If the voting was today...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

*shakes head*

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Nevermind.

Edited February 21, 2004 by Jobber of the Week

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

[snuffbox 0]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

"c-c-c-compassionate conservative"

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think the bitter pill of the 2000 election was that it was decided by the supreme court, which consists of a slim majority of conservatives. Elections are considered a state function, and the US Supreme Court really had no jurisdiction over it. But they took the case anyway. Everything in that election controversy ran along party lines, and if the parties were reversed, they would've done things the same way. So I don't stew over that election. Its old news anyway, and its better to prepare for the next one.

 

As for the next election, I'm voting for whoever's got the best chance to unseat Bush. The Iraqi conflict still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and gasoline prices are at a record high. That, and a liberal administration is more likely to raise my college grants.

[Justice 0]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

1) Medicare prescription bill

2) Bloated education bill supported by Ted Kennedy

3) Immigration amnesty bill

4) Big increase for the NEA

5) No vetoes at all

 

It's not him who is dividing the country, it's the opposition party because they want to win back the White House. He's have to push Universal Healthcare to get any love from Dems right now...

[Justice 0]

You know, the REALLY funny thing is if they had gone down to the district level to hand out electoral college votes, Bush STILL would have won. Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts in that election, and he also won less states. If you had done it that way then Gore would have lost even BIGGER.

[Guest MikeSC]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

-=Mike

Wow.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think the bitter pill of the 2000 election was that it was decided by the supreme court, which consists of a slim majority of conservatives.

No, it wasn't. The Supreme Court had to step in because the OVERWHELMINGLY liberal Florida Supreme Court was writing election law on the fly which violates, well, every tenet of legislation in history.

Elections are considered a state function, and the US Supreme Court really had no jurisdiction over it.

Yes, they did, as the Presidency is the only federal election and, again, the FL Supreme Court was inventing law.

But they took the case anyway.  Everything in that election controversy ran along party lines, and if the parties were reversed, they would've done things the same way.  So I don't stew over that election.  Its old news anyway, and its better to prepare for the next one.

 

As for the next election, I'm voting for whoever's got the best chance to unseat Bush.  The Iraqi conflict still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and gasoline prices are at a record high.  That, and a liberal administration is more likely to raise my college grants.

So, your vote is for sale. Gotcha.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

-=Mike

Wow.

It's true. The Dems had NO plans, whatsoever, of working with Bush --- so even with Bush giving them lots of legislation that they'd like, they'd NEVER support him.

-=Mike

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

As for the next election, I'm voting for whoever's got the best chance to unseat Bush.  The Iraqi conflict still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and gasoline prices are at a record high.  That, and a liberal administration is more likely to raise my college grants.

So, your vote is for sale. Gotcha.

-=Mike

Damn right my vote is for sale. I vote for the candidate who best serves my interests. Currently, my interests include not paying out the ass to commute to work and college. As well, I'm sick of seeing my girlfriend work 40 hours a week just to afford school while tax dollars are poured down the throats of the rich.

[snuffbox 0]

Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

-=Mike

Wow.

It's true. The Dems had NO plans, whatsoever, of working with Bush --- so even with Bush giving them lots of legislation that they'd like, they'd NEVER support him.

-=Mike

Principles of Political Science 101 - It is all the Democrats fault.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

All right, kids, let's play nice.

 

Down to business:

 

End this mindless continuance of bringing up the 2000 election. It's over. Done with. Bush is in the White House. Guess what? THE WORLD HASN'T ENDED.

 

He's done decently with the hand he got dealt. I don't agree with the prescription drug bill; it gives way too much to the companies themselves. Prices will skyrocket, and the American public will be paying too much. Lay down some jurisdiction, limit prices, or import from Canada.

 

No Child Left Behind never got funding; a lot of money was diverted to other areas, such as the war in Iraq. Let's not discuss the reasonings behind the war; we've heard them, this, that, and the other thing. Once again, it happened. It's still happening. And the money is still being sent overseas. Education, meanwhile, loses funding.

 

I can't support a President that will bar gay couples the previlege of at least a civil union. The foundation of society won't suddenly crumble if homosexuals can lead a life together and file for the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

 

To sum things up for people:

1. 2000--Get over it.

2. Bush isn't my President, but he's done an average job.

3. Bush=conservative. No more, no less. (DUH).

4. Kerry is my preferred candidate for 2004.

 

As an added question: Had 9/11 NEVER happened, would Bush still have the support he does? I'm not sure, and by no means do I say that his entire support comes from his actions afterward, nor do I want to belittle the event. I just want to know: would you still be supporting Bush?

[snuffbox 0]

Since some still can't grab hold of this concept...YES, Bush won the election, but the situation was important/controversial enough that it will warrant debate for at least a hundred years. This is what is often referred to as a 'historical event', these 'historical events' are discussed years and years into the future.

 

For example, these links are all in regards to a very similar situation...in 1876.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/040...7178684-7901707

 

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/presid...st_ladies/28316

 

http://www.rbhayes.org/dispute.htm

 

http://www.msys.net/cress/ballots2/1876_who.htm

 

And the Hayesaholics all say 'GET OVER IT! It was 1876!'

[Guest MikeSC]

As for the next election, I'm voting for whoever's got the best chance to unseat Bush.  The Iraqi conflict still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and gasoline prices are at a record high.  That, and a liberal administration is more likely to raise my college grants.

So, your vote is for sale. Gotcha.

-=Mike

Damn right my vote is for sale. I vote for the candidate who best serves my interests. Currently, my interests include not paying out the ass to commute to work and college. As well, I'm sick of seeing my girlfriend work 40 hours a week just to afford school while tax dollars are poured down the throats of the rich.

Hate them if you wish ---

 

The wealthy do a LOT of good for this country.

 

Far more than the poor.

Principles of Political Science 101 - It is all the Democrats fault.

What has he done to piss off the Democrats? If a Dem was in office, he'd face the same problems. The parties don't want to work together.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

The wealthy do a LOT of good for this country.

 

Far more than the poor.

...an inadvertant Republican Joke!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Hate them if you wish ---

 

The wealthy do a LOT of good for this country.

 

Far more than the poor.

 

I don't hate them. I just don't think giving them tax breaks is the ideal public policy.

[Guest MikeSC]

All right, kids, let's play nice.

 

Down to business:

 

End this mindless continuance of bringing up the 2000 election. It's over. Done with. Bush is in the White House. Guess what? THE WORLD HASN'T ENDED.

 

He's done decently with the hand he got dealt. I don't agree with the prescription drug bill; it gives way too much to the companies themselves. Prices will skyrocket, and the American public will be paying too much. Lay down some jurisdiction, limit prices, or import from Canada.

Or, bite the bullet and have the gov't get COMPLETELY out of medicine. No more gov't insurance of ANY sort.

 

It will be rough, no doubt. MANY people won't be able to afford medical care.

 

But, eventually (and quickly) prices will plummet (medicine DOES need patients and they'll drop prices to get some when needed). Gov't interference has prevented medicine (and education, for that matter) from feeling any market forces to keep prices in line. Thus, prices have skyrocketed.

No Child Left Behind never got funding; a lot of money was diverted to other areas, such as the war in Iraq. Let's not discuss the reasonings behind the war; we've heard them, this, that, and the other thing. Once again, it happened. It's still happening. And the money is still being sent overseas. Education, meanwhile, loses funding.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

Education spending increased by 65 percent to $58 billion. Nearly $11 billion of this increase occurred in elementary and secondary education, a result of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act as well as added special education funding. College student financial assistance accounted for much of the remaining increase.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1703.cfm

I can't support a President that will bar gay couples the previlege of at least a civil union. The foundation of society won't suddenly crumble if homosexuals can lead a life together and file for the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

All I've heard him say is that he opposed gay marriage --- as, believe it or not, a hefty majority of the country does.

To sum things up for people:

1. 2000--Get over it.

2. Bush isn't my President, but he's done an average job.

3. Bush=conservative. No more, no less. (DUH).

4. Kerry is my preferred candidate for 2004.

 

As an added question: Had 9/11 NEVER happened, would Bush still have the support he does? I'm not sure, and by no means do I say that his entire support comes from his actions afterward, nor do I want to belittle the event. I just want to know: would you still be supporting Bush?

Possibly not. I'm not very fond of his domestic policies.

-=Mike

[sfaJack 0]

I don't hate them. I just don't think giving them tax breaks is the ideal public policy.

So are you saying you'd rather give tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes?

 

Or that you think the rich should pay taxes just because "they can afford it," or some bullshit reason like that?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"Tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes" is the biggest bullshit talking point I've ever heard.

 

They pay plenty of taxes. Simply not income taxes.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't hate them.  I just don't think giving them tax breaks is the ideal public policy.

So are you saying you'd rather give tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes?

 

Or that you think the rich should pay taxes just because "they can afford it," or some bullshit reason like that?

As a liberal, I believe in equal opportunity. Its hard to accomplish that when some citizens have a head start over others. I'm not proposing they forfeit all their money. I'm just saying a well-off society should give its less advantaged citizens an opportunity to succeed.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I'd vote for Edwards

[Vern Gagne 0]

I don't hate them.  I just don't think giving them tax breaks is the ideal public policy.

So are you saying you'd rather give tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes?

 

Or that you think the rich should pay taxes just because "they can afford it," or some bullshit reason like that?

As a liberal, I believe in equal opportunity. Its hard to accomplish that when some citizens have a head start over others. I'm not proposing they forfeit all their money. I'm just saying a well-off society should give its less advantaged citizens an opportunity to succeed.

As a conservative I believe in equal opportunity has well. That doesn't mean any group should receive special treatment. The problem is the wealthy pay 70% of the taxes, and really how far do you expect the gov't to go to give people an opportunity?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

1) Medicare prescription bill

2) Bloated education bill supported by Ted Kennedy

3) Immigration amnesty bill

4) Big increase for the NEA

5) No vetoes at all

 

It's not him who is dividing the country, it's the opposition party because they want to win back the White House. He's have to push Universal Healthcare to get any love from Dems right now...

1) Uh, LOL? The left and the right hated it equally. Perhaps it united people in their dislike of his plan.

 

2) This is bad not only because it's underfunded, but because it punishes poor schools by taking away funding, leaving them unable to improve.

 

3) I'll leave this one alone. Both sides are doing it and I can't stand it, so I'm not the one to judge whether he's co-opting Democratic issues or what.

 

4) Okay then.

 

5) This is actually more of a problem. It has caused many a pork project to pass.

 

But this election will not be built on immigration, energy, vetoes, and education will actually just be something mentioned in passing. This election will be built on, hopefully (assuming something else doesn't distract the debate, such as gay marriage) the economy. And there this President has been soley on the side of the people who work in the highest floors of the company hierarchy.

 

Not to mention that these tax cuts, which were supposed to be the solution according to the supply-side people who desperately want to see that work, did nothing.

[Michrome 0]

I don't hate them. I just don't think giving them tax breaks is the ideal public policy.

 

In 2001, the top 1% earned 17.53% of all income, and paid over 33% of all income taxes. How did they get such a huge break?

[Austin3164life 0]

Edwards is the only guy who would put America's progress above the party-line's duties. I'm pushing for Edwards (should he somehow win the nomination). Edwards has the charisma and eloquence to out-debate Bush Jr. any day of the week. Whatever it takes to get rid of the Texas Law Enforcer.

[spiny norman 0]

I'd pick Kerry, but I think I accidentally voted Bush instead. Note to self: do not make such stupid mistakes in a real erection.

[Firestarter 0]

I'd pick Kerry, but I think I accidentally voted Bush instead. Note to self: do not make such stupid mistakes in a real erection.

Freudian slip of the day.

[snuffbox 0]

I don't hate them. I just don't think giving them tax breaks is the ideal public policy.

 

In 2001, the top 1% earned 17.53% of all income, and paid over 33% of all income taxes. How did they get such a huge break?

If you dont understand what life is like for the working class; or understand the tax concepts of rich vs. poor than Im afraid you might never know until you step outside your home/RNC convention.