Also, I think that Kerry is less likely to go foreign adventures.
Second, the national debt/deficit is a mjaor concern and the words 'fiscal responsibility' are even further out of the Republican Party's vocabulary than the Democrats.
EDIT: Looks at the absentee ballot in his hands...
Time to do my civic duty and vote...
19
Here's another thing. I know a lot of people in the US vote Republican because of their opposition to abortion. Great, fine. I have no problem with that.
But here's the thing. The GOP has had virtual control of the House, Senate, and White House, and could have rammed through any Supreme Court nominee they wanted, pretty much. (Hell, they got Ashcroft through, didn't they?)
If they were so gung-ho about ending Roe v. Wade, they could have done it and they chose not to.
While I'm glad they showed more restraint than I woulda given them credit for, I'm starting to think the GOP politicians in Washington are purposely keeping Roe alive to galvanize support from antiabortion voters in elections like this one.
On foreign policy. Yeah, we should be able to invade other countries preemptively if they pose a threat to this country. Both candidates believe this.
Kerry's comment about the "global test" was that after we had done so (preferably with robust allied support) we oughta be able to justify why we did it.
American troops make up 7/8 of the coalition troops on the ground, for all the talk of "a grand 30-country coalition of the willing". A few of them are little Pacific island nations, like Nauru and Tonga, who don't even have troops to send!
Having America bear such a disproportionate part of the cost of fighting and rebuilding is not acceptable. I know France, Germany, and Russia will never send any troops to Iraq, but that doesn't mean we can't get others to help, or our existing allies to help more. Having UN legitimacy, at the very least, would be a token effort to dispel the feeling among the Arab populace that the whole thing is a CIA-funded grab for oil (cough-1953-Iran-cough).
On fiscal responsibility. The GOP pretty much abandoned fiscal sanity in the '80s because it wasn't politically popular. They ended up selling the lie of "welfare Cadillacs" and such things to the public, and people bought it.
Now people are under the false impression that deficit spending is a cure-all for every problem under the sun, and Bush is leading that charge. "A good economy? Let's deficit spend and keep it going good longer. A bad economy? Let's deficit spend and start it up again." What's next? Invading and plundering other countries just to avoid paying taxes?
See the way I think of the economy is like a car engine. Deficit spending is a good way to start the engine again, if it's stalled or something, much like turning the ignition.
But you don't keep turning the ignition to keep the engine running, unless it's a crappy engine that stalls all the time.
I, for one, don't think America has a crappy engine. It just needs a tune-up.
Restoring fiscal sanity to Washington will increase confidence in the American market. It worked before, under Clinton, and it'll work again, if we can ever dig ourselves out of the financial hole Bush has dug for us.
But here's the thing. The GOP has had virtual control of the House, Senate, and White House, and could have rammed through any Supreme Court nominee they wanted, pretty much. (Hell, they got Ashcroft through, didn't they?)
If they were so gung-ho about ending Roe v. Wade, they could have done it and they chose not to.
While I'm glad they showed more restraint than I woulda given them credit for, I'm starting to think the GOP politicians in Washington are purposely keeping Roe alive to galvanize support from antiabortion voters in elections like this one.
On foreign policy. Yeah, we should be able to invade other countries preemptively if they pose a threat to this country. Both candidates believe this.
Kerry's comment about the "global test" was that after we had done so (preferably with robust allied support) we oughta be able to justify why we did it.
American troops make up 7/8 of the coalition troops on the ground, for all the talk of "a grand 30-country coalition of the willing". A few of them are little Pacific island nations, like Nauru and Tonga, who don't even have troops to send!
Having America bear such a disproportionate part of the cost of fighting and rebuilding is not acceptable. I know France, Germany, and Russia will never send any troops to Iraq, but that doesn't mean we can't get others to help, or our existing allies to help more. Having UN legitimacy, at the very least, would be a token effort to dispel the feeling among the Arab populace that the whole thing is a CIA-funded grab for oil (cough-1953-Iran-cough).
On fiscal responsibility. The GOP pretty much abandoned fiscal sanity in the '80s because it wasn't politically popular. They ended up selling the lie of "welfare Cadillacs" and such things to the public, and people bought it.
Now people are under the false impression that deficit spending is a cure-all for every problem under the sun, and Bush is leading that charge. "A good economy? Let's deficit spend and keep it going good longer. A bad economy? Let's deficit spend and start it up again." What's next? Invading and plundering other countries just to avoid paying taxes?
See the way I think of the economy is like a car engine. Deficit spending is a good way to start the engine again, if it's stalled or something, much like turning the ignition.
But you don't keep turning the ignition to keep the engine running, unless it's a crappy engine that stalls all the time.
I, for one, don't think America has a crappy engine. It just needs a tune-up.
Restoring fiscal sanity to Washington will increase confidence in the American market. It worked before, under Clinton, and it'll work again, if we can ever dig ourselves out of the financial hole Bush has dug for us.
20
Several points:
The GOP hasn't had a change to appoint any justices this time around, to the best of my knowledge. Your basic point is well illustrated by the example of Ashcroft, though. They also don't need more Supreme Court justices. The ones they had violated court procedure to get Bush in office in the first place.
We're blocking a lot of French, German, and Russian firms from participating in the rebuilding.
I completely agree with you on the position of fiscal sanity... or lack thereof.
The GOP hasn't had a change to appoint any justices this time around, to the best of my knowledge. Your basic point is well illustrated by the example of Ashcroft, though. They also don't need more Supreme Court justices. The ones they had violated court procedure to get Bush in office in the first place.
We're blocking a lot of French, German, and Russian firms from participating in the rebuilding.
I completely agree with you on the position of fiscal sanity... or lack thereof.
"I like the funny sounds of parrots squawking,"
- Jimmy Buffet
- Jimmy Buffet
22
hehe.
Think they got the concept of restricting access the wrong way round?
(actually, very odd move with respect to Americans abroad, i.e. in the military. You'd thing the repubs would even welcome DOS attacks if it helps them ferment that 'world-against-the-US-under-seige-Bush-the-saviour' mentality)
Think they got the concept of restricting access the wrong way round?
(actually, very odd move with respect to Americans abroad, i.e. in the military. You'd thing the repubs would even welcome DOS attacks if it helps them ferment that 'world-against-the-US-under-seige-Bush-the-saviour' mentality)
28
Hehe; I think that thing almost single-handedly convinced my roommate to vote Bush.Goober5000 wrote:Meh.
http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
A.K.A. Mongoose, for you HLP denizens
30
Vote anyway. If you don't like Kerry or Bush, vote for a third-party candidate like Badnarik or Nader.