The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Aug 19 2004, 12:13 PM'] So because they are at liberal schools make them unintelligent economists? C'mon - this is a non partisan site. Everyone keeps saying to look at both sides and to think...that goes both ways doncha think? [/quote]
No. I'm saying that it is highly unlikely that they are balanced and aren't letting personal and separate political opinions steer them.

Until I see a document condemning Bush's economic policies from some place like the University of Chicago, I won't believe it.

[Azriel]

"Sidney Davidson University of Chicago"
He signed it. So now what?

Source: [url="http://www.epinet.org/stmt/2003/econlist_final_db.html"]http://www.epinet.org/stmt/2003/econlist_final_db.html[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Aug 19 2004, 12:19 PM'] "Sidney Davidson University of Chicago"
He signed it. So now what? [/quote]
Well, I'd have to investigate his personal opinions.

Most of the UC Economics staff is very good...it's about the best economics dept. in the country.

[Azriel]

you see that's why I posted that link.

We know that as Catholics we've no choice but vote Bush.

However - that doesn't mean that we have to agree with the entire Republican party regarding other policies.

I stand firm in my beliefs regarding Bush's economic policy, and I have a number of economists backing me up.

Just as you can find a number that will back you.

So who's right? Isn't it entirely possible that the truth possibly lies somewhere in the middle?

I hear a lot of talk on Pm about learning, and thinking and researching.

I've researched. I've thought. And looked at both sides. I still agree with these economists.

[Sammy Blaze]

*gives Az a high five*

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Aug 19 2004, 12:28 PM'] you see that's why I posted that link.

We know that as Catholics we've no choice but vote Bush.

However - that doesn't mean that we have to agree with the entire Republican party regarding other policies.

I stand firm in my beliefs regarding Bush's economic policy, and I have a number of economists backing me up.

Just as you can find a number that will back you.

So who's right? Isn't it entirely possible that the truth possibly lies somewhere in the middle?

I hear a lot of talk on Pm about learning, and thinking and researching.

I've researched. I've thought. And looked at both sides. I still agree with these economists. [/quote]
I've done the same. I follow the economic ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville, who accurately predicted the current US economy over a century ago. He also predicted that the government of the US would be a breeding ground for Catholicism and for New Age religion...eventually, he said, one will become dominant. I see it on the horizon and I think this election will determine a lot of it. The ironic thing, I'm voting for the guy who isn't even nominally Catholic for the sake of the Catholic Church...

[Iacobus]

Az, you are my hero.

Micah so what if they are from old time liberal schools does that make them uneducated? Some of the schools I am looking at are very liberal, does that make all the students there and all the profs dumber than if they were at, say, Bob Jones Uni? You know BJU, the hot bed of anti Catholism that Bush acconcoed he was running for pres at in '99.

And Az we do have a choice. We can cast a protest 3rd party vote. It isn't throwing your vote away. That is the weakest arguement I have heard. Using that the Republican party should never have came to life because it didn't have someone in high office before 1860, the Whigs should still have been in place. Casting a protest vote is in my view the best bet this November. There are a good number of good Catholics running, like Joe whats his last name. If Bush loses because of this it is a call to the GOP, something is wrong. It happened to the dems with Nader. Nader probly cost Gore a good number of votes and the party has to relize that something Nader is offering appeals to dems and the dems aren't offering it. Until you refuse to support the GOP or the Dems no change is going to be made. Status quo is good for them. Make them come to you, the voter, not you to them. If someone who has a slim chance of winning but he or she reps you more than the mainstream vote for them. It is how the system works.

And IronMonk, you made a number of claims there but just defeated your statement at the start of the thread. You have no support backing them up. It is not my job to support your statements, it is my job to support mine. Don't leave things hanging like that. If you wrote a professial paper or even an AP paper like your post you would be lucky to get a 1 due to lack of support. Back up your claims.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Aug 19 2004, 02:05 PM'] Az, you are my hero.

Micah so what if they are from old time liberal schools does that make them uneducated? Some of the schools I am looking at are very liberal, does that make all the students there and all the profs dumber than if they were at, say, Bob Jones Uni? You know BJU, the hot bed of anti Catholism that Bush acconcoed he was running for pres at in '99.

And Az we do have a choice. We can cast a protest 3rd party vote. It isn't throwing your vote away. That is the weakest arguement I have heard. Using that the Republican party should never have came to life because it didn't have someone in high office before 1860, the Whigs should still have been in place. Casting a protest vote is in my view the best bet this November. There are a good number of good Catholics running, like Joe whats his last name. If Bush loses because of this it is a call to the GOP, something is wrong. It happened to the dems with Nader. Nader probly cost Gore a good number of votes and the party has to relize that something Nader is offering appeals to dems and the dems aren't offering it. Until you refuse to support the GOP or the Dems no change is going to be made. Status quo is good for them. Make them come to you, the voter, not you to them. If someone who has a slim chance of winning but he or she reps you more than the mainstream vote for them. It is how the system works.

And IronMonk, you made a number of claims there but just defeated your statement at the start of the thread. You have no support backing them up. It is not my job to support your statements, it is my job to support mine. Don't leave things hanging like that. If you wrote a professial paper or even an AP paper like your post you would be lucky to get a 1 due to lack of support. Back up your claims. [/quote]
It is our job not only to vote against Kerry, but to vote for whomever will most aid the pro-life movement. No third party candidate will win. It is our duty to vote for life, and to do our best to ensure an end to abortion. Voting for Bush is the best way to do this.

[Iacobus]

Ah but Bush isn't really pro life. He is anti abortion (clap). But the GOP won't became pro life until it costs them votes. And the Dems won't do it either until it costs them votes.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Aug 19 2004, 03:00 PM'] Ah but Bush isn't really pro life. He is anti abortion (clap). But the GOP won't became pro life until it costs them votes. And the Dems won't do it either until it costs them votes. [/quote]
But voting for Bush is BY FAR the best bet for advancing the pro-life cause in this election.