|
Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
When it comes to economics, especially job growth, it is very hard for me to see a direct connection to the president. I'm sure this belief of mine will be shot down in an instant, but to me, it seems that the president can give slight nudges to the direction of an economy rather than full-forced direction changes (war time economies not withstanding).
I know that in the last 20 years, the down-sizing trend has reaked havoc on the amount of jobs in the United States. From what I have read, as the economy went bust in the 80's, and also during the rather boom years of the 90's, corporations continued to down-size. Even if economic conditions improved, these companies learned that instead of hiring new employees, they could ask their current employees to work harder and longer. If an employee refused, or was unable to work under these new conditions, the employers new they had a large unemployed segment in which they could find someone that would be willing to work under these extreme circumstances.
And that is where we find ourselves today. Even though businesses could hire more individuals as our economy continues to improve, they choose not to because they know they can work fewer individuals more, saving money over hiring new employees to do the exact same jobs. This cycle is discouraging to me, as I don't know how you can force businesses to hire more people when they are squeezing the work of new hires out of their current employees. I also don't know what a president could do to change that.
Now, if you're talking about government spending by the president (e.g. deficit spending), I totally agree with where you're coming from. However, when it comes to across the board job creation, I'm not sure there's much a president can do, especially with the business tactics in place that I described above. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by rainbow_marble
who knows, with so many liberal communists in the US nowadays, he might win :( |
Are you implying that liberals are communists? :conf: I don't think anyone would be able to call a communist a liberal and be able to keep a straight face, so I'm just going to assume that you are.
I was under the impression that liberals were strong advocates of civil liberties, whereas communists were more keen on, well, you know, the cessation of freedoms and liberties rather than in support of them. :p
And why would the US be screwed if Kerry was in power during a terrorist attack? Can you possibly elaborate on that? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef
I don’t think that’s true... many believe Kerry will totally abandon Israel in its fight against terror, therefore voting Bush although he doesn't do much himself either. |
"Many" meaning the kind of radicals who write for those websites you post in your honest reporting thread right?
http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/us...jewish_vote.htm
| quote: |
San Diego (special) -- Although Jewish voters typically favor Democrats, they did so by a higher percentage in the last election than any since 1984, according to Susan Pinkus, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll.
Pinkus told L3, the Young Professionals group of the American Jewish Committee, that Gore received 77 percent of the national Jewish vote in the recent election, a percentage point more than President Bill Clinton received in 1996. She said that Walter Mondale received 67 percent in 1984; Michael Dukakis received 73 percent in 1988, and Clinton received 68 percent in 1992.
|
Many of Kerry’s wealthy financiers are Jews, his grandfather was a Jewish immigrant, and I’d lay down my money on the table right now that he’ll get over 50% of the Jewish vote.
Whoever is elected will be pro-Israel, so please relax.
Neo, I agree with you, but people do blame whoever is in charge at the time for the economy. They blamed Carter, they blamed Bush Sr, etc. We all know the Fed has the most control over the economy.
Personally, I'm not very happy with either Bush or Kerry. Bush/Falwell/Ashcroft don't even believe in the Bill of Rights or federalism, and they think our US Constitution should be littered with utter bull. I mean, let’s just add a ing recipe for steamed potatoes and a poem by Maya Angelou to the Constitution while we’re at it. Cheney’s company is war profiteering from the sacrifice of over 500 young kids, many of whom only needed money for college, and his company is being investigated for fraud overseas (during the time he was CEO) in multiple countries. Of course our “liberal media” doesn’t report on it here, so you have to read the foreign papers like I do to know anything about it. The fat bastard should be in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit instead of a suit and tie.
Kerry on the other hand is an opportunist who shifts colors and positions with the polls for political reasons quicker than a chameleon, and who also voted for a lot of crap Bush favored. He voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq, for the Patriot Act, against funding for the war, and now criticizes Bush on all these things for political expediency.
Talk about sticking to your guns...
You’ll not see me defending Kerry that much because I do not believe he’ll change anything substantial in Washington.
In my opinion the Dems made an excellent case for new leadership, but the only problem was the man they nominated. At least Clark, Dean, and Kucinich all had some spine ‘n balls. At least Edwards knew how to give a speech that moved you.
:rolleyes:
Neither party will do much of anything about people losing their jobs. At least the Bush Administration is honest about promoting a policy of shipping jobs overseas, and classifying making hamburgers as manufacturing jobs.
How can you fix NAFTA?
It needs to be repealed and replaced with a fairer trade deal so that the maquiladoras across the border, all American companies who have relocated to avoid American labor and environmental laws, can't just dump their pollution in the Rio Grande (leading to mothers on the border giving birth to babies without brains), and pay their young child workers slave wages. Illegal immigration would also be reduced as well and we wouldn't lose as many jobs in this country, but the problem is Mexico is even more corrupt than our government (if that's even conceivable).
It's a ing immoral trade policy and most normal, sane people know it. There’s no way we would stand for that in America, so why do we stand for it in our trade deals?
Hell, I'd take ol Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, or even Dean over either Bush or Kerry any day. At least they have (had in the case of Barry) a spine and stand/stood up for their principles.
I echo everyone else’s sentiments here about the two parties being mostly one in the same.
There are a few exceptions as I’ve pointed out such as judicial nominees, the environment, the deficit, and abortion, but on other substantial issues there isn’t much difference.
All politicians are corrupt, so I don’t know why I even care. Maybe it’s because I feel the country is going to at an alarming rate.
:whip:
You know when you go to vote, and you're voting against someone instead of for someone, there's a real problem there.
Sara, I might go with you to Poland lol.
Well, I guess you aren't even safe in Europe anymore either. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Since Kerry wants to hand the sovereignty of the U.S. to the U.N. on a silver platter, I don't think he'd be more effective in countering terrorism. He thinks it's a law enforcement issue that can be solved by hiring a few more firemen while voting against anything that would strengthen national defense. Hard to believe that he would be remotely more effective than Dubya. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I think that in the end I will probably vote for Bush. This is not because I believe he is any better than Kerry, but because he is not any worse. Sure, we bitch and complain about how Bush does this and that, but if Kerry were elected, there would be a whole new set of things for us to complain about, that's called politics.
I am an admitted pessimist when it comes to the current American two party system, and thus to me mainstream Republicans and Democrats are one in the same. With that being said, I have to look back at the basic track record of Bush. We are in deficit spending and our military is over extended. On the other hand, there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, Saddam is no more, and the economy has more or less continued on its normal cycle. I am glancing over many other issues, that I will aknowledge. However as I see no real difference in the two men, and to me Bush has done nothing to warrant a replacement, I would rather have the stability of an incumbent president then a new one who for all intents and purposes would be the same. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Now, if you're talking about government spending by the president (e.g. deficit spending), I totally agree with where you're coming from. However, when it comes to across the board job creation, I'm not sure there's much a president can do, especially with the business tactics in place that I described above. |
That's what I'm talking about.
Besides that and my opinion on foreign policy, I also don't like having a religious fundamentalist in the office. Ok, maybe he's not a fundamentalist but he most certainly panders to the fundies. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
That's what I'm talking about.
Besides that and my opinion on foreign policy, I also don't like having a religious fundamentalist in the office. Ok, maybe he's not a fundamentalist but he most certainly panders to the fundies. |
Ya, voting for Bush is almost like voting for creationism in schools. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | I was under the impression that liberals were strong advocates of civil liberties, whereas communists were more keen on, well, you know, the cessation of freedoms and liberties rather than in support of them |
Possibly one of the most uninformed bollox I'll read here!
You started off well by saying how can anyone call a communist a liberal without keeping a straight face, and I thought you were going to say summat intelligent...
(Let me explain...liberals economically advocate the free market and capitalism. Communists advocate the public ownership of property, or economic equality. Both however, advocate freedom and lberty, but Communists advocate it a hell of a lot more due to their economic beliefs...) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1126EST0578.DTL
| quote: |
McCain says Kerry not weak on defense nor is his election a threat to national security
(03-18) 08:26 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."
Republicans, including President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have sharply criticized Kerry on a range of defense and security issues, including not supporting the war in Iraq, voting against a measure to provide the war effort $87 billion, and voting against weapons systems critical to waging war.
"The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Cheney said in a speech Wednesday.
Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."
When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that -- I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."
McCain, Bush's rival for the Republican nomination in 2000, said he believes Bush has led the nation with clarity since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he supports Bush's re-election. "But I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this debate. Otherwise, we're going to have very low voter turnouts in November," he told CBS.
McCain and Kerry, both decorated Navy veterans of the Vietnam War, have worked together on veterans issues in the Senate. Although McCain said last week he would consider an offer from Kerry to be his running mate, McCain's office later issued a statement saying he would not run with Kerry.
"I don't want to be vice president of the United States. I do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice president of the United States on either ticket," McCain told CBS on Thursday.
|
I agree with him about the negativity; huge turnoff for so many voters. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | | McCain says Kerry not weak on defense nor is his election a threat to national security |
hmmm....do I smell a Kerry/McCain ticket?
:D |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
US fighting alone = weaker
US fighting with our allies = stronger |
Dude,if you're implying we have no allies then you need to read more often. We have loads of allies. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
Dude,if you're implying we have no allies then you need to read more often. We have loads of allies. |
AAHAHHAAAHHAHAH.. that was funny |
|
|
|
|
