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.Huh? "Conversatives???" .....
Posted on 10/21/2004 8:12:29 AM PDT by independent5
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.Huh? "Conversatives???" .....
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?
It is definitely theirs. They are politicans -- its incredibly hard to figure out where they are, what they really think, and what they'll do. The biggest problem in this election is that candidates share very few of my values or share where I'd like to see the country head.
I know what my values are -- but I don't always know what the best course of action for a particular issue is, because I'm not economist, etc.
If it's theirs then do some research to find out where they stand on the issues that are most important to you.
Well, I've done this but all of the sites are so limited in scope. There are a couple of things I like about each candidate, but its like they are trade-offs between the two. Its like I have to decide which I'd rather not see in the white house and vote for the other guy.
Also, getting all of the information I want is a daunting task. Every site is biased one way or another. I've been doing a lot of reading at www.factcheck.org. Unfortunately, that site highlights what I think of both candidates -- they use dishonest or warped statistics to support their respective viewpoints.
Also, I'm curious to know - what are your main sources for news?
I read www.cnn.com, I watch fox news (mostly for the talk shots), I watch the Daily Show, I get news from my mother who gets her news from FR and rush limbaugh, etc.
If you can't see the differences, I don't have enough time to help you before Nov 2. Just trust me on this one and vote for Bush.
haha!
Reading through your posts, I suggest you read more.
Listen to your mother. ;>)
He's gone, Meek. I'm sooo sorry.
You're talking to a dead newbie.
He's dead, Jim.
(Click here or on the pic).
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
He's gone, Meek. I'm sooo sorry.He sure is ! :^O
Bu-bye, independent5.
Hi...Meek,
PING To My Post # 280...OY VEY!
The Stink of TROLL OZONE was getting really Bad.
Wow.....took 'em long enough to zot that phoney. Mods must have been napping.
He had acting dumb and uninformed down pat!...or was that acting?..hmmmm...;)
Yeah, this one went a while today. Glad ya got that BIG kitty to chew on him.
My gosh. He thought Kerry's flip-flops were "being thoughtful?" Jeez. His flip flops are him talking to Veterans and saying he'll be tough on terrorism and then talking to his base in an anti-war way, etc. He has consistentently done this. It is the ONLY thing he is consistent in: pandering for votes, telling folks what they want to hear so they will (he hopes) vote for him. It's coming back to haunt him after the debates, imho.Good catch! I missed that.
Theoretically, there is a simple and compelling reason why it works this way. Free market competition allocates capital more efficiently than any government committee, where the incentives are not economic but political. More efficient use of the money means a bigger pie for everyone to enjoy.
I've never seen a good theoretical argument for higher tax rates on the rich. Bill Clinton's Rubinomics held that higher tax rates lowered deficits, which lowered interest rates, which lowered costs for businesses. But high tax rates are not correlated to lower deficits. In fact, lower rates have led to higher revenue and lower deficits. And lower deficits are not correlated with lower interest rates, either. Again, if anyone can explain why a high top rate should work, I'm all ears.
Since taxing the rich hasn't worked and no reason has been put forth why it should, I conclude that serious thinkers in the Democrat camp are being duplicitous on this point. Not all Democrats, most of whom no doubt confuse raising tax rates with raising tax revenues, but the national players such as the Clintons, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Yes it is kind of evil, I'm sorry to say. To be charitable, perhaps they have convinced themselves against the evidence, due to their personal ambitions. But that's hardly better.
Regarding Africa, I agree that the problem is obtaining the resources. But if you had rule of law, liberal trade regulations, and low tax rates, entrepreneurs would be there to do it, as they have everywhere else on earth where those conditions existed.
Regarding Ms Heinz-Kerry, I don't think she's greedy and selfish. I think she thinks that she can do a better job of helping people with her money than the government can. Although she might not be right in her case :) I think overall, she is right.
They're going to be dead tired by the time the election is over.
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.
