Why to, not why not to

well which issues are important to you?

 

Kerry will lift restrictions on stem cell research, which has tremendous potential to relieve much human sufferring. Thank you. Happy new year.

 

I almost hate to reply. Things have been semi-groovy around here the last couple of days, but maybe we can keep this civil.

Kerry would not nominate anyone remotely like Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. For me, that is an excellent reason, right there. Those appointments, as are other Federal appointments to the bench, are lifetime appointments. We're stuck with whoever is there long after the President who nominated them has ridden off into the sunset. That is all the reason I need to vote for Kerry. And who George W. Bush might appoint scares the living daylights out of me. Thomas, of course, was appointed by his father, and that appointment has always been a mystery to me, given how much more "moderate" he was as President than his son.

 

Kerry would increase the intel budget and their role in combating the war on terror. Kerry would increase the size of our special forces, and use the military to carry out targeted strikes against terrorists.

I believe Kerry would be better at recruiting allies to help us in a more substantial role in the war on terror.

Kerry has a plan to increase health care coverage and make sure that all children are covered.

Kerry is more responsible with a budget and was one of the few Democrats to vote for the balanced budget amendment. We need to stop our wreckless deficit spending, and decrease our debt.

 

For me, it starts with the War on Terror. Kerry plans to implement the reccomendations of the 9/11 commission, creating a cabinet level intelligence position and increasing funding to the intelligence services, particularly human intelligence. Once we identify terrorist cells, he plans to have covert special forces take the f***ers out. This will be possible since we will rekindle the worldwide partnerships to usher in (hopefully) the kind of support we had immediately following 9/11.

Also, I believe that Kerry will create policies that will encourage companies to invest in and ultimately drive the price down on energy efficient and non-petroleum based vehicles and other forms of energy.

I think that Kerry will do far more to help people go to school than is currently being done, and since education really is our future, that can only be a positive.

I also like Kerry's stance on outsourcing, namely that we should do whatever possible to encourage companies to keep high paying jobs, particularly in the field of Information Technology, in this country.

Those are the big ones for me.

 

Kerry will get 40 million plus Americans some health insurance and help end needless suffering on their part.

 

John Kerry will give tax benefits to companies for creating new jobs in America.

 

Kerry co-sponsored the ENDA Employment Non-Discrimination Act which has thus failed to pass the Senate. It would protect gays & lesbians from being fired from a job solely because of their sexual orientation.

Kerry supports the PPIA Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their non-citizen partners to stay in the country.

Kerry supports giving gays and lesbians the same adoption rights as heterosexuals.

Kerry supports the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military.

 

What exactly is that policy?

 

It's ok to be gay in the military as long as the military never finds out about it. A half-assed way of allowing gays in the military, while still being dissaproving of homosexuality.

 

Vote Bush because:
- Kerry can not be trusted to run a REAL war on terror. Just take a look at his anti-military voting record. He even voted against Gulf War I.
He just says "I can do it better." Is now a good time to trust a liberal with our national defense when our very future is at stake? Liberals have an ugly record of simply rolling over in the face of a threat because of their inherent distrust and hatred of the military routed in 60's radicalism. He says we "will respond vigorously to any attack." Why not go and kill the bastards before they attack again? Oh, that's right, you don't believe in "unilateral" "needless" war. I forgot. You need a mother-may-I from the UN and your euro-buddies. Oh silly me....
- He will lower your taxes
- provide real social security reform (hopefully)
- hopefully scrap our unfair and bloated tax code and go with a VAT
- can be counted upon to not saddle our corporations with more onerous and needless regulation- red tape that drives corporations' operating costs up and sends jobs overseas.
- Will hopefully get us drilling in ANWR pronto.
- He's a straight talker, unlike the mealy-mouthed, flip-flopping Kerry (nuanced my ass).
- He will appoint judges who don't read bull**** in the Constitution that is not there, like the so-called "separation of church and state."
Kerry will nominate more of the "turn-em-loose-Bruce" type leftist judges who will shred the Constitution like a big block of cheddar.
- I think he is a man of high moral character and a real leader. I haven't always agreed with his decisions and some of them really bother me, but he is much better than the alternative of John F. Carter- I mean Kerry. We don't need another damned naive fool like Jimmy Carter.

 

Did you even read the thread title? Does your paranoia and hatred and ignorance prevent you from even exercising basic skills like that?


awful.

Edit: btw, glad to see you are now questioning the establishment clause. That was the last thing that separated you from the Mullahs, but you broke through that barrier. Congrats, mufti, enjoy your 72 virgins.

 

I think what you meant to say was the following:

After the dramatic increase we have seen in the past few years in private funding of stem cell research, John Kerry thinks the government will do a better job at allocating capital to this project than will the private sector. Kerry will force millions of taxpayers who find stem cell research to be highly objectionable on moral grounds to pay for the bill.

And while I've got this little box open, I'd like to say that anyone taking fiscal policy advice from baquii99 should just go ahead and give me their money now.

 

I may be wrong, but I think the object of this game is to mention why you're supporting one candidate without mentioning the other one.

[Standard Statement Expressing Dissapointment at Having Only Two Viable Candidates]

 

I think the leftists here would agree on one thing:both of us believe that the alternative to our own candidate is the worst thing to come down the pike since New Coke, the Chevy Vega and edible underwear. Can we agree on that?

And Sam, I question the interpretation...not the reason why there is such a thing... Not having a govt. sponsored religion is good, but it doesn't mean chasing any shred of any religion away from anything public. I'm not in favor of the Ten Commandments being posted in court houses (much ado about nothing) but if a govt. building wants to have a Christmas tree, they shouldn't have to put up a representative display of every possible religion, even those atheists.
So keep your little snide mullah comments to yourself. God, why do you have to act like such an overbearing, pompous, know-it-all ass so often?

 

I think it may be next to impossible to keep from naming the opponent in order to explain some of the reasons to vote for one candidate over another, but we can do it in a civil, non-confrontational way. I said in my post that the prospects of this current President making lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as the Federal bench, "scared the living daylights out of me." But I don't think I put it in such a way that would start an instantaneous and venomous argument. Did I?

Could we try to keep this on a more "moderate" tone? There are some people, reading this forum, who may honestly be wondering what the real differences are between the two. Let's see if we can point some out in a way that doesn't descend into a "shouting match." We should at least try. I think that focusing on the real issues facing whoever is President for the next 4 years, and the differences between the two, is a really good idea.

How about it?


edit: and calling those who post "radical fringe leftists, greenies, neo-cons, foaming at the mouth right-wingers" and the like isn't the way to go. We all know other terms more appropriate... like liberals, moderates, independents, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. Just chunking some of the labels thrown around here with such a broad brush would be a damn good start.

How about it? I'll do it if the rest of you will.

 

Trader, with all due respect, I have tried to engage you in this debate before and you did not answer, so I am not going to expect you to do anything other than parrot that line this time either.

If someone does not understand how NIH funding works, and government grants catalyze -- rather than replace -- private medical research ... I am just happy for that person, because it means he can probably believe anything, even something as skewed as "government restrictions on stem cell research are good for stem cell research," as long as it lets him blindly believe his candidate is doing the right thing. No credible researcher or scientist would argue it, but I guess Dr. Jorge and Dr. Laura Bush have it figured better. Do you take appointments? Becuase I need a check up. Seriously, I am looking for an neoconservative idealogue who takes Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The perspective that the Bush administration's restrictions actually advance stem cell research is just not a position anyone can possibly debate seriously.

And by the way, with your logic, I should expect the private sector to support the war in Iraq because millions of taxpayers find it to be highly objectionable. When the hell did that become a criteria for allocating public funding?

 

oops, double post

 

Government grants 'catalyze' private research spending.... hmm... Maybe we need government grants catalyzing every aspect of our economy! Brilliant idea!

Chuck, this debate is simple. Which sector of our economy is best suited to fund technology? The public sector (government), as you argue? Or the private sector, as I argue?

When you throw the moral objections of millions on top of this, it becomes a no brainer. No amount of spin from you will change this simple tenet.