4 more yrs?

[quote name='ryanbph']I live in MA, the economy is very similiar to the way it was in 1996, unemployment is the same as it was then...I live 20 min from providence, and 45 min from Boston, I am not a hillbilly or a hick, and I don't support gay marriage, the problem with the democrats is they generalize, and think they are better then people[/quote]

Did anyone else catch the irony of that statement?
 
I dunno, he has a point. It's important to consider the values and morals of an individual running for high office.

But it shouldn't be a sole concern. I get that, for a lot of people, they based their vote entirely on moral/ethical issues. Which i think is a disservice. They don't even think about policy, or hold up a candidate to their own ethical views which vary from person to person. If you look at the "bad catholic" campaign and we held people up to those standards 90% of the country would be immoral. Christian, Muslim, and Jew alike. Also, just because the president is an evangelical doesn't mean he's going to push for a theocracy

Let me put it another way, I know a lot of people (at least judging from c-span call-in and other commentary) voted against Kerry because they thought he was an immoral man. In my office there are people who voted against Kerry because they think he's immoral. Frankly, I think it's unfair to paint him as immoral, especially from people who are poorly qualified to judge because they don't even have a grasp of the facts. I believe some voters hide behind it so they don't look at a candidate with an open mind.

Just yesterday I had a discussion with a coworker who was completely in the wrong on the facts about Kerry's Capital Hill Testimony. He called him a Traitor. He said that any American that challenges policy during a time of war is unpatriotic. That's extreme to say the least. And it's unfair.

I remember sitting talking with him and another coworker. And he goes, "When the war is going on you shouldn't say anything. You shouldn't say anything even if you think it's wrong. It's not right. You should wait until the war is over and then speak up." That's an exact quote and I was slightly stunned by it because I didn't expect to hear it.

And myself and my buddy (who is not a Kerry supporter) sitting next to me both said at the same time, "Wait a minute. If you think something is wrong, don't you have an obligation to voice an objection? If something bad is going on, and you wait till it's over to speak up, isn't it already too late? Don't you have an ethical obligation to point out wrongdoing?"

My coworker had no answer and just repeated his response, "It's wrong to speak out during a time of war. It's unpatriotic. That's why his pictures in a museum in Vietnam." But he didn't discuss the ethical argument.

There is a deadlocking of moral views. I'm not saying which is wrong or right. I'm just saying though, if you pigionhole your decision on moral/ethical guidelines, you're basically reveling in ignorance. You are falling back on your own preconceived notions and your own biases without consideration.

To give another perfect example, one with policy implications, there's the pro-chice/pro-life debate. There are many ethical colors to that debate. But neither side ever ever tries to look at the debate from the other side. If you believe abortion is murder, well, murder is murder! If you have any ethical fiber you're not going to stand by and allow innocent children to get murdered.

Alternatively, if you don't believe abortion is murder, or that it's an intrinsic civil right over your body, if you have an ethical fiber you're going to fight for your freedom and liberty from oppresion. But you rarely see proponents for one side or the other speak respectfully of the ethical dilemma their opposition faces. Or even try to acknowlegdge the perspective of the other side.

(As an aside, one reason I thought that the Presidents Stem Cell Policy was one of the best decisions he's made in office was that for the first time the President spoke to both side of the debate in a respectful and fair manner like I've described above. Further, he was able tio reflect this dilemma quite well in policy. Is everyone happy, no. But it's working. As shown by the ballot initiative cast in California yesterday.)

There's nothing wrong with wanting a candidate that agrees with your perspectives. I expect that morals/values/character has some considerable weight to the decision. But there are those, I think many this election cycle, that take it to extremes on both sides. It's also important to look at policy, leadership, and even things like communication skill. And it's important to look at each candidate fairly. Am I sayign that people who vote on ethical issues are ignorant? No. Not at all. If you're against abortion you should lean more towards and anti-abortion candidate. It's common sense. But when you base all of your decisions on ethical arguments, that's ideology. Not consideration. And I think it's a personal disservice. We've seen more of the former in the electorate in general than the latter.

Many people also are moving to positions where they don't want to be challenged. They get all their news and opinion from a single source that reinforces their world view. A good example would be Fox News on Cable and Now with Bill Moyers on PBS. It's obvious that Fox promotes a political agenda for one side and that Now promotes a political agenda for the other. Yet people watch these news sources because they don't care about getting a fair representation of the news. They want to hear what reinforces their own beliefs.

I don't think either candidates got a fair shake from the electorate this cycle. Partially because the electorate focused on moral/ethical issues more heavily than they would like to admit. Even the war on terror stopped being a debate on US policy and ultimately an ethical debate over if it was "right" or "wrong" to go to war in Iraq morally.

That's my opinion. I never felt this way in the previous elections about Bush/Gore, Clinton/Bush Sr, (Even though he swears he didn't inhale). And I know that I'm making broad comments over a vast majority of the electorate. But it's just the sense I get from talking with most people and from what I see on c-span and comments on this and other forums. So far in my young voting record this has been the Election most focused on ethics/morals that I can recall or derive from history of elections since Kennedy/Nixon.

And I think that's why we're seeing such a partisan debate, such a split in the electorate, because that's the nature of the ethical debates we're a party to now. And it does a disservice to the country when we could be having more real and substantive rational debates on Health Care, Social Security, and Foreign Policy.

Anyway, I'm all over the map. Please excuse my unedited train of thought. But let me repeat that there is a point to saying that this election focused too much on ethics and morals and less on subtantive policy issues.
 
[quote name='lain21us']

Taxes don't favor the poor. If you think that, you don't know shit. Rich people get huge tax breaks. In addition, when it's time to raise money, instead of taxing rich and poor equally, they tax goods like cigarettes and candy, which hurts poor people far more than rich people, since it represents a larger portion of their income.[/quote]

Specifically about the cig and candy/soda taxes, that is pretty much directly due to lawyers and the left. That's the 'we know better than you' thing coming out. Rather than using taxation to fund the government and provide essential infrastructure, they're using taxation to curb or challenge behavior. We don't trust you to not eat fattening foods or to not drink too much Coke, so we're increasing the taxes on that. The evil cigarette companies have got you hooked, so rather than helping you or shutting them down, we're going to tax it and profit from what we are calling evil.

Your statements are exactly why a FairTax would be perfect for all levels of income.

Admiral Ackbar: Good post. But to an extent, those moral/ethical issues are related to the policies we might expect that person to support, even if they're not stated.

Bush might like to bring stem cell research to a halt. It's not going to happen. The method by which those stem cells are created, might be. All he did was say you can't use federal funds to create new lines of infant stem cells. There's plenty of private dollars being used, there are plenty of adult stem cells [which have actually proven useful] which are eligible for federal dollars, etc.
 
[quote name='lain21us'][quote name='craigjm']i dont know about u but i can't wait for 4 more yrs of
slow economy - wrong, economy is growing
more deficit from war - hey, protecting the country isn't cheap
zero or negative job growth - wrong, jobs are increasing
more dying from war - it's called war for a reason
no advancement in stem cell research - we are already advancing
gay people not being able to marry - they shouldn't be able to, marriage is between a man and a woman
anti abortion more on the rise - yes, the murder of innocent babies should stop
shitty healthcare - my healthcare is fine. I don't want to pay more taxes to provide it for anyone else
expensive drugs - someone has to pay for research and development
no other countries joining us in terror stance so we can incure more of the cost - plenty of countries have joined us. the ones that were in Saddam's pocket didn't. Who needs them?
taxes favoring the wealthy - sorry, taxes favor the poor. People who don't pay taxes already get refunds. Explain that one!
middle class still being ignored - I got a tax cut, and I'm middle class. Go figure.
good job bush voters- Yes, good job![/quote]

Actually, independent statistics show that the economy is weakening, in spite of promises from the liars in the white house. Further, the real issue is whether people are being fed and have medical treatment, and they never will under Bush.

Agreed, protecting the country isn't cheap. In fact, we would do well to take some of the billions of dollars being used to invade Iraq, and use it for real defense. There is no reason that invading Iraq makes us more secure, but several reasons why it makes us weaker.

You're wrong, jobs are not increasing. "Unemployment" is going down, but this is misleading, because the unemployment statistic does not include people who have used up their Unemployment benefits. The true number of people out of work is going up.

Yes, it's called war for a reason.. The war is unnecessary and is simply a means for Bush and his energy buddies to gain control of oil reserves in Iraq. There is no reason poor American kids should have to go overseas to make Bush and his friends richer. This is to say nothing of over 10,000 reported civilian casualties and hundreds of confirmed human rights violations in Iraq.

You say we are advancing in stem cell research, but I think you're missing the point, which is that Bush would like to bring stem cell research to a halt.

I agree with you about abortion, but I hardly think that it is the biggest issue on the table, unless you've been brainwashed by the lies coming out of the White House.

You selfish son of a bitch, just because you can afford decent healthcare, you don't think there's a problem. Thousands die every day in this country because they can't get the healthcare they need. Healthcare costs in this country are several times greater than the world average, for the exact same treatments, because the healthcare industry is controlled by the HMOs. The only people who would be taxed for national health care are the rich, who already pay fewer taxes than everyone else. If you're rich enough to fall into that bracket, then you really shouldn't be complaining, you ignorant f*ck.

You say the drugs are expensive because of R&D costs, but the same drugs cost far less in ANY other country in the world. We have a system in this country that discourages competition, keeping prices high. We allow one or two companies to have a monopoly on a given drug, and we pay through the nose for it. We recently had a flu vaccine shortage because the one supplier we had wasn't able to come through.

No, not a lot of countries supported us in the war. A handful of weaker countries sent a couple dozen soldiers each so that the Bush administration could make their list longer. The single exception is Great Britain. The countries that refused to join us were not in Saddam's pocket. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't believe Saddam had strong relationships with any non-Arabic nations, and there were a whole ton of them who opposed our invasion of Iraq.

Taxes don't favor the poor. If you think that, you don't know shit. Rich people get huge tax breaks. In addition, when it's time to raise money, instead of taxing rich and poor equally, they tax goods like cigarettes and candy, which hurts poor people far more than rich people, since it represents a larger portion of their income.[/quote]

While he only gives out his opinion, some of which I highly disagree too, and disagreeing is one thing. However I feel someone should note that a lot of your statements are inaccurate facts.
 
[quote name='lain21us']You selfish son of a bitch, just because you can afford decent healthcare, you don't think there's a problem. Thousands die every day in this country because they can't get the healthcare they need.[/quote]

Thousands die of cancers and other diseases everyday regardless if they have healthcare or not. Thats a dumb topic. The poorest people can get on welfare and that is actually decent health coverage.



Healthcare costs in this country are several times greater than the world average, for the exact same treatments, because the healthcare industry is controlled by the HMOs.

Wrong do you even know what an HMO means? This is bullshit They are competing against each other just like every other company.

The only people who would be taxed for national health care are the rich, who already pay fewer taxes than everyone else. If you're rich enough to fall into that bracket, then you really shouldn't be complaining, you ignorant f*ck.

I dont know a lot about Kerrys supposed plan, and I didnt vote period to be honest. However I find this statement highly unlikely to be followed through on.

You say the drugs are expensive because of R&D costs, but the same drugs cost far less in ANY other country in the world. We have a system in this country that discourages competition, keeping prices high. We allow one or two companies to have a monopoly on a given drug, and we pay through the nose for it.

So they do the research and devote millions into making and testing this drug for us, now they must give it away? No they get their patents and when that runs out generics are available. It allows them to recoop their R&D costs and then use those gains to fund more R&D simple concept really.

We recently had a flu vaccine shortage because the one supplier we had wasn't able to come through.
Exactly their vaccine was contaminated and therefore wasnt allowed into our supplies due to it not meeting the FDA approval. Thats protecting us.

Taxes don't favor the poor. If you think that, you don't know shit. Rich people get huge tax breaks. In addition, when it's time to raise money, instead of taxing rich and poor equally, they tax goods like cigarettes and candy, which hurts poor people far more than rich people, since it represents a larger portion of their income.

goods like cigarettes and candy? So they are so poor they cant buy healthcare (myself included in this until 4 years ago) that part of their income no wait a "larger portion" of their income gets spent on candy and cigarettes?

Doesnt sound like they are struggling to bad being addicted to drugs and candy. Maybe that same candy a drugs gave them those health problems..
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='ryanbph']I live in MA, the economy is very similiar to the way it was in 1996, unemployment is the same as it was then...I live 20 min from providence, and 45 min from Boston, I am not a hillbilly or a hick, and I don't support gay marriage, the problem with the democrats is they generalize, and think they are better then people[/quote]

Did anyone else catch the irony of that statement?[/quote]

It is very thick...
 
bread's done
Back
Top