of taxes, as a percent of their income, than the lower tax brackets. I don't necessarily think that the wealthy should pay more, but they certainly shouldn't pay less.
And just for the record, I'm a devout capitalist. I'm taking it in the ass, as far as taxes go, because I have a relatively high income with no appreciable assets. I'm not some welfare case shouting that the rich should pay my way. But when I end up with my first million, I'll be perfectly happy to pay my share.
And I'm really not sure where you got your $2,300,000 figure, even using my incorrect formula.
The Washington Post and the New York Times are not at all considered to be unbiased.
A far superior source of facts is The Wall Street Journal. If you have the ability and inclination to form an opinion based on clean facts, that is the best source.
quote:Originally posted by splAt: I recognize you as an American citizen, commie.
I'm about as fascist a person as I've met. I'm anything but communist. I revel in capitalism and all of the pain and suffering that goes with it.
Did you read any of my posts in this thread? I can say, with confidence, that none of them contained anything the slightest bit communistic, in flavor.
On an unrelated note, I have a 6 year old cousin that lashes out with silly little insults any time you disagree with him. Maybe when he gets older we'll be able to have a real conversation in which we share and defend differing viewpoints.
quote:Originally posted by splAt: A far superior source of facts is The Wall Street Journal. If you have the ability and inclination to form an opinion based on clean facts, that is the best source.
Interesting you should mention that, because my bit about Greenspan raising interest rates if Bush is elected came from there. About 2 weeks ago they had an article reporting on some economic modelling that had been done, based on each of the candidates' budget proposals. Bush's resulted in considerably higher inflationary pressures, which translate into higher interest rates.
At Least I'm Not You
[This message has been edited by Cage (edited 09-29-2000).]
I came to that figure through very poor mathematics. The long and short of it is, if he were taxed at the rate of 3% of his net worth of $100,000,000 (a figure I pulled from nowhere just for my example), he would pay $3,000,000 in taxes. $3,000,000 - 700,000 = 2,300,000.
That was based on a typo and now invalid.
quote:Originally posted by Cage: Interesting you should mention that, because my bit about Greenspan raising interest rates if Bush is elected came from there. About 2 weeks ago they had an article reporting on some economic modelling that had been done, based on each of the candidates' budget proposals. Bush's resulted in considerably higher inflationary pressures, which translate into higher interest rates.
Well after the democreeps get their facts straight about the surplus, then he can go to work on that. Isnt it funny how that happened?
After reviewing your posts, I see these high points:
Rich people should be punished more by our tax laws.
It is ok to allow further infringement on our right to keep and bear arms in an effort to preserve the "right" to have an abortion.
We should maintain our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
You have a young relative.
The only things we seem to have in common, based on my limited knowledge of you, is that we both have young relatives.
You appear to be 100% democrat, to me, and a democrat is ch from being a communist.
My capacity for giving a fuck is tested. Politicians aren't trustworthy, American politics are largely bullshit. An honest person cannot get elected because most people are idiots who would rather be fed a steady stream of bullshit than be exposed to ugly truths (like that they wouldn't live long enough to reproduce if the government didn't have seatbelt laws and helmet laws and age limits and all the other shit they do to protect stupid people from themselves) and made to take responsibility for their own stupidity. Campaigning to get elected is so expensive that candidates usually have to sell favors to corporate interests, and this is unacceptable. I expect big business interests to keep the fuck out of my government. Politics are about keeping peace and running the country in the manner best for the most people possible, profit is not an issue. Anyone who gets into politics as a way to make a living should be summarily banned from all public office.
Again, perhaps it's my fault for being an uninformed, self-centered, apathetic slug, but the lines between the two major parties are blurring. They both suck, they'd both trade some freedoms for others rather than demanding them all and making people actually look out for themselves or get their stupid asses killed because the government didn't protect them from themselves.
Voting Libertarian is looking better and better. Since people are too stupid to make a anarchic society work, I just want a government that takes care of it's own business and keeps the peace in a fair, honest, uncorrupt manner and keeps it's nose out of MY business, by letting me do whatever I want as long as I don't fuck with anyone else. I'm all about minimizing government interference in peacable people's lives.
My take on the two main candidates?
Gore is a typical liberal weakling who'd rather trade all our freedom for a cozy little safety blanket, trade freedom of speech for bland, family-oriented political correctness (god forbid someone's delicate sensibilities be offended by art imitating life), and protect the ever-present stupid people from themselves, which is a slap in the face to natural selection.
Whereas, Bush would sell us all to corporate interests, let the gap between the poor and the wealthy continue to grow, not only legislate other people's reproductive tracts, but do it WRONG, by forcing lots of people to make lots of babies because they can't abort the little bastards, and otherwise run the country like an arrogant conservative bastard. (The only people I hate more than liberals are conservatives.)