That's the point ROCKETBOOSTER, no one knows if it's true or not. What you're labeling as facts are merely accusations. I've heard all of these other accusations about Clinton that have ended up being untrue, but everyone will believe everything they may hear. But we don't know yet. I'm sure no group with questionable motives or actions has never donated money to a Republican candidate. Jeez, you have two of the biggest Republican donators, Christian Coalition and NRA, one calling voters saying McCain is a bigot, the other stating that President Clinton accepts, even wants murders to happen just so it can serve a political purpose. I also bet that some controversial government somewhere in the world has donated money to the Republican party, and it wouldn't surprise me if China has too (and the way Bush is spending his money, he may be actively pursuing them ). So don't come in here spouting off rumors that you call facts about Clinton and Democrats are out to help China by giving them secrets. So starting up a post calling Clinton China's b****, blah, blah, blah...and then call me completely bogus for putting you in a group. Sorry, if that language threw me off in believing that you could be labeled into a certain group. I really dislike Gov. Bush, but if he wins, I will never call him big business' b****...that's just disrespectful to the President of the United States. I may move to Canada yes, but never will I call him a b****. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so!
I really couldn't care less about Monica Lewinsky, Buddhist Monks, or George W.'s frat parties. They are meaningless when it comes to how someone is going to run this country. I stop watching the local and major broadcast news programs during campaigns because they do not focus on the issues. Sure they might give the candidates 10 seconds or so for a sound bite on how wrong they think so and so is in extremely vague terms. But once Bradley dropped out of the race I have not heard EITHER candidate say anything that remotely resembles a hard stance on an issue. So far I have heard that they both favor campaign finance reform. But that is it, no details are mentioned because Peter Jennings couldn't possibly fit each persons plan (if they had one) into a 15 second sound bite. We as a voting public have been reduced in primary season to an audience at a horse race and in the general election to less substance than your average high school presidential election. The sad fact is I wish I was kidding. Therefore, in order to make this more clear, my next post will include how BUSH and GORE stand on major issues in this campaign. Granted, this will be from their campaigns, not neccesarily their voting records, their party, etc. More to come. ------------------ The truth is out there.
GOSH this thread is getting nasty like when you put a couple of EGGS in a pan and forget to turn the stove fire on and leave it for a couple weeks, Believe the DUKE you donot want to do that!!!! What a mess!!!!?! DUKE was pretty mad at the housekeper, she shouldhave cleaned it UP!!!!! When DUKE yelled at her, she just says "Cierre para arriba, bastardo feo. Bese mi tope!" Well whatveer. POLITICS!!!! DUKE was thinking of running for the Predisent, but it turns out I could not orange it. Stupid politicks!! I will not vote for BUSH. I met him once and he looked at DUKE funny when I said "I am a big fan perhaps you have heard of me, DUKE OF TRUTH!!!!" Then his bodyguards, well, they got a little rough with me. I will not vote for GORE, he really did not took it well when I got to meat him and ask questions like "Do you ever worry about being assinated?" and "How do you know that none of the peoples here have a gun" and thing like that. He got all mad! And then his bodygards, well, they were not nice to the DUKE. When you get right down to it, neither of these cannidates impressed the DUKE!! SO I will not vote for neither of them!!! DUKE DUKE DUKE DUKE OF NO VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE!!!! ------------------ WHAAAAAAAAAASSSSUPPPPP!?? DUKE OF TRUTH IS UP UP UP!!!And away
Voting is for suckers. It's only there to make people think democracy and capitalism are one in the same. The only way to change things in our society is to buy change. Did I just type that? No way......Wait....something took control of my hands.....I.....can't.....seem.....to......stop....them.....NOOOOOOOOOO!!!......don't click the "Submit Reply" button.... ------------------ For players who have played in at least 70% of the Rocket's games this year, Mobley scores more points per attempt than any other Rocket. He also jockeys back and forth between second and third place in steals on a per minute basis, and is just slightly out of first place. If he sucks so bad in shot selection and defense that he doesn't deserve a decent payday, the rest of the team needs to be CUT!
<HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 73.1"> <TITLE>The following is a list of issues and the stance each candidate, Bush and Gore, has taken on these issues</TITLE> <META NAME="Template" CONTENT="Troy's Brain:Applications:Microsoft Office 98:Templates:Web Pages:Blank Web Page"> </HEAD> <BODY LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080"> <FONT SIZE=4> The following is a list of issues and the stance each candidate, Bush and Gore, has taken on these issues. The following information is just that, information, no bias is intended and should not be construed. In other words, these are the facts put forth by the candidates themselves. They are not MY opinions so dont blame me if you dont agree with them.</P> </FONT> Abortion is a womens right</P> Bush opposes. Oppose means you believe: The fetus is a human being who has rights independent of its mother's rights. You are "pro-life." While abortion under certain circumstances might be tolerated, the basic rights belong to the fetus, not the mother.</P> Gore strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: Abortion is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. You believe in the `Right to Choose' and are strongly pro-choice. The right to abortion empowers women and is an important part of women's health rights and women's reproductive freedom.</P> </P> Sexual orientation protected by Civil Rights Law</P> Bush opposes. Oppose means you believe: Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and therefore those who choose it should live by the consequences of their choice. Marriage between a man and a woman is the central institution of American society - we shouldn't do anything that perverts that concept or threatens that ideal.</P> Gore strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: Neither governments nor corporations have any right to decide about sexual preferences. Give same-sex partners the same status as heterosexual partners, and give same-sex marriages the same status as traditional marriage.</P> Organized prayer in public schools</P> Bush supports. Support means you believe: We need to teach values in our schools. The more our children are exposed to prayer, the Ten Commandments, and other traditional values, the better off they are.</P> Gore strongly opposes. Strongly Oppose means you believe: Separation of church and state precludes allowing school prayer. It also precludes other aspects of religion in schools, such as posting the Ten Commandments in public places. We should not violate the Constitutional principle in this case.</P> Death penalty</P> Bush strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. The death penalty is appropriate punishment for murder, as a form of justice regardless of the deterrence effect.</P> Gore supports. Support means you believe: The death penalty and other strict forms of law enforcement will reduce the crime rate by removing criminals from the streets and by deterring others from criminal acts. Capital punishment laws should be enforced, although perhaps adjusted to ensure a fair process and to avoid mistakes.</P> Absolute right to gun ownership.</P> Bush strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: The right to bear arms is a basic Constitutional right and expresses the democratic principle of self-defense against tyrannical government. Leave gun rights as they are.</P> Gore strongly opposes. Strongly Oppose means you believe: More guns mean more killing. Limit availability of guns by whatever means are effective. The 2nd amendment does not mean an unlimited right to any and all firearms.</P> More federal funding for health coverage</P> Bush supports. Support means you believe: The government should provide coverage or subsidize health insurance for at-risk groups such as children and the elderly. Society benefits when more people are covered.</P> Gore strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: Too few Americans have adequate health insurance. The government should make funds available for more complete coverage, or should expand existing government-run coverage to all citizens.</P> Privatize social security</P> Bush supports. Support means you believe: The Trust Fund might be invested in the stock market or via some other private investment vehicle. Individuals should be given at least some control over how their retirement funds are invested.</P> Gore opposes. Oppose means you believe: Social Security should remain under federal control, but you want reforms on how the Trust Fund is handled. In particular, the `Lockbox Bill' is a good first reform, since it keeps the system secure while avoiding privatization.</P> Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers </P> Bush strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: The government should not be in the business of running schools. State-funded vouchers should pay for privately-run education at private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, home-schooling, or whatever schools parents choose.</P> Gore strongly opposes. Strongly Oppose means you believe: Improve public schools rather than destroying them with vouchers. More teachers, smaller classes, more funding - then parents will choose public schools. </P> Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it </P> Bush strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: The Drug War is winnable if we invest enough resources. We should do whatever we have to do: More police, more border patrols, more intervention abroad, more prison terms, more prisons.</P> Gore opposes. Oppose means you believe: We should have regulated decriminalization. Medical mar1juana might be legalized, for example, as might clean hypodermic needles. Our drug policy should be reformed, with less criminal penalties and more drug abuse clinics.</P> Make Income Tax Flatter & Lower </P> Bush strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: Ideally, the income tax and the IRS should be abolished. Perhaps a national sales tax is a good replacement. Lower and flatter taxes are a good first step.</P> Gore opposes. Oppose means you believe: Flatter taxes benefit the wealthy more than the lower and middle class. We should focus tax relief on the majority of taxpayers instead of on the richest few percent, while preserving important deductions like mortgage interest and charitable donations.</P> Reduce spending on strategic defense initiative (Reagans "Star Wars" program)</P> Bush strongly opposes. Strongly Oppose means you believe: SDI protects people and developing it is the real purpose of 'Defense' spending. Spend resources immediately to develop it fully. </P> Gore supports. Support means you believe: SDI is too aggressive and too destabilizing. We should focus scientific research on things other than particle beams. Postpone any decision on deployment.</P> More spending on armed forces personnel</P> Bush strongly supports. Strongly Support means you believe: We have an obligation as the leaders of the world to maintain a strong military. And we have an obligation to our service personnel to pay them adequately.</P> Gore supports. Support means you believe: We should consider carefully before making more cuts for example, base closings have hurt local economies, and reducing military personnel has put pressure on employment.</P> <FONT SIZE=4> For more information about these issues, to see which candidate you agree with the most by taking a short test, and to hear quotes from the candidates on these issues, visit <A HREF="http://www.govote.com</P>" TARGET=_blank>www.govote.com</P></A> </FONT> </P></BODY> </HTML> [This message has been edited by Mulder (edited March 21, 2000).]
Pole, I believe you have set the world's record for longest signature line in the world! I also wholeheartedly agree with your post. Unfortunately, if Bradley or McCain would have made it to the White House, no changes would have been made, just the fact that they weren't Gore and Bush made the rest of us believe that they really were going to changes things, even though in all actuality, they probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. There's a reason why no Washington Republican likes McCain. (That was not a jab in any way at Republicans) ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited March 21, 2000).]
"If Bradley or McCain would have made it to the White House, no changes would have been made, just the fact that they weren't Gore and Bush made the rest of us believe that they really were about reform, even though in all actuality, they probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it." Truthfully I don't know much about McCain's stance on the issues, but for you to put forth a blanket generalization on Bradley like that makes me believe you have no clue about what Bradley's stance on ANY issue was. ------------------ The truth is out there.
Mulder, I can't speak for Rocketman, but I gathered from his post that he wasn't knocking Bradley, but rather making a reference to the intense level of bureacracy and the prevailing culture of American politics since the dawn of time to maintain the status quo, which prevents any president, no matter how idealistic, from getting anything done. ------------------
Leaving aside ideology (which you'll have to decide for yourself), here's a thumbnail sketch to help you decide which candidate you prefer: Gore's strengths: Practical, moderate, competent, reliable. Has managed not to screw up the big stuff (peace & prosperity). Gore's weaknesses: Compulsively stretches and shades the truth. Unusually shameless. Bush's strengths: Constructive, moderate, good-hearted, good at working with others. Bush's weaknesses: Slow-witted, inexperienced, insecure. Pick your poison.
Will, Bush good-hearted? Making fun of someone you've executed? Dismissing reports of children going hungry in your state. Jumping on reporters who ask him questions? Doesn't sound too good-hearted to me. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so!
Bush is good-hearted. You're straying back towards using anecdotal evidence to "prove" serious character flaws again.
Then what makes you so sure that Bush is good-hearted? If you're going to accuse me of "straying" , at least give me some non-anecdotal evidence. Enlighten me. Is accusing McCain of not supporting breast cancer research an example of anecdotal evidence? Help me out here, I guess I just haven't seen the light that is "Dubbya". (Wow, I've always been a good speller, but anectdotical...that's not even a word ) ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited March 21, 2000).]
RM95 -- Take it from a fellow left-leaner: You're overreaching. I'd sooner vote for Gore than for Bush. But I'd sooner vote for Bush than for Bradley. The examples you cite of Bush's alleged hard-heartedness do not reflect hard-heartedness. They reflect some immaturity, some insecurity, some plain old-fashioned campaign mudslinging, and some honest Republican positions you simply disagree with. You may not think those positions are good. But that doesn't prove that a politician who takes those positions isn't good-hearted. Bush is good-hearted. If he becomes president, he will try to do what he believes is the right thing. He may have trouble distinguishing between Iran and Iraq, but he will try to do what he believes is the right thing. As for Bradley, he thinks all a president has to do is be good-hearted. Just imagine a better world, write some bills banning all the bad stuff (guns and campaign money), write some bills funding all the good stuff (health care, education, poverty-fighting), and you've done your job. He would have been a total disaster. His policies would have failed and backfired, and the Democratic Party would have been discredited for another 20 years. So be glad he lost.
Thanks TheFreak, that's exactly what I meant. I was an arduous Bradley supporter, still am. Rereading my post, I can see how you could get that I didn't believe that McCain and Bradley were not about reform. I believe they were. Unfortunately, I think they both probably knew that even if elected, change would have been slow to occur, if ever. (I edited my earlier post to more clearly reflect my view, sorry Mulder) ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited March 21, 2000).]
ROCKETBOOSTER: 3)China stealing top nuclear weapon technology. (Remember this is the country that partly financed Clinton's campaign.) You do know that much of this occurred well before Clinton ever took office, right? You wouldn't be blaming people for stuff without knowing the facts, would you? MULDER: As a former political science major it is my educated opinion that both these guys suck. I'm not happy with either choice. I want Bill Bradley back in the race. I 'll probably vote for Gore unless he picks a bigger idiot than himself for VP. Bill Bradley has one glaring weakness: he can't inspire people. I agree, he was by far [in my opinion] the best candidate with the best combination of ideas, integrity, and values. He had the money, early support, everything. But without that ability to inspire, it doesn't seem like you can run an effective insurgent campaign. I'd like to see Bradley w/ McCain as VP run on an independent ticket. Sure, their philosophies are exact opposites, but they seem to like each other and that would be a fun campaign to watch. ------------------
Will's view of a Bradley presidency is exactly why I'm unsure if I'll vote for Bush this fall. I think Bush would be a capable leader. As President Clinton's shown, the executive office is little more than a bully pulpit at this point. Clinton has been an asset to his party in terms of shaping the public's perception of the issues, but his legislative initiatives have been ineffective. When the opposition party controls both houses of Congress, that's understandable. As I'm sure everyone's heard repeatedly from the network news anchors, the governorship of Texas is a "weak" one, with little real authority to act decisively. So, Bush's style of leadership is already suited to the modern presidency: have those bromides and catch-phrases ready ("compassionate conservatism"), and act "Presidential". No problems there. The potential pitfall for a Bush Presidency is simple: what if the economy falters? It's sure to at some point. Frankly, I give Clinton little or no credit for the current economic boom, because unlike Reagan's 1982 tax cuts, there is no tangible evidence that Clinton did anything to manage the economy other than swinging a dead cat over his head in a graveyard at midnight. But, I'm willing to bet most voters don't see things that way. To them, whoever's in office is responsible for everything that's going on in the world. The 1991 recession-- that was George Bush's fault. The current debate already tilts to the left, with its consistent and vague pleas for "fairness" and "compassion". The last thing the political right wing needs is for Bush to be elected and assume the presidency right as the current economic boom peters out. That would, effectively, be the end of the Republican party (except as a permament minority). If Bush is elected and the economy tanks, you on the left can take out your checklist of things you think would make this country better and check them all off-- no matter how unlikely they currently seem. Socialized health care? A permanent ban on private ownership of handguns? Tax hike on the rich? You'll get them all. You can see why I'm not sure if I want Bush elected. Might be better for the right if Gore wins, the economy swoons, and we re-assume the presidency in 2004 on a genuine conservative platform instead of this Bush Lite crap we've got to offer now. Tax cuts, increased defense funding, no more BS from the Chinese.... I like it.
Frankly, I give Clinton little or no credit for the current economic boom, because unlike Reagan's 1982 tax cuts, there is no tangible evidence that Clinton did anything to manage the economy Then you don't know too much about what drives the economy. Both Clinton & Reagan did major things to either drive expansions (Reagan) or extend expansions (Clinton), in cooperation with opposing-party congresses, of course. [They also both did things to hurt growth, but the net result was positive in both men's policies] But, I'm willing to bet most voters don't see things that way. To them, whoever's in office is responsible for everything that's going on in the world. The 1991 recession-- that was George Bush's fault. It was, in a way. No, Bush policies did not cause the recession. However, the warning signs were there, and he really made no attempt to implement policies to reduce its severity. That's why Bush got blame for that [although, he would have gotten the blame regardless]. The current debate already tilts to the left, with its consistent and vague pleas for "fairness" and "compassion". How horrible goals. The last thing the political right wing needs is for Bush to be elected and assume the presidency right as the current economic boom peters out. That would, effectively, be the end of the Republican party (except as a permament minority). I disagree. The economy goes back and forth, and Presidents take the blame or credit all the time. The Republican Party won't ever be a permanent minority [barring a 3rd new party coming on board], because things won't always be good. At some point, under Democratic leadership, things would go to the crapper too and Republicans would come back strong. It's a permanent cycle. If Bush is elected and the economy tanks, you on the left can take out your checklist of things you think would make this country better and check them all off-- no matter how unlikely they currently seem. Socialized health care? A permanent ban on private ownership of handguns? Tax hike on the rich? Good use of representing liberal positions correctly. Last I recall, no one with any real power has even suggested or wants a complete ban on handguns. In terms of taxes, the current debate is over how much to cut taxes, not where to raise them. You can see why I'm not sure if I want Bush elected. Might be better for the right if Gore wins, the economy swoons, and we re-assume the presidency in 2004 on a genuine conservative platform instead of this Bush Lite crap we've got to offer now. This is just silly. There are quite a few fundamental changes to this economy, the biggest being the huge surge of new investment capital from debt reduction -- something that will last for 10 to 12 years if politicians don't go stupid on us. Of course there will be a recession, but there's no telling when. It could happen next year, or it could happen 10 years from now? What if Gore is elected and there isn't a recession just yet? Are you willing to wait 8 years for a Republican president? The best bet for both parties is to get control in "good times" (as it is now). That gives them the freedom to do what they want without having to be influenced by the need to fix the economy. We get to really see how the policies play out, rather than having them affected by the economy issue. For example, if you want to increase defense spending, now is a better and easier time to make that happen than during a recession, when tax revenues are down and you'd start rebuilding the national debt. ------------------
Nice start there. Besides me being ignorant, what other criticisms do you have? Yes, Clinton's push of George Bush's NAFTA was certainly something he deserves credit for. Retaining Republican appointee Alan Greenspan, there's a plus. The 1993 tax hike? Stroke of brilliance. The attempt at socializing health care? I don't know about you but in my book, bringing 1/7th of the nation's economy is a hell of a way to stimulate economic growth. Right, because, as you say later in your post, the economy is cyclical in nature, and as a good Republican George Bush's answer wasn't "more government, plenty of it, and in a hurry!" But most voters didn't understand Bush's response. That was my point. They certainly are, when they're used to back bad legislation. In place of logic, they're extremely horrible. For one thing, they produce soccer moms. This is a possibility, but the American people are so fat, happy, and lazy after eight years under Clinton that my position is that a serious economic failure under a Republican president would marginalize the GOP. First, those "wish list" items were intended to indicate just how far to the left the political pendulum would be able to swing if Bush was elected and the economy tanked. Don't take them so literally. Second, you're wrong re: handguns, unless you're pretending Charlie Rangel doesn't exist. Third, taxes... are you kidding? The Democratic position is almost unanimously in favor of using the imaginary surplus to pay down the debt and "save" Social Security. Ignorant, too, right? Wow, you've changed my mind! All I have to do is count on our politicians behaving responsibly and for the economy to continue humming along for an unprecendented number of years, and all my reasons for worrying about a Bush victory are for naught. No thanks. You spend your vote the way you want, and I'll do likewise. PS: I live in Austin, TX. Why did I write that? I just wanted to include one statement in one of my posts that you couldn't find some way to disagree with. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited March 22, 2000).]
Wow, Kagy himself doesn't like to be called ignorant, even though he loves to use that label on other people. Not very surprising. Kagy, what I don't get is how you totally lambasted me for my views on how Republicans feel, I think you called it ignorant if I'm not mistaken. Yet, you do the same thing here. Maybe you should just channel surf on past Crossfire yourself next time. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so!
Will, if that's your definition of good-hearted, I believe that Gore is good-hearted as well. I understand that Bush will probably do what he thinks is right, but Gore will also probably do what he thinks is right, along with any other candidate. IMO, that's too broad a description, that could really fit anyone. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so!
