Presidential Debate

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote] Business 101: whenever you spend money you don't have, things dont end up looking pretty.[/quote]

Business 101: If you stick with the philosophy mentioned above, economics can't exist.

[quote]about 15,000 innocent Iraq civilians were killed as a result of the 'miscalculation' in invasion and post war planning. there is no excuse for this. how is killing FIFTEEN THOUSAND INNOCENTS justified?[/quote]

I don't think it's a good thing, believe me. I hate war and I hate that our troops and that civilians and that the enemy troops are dying. I hate this war like the plague, but I think it's just.

And just because you can put the word [i]miscalculation[/i] in quotes doesn't make it the case that the government lied or anything like that. You want the truth? Then avoid lies and conspiracy theories.

[quote]Raphael, how can you support widening the rich-poor gap? if the rich have more money (less taxes) they'll invest almost all of it to make themselves even richer.[/quote]

I don't support the gap. I think it's sad that there are poor in this world, so don't try to imply (or state directly) that I like it. I'm on $15,000 of federal aid loans for college right now. My family is not wealthy, but I recognize that the "rich C.E.O.s" will use tax breaks to expand their businesses, which will lead to more jobs. I also know that the minimum wage actually [i]hurts[/i] the poor because it keeps prices up. I believe in helping the poor in responsible ways, like expanding the job base, and essentially teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish.

[quote]you pretend there are only two options: [Edited by Raphael: We don't use that kind of language here] the world or take a nap. that is fundamentally incorrect[/quote]

You imply that I made a false dichotomy. You read too much into my statement.

[quote]Jesus never NEVER EVER taught or even alluded that anyone is ever evil, per se.[/quote]

You're right. He didn't. No one is evil, per se, because that would include an intrinsic evil in creation, which is impossible.

[quote]we have to look at why the terrorists struck us. and it seems like nobody does this. they attack us not because of who we are but rather what we've done. if we want to prevent a similar attack in the future we must modify what we do and how we do it. more of the same is a guarantee of failure.[/quote]

They attack us because of what we do. That is exactly correct. They attack us because they get bombarded with images of the west as what we would call Babylon. The attack us because they see abortion and gay marriage, among other things, in our soceity. Who is going to stop those things, Bush or Kerry?

[smeagol]

they dont care about our domestic policy! hahah they just dont want us setting up bases in the holy land of Allah. we're doing anything but that now. so how can we pretend theres an end to terrorism in sight?

you , like Bush, must adhere to trickle down economics, or "horse-and-sparrow economics" -- that is, if you feed the horse (the rich) well, some will pass on through and be there on the ground for the sparrow. i just think that if you want to feed the sparrows (the poor), feed the sparrows! the horses have way too much food as it is. i dont want to feed them anymore... [[hopefully, this metaphor isnt too weird]]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Oct 10 2004, 06:30 PM'] they dont care about our domestic policy! hahah they just dont want us setting up bases in the holy land of Allah. we're doing anything but that now. so how can we pretend theres an end to terrorism in sight?

you , like Bush, must adhere to trickle down economics, or "horse-and-sparrow economics" -- that is, if you feed the horse (the rich) well, some will pass on through and be there on the ground for the sparrow. i just think that if you want to feed the sparrows (the poor), feed the sparrows! the horses have way too much food as it is. i dont want to feed them anymore... [[hopefully, this metaphor isnt too weird]] [/quote]
I'd be more than happy to pull our bases out of the Middle East, especially since Israel can now support itself without any US aid.

However, if you read the thoughts of people from the Middle East, it is our domestic policy that angers them. I can't entirely blame them for their anger, either. The west is a pit of immorality right now. I can, however, completely condemn their attempts to change this.

I am a fan of trickle down economics, of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Certainly the horses get enough food, and I'm not entirely against welfare, but I do see it corrupting the poor and keeping them down instead of encouraging them to grow.

My cousin was on welfare and used her food stamps as an underground currency to go to the salon instead of buying milk for her children.

If we continue the welfare system, it needs a full overhaul, including stricter limits on what can be purchased, better monitoring of how money is spent, and, most importantly, money should be diverted to financial aid for college students. My Latin professor has an antique book collection (we're talking...Martin Luther could have owned them...), an antique weapons collection, and a private plane. I'm planning on becoming a Latin professor and I know how much money it's worth. Tuition keeps rising and money is being spent on completely unnecessary things. Why did my school invite Michael Moore to come? The guy is a propaganda artist! Why does my school charge me $470 per month for an 11x8 ft. dorm room in an apartment with three other guys while my friends down the street pay $300 per month for a whole house? I'm for school vouchers and government subsidies for students with certain grade levels (you have to earn it, after all). I don't think the government should be providing me with a campus store that sells two different kinds of condoms but no bread, either...

[smeagol]

raphael, i enjoyed your post. and i share a lot of your concerns. i agree the hard details need to be worked out but i was talking more about the overall principles involved, and i think we can agree on that (at least in this regard )...

however, there is one point i disagree with you on. its that the domestic policy irks foreigners.. i fail to see the correlation. why does it seem to be that most immigrants now are democrats? why do most world citizens favor kerry instead of bush? the first topic on their minds is foreign policy. and to them it appears that we are flexing our muscle, spreading our influence, with our military nonetheless. if our domestic policies went unchanged but our foreign policy were modified, i think they would be perfectly pleased with us.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]however, there is one point i disagree with you on. its that the domestic policy irks foreigners.. i fail to see the correlation. why does it seem to be that most immigrants now are democrats? why do most world citizens favor kerry instead of bush? the first topic on their minds is foreign policy. and to them it appears that we are flexing our muscle, spreading our influence, with our military nonetheless. if our domestic policies went unchanged but our foreign policy were modified, i think they would be perfectly pleased with us.[/quote]

I didn't mean that most foreigner's have a problem with our domestic policy, but only those who are Muslim (and generally the devout Muslims and the radical Muslims, not the secular Muslims). Those who hold the tenets of Islam see the west (and not just the US) as a place of grave evil. I tend to agree that the way things are going, there is much, much evil in the west, but I disagree with the way that the radical Muslims (not the peaceful devout Muslims, but the radical Muslims only) go about trying to change things. That is where I see a problem.

I really wouldn't mind pulling our troops out of the Middle East. Foreign peoples deserve the right not to have unwelcomed foreign troops parked in their backyards, but we should also be careful to make certain that we will be safe when we leave. It makes it difficult. I think the best compromise is to allow embassies and perhaps small military troops to help in case of emergency (that doesn't just mean in case those nations attack us, but also to aid local military in civil work, such as barricades in case of floods, etc.).

[ilovechrist]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Oct 9 2004, 02:12 PM'] When Kerry said that, I actually farted..... [/quote]
i dropped the remote.

your reaction is much more humorous though lol

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Smeagol:


Let me tell you what will happen if Kerry gets elected President.


1. He'll tax the rich like he said he would.

What will happen when he taxes the rich?

1. The rich business owners will fire the middleclass workers to save the money that they're losing from their tax raise.

2. Because the middle class is being fired, they will become poorer and poorer, because small business won't be hiring. They too will have been taxed.

3. The middle class has lost jobs, can't get jobs, are now lower class.

4. Lower class really can't afford much, and without spending the money that keeps this economy alive, the economy will suffer.

5. Economoy suffers because money is not being spent. Jobs will continue to be cut.

6. Jobs continue to be cut: this means two things.
a. the middle class is being eliminated, it's now rich and poor.
b. the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer.


(I thought you might like a little lesson in economics)

Healthcare:

1. He wants government controled healthcare.
2. With gov't controlled healthcare, the gov't is in control, less options, less quality in some areas.
3. Who needs insurance, or can afford insurance with the tax raises to fund this healthcare?
4. Good doctors are going to become endangered, no one will be able to afford them, we lose them.
5. We lose the good doctor, the middle class gets tax raises, even though Kerry, in the previous plan said he will give them a tax cut, and we're in the spiral again.
6. People are going to be told what to do, and where to go,
7. We lose are democracy, welcome to communism.


You see, one slight error in thinking brings an entire country and economy down. You want to become poorer if you're in the middle class, then I suggest you vote for Kerry.


The economy:

1. It is not dependent on what President is in office.
2. Clinton did not make the economy any better, if former President Bush had won that election, he would've been accredited for the economy.
3. Economy is a circle, it keeps going around and around and around. Ntohing a President, or candidate, says or does, will affect that circle.

Kerry says he has the plan, he doesn't even understand the basics of an economy.


Kerry's people:

Do you realize that the people who elected Kerry for Senate wants him out of the Senate? He has completely ignored their needs, and has done a huge disservice to them.


Office of Presidency:

1. It is the first things foreigners look at.
2. The office is like a parent residing over their children.
3. The parent has the eyes looking at them, and it is their impression that they give that the other countries look at.
4. If one cannot, will not, stand on the morals and beliefs that they have, what will they stand on?

A person who does not stand on their morals and beliefs are very unstable. What makes anyone think, that when an individual (who will not stand on their belief or morals) will follow through with anything else that they claim to do?

Kerry won't stand on his beliefs, he supports abortions, and by supporting him, you are partaking in that support, and partaking in each abortion that takes place. You are partaking in murder. If you won't stand against it, then you are for it, you cannot have both worlds.

Why should we elect a President based on their beliefs, or even one issue?


There was a man in history, who turned his country's economy around, who did a lot of good things for his country. Shoot! I'd have voted for him too, if I had agreed with his beliefs. You see, that man, who did so much for a country, was Htiler. If I had supported him, and ignored his beliefes, or one issue, then I too, would have partaken in the Holocaust. That is, of course, if I was a German citizen alive at that time.


Issues are very important. Kerry has yet to prove that Bush has failed as a President. Bush has strong morals, beliefs, values. We know where he stands on issues. Kerry, he's a walking contridiction.

In this election, we really are forced to vote based on a few issues. Abortion being one of them. And let me reiterate, if you vote Kerry into office, it's no different than if you were performing the abortion.


Don't rely on media to make a choice, and don't rely on liberal media to form your views. Look at the facts. Then vote the 'lesser evil' as it's been called.


But I tell you, the last thing that this country needs is a President who is going to do nothing to stop abortion or homosexual marriage.

Edited October 11, 2004 by Mrs. Bro. Adam

[Iacobus]

Mrs. Bro. Adam, I disagree with your ecomonic anaylsis.

And something I like about Kerry that Bush doesn't do is that Kerry and his wife BOTH talk people OUT of abortion and into adoprtion.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 11 2004, 12:47 PM'] Mrs. Bro. Adam, I disagree with your ecomonic anaylsis.

And something I like about Kerry that Bush doesn't do is that Kerry and his wife BOTH talk people OUT of abortion and into adoprtion. [/quote]
1. Her economic analysis is correct.

Another thing to mention is that government run healthcare will bring down prices, and thus bring down the incentives for medical advancements. The same thing happened in Britian.

2. The right hand knows not what the left hand does...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 11 2004, 11:47 AM'] Mrs. Bro. Adam, I disagree with your ecomonic anaylsis.

And something I like about Kerry that Bush doesn't do is that Kerry and his wife BOTH talk people OUT of abortion and into [adoption]. [/quote]
I wouldn't judge Bush on the fact he doesn't adopt. No one in my family does (besides my parents) and I don't think that my parents are better people because of it. I think it's cool Kerry adopts, but he doesn't take kids out of abortion because of it. It's not because he adopts that they're not aborted, but rather he adopts because they're not aborted. Stated other ways there exists a false causality, logical fallicy.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 11 2004, 01:47 PM'] Mrs. Bro. Adam, I disagree with your ecomonic anaylsis.

And something I like about Kerry that Bush doesn't do is that Kerry and his wife BOTH talk people OUT of abortion and into adoprtion. [/quote]
It still remains, however, that as long as they aren't publicly opposed to abortion, that it's the same as being for it.


Kerry wavers in how he stands. He has failed over and over when it comes to standing strong in what you hold to be your values. He claims one thing, and does another.


Kerry pretty much said that, when asked about taxpayers money going towards abortions, that he would not stop it. He allows for abortion, how can you vote for someone who doesn't try to stop genocide?

[smeagol]

Mrs Bro Adam, i understand the logic of trickle down economics, i just dont accept it. because it does not work. the extreme of this logic implies that to feed starving African children, i should donate to the rich CEOs of corporations. granted, some will in turn, donate to good charities, but the bulk of them will only amass further wealth. notice how your explanation goes through many steps, with several assumptions (they will invest in jobs) whereas i 'd rather deposit the money straight into the middle class. that's my logic. lets agree to disagree on this topic.

Healthcare:
Canada has a socialist healthcare system and they seem to be doing quite well compared to us. Just because it would be govt run, doesnt mean we'd get a tyranny in the field. as kerry said, you'd always have the option of opting out of the govt-run system, if you want private (more expensive) care. kerry's plan on lawsuits is quite simple: a doctor or hospital doesn't have to pay exhorbitant sue-age (haha when they're sued, its sewage ) fees in lawsuits. they dont have to be worried about this possibility so their fees decrease and thus so do insurance premiums. it costs much less than the status quo.

the choices a president makes can make huge impacts on the health of our economy. Bush made the decision to go to war (it's just-ness matters not here, only its effect on the economy). Bush made the decision to give out a massive tax cut. both have hugely impacted the economy.

if you're concerned on whom foreigners support, be assured that for a significant percentage of them, kerry is the answer.

also, the parent:child::president:constituency is a faulty analogy. while a parent can (and should) try to influence and mold the behavior of the child, a president has absolutely no right telling me how to run my life.

please dont tell me i'm an accomplice in murder if you dont that harsh assessment on yourself as well. because, turning your logic on yourself, you are giving a thumbs up to the 15000 innocent Iraqi civilians murdered as a result of the invasion. it would be insane for me to argue that if you vote for Bush you're pulling the trigger that puts a bullet in the head of an Iraqi infant. neither situation is logically plausible so refrain from it, please. i am not a murderer any more than you are.

it's interesting that you brought hitler up. the bad thing about him is not that he's an evil person (no one is intrinsically evil anyway, or so Jesus taught) but that he led the people on a crusade to infringe upon the rights of others, namely Jews. he was able to manipulate public opinion by hiding behind the cross and the flag, to muster support by appealing to nationalism and emotion. kerry is doing no such thing and it can be argued that this is more reminiscent of Bush than kerry, but that is neither here nor there...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]please dont tell me i'm an accomplice in murder if you dont that harsh assessment on yourself as well. because, turning your logic on yourself, you are giving a thumbs up to the 15000 innocent Iraqi civilians murdered as a result of the invasion.[/quote]

Make sure you distinguish the moral difference between killing and murder.

[smeagol]

there's no justification for killing innocent people. unborn babies or Iraqi mothers and children... its murder either way.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Oct 11 2004, 06:47 PM'] there's no justification for killing innocent people. unborn babies or Iraqi mothers and children... its murder either way. [/quote]
Just killing innocent people is still without malice. Murdering innocent people has malice. One [b]is[/b] worse.