Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,696
Thanks for answering, Cheyenne!
Also, the choice is between someone who believes government and more government, and them maybe a little more government, can fix all the ills of not only of our country but the whole world (and maybe the universe), and someone who believes as I do that government has gotten its nose into too many places already.
But the Clinton/Gore team has REDUCED the federal government by a substantial amount over the past 8 years, while Bush has not done that for the state of Texas. Gore's proposals will continue to shrink government, whereas Bush has no specific plans in that area. I know that Bush has claimed the opposite, but the facts - as reported in several media sources - indicate otherwise.
Add another one- I like the Bush plan for social security better.
I disagree. As someone who has money (a small amount) in the stock market right now, that is the LAST place I'd want my social security to be. Also, Dubyah refuses to say how that 1 trillion odd money he removes from social security to put in stocks will be replaced. It's not just 'extra' - it's money that must go to current social security recipients. My guess is that he will take it out of the surplus, putting us in debt.
And as alluring as a tax cut sounds (that carrot they like to dangle in front of our noses), I'd rather forego a tax cut and continue to enjoy the prosperity. Everyone sees taxes as "my money" without having any understanding of all the benefits that the Federal government gives us. Tax opponents have us so confused that the majority of people think that all their taxes are going to poor people! LOL! All because the American people are too dumb to read a pie chart...
We don't live in a bubble. For me to think that me getting rich is all that matters, and fuck the poor, is not only selfish but short-sighted. Everyone - corporations included - does better if the populace is doing well. A wide gap between the rich and poor is in no one's best interest. In a capitalist economy, one needs consumers. Those living below the poverty line don't buy much beyond the bare necessities.
So I don't mind a certain amount of government assistance to the poor. It improves MY quality of life. I get more freelance jobs because there are more people on the web because more people have the money for a computer. I can walk down the street without stepping over homeless.
And finally, what is wrong for a vote against someone? If someone wants to vote against Gore simply because they don't like his character or the character he's been associated with for the last 8 years, more power to them.
Well, anyone can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want - it is America, after all.
I do think we need to be more concerned about the issues these candidates support than whether they "seem friendly". We're not choosing a friend.
Also, Clinton and Gore are two separate people. Really! I've seen them together. And I liked Clinton as a President - I still do. Would I marry him? Fuck no. But he did a lot for the economy and the country in the 8 post-Reagan/Bush years.
Now, suppose (just suppose) that Larry Flynt's allegations that Dubyah paid for an illegal abortion for his girlfriend were true (an allegation that neither he nor his party have directly denied). This would make him a hypocrite, as he wants to outlaw abortion for the rest of us. Would that change your mind about him? Would he then lack "character"?
I have a feeling it wouldn't change your mind. That's because the issue isn't really character. Face it - politics just doesn't attract people with a lot of that. This is about the Republican party's partisan politics, about them spending time and money to demonize the other party, and the Democrats being too principled/wimpy/whatever to indulge in the same mud-slinging. So, the media reports the Republican's allegations - true or not - and since the Democrats refuse to reciprocate (or to even respond), the general population assumes that the allegations are true.
"Character" is such a broad statement - a buzzword, which has come to mean "my candidate won't get blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky". IMHO, a hypocrite drug-abusing anti-choice George W. Bush does not exactly epitomize "character". Nor do the actions of the heavily partisan Republican Congress over the last 8 years, who have spent more time digging up dirt than getting passing legislation.
And Dubbyah has run one of the most negative campaigns in my lifetime. Instead of focusing in on his own accomplishments, he's attacked Gore - not on his policies, but on him personally. On Monday, he proclaimed to the press than he wouldn't do any more negative campaigning for the remainder of the election. Yesterday, he launched a negative TV ad in which he calls Gore a liar. Tomorrow he'll probably accuse Gore of "negative campaigning" and Gore won't directly refute it, trying instead (foolishly) to focus on the issues. And all the families in front of their TV sets will then think GORE's the negative one, even though they've sat and watched all the negative Bush ads. Scary.
But Bush's personal character doesn't concern me as much as his proposals and his lack of experience. Cheyenne, what's your take on his plans to drill for oil in an Alaskan Wildlife Refuge? What's your take on his anti-choice stance? How about the fact that in the debates he questioned the existence of the "greenhouse effect", a phenomenon which has been well documented? How about the fact that he believes we shouldn't stop genocide in another country unless we have a financial interest in doing so?
Also, the choice is between someone who believes government and more government, and them maybe a little more government, can fix all the ills of not only of our country but the whole world (and maybe the universe), and someone who believes as I do that government has gotten its nose into too many places already.
But the Clinton/Gore team has REDUCED the federal government by a substantial amount over the past 8 years, while Bush has not done that for the state of Texas. Gore's proposals will continue to shrink government, whereas Bush has no specific plans in that area. I know that Bush has claimed the opposite, but the facts - as reported in several media sources - indicate otherwise.
Add another one- I like the Bush plan for social security better.
I disagree. As someone who has money (a small amount) in the stock market right now, that is the LAST place I'd want my social security to be. Also, Dubyah refuses to say how that 1 trillion odd money he removes from social security to put in stocks will be replaced. It's not just 'extra' - it's money that must go to current social security recipients. My guess is that he will take it out of the surplus, putting us in debt.
And as alluring as a tax cut sounds (that carrot they like to dangle in front of our noses), I'd rather forego a tax cut and continue to enjoy the prosperity. Everyone sees taxes as "my money" without having any understanding of all the benefits that the Federal government gives us. Tax opponents have us so confused that the majority of people think that all their taxes are going to poor people! LOL! All because the American people are too dumb to read a pie chart...
We don't live in a bubble. For me to think that me getting rich is all that matters, and fuck the poor, is not only selfish but short-sighted. Everyone - corporations included - does better if the populace is doing well. A wide gap between the rich and poor is in no one's best interest. In a capitalist economy, one needs consumers. Those living below the poverty line don't buy much beyond the bare necessities.
So I don't mind a certain amount of government assistance to the poor. It improves MY quality of life. I get more freelance jobs because there are more people on the web because more people have the money for a computer. I can walk down the street without stepping over homeless.
And finally, what is wrong for a vote against someone? If someone wants to vote against Gore simply because they don't like his character or the character he's been associated with for the last 8 years, more power to them.
Well, anyone can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want - it is America, after all.
I do think we need to be more concerned about the issues these candidates support than whether they "seem friendly". We're not choosing a friend.Also, Clinton and Gore are two separate people. Really! I've seen them together. And I liked Clinton as a President - I still do. Would I marry him? Fuck no. But he did a lot for the economy and the country in the 8 post-Reagan/Bush years.
Now, suppose (just suppose) that Larry Flynt's allegations that Dubyah paid for an illegal abortion for his girlfriend were true (an allegation that neither he nor his party have directly denied). This would make him a hypocrite, as he wants to outlaw abortion for the rest of us. Would that change your mind about him? Would he then lack "character"?
I have a feeling it wouldn't change your mind. That's because the issue isn't really character. Face it - politics just doesn't attract people with a lot of that. This is about the Republican party's partisan politics, about them spending time and money to demonize the other party, and the Democrats being too principled/wimpy/whatever to indulge in the same mud-slinging. So, the media reports the Republican's allegations - true or not - and since the Democrats refuse to reciprocate (or to even respond), the general population assumes that the allegations are true.
"Character" is such a broad statement - a buzzword, which has come to mean "my candidate won't get blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky". IMHO, a hypocrite drug-abusing anti-choice George W. Bush does not exactly epitomize "character". Nor do the actions of the heavily partisan Republican Congress over the last 8 years, who have spent more time digging up dirt than getting passing legislation.
And Dubbyah has run one of the most negative campaigns in my lifetime. Instead of focusing in on his own accomplishments, he's attacked Gore - not on his policies, but on him personally. On Monday, he proclaimed to the press than he wouldn't do any more negative campaigning for the remainder of the election. Yesterday, he launched a negative TV ad in which he calls Gore a liar. Tomorrow he'll probably accuse Gore of "negative campaigning" and Gore won't directly refute it, trying instead (foolishly) to focus on the issues. And all the families in front of their TV sets will then think GORE's the negative one, even though they've sat and watched all the negative Bush ads. Scary.
But Bush's personal character doesn't concern me as much as his proposals and his lack of experience. Cheyenne, what's your take on his plans to drill for oil in an Alaskan Wildlife Refuge? What's your take on his anti-choice stance? How about the fact that in the debates he questioned the existence of the "greenhouse effect", a phenomenon which has been well documented? How about the fact that he believes we shouldn't stop genocide in another country unless we have a financial interest in doing so?
