Posted on 10/21/2004 8:12:29 AM PDT by independent5
After reading all of these wonderful comments .. I .. I .. I just feel like I had a huge group hug.
Now can we please get back to Buchanen vs. Bush vs. the Libertarians vs. the Aliens ... I can only handle just so much niceness (is that even a word?) in one day.
You are making a stand, whether you know it or not. If you are arguing for something you are niether for or against, isn't that like pissing in the wind?
Yeah, agreed, it's a very dark view. People don't realize that capitalism isn't an economic "system" with rules per se, as is socialism. Capitalism is merely the free use, by personal choice, of one's resources, in such a way as might increase their value.
Having said that, I'm very interested in learning why you are still "undecided" at this point. What candidate most closely reflects your values?
The second sentence is the answer to the first. I don't know which candidate most closely reflects my values. I'm trying to decide, more accurately, which candidate is the least-least-like me, if you know what I mean.
Nonsense.
Not everyone has to have an adamantly supported view on every issue.
So you can't think of a single program that should be eliminated?
Correct, at the moment nothing comes to mind. Do you want to know why? Because I don't know the titles of any particular program or have the statistics for how they are doing. That's why I asked for examples.
Still, there are some very dedicated teachers in public schools, you just have to try hard to find them. And then, a parent must be very vocal about making sure their children get into a good classroom.
Hi and thanks for the welcome :).
Around the world, a higher standard of living correlates with a lower level of governmental interference in the economy.
Ok, if you're right then there's a correlation -- but is there causation? Or can we show that there likely is? <--I don't know, that's just what I'm rhetorically thinking.
For example, Hong Kong is a tiny island with few natural resources and a relatively (to its land size) large population. They have a low flat tax and a very high standard of living.
Alright. How much of their high SOL do you think is a result of that low flat tax and why?
Africa is a large continent rich in natural resources with a relatively small population. Governments take a huge portion of the wealth, and they enjoy a very low standard of living.
But, while Africa may be rich in natural resources, obtaining those resources is very difficult. Its just like the food crisis in this world -- there is plenty of food, its just hard to get it to where its needed most.
In between we find Europe (higher taxes, higher unemployment) and the US (lower taxes, lower unemployment).
I have heard that the unemployment in europe is higher than in the U.S., but I have also heard that they use a different measure, and when that measure is used in the United States, our unemployment is actually higher. I don't know if that's a bunch of liberal spin, however. As always, I think there's at least a little truth in everything.
In this country we enjoyed economic booms after Kennedy and Reagan lowered the top rates. Russia instituted a low flat tax a few years ago. Some much more revenue came in that they lowered the rate again. Their economy has been booming.
If we can isolate the low tax rate as the primary cause for the boom, or one of the major contributors, then I'll be agreeing with you that we ought to go for the same here in the states.
I honestly think that top Democrat politicians know all this, but argue for taxing the rich anyway. They believe the American people are stupid, and that stirring them to envy will get them votes.
Really? Why do you think an entire group of people is so evil? I mean, I would consider what you're saying evil. I'm of the opinion that people are generally good and try to do what they think is best -- though it might not always be what's best. Why do you think the dems are so evil?
If they really believe that the effect of a high top tax rate is more humane than the effect of the rich investing that money instead, why does Ms Heinz-Kerry shelter most of her income and pay the lowest rate (only 13-14%) she can?
Well, while they may understand something is better for the country, they could still be personally selfish. They could try to get everyone else to do their work for them, which I wouldn't consider "evil" (its not purposely harming people) but rather irresponsible and selfish, which of course is still reprehensible.
"Tax the rich" is a cynical propaganda ploy disguised as prudent public policy.
I know that's at least partially true, but I just don't know how fully true it is.
You're missing a key point: If that rich guy wants to buy a Corvette and smash it up, that's his business.
Well I think, just like its an oversight to say that no one benefits from a rich guy destroying a corvette, so it is by saying its absolutely no one's business how people spend their money. It effects everyone else in a small manner. Similarly, one has to understand that the money came from somewhere -- and that if it is because of society that one was able to get that money, it may be prudent of them to give back to society -- not only just to be fair, but to continue supporting themselves and society as a whole.
"But, I have never seen any evidence that Bush's primary focus is anything other than the safety of this country and it's citizens. In my mind his honor and integrity matches that of the first George W."
Could you agree with those same words applied to Senator Kerry?
Yes. Just because Kerry comes off as bland, boring, and self-absorbed does not mean that his primary concern isn't the protection of our nation. Just because he thinks we ought to go about defending our nation in a different manner doesn't mean he too doesn't have that as his primary focus.
Kerry wants to see this country and its citizens safe just as much as Bush or any other American does. If you disagree, why?
I think this question, and its potential answer, is one of the things that is driving the division in our country. I think, more than ever in our past, people have thought that persons on the other side of the aisle are intrinsically evil or want to see harm come to our country or that they don't care about this country.
We all care about this country, we all love this country. Left, right, and independent.
I have to run, but I'll be back some time to respond. Thanks for the thoughtful questions. I don't think a troll would take the time :)
I'm curious to know why you don't know which candidate most closely reflects your values? Is it your values or theirs that are causing this uncertainty? If it's theirs then do some research to find out where they stand on the issues that are most important to you.
Also, I'm curious to know - what are your main sources for news?
go away troll
Tell me about abortion.
Banned after the first trimester. Exceptions for protecting the life of the mother.
Tell me about the death penalty.
Against it. I'd rather see life imprisonment where the criminal works for money that goes to the victim's families.
Tell me about homosexual "marriage".
Create civil unions for everyone. Anyone can get a civil union through the government, marriage is only for religious institutions, they decide who can get married and who cannot on their own terms.
Tell me about the minimum wage.
It needs to be raised. I'd like to see it used in restaurants for servers rather than the tipping system. Even servers that work hard often don't get good tips, I don't believe in not rewarding those who work hard.
I find this to belittle the students in both ways. The Blacks don't feel that they are worthy to attend the school closest to them, and because of the the standards have been lowered to let the "slowere ones" pass.
I agree. I don't believe in that kind of "equalization." Bring up the quality of education everywhere, don't bus people around because you want there to be an average amount of melanin in a particular school.
I don't think Kerry particularly wants harm to come to the U.S. But protecting it is hardly his primary purpose, which is the acquisition of power. Kerry has had many years in the Senate to work toward improving American security, and has done nothing but undermine it. Similarly, he wants to turn over decision-making on foreign policy to the U.N., which is extraordinarily hostile to American security.
There are any number of issues on which reasonable, honest, well-informed people may disagree. The fact that Kerry's ideas (or what little of his vague "plans" we can discern) would hurt American national security isn't one of them.
Okay, then, independent5. Who are you supporting / voting for November 2nd? Bush or Kerry ??? Or Nader or ?? .....
I'm not sure yet, I voted for Bush last time, but I don't think I will this time. I'm been thinking about just voting 3rd party in the last couple days. Nader is not on the ballot where I am, and I'm not going to do a write-in, so it may be the greens or Badnarik. If I don't want to throw my vote away, then currently I'm leaning Kerry. I don't see Kerry and Bush as all too different. One of the reasons I'm posting here is to see what differences conversatives see in the two.
You need to figure out what you believe before you go voting on a whim. Sit this election out, read some left- and right-wing books, and maybe you'll be ready to vote in 2006.
Somewhat purposeful on the Road Killed Beeber Association's part.
In the weird and twisted world of hunting the trolls, there's one acronymic translation for it.
But in everyday parlance it really is Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Now comes the sick mental disconnection part: I knew both acronyms, it just never dawned on me until recently.
I'm most certainly making a stand -- it is a stand for open-mindedness and fairness. Its a stand for the good I think most people strive for, even if they try and go about it in different ways. I want to find the best way, but you can't do that if you shut out all but one of the options. I think America has become bitterly divided and that's something else I'm taking a stand against. The people who support the other party aren't evil and trying to destroy our country -- they just believe their solution is better.
Who's solutions are better for what? I don't know, but I all of them to be heard. I'm daily forming new opinions, but I don't feel pain when I find that one of them isn't accurate, I adjust to be more accurate.
ABOUT...."His flip flopping?"
You Wrote:"I have to look at those on an issue by issue basis. Sometimes I think its a political flip-flop, sometimes I think its just being thoughtful."
You are RIGHT...It actually takes A LOT of THOUGHT Every Day to be so Consistent in...LYING and Mr. John "F'In" FLIP - FLOPPIN KERRY IS A MASTER OF LIES, EVIL AND MASS DECEPTION.
HIS OWN MOUTH BETRAYS HIMSELF...Every Time He Opens IT!
PS: I wouldn't mess with the VIKING KITTIES on FR, we know how to BITE DEMON-RAT TROLLS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.