Printable View
Bush has very polarized views on a myriad of issues. He forces us to either love him or hate him, because of his all or nothing standpoint on just about anything.
Kerry seems just the opposite. He almost never makes a firm stand on any position. Noone loves or hates Kerry, because he gives us nothing to love or hate.
Who is the lesser of two evils? The man who has massively polarizing oppinions on everything, or the man who has no oppinions on anything?
Can't say because Kerry hasn't been President yet, so I can't really say how he'd do in power.
I am not against Bush as a person, but his policies are just not making much sense to me. So, I'm voting for Kerry to get something new.
Take care all.
I can hate Kerry because he's an enormous jerk. A year ago, I thought, like many, that anyone would be better than Bush. Thanks for proving me wrong, John. :aimsmile:
I still think he's better than Bush, even though he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I despise Kerry for his actions after he was discharged from service after Viet Nam.
Better the evil you know than the evil you don't.
I'd rather go with the massively polarized views, so long as I agreed with some/most of them. If you have someone who's going to be completely random, then you never know what you're going to end up with. At least you pretty much know what the Bush team is going to do.
And I tend to believe that everyone DOES have an opinion about things. If you appear not to, either you're an idiot or you're lying.
Um...
I don't believe I need to say much :D
Seriously though, Kerry looks intelligent to me. And certainly better than Bush.
Kerry is defiently better than bush who has a iq of 2 :mad2:
I'd rather vote for someone who knows what they're doing, despite the popularity of their decisions, than someone who has a history of flip-flopping decisions. Kerry may say one thing, but he may vote for it or against it, thus lying about what he planned to do. Bush, on the other, will do what he promised, but sometimes, he can't because of heavy oppositions, but that's ok, because that's how our government works.
Probably Kerry, 'cause I can't stop getting pissed off at Bush for screwing up too many times.
Bush's continued presidency is one of the few things I'm afraid of. I'm voting Kerry.
I'd rather not have a president who I can beat in a spelling bee.
Mr Bush, How do you spell IRAQ
"B-O-O-M"
I'd rather have a President that spends time seriously thinking about important issues and from time to time changes his stance based on principled thought, rather than slavishly following the same line of attack despite it's failure.
The idea that Kerry will say anything to please anyone is a story being made up by Bush and company. Considering the Bush administration's tenuous hold on the truth...
We need a President, who, look others have said, will sit and think through something, then make a choice, regardless of whether it fell on party lines or not. I recall that JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis did just this, and probably helped to avoid a war. Granted, that was about the only time he did that, but it's better than nothing. I'm tired of politics making the policies. Can't we make policies based on REAL ideas for a change and not just because the GOP or Democrats support it?
Take care all.
Kerry doesn't get much coverage over here. Still, that doesn't matter to me: I'd rather have a lump of cheese win the next election than have Bush again.
I can only go on his foreign "policies", but I think Bush's actions have made the world a less safe and worse place to live. But maybe America is a better place to live since Bush came to power (though I doubt it).
He doesnt force me to love him or hate him.:p Only thing I hate about Bush is he wont close up are borders, and send several military personal or national guards down there. Terrorists can easily enter are country, and I dont know if he is doing it for votes or what not? I just hate it.Quote:
Bush has very polarized views on a myriad of issues. He forces us to either love him or hate him, because of his all or nothing standpoint on just about anything.
You know why he doesnt take a firm stance on any position? Because he takes all kinds of positions on certain things. He says this, then next he says somthing different. Like the deal with his medals, he threw his medals away because he thought it was bad then he said he kept them. He voted for the 87 billion to support funding for are troops, before he voted against it.Quote:
Kerry seems just the opposite. He almost never makes a firm stand on any position. Noone loves or hates Kerry, because he gives us nothing to love or hate.
None of them are. Its just I think Bush is doing a good job and the economy is just recovering, let the man finish the job he started. Id be so dissapointed though if Kerry wins this election, because he looks like a two-face person with his lies. But then again both not all perfect, then again no one is..Quote:
Who is the lesser of two evils? The man who has massively polarizing oppinions on everything, or the man who has no oppinions on anything?
"Its just I think Bush is doing a good job and the economy is just recovering, let the man finish the job he started. Id be so dissapointed though if Kerry wins this election, because he looks like a two-face person with his lies. But then again both not all perfect, then again no one is.."
Have we all forgotten Bush's stances when he was Governor Of Texas? Among other things, he supported not going into other countries, believed in isolating America. Sounds just as back and forth as any other politician.
I personally would prefer neither.
Take care all.
"He doesnt force me to love him or hate him. Only thing I hate about Bush is he wont close up are borders, and send several military personal or national guards down there. Terrorists can easily enter are country, and I dont know if he is doing it for votes or what not? I just hate it."
I go through border patrol everyday and I'm 2 hours form the canadian border in VT. I'm going to vote Bush. Because I agree with the war and I also think that he should be able to fish what he started. Also I don't have many problems with his polocies.
Oh, I'm definitely voting Kerry in the next election.
I agree with everything eest said.
Two words: Patriot Act.
Even though it wasn't Bush's idea at first, that alone is enough for me to want him and his administration out of office. At this point I'd vote for a pack of Tic-Tacs before I even thought of re-electing that facist mental-deficient. [/rant]
I'm going to have to agree with Tsunami Bren. I'd rather have a president who actually thinks things over than just rushes boldy. I've watched this thing on MTV where the teens and young adults asked John Kerry about where he stands on certain things, and I like how it sounds.
I can't understand what the deal is with regards to Kerry throwing his medals, ribbons, whatever, away. He went to Vietnam, fought, came back disillusioned and decided that he didn't support the war. He has ever right to feel the way he does because he actually went through it first, THEN made his choice.
Take care all.
Coming back from Viet Nam disillusioned and unsupportive of the war is all fine and dandy - everyone has the right to an opinion. Throwing his medals on the White House lawn is fine as well - though disrespectful - as long as he wasn't still on active duty, which he wasn't. Although, it did seem to be more of a political stunt when he was running for Senator.
The main beef is that, when he thought he needed more supporters, he became wishy-washy on the issue - he figuratively picked up those same medals and wore them with "the pride of a veteran." Again, a political stunt to make himself look like an war hero.
Furthermore, some question how he earned those medals. During his tour in Viet Nam, he claimed three seperate injuries, which led to him earning the Purple Heart medals. After earning three PH's, a soldier is honorably discharged from service and sent home. The injuries themselves, though, could be considered laughable. The doctor who treated his wounds described his shrapnel wound here:
Some think that he was really just weasling his way out of fulfilling his duty. I know I do.Quote:
I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.
The wound was covered with a bandaid.
I see the actions of Bush as ignorant at best, evil at worst. So many things he does do not make sense to me from logical OR moral standpoints. I cannot bring myself to support the man.
I can't say that I'd rather have anyone but Bush, but that's just about the truth. I'm definitely voting Kerry, even though there're a few people I'd rather have as president than him.
Depends on how bad the evil we know is. Bush is bad enough that I'm willing to vote for the evil I don't know, because there's a significant chance that Kerry will be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
I think the two-party system needs to be annihilated, though, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Edit:And Bush has been perfectly truthful with us? Rrrrright.Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
"Honest politician" is as much an oxymoron as "good soap opera."
Call me crazy DocFrance, but was that site you posted, a Conservative website? Just curious.
Take care all.
I don't know. I just read the article. Your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Could be biased. I noticed an ad for a Reagen T-shirt.
Take care all.
It's hard to be biased when you're describing exact things, like measurements and treatments.
It is irrelevant if Bush had covert plans for oil, the fact is he addressed a serious problem. As Von Clausovitz in On War wrote "if diplomacy fails, then go to war". It seems that insulting the Bush administration has become a popular "lefty sub-culture" soon everyone will be acting cool and protesting on the streets.
In the end, if you are an American and support democracy - then vote for Bush. The Democratic party had two terms with the Clinton admin...So it is only fair that the Bush republican party should have two terms.
Next term (that is not this election but the next election) vote for the Democratic party … and so on.
"In the end, if you are an American and support democracy - then vote for Bush. The Democratic party had two terms with the Clinton admin...So it is only fair that the Bush republican party should have two terms."
That's a dangerous thought.
Take care all.
Yeah, a real man would have gotten his purple heart like Bush did, by... what? Oh.
"In the end, if you are an American and support democracy - then vote for Bush. The Democratic party had two terms with the Clinton admin...So it is only fair that the Bush republican party should have two terms."
...You're an idiot, I'm sorry. That's no reason to vote for ANYONE.
I wasn't talking about Bush - I was talking about Kerry. I despise Kerry, but that doesn't mean I think Bush is a saint. I just think he's better than Kerry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
Actually, I probably shouldn't be discussing this. It's not very professional of me to voice my political opinions in an open forum like this, especially since most of you know my occupation.
On the contrary, it should be encouraged for you to do so. It's what this country is based on.
Don't make personal comments about somebody based on their beliefs. Show some respect please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
It's hard to be biased when you're describing exact things, like measurements and treatments. ~DocFrance
No, not at all. It's hard to lie about facts, but it's not hard to be biased.
Take that incident. What if, say, Kerry's CO had ordered him to go for treatment? What if there was a high risk of infection (there's a high enough risk with a small cut in the water in the UK, nevermind in Vietnam)? It's easy for websites like that, which obviously have a very strong opinion on political matters, to miss certain truths, or present things in such a way as to make things seem much worse.
Don't trust propaganda.
Yes, but as a military serviceman, I've forgone some of those rights voluntarily. As long as I wear the uniform of my country, I cannot publicly endorse or support any particular political stance. The American armed forces are politically neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
He could have been ordered to receive treatment for his injuries, but no one could order him to accept the three Purple Hearts. If I went over to Iraq right now, stubbed my toe on a rock, scraped my knee on the floor, and nicked myself while shaving, I could receive three Purple Hearts for my injuries and be sent home immediately. While it would be perfectly legal to do that, it would really be just a way of weasling out of my duties as a volunteer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burtsplurt
Take what you want from the article and what I've said - I can't make you believe or agree with any of it.
George Bush changes his view on just as many things as Kerry. It just so happens that the Bush administration has decided to whine about this apparent "waffling" (nice use of a word that doesn't apply to the situation, idiots...). I think Bush is an inept retard, not fit for ruling this country. I mean, his SAT score was low as hell, my brother got higher than he did. I'd at least like a president who tried in school.
Example of inabillity to make a decision on Bush's part - stem cell research. Bush took the easy, middle, 'please everyone' route.
That doesn't make any sense at all. That's not the principle American democracy was founded upon in the first place, and it's never operated that way. There's no reason to start now. The whole point of American democracy is that you're supposed to vote for who you think would be better suited for the office. These days, I don't think it would take much to be better suited for the office of President than Bush is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Besimudo
Given that he backed up his claims of idiocy with reasoning, I think it was perfectly okay. Or are we no longer allowed to call examples of idiocy by name?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander
I'm not positive, but I think that in times of war, Presdients tend to be kept, just because of the whole "Don't change horses midstream" idea. Look at FDR for example.
Or are we no longer allowed to call examples of idiocy by name? --The Man
No one was ever allowed to to begin with, so there's no "no longer" about it. Show how the argument is wrong, and there's no need to say "you're an idiot". We're going to start cracking down on that kind of thing. End of discussion please.
We certainly didn't do that that in Vietnam, which I'd say is by far more comparable to the current situation than World War II, considering how much of the country didn't support Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
I wasn't asking about calling people idiots either, I was asking about calling people's logic idiocy. But whatever.
Viet Nam was also a complete and utter political failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
A lot of people would argue the same about Iraq.
But we're still in Iraq. It's not a failure until we've given up.
My point is that we still changed presidents in the middle of Vietnam. Unless my memory, as it has often been prone to doing, has failed me again.
Yes, and my point is that electing a new president was what caused Viet Nam to be a political failure. LBJ wasn't a very good president when it came to war, but neither was Nixon.
I'd argue that what caused Vietnam to be a political failure is that no one really wanted to start the war in the first place. Well, not enough people, anyway.
Vietnam was a failure for many reasons. One was there was a lack of support from USA, and second, it was one of those wars that the US couldn't win so easily. And there are many more...
As for Iraq, the US got in there, dumped Saddam, and months later during December, captured him, and a year after all 'major combat' was supposedly over, we still have troops in Iraq to keep things in order as we train the Iraqis to keep themselves in order without out support. Well, it would be nice if the UN were in control, but the UN had a history of botching stuff up in that past.
It's not that we the US couldn't win, it's that winning it quickly would have incited world war 3. Both our embarrasing wars in asia could have been avoided if people had just seen the basic tenant of communism for what it was. We live in the age where using the term communism is ridiculed, but remember that when russian agents were instructed as to how to create propoganda, they had two clear orders. make the world laugh at the words 'communist' and 'conspiricy.' but that's a tangent. Back to why the wars failed. marx's main point is that communsim must expand. no communist nation can be peaceful. It fails to do what it's economy was created to do. as a result of peace, china, vietnam, north korea and cuba are the only communist nations on earth and their economies are far from marxist. Communist forces in china however viewed expantion and conquest as life. The nationalists would no more consent to live in peace with them than we did to live in peace with sadaam or as an old widow would consent to live with a brood of vipers in her living room. Even then the US called for peace, and embargoed the nationalists, leading to their destruction. MacArthur was miles from pyongyang, but was forced to retreat because the communists entered the war. communist china caused the communist influence in vietnam. Liberal vietnam vet's like kerry can whine all they want about vietnam and peace, but when reduced to the basest levels, his philosophies in the liberals of the time created the war. Kerry essentially is saying, I served in a war that I started against my will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protozoa
Yeah, the US couldn't really bring its full forces down upon Vietnam because of China and Russia. It really was unwinnable without causing a fullscale war with the USSR.
Well, it would be nice if the UN were in control, but the UN had a history of botching stuff up in that past. ~ Proto
Unlike America, which is doing a perfect job in Iraq? UN control might have been an option if the US and Britain had decided to go in with UN backing.
Take what you want from the article and what I've said - I can't make you believe or agree with any of it. ~ DocFrance
No, probably not. But if you found the same thing on BBC News, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe it. I'm not too cynical, but I don't trust anti-Kerry rants on a website also featuring adverts for Conservative Anniversaries, George W. hats, Reagan t-shirts, and pictures of Rumsfeld and Bush alongside copies of National Review!!
That is exactly the same logic lead by the bipartidist system invented by Cánovas del Castillo after the Carlists Wars in the XIXth century Spain.Quote:
In the end, if you are an American and support democracy - then vote for Bush. The Democratic party had two terms with the Clinton admin...So it is only fair that the Bush republican party should have two terms.
Next term (that is not this election but the next election) vote for the Democratic party … and so on.
...it ended in the Primo de Rivera dictatorship :D But it was brief, soon we got the republic, then Civil War, and then...DICTAORSHIP AGAIN :D
Seriously, your idea seems to lack of any logic. In fact, the concept of bipartidism is one of the things that makes democracy suck.
"No, probably not. But if you found the same thing on BBC News, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe it. I'm not too cynical, but I don't trust anti-Kerry rants on a website also featuring adverts for Conservative Anniversaries, George W. hats, Reagan t-shirts, and pictures of Rumsfeld and Bush alongside copies of National Review!!"
My sentiments exactly. Though you'd probably be loathe to do so, perhaps if the same info appeared on a liberal website, then it would be easier to completely believe.
Take care all.
Yes, I understand what you mean. I try only to listen to independent news for exactly that reason. It's too easy to find something I believe in and then find "evidence" to back it up. It's why I don't read newspapers: it's impossible to get a non-biased viewpoint from them. If I just stick to the BBC, I know I'm getting balanced reporting with all the facts.
The only section I do enjoy reading in the newspaper is Opinion. There is more information there thatn in the headlines, in my opinion.
The BBC is only relatively unbiased on domestic issues - it DEFINITELY has a bias on foreign issues, such as, say, The Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
They're a good news source overall, but to call them "balanced reporting with all the facts" is foolish.
I actually find that The Onion Newspaper and The Daily Show are the most objective news mediums because they pull no punches on either side.
Take care all.
Agreed. The Onion is probably the most un-biased "news source" in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
The best news source is undoubtely the Daily Star, where you get WORLD EXCLUSIVES of all the things you always wanted to know:
BLIND DATE HUNK DIDN'T WANT TO BED ME
I HAD SEX WITH DAVID BECKHAM AND I WOULD DO IT AGAIN
SOMEONE TOSSED OUR BABY TO THE BIN
GIRL RAPED LIKE TWENTY TIMES OR SOMETHING AND THEN CUT TO PIECES, DETAILED PHOTOGRAPHS INSIDE!!!
INCREDIBLE HULK TOY HAS A MANUFACTURING ERROR THAT LEADS IT TO EXPOSE A GIGANTIC BONER
BOOBS!!! BOOBS!!! BOOOOOOOOOBS!!!
The Sun is also acceptable, along with some other really interesting newspapers, too hard for you to clean your ass with them, tasting too much to ink and paper even if you put salt, and not useful to wrap up fish, since it rots it.
Uh, seriously, I use Spanish news sources. I prefer newspapers.
I don't get an actual newspaper, but I have it sent to me via e-mail every morning. I get the Washington Post (liberal) and the Washington Times (conservative), since I like to see both sides of the issue. Plus, I read the Early Bird for military-related news.
Almost all of times is liberal, the new york times, and the seattle times. I just get news from cnn and fox news, they both seem 'fair and balanced'.
Yes, Fox News and CNN are perfectably balanced. Specially Fox News.
:rolleyes2 (Thats my friend Mr. Roll Eyes)
They are America's Finest News Source.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Fox News... ugh. Just terrible.
Clearly, political ideologies are various shades of grey in America. i.e. both parties are to the Right, with the partially seasoned left Democratic party. In order for democracy to work a balance is required, and this is not the case in the United States!
The thing that troubles me is that this forum has debated personal attributes of the contenders, namely, Bush and Kerry. Both of these men are puppets in a larger framework to keep the Nation ahead of the world. International policy was adjusted in Clintons case, where he put on a show of peace while staging a behind the scene war - Bush did it more blatantly. Did we forget the more "art house" styled Bosnian war? The ethnic tension was a little hard to grasp for most CNN viewer.
That’s right Americans only seem to remember the “mega hits” like - Gulf war 1 staring Bush and GW2 staring Bush Jn.
In short Kerry will be no better, he will just find other conflicts to keep the war machine running.
Recall 1981 - Reagan was elected due to Voters troubled by inflation and by the year-long confinement of “Americans in Iran” swept the Republican ticket into office.
It’s the same old bantering; we’ll help the troops and cure the economy.
This is why I suggest the "two-term" in American politics it is more balanced than juggling the parties every four years... as short run economy proves to be just short run. It is not dangerous at all Mr. Fire Fly! At least the parties can be “accountable” (used lightly) for their policies.
"Vi kan laer meget fra gammeldags, men vi ikke".
"We can learn much from history but we do not".
Storm Petersen, Danish political humorist.
"This is why I suggest the "two-term" in American politics it is more balanced than juggling the parties every four years... as short run economy proves to be just short run. It is not dangerous at all Mr. Fire Fly! At least the parties can be “accountable” (used lightly) for their policies."
I understand your sentiments, but eight straight years of one leader is a bit much without being able to change. I don't know of any "democracy" that has a leader for eight straight years without an election.
Take care all.
"I understand your sentiments, but eight straight years of one leader is a bit much without being able to change. I don't know of any "democracy" that has a leader for eight straight years without an election."
If America chooses to elect the Kerry government then the "Bush smooth operation" might go astray...that is to say, how will Kerry implement any long term policy while the government worries about the side-effects of the Bush government? ... I would hate to see inflation kick in just after the democrats are elected (as Bush prints more war cash it takes about 18 months to have a price rise) and then the democrats will get the blame (people are creatures of the moment)... If this happens the world will witness a repeat of the 80's (12 years of republicans)!!! You have to remember that the influence of the American vote ripples through the world… and I’d hate another black Monday (87’ stock crash) down here, under!
"f America chooses to elect the Kerry government then the "Bush smooth operation" might go astray...that is to say, how will Kerry implement any long term policy while the government worries about the side-effects of the Bush government? ... I would hate to see inflation kick in just after the democrats are elected (as Bush prints more war cash it takes about 18 months to have a price rise) and then the democrats will get the blame (people are creatures of the moment)... If this happens the world will witness a repeat of the 80's (12 years of republicans)!!! You have to remember that the influence of the American vote ripples through the world… and I’d hate another black Monday (87’ stock crash) down here, under!"
Again, I take your point, but let's say Bush is re-elected and only buries himself further? How would that help? The beauty of a democracy is that change is possible, and we can hope that the next leader if elected will make things better, not worse.
Also of Note: Black Monday occurred during only one President's watch, Reagan. Had there been a change, perhaps it wouldn't have occurred, but who knows really?
Take care all.
"Also of Note: Black Monday occurred during only one President's watch, Reagan. Had there been a change, perhaps it wouldn't have occurred, but who knows really?"
6 years (1981 -1987) is a considerable time... long enough to see the government in power, take responsibility for its own actions. This is what I love to see, as opposed to the innocent fledgling government get black named for prior government policy. I don't believe that the Kerry government can halt inflation... So let Bush explain it. As the unemployment rate fell to four percent and below, inflation began. How would electing Kerry halt this? All that would happen is a down period that would "piss-off" middle America - then the republican will launch an attack as in the 80's, which crushed Carters government.
And, yes Black Monday probably would not have occured under the democrats. As the republicans were responsible in rapidly increasing short term US interest rates, escalating US government debt, deteriorating US current account deficit. This is what pure monetarism achieved in a "credit" financed economy - Thanks for controlling inflation first Regan!
most of the 'conservative' news out there is not nearly so conservative as it looks. for instance many people that have gone to iraq have come back (including one man I know fairly well) and have said that there really isn't much of a problem. Think about it. This has been one of the most bloodless wars of american history (I don't consider little actions like kosovo or such wars). The troublemakers are twofold, those who want jobs in the non existant government and those who think we can manufacture democracy overnight forgetting it took america about 15 years.
Oh yes, The UN never would have taken care of the situation because france is on the security consul, and not being an actual power, doesn't care what the world needs. France got massive amounts of cheap oil from iraq. So did germany. no blood for oil was actually german propoganda to protect their economy from an oil shortage.
Secondly a french diplomat called sadaam misdirected good. because of his treatment to the kurds it could be argued that sadaam was a mini hitler. what does that make hitler. misdirected wonderful-ness? I'm sure the jewish race would love that. all half of the number of jews in europe before the holocaust, eh?
Just a minor note, the President's control over the economy is marginal at best. The economy fluctuates at such a rapid and often unpredictable rate that while the president may attempt to "fix" it, it will often continue to move along its course. It is always hard to tell how much the president's actions effected the economy if they did at all.
The general trend I've noticed is that the economy seems stronger when support for the President is stronger, and vice versa, but again, economics is an inexact science.
Take care all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
It's not too hard to figure out which of those is the cause and which of those is the effect.
I understand your points, Besimudo, and yet I believe you are stating the idea of democracy as some kind of joke where no real variety exists, some kind of absolut power that gives citizens the illusion of being able to actually choose, but in fact only remembers them every 4 years, when the campaign starts, and the members are not so different from each other, even if some stuff some change. In other words, you are saying democracy is a big lie and that real choices are not to be taken in reality, but bipartidism.
...
Yeah...it more or less is that. Still, I do not believe another four years of Bush are really something that would benefit USA.
In fact, the other day I was in the underground and heard a small child, probably about three or four years old, asking his mother why americans where so evil. The mother replied it's not americans, it is just the goverment. You see, USA is probably not the most loved country for obvious reasons (J00 R JEALOUS OF UR FREEDOM!!!111) but mr Bush is creating more hate against USA than Clinton- and probably Kerry- ever did.
After much thought, I came up with an idea of my own: How about giving President's 5 year terms, but they cannot run for re-election? I think this would give them ample time to implement whatever policies they want, as well as, we'd be spared all sorts of events and political moves whose sole purpose is to gain re-election.
Take care all.
Oh, but they would make move to get their party elected again. Aznar did.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Sadly, in a two party system, which America has, that will always be a problem. If we could ever find a way to level the playing field and have more than two true candidates for President, then we'd probably be getting somewhere.
Take care all.
Actually, Captain, the best thing for a true democracy is to eliminate political parties. Well, Rousseau explained the reasons for such thing in The Social Contract.
Alternate voting system? Well, Rousseau said democracy was only to be applied in small states, but this problem was solved by the idea of the soviets system, or so I believe it is called, a system I believe that- once gone through some modifications- could in fact serve as democracy, or at least far more democratical than the current one.
But modern democracy? A system where parties seek to idiotize the citizen to make them vote a party? A system where good marketing is one of the main gears in the change of goverment system? No, thanks.
"Just a minor note, the President's control over the economy is marginal at best. The economy fluctuates at such a rapid and often unpredictable rate that while the president may attempt to "fix" it, it will often continue to move along its course. It is always hard to tell how much the president's actions effected the economy if they did at all."
Your not a Monetary economist then! The "presidents" policy has more than you may think in the growth of an economy - whether he personally makes it or Milton Friedman does.
"economics is an inexact science."
All sciences are inexact - Physics has not given a lasting definition of energy, and Biology can't make its mind up on what "life" is. Most of our chemistry has been discovered serendipitously, not through repetition (see drug design and natural compounds)
At least Economics has a sound rudimentary level.
I think you are referring to econometrics or applied economic analysis when you speak of "economics" as a science...!
"After much thought, I came up with an idea of my own: How about giving President's 5 year terms, but they cannot run for re-election?"
This is quite a good suggestion! But your founding fathers (who actually participated in battle unlike Bush) agreed on 8 years max. Why? I don't know their personal motivations...
I don't think a party-less system could exist; sooner or later, politics would demand that some sort of organisation would evolve between people who share similar ideas. Unfortunately, the two-party system is nearly as ineffective as the no-party system would be disorganised, which is why I think we need four political parties at least. I have no idea how such a system could be brought about, however.
What I was saying was that there are so many factors involved in the economy that the president's measures are often small and insignificant due to the excess of other factors. What the president does CAN have an effect on the economy, but more often than not its effect is overstated.Quote:
Your not a Monetary economist then! The "presidents" policy has more than you may think in the growth of an economy - whether he personally makes it or Milton Friedman does.
No, actually they didn't. The amount of terms a president could have was unlimited for quite awhile, until later legislation limited it to one.Quote:
This is quite a good suggestion! But your founding fathers (who actually participated in battle unlike Bush) agreed on 8 years max. Why? I don't know their personal motivations...
Right, Washington gave up his position of being president.
And thus set a precedent that has been followed more or less over the years. The actual law didn't come into place much later, though I don't quite remember the date.
I think it was during Truman's administration. The previous president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had died near the end of his fourth consecutive term. In fact, FDR was the only American president to serve more than two terms, if I remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Yes indeedy, under President Truman, the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1951, I believe, which implemented the Two-Term Presidency.
Take care all.
"What the president does CAN have an effect on the economy, but more often than not its effect is overstated."
What about the U.S. Farm Bill (2001 or 2002 not sure). It was during the Bush admin anyhow.
Yes, your right on minor issues such as the consumer spending index for spring accompanied by a little elevator music on CNN - but when it comes to Agricultural subsides within apparently free trade agreements or GATTS - (long story) which in-effect make the US farming sector less efficient while killing the African economies... then the jerks in the city wonder why they pay more for Kellogg’s Corn flakes or 2c more to pump gas (reduced GDP means general commodity imports cost more from the middle east too) - then the governments suddenly and rightly to blame for stupid policy to impress the red necks.
Sure the investors can play with their shares, but at the end of the day the government is the boss of your taxes - and this wealth accounts for a massive portion of American GDP (as government expenditure), if this budget goes into deficit then rather than being honest and raising taxes, the government just implements inflationary measures... and this is the very stuff of market collapse... as in 87.
"No, actually they didn't. The amount of terms a president could have was unlimited for quite awhile, until later legislation limited it to one."
mmm...Sorry, I am a foreigner after all! I thought I was not too shabby when it came to the flat facts of American history. Especially, since it receives no treatment in our educational institutions.
This is quite interesting - as the section on "American Presidency" (which is quite detailed in the encyclopaedia) stated that a President may only take office for a maximum of two terms... This was demonstrated by the Reagan (1981-1989) - Bush (1989 -1993) governments.
So, why did they limit the office to two terms by 4 years...? Franklin D. Roosevelt was a good president. Or was it that they didn't want Truman to follow suit?
"So, why did they limit the office to two terms by 4 years...? Franklin D. Roosevelt was a good president. Or was it that they didn't want Truman to follow suit?"
Any number of reasons really, but I sense the chief reason was that people in power feeled a rise of a dictator-esque figure, someone who would remain in power indefinitely. Considering the time period, with the end of WWII, and the Cold War beginning, as well as the Red Scare, and McCarthy trials, this might make sense.
Take care all.
I'm voting against Bush more than I am voting for Kerry, and it has a lot to do with Bush's decision-making policies.
For one, he based many of his actions over in Iraq on speculations. Although he had some information pointing to a possibility that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction, he was still guilty of speculation, and it would worry me a great deal to see a president elected for a second term who bases important decisions (decisions as weighty as war) on information that only supports possibility rather than certainty. Although Bush was denounced for not having acted on the possibility of terrorism attacks by plane during the 9-11 crisis, I would rather have someone act rashly when it comes to internal defense rather than acting rashly when dealing with something as consequential as war.
Another policy of Bush's that irks me is his use of religion to rationalize his administrative decisions and political opinions. For example, Bush uses the Bible to support his position against gay marriage. First of all, there is a distinct clause in the constitution mandating that there is to be a distinct separation between church and state. According to this regulation, Bush should keep his hands out of this issue unless he happens to be a member of the heirarchy of the church (which he is NOT). Second of all, even if the constitution were not to prohibit governmental control over the church, the Bible is something which is very open to interpretation. I happen to know that the passage to which Bush likes to refer never directly prohibits gay marriage. Although it labels homosexual activity as unnatural (which it is, biologically speaking), it never condemns gay marriage. And even if that is only my interpretation, it serves to prove my point that the Bible is very open to a variety of interpretations. I personally am not a fundamentalist. Finally, as ALL Americans are aware, we are free to practice whatever religion we choose to practice, and of all the religions in the world, not every religion refers to the Bible. Does that therefore exempt Americans who do not believe in the Bible from the condemnation of gay marriage? By the way, Mormon men are allowed to marry more than one wife in our country. The Bible does not look kindly upon that either, but it continues to be allowed. By Bush's policies, perhaps Mormon men should no longer be allowed to take more than one wife. And yes, heterosexual marriages can take advantage of the benefits of matrimony as well. So the argument that homosexual marriages will take too much advantage of their legal status is nullified by the fact that heterosexuals are just as likely to do so. Maybe we should just make marriage illegal.
Finally, the "No Child Left Behind" program is a very ineffective plan for bringing less fortunate schools more funding. The "No Child Left Behind" plan provided that schools whose students scored higher on standardized testing would receive more governmental funding, and schools whose students scored below certain score floors would lose governmental funding. This seems to be a faultless way to provide an incentive to teachers and administrators in school districts with students scoring in the lower percentiles of standardized testing, however there is a very distinct problem: the schools whose students score low are the schools who are already funded poorly and thus cannot afford to pay their teachers well enough or purchase high-quality education resources. Therefore, this plan, put into action, would actually favor the schools with more money and leave the more unfortunate schools in even worse of a financial position, thus leaving many inner-city schools with continually lowering funding, and defeating the purpose of bettering the educational resources with which less wealthy schools provide their students.
Bush doesn't handle foreign OR internal affairs as well as he ought to, and if he were elected for another term, I'm inclined to believe that he may do some major damage to our nation's international relations as well as our internal situations.
So that's why I'm voting against Bush.