Convert Me, This Is Your Chance

Oh come on, Kerry could offer you a cabinet position and you wouldn't change your mind. Like anyone on the internet will be able to do so?

We get it, you like GWB and hate Democrats. Now how about not posting 10 threads a day about it?
 
So, rather than ostensibly addressing PaD while actually showing your views to any undecideds who might read this thread actually looking for a 'reason to vote for Kerry', you say 'You're not going to change your mind' and walk away? Either that, or you truly have no good reasons to vote for him.
Again, obviously many people's minds are already made up. But could that possibly be because the arguments on either side are so lacking?
 
PAD, this is a blatent rip off of my thread about Bush! So don't expect any good answers, I didn't get any from the Pro Bush side.
 
[quote name='Cubana2004']its really troubling how obsessed Americans are with not paying tax. I know its part the whole national history but its seems like its also the primary reason the country is ideologically devided. Industrialised peoples all over the world recognise that properly funding their governments can establish not only immediate social benifits but extrodinarily long lasting ones aswell. For God's sake look at the Swedes! When you groan about how much of "your money" comes out of your wages, ask yourself how much youd make without a centralised government? Do you really have no confidence in your society? Had you really rather go it alone? Anyways I just couldnt resist dropping out of "lerker" mode to respond.

P.S. John Kerry because he seems to understand that to truely love and care for his country, is to share it with the 300 some odd million other people that live there. And thats rare for politicians of both parties.[/quote]

Thanks but I already had a set of parents and their responsibilites towards me were wrapped up over twenty years ago.

You really miss much of the important arguments on tax policy. Those who prefer lower taxes also prefer the government's influence on their lives to be minimal. This is core belief in this nation's founding. That people can generally take care of themselves if they're allowed to do so.

Additionally, there is the very strong concern that when governent is given a job that be done by private concerns with open competition those businesses will deliver a much better product and for a lower price. There is substantial evidence to support this. THe most honest politician is like the psychopath in a moment of clarity who warns the people around him that he cannot be trusted. "Give me too much money and I will find stupid thing to spend it on." If a politician ever starts talking creating jobs as if he actually put people on payrolls be assured he is full of crap. The only jobs a politician can create are government jobs that area net drain on the economy. The most he can do to boost private sector hiring, where real economic growth occurs, is to get himself and the bureaucrats the hell out of the way.

I highly recommend P.J. O'Rourke's 'Eat the Rich.' The chapter on Sweden is especially worth noting since things have declined appreciably since the book was published. Even then it was observed that Sweden sounds great but it only works if you're a Swede. As soon as a large portion of the population stops thinking like the standardized Swedes things start to fall apart. That level of conformity has never been viable in the USA.
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='epobirs'][quote name='helava']My apologies. You are in fact correct, that the issue here is federal funding. However, I still don't understand why we're basically handicapping research on viable, usable human stem cells, that are simply going to be thrown out, if not used for research. That aspect of this issue is solely Bush's doing. The notion that private industry will/can fill in for federal funding isn't necessarily true. Many private companies will *not* finance pure research, which is fundamentally necessary in the early stages of development. Until there's potential for commercializing a technology, *many* companies won't bother with it.

seppo[/quote]

And those companies won't reap the rewards. This is exactly how the system works. You can't win a bet if you never put any chips in the pot.[/quote]

Almost all drug companies use their profits for research. So lowering the price on them wouldnt be very helpful.[/quote]


Actually drug companiers spend more money on advertising than research, and their research is subsidized by the govt
 
[quote name='epobirs']You really miss much of the important arguments on tax policy. Those who prefer lower taxes also prefer the government's influence on their lives to be minimal. This is core belief in this nation's founding. That people can generally take care of themselves if they're allowed to do so.[/quote]

The problem I have here is the hypocricy. When it comes to taxes, Repiblicans say they want less government in their lives, but for social issues they don't mind it. They will adopt the Patriot Act so they can force libraries to release the records of books you check out and make it easier to get wiretaps. And they will push for a Constitutional ammendment to block states from recognizing gay marriages.

And before you say it, I know that practically everybody voted for the Patriot Act initially after 9/11 but at least the Democrats are questioning its wholesale renewal now.[/b]
 
I personally am for less government across the board. The Patriot Act, in general, merely collected existing laws under one document, thus making if more efficient. Not a bad thing. [The worth of the laws themselves, of course, can and should be debated.]
I personally am against gay marriage. But I'm honestly on the fence as to whether it should be 'illegal'. I don't think it merits a consitutional amendment, I think it should be left to the states.
My problem with 'gay marriage' is the fact that random judges decided to basically flout the law and 'force' gay marriage upon the states. That's not what judges are supposed to do. If the *people* wanted to vote for or against gay marriage in their states, then that's fine. If the elected legislators did the same, fine. Judges should react and test existing laws, not pro-act to create their own.
When people revolt against the laws, that's civil disobedience. When the people who are supposed to uphold the laws, make them up as they go, that's abuse of power. Roy Moore got fired for that. The cops in the Rodney King case were toasted by the media. But when a judge ignores existing law and says 'I'm allowing gay marriage, contrary to the laws of this state', to me, that's breaking the law. If the people appointed/elected to uphold and interpret the laws don't follow them, that is the utmost in hypocrisy, and leads to despotism.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']If the people appointed/elected to uphold and interpret the laws don't follow them, that is the utmost in hypocrisy, and leads to despotism.[/quote]

That's the point here. The judges ARE allowed to review laws and those judges felt that gay people were being unconstitutionally discriminated against by not being able to marry.

I'm not trying to argue gay marriage here (been there, done that). I'm saying that Republicans can't say they are for more states rights while at the same time pushing for an amendment that takes rights away from the states.
 
I think "pursuit of happiness" legalises gay marriage, interracial marriage, and any other type of marriage between two human adults.

(children and animals can not consent, and I know someone would be tempted to bring up pedophilia and beastiality, so here it is, the reason that they are exceptions, they can't consent)

______________________________

Stem cells. How the hell could you be cold enough to be against it?

Don't argue morals here, undeveloped cells are not humans. And they do not get destroyed. A culture can be used over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top