If the election was held today...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Event
  • 192 comments
  • 4,784 views

Wou should be the next President?

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 17 35.4%

  • John Kerry

    Votes: 27 56.3%

  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • Total voters
    48
Would putting a higher tax on an item be socialism? For some reason I remember someone telling me that placing a "sin" tax on an item would be socialism, though at the time I did not know if that was true or not. Could someone tell me if this is true and why exactly it would be true if it is? This does not really have to do anything with the discussion in this thread, it is more for my knowledge of knowing more stuff.
 
It's not exactly socialism, but it is an attempt by the government to influence people to behave a particular way. As such, it's against Libertarian ideals, though probably not Republican or Democratic ideals. Any form of government control - not speaking of general health and safety issues - interferes with the free market.

That's putting it very simply, but that's the core of it.
 
Well I knew it was against the Libertarian's view, I just wanted to know if it went with socialism or not. :dunce:
 
I agree with some of the Libertarian views, but some are just obsolutely impracticable.

Free immigration? Have they lost their minds!? Obviously, Libertarians don't have a grasp of our problems here in SoCal! If they just relized the true cost of immigration, they would think about it in an entiirely different light.

For this reason alone, I have no other interest in the Libertarian party.

I'm also not to keen for their free drug use policy, either. But, I wouldn't mind hearing more about it, since something needs to be done about our drug problems here in the US. Because, this situation needs better attention.
 
Free immigration? Have they lost their minds!?
Click to expand...

I'm not on board with the free immigration thing, especially not in light of september 11th. That doesn't mean I'm not a libertarian. I just means I don't agree with the whole party platform.


I'm also not to keen for their free drug use policy, either.
Click to expand...

That seems a little more fundamental. I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
 
Solid Lifters
I agree with some of the Libertarian views, but some are just obsolutely impracticable.

Free immigration? Have they lost their minds!? Obviously, Libertarians don't have a grasp of our problems here in SoCal! If they just relized the true cost of immigration, they would think about it in an entiirely different light.

For this reason alone, I have no other interest in the Libertarian party.
Click to expand...
Well, as danoff said, it's very possible to be a Libertarian without accepting the entire party line - in fact, the Libertarians themselves would be the first to support your right not to!
:lol:
While I do tend to agree with what danoff said about immigration as well, think of this: free immigration would be a nightmare given the huge amount of social programs currently involved. But then imagine that those programs don't exist or are drastically reduced. So instead of many thousands of immigants coming to play the system, they are coming on a more equal footing and they will have to find jobs or keep moving until they do.
 
While I do tend to agree with what danoff said about immigration as well, think of this: free immigration would be a nightmare given the huge amount of social programs currently involved. But then imagine that those programs don't exist or are drastically reduced. So instead of many thousands of immigants coming to play the system, they are coming on a more equal footing and they will have to find jobs or keep moving until they do.
Click to expand...

This is a good point (and I think more at the heart of what you were talking about Solid). For some reason I immediately jumped to the security issues.
 
In general, though, this is a problem that libertarians face. People see their ideas as impracticle, ideas that are fair but would never work. The problem is that in order for their ideas to work they depend on each other.

You might say that immigration is a problem because of minimum wage or welfare. But libertarians would abolish the minimum wage and welfare.

The same kinds of things crop up all over the map, from privitization of social security to the removal of drug laws or the destruction of the IRS.

People say that the removal of public schools would never work because private schools are so expensive. The fact is that cheaper private schools would show up, as it is right now there is no market for them so they don't exist. But, on the face of it, it doesn't look like you can remove public schools because the market hasn't adjusted for their removal.
 
But I don't see the immigrants moving. We have had drastic cuts in the system, but they still find a way to abuse and use some other system. That's why the state of California has such a problem with workers comp. What? No more help from Department of Social Services? Hello Workers Compensation! It never seems to end.

If immigrants do move from place to place looking for more work, they live outdoors, or end up sleeping in someones garage or carport, and end up leaving an absolute mess behing them. They also commit pety, and serious crimes while moving from place to place. It has gotten so bad in some small towns, that are in between farms, that the towns people drive around town with shotguns, phones and walkie-talkies ready to report when they spot a group of immigrant farm workers strolling through town. They are tired of being victimized, and feeling no support from police, or other proper authorities.

Recently, within the past severaly days, there have been rallies and protest marches calling for the state government to stop harrassing Mexican day labors, and illegal immigrants. The reason is, the INS are now stopping convoys of immigrants, and demanding IDs, green cards, work permits, etc. to see who these people are. Some, if they can't provide proof that they are here as seasonal farm workers, and are just roaming around Califronia to find work without the proper paperwork, are being sent back to Mexico.

So, as you can see by this one problem with immigrants, I can't see how free immigration is going to work.
 
This is a bit off subject compared to the on going discussion above,
Howver, I just had to bring it up.

First off,

Has anyone thought about the fact that every anti-american muslim in the world wants to see George Bush out and John Kerry in?

If all the extremist want John Kerry instead of George Bush, what does that say about electing John Kerry?

I think it says that if we elect John Kerry, we are doing a favor for the terrorist. Should we elect Kerry, we will be dis-arming ourselves and giving up on the greatest enemy those terrorist have ever faced.

To me,
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for terrorist.
A vote for George Bush is a vote agianst terrorist.

Next on my subjects to bring up list is the Tom Ridge warning from this morning.

Did any one see it?

It seems the terrorist want to hit the US before the election and it seems that the National Conventions of each political party are suspected targets.

With that said...

If the terrorist were to hit the US again before the elections, would that strengthen or weaken your resolve?
Would you change your vote?

Anyway, let me know what you guys think.
And of course, try to keep a more level head than myself (good ol' nuclear Kent ;) :lol: )

btw,
Viper Zero
I scares the **** out of me that John Kerry has yet to lay out a foreign policy. What is he waiting on? Is he waiting for another 767 go flying through a skyscraper?

I'm voting for Bush.
Click to expand...

👍
Well said. 👍
 
Why do you think the extremists are working so hard to destabilize Iraq? If they were truly interested in getting the US out, like they say they are, then they would be making as nice as possible so we could transfer power quickly. They wouldn't be attacking infrastructure that affects innocent Iraqis.

What they're trying to do is make our involvement as long and messy as possible in the hope that the American public will lose their resolve and vote Bush out.
 
What they're trying to do is make our involvement as long and messy as possible in the hope that the American public will lose their resolve and vote Bush out.
Click to expand...

The longer and more messy they make it, the more glad I am we gave them our military in Iraq to fight with so they'd be less likely to come over here and blow up our civilians.
 
neon_duke
Is there a particular reason why they should do that? Some of those people might suggest that you should take a power saw, run a quick lap around your skull, lift the top off, and see if you can find your brain.

But that wouldn't be particularly constructive, now would it?
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

thats what i think he should do! ;)
 
Guys if you were talking about dean maybe I'd aggree with you but kerry's not that bad on defence . as bad as you are making it seem anyway. he would not disarm the US. All I've seen him say so far is that he wants to re- establish good relations with the rest of the world and get them involved in Iraq. do I believe he will be good for the country ? No Way do I believe for a minute that he will be good for the country. Do I believe that he would intentionally do something to put us at greater risk ? No I do not believe that at all .
I believe that George W. Bush is doing a great job against terrorist and is doing whats needed to eradicate STATE SPONSORED terrorism. He's done that so far by removing two states that supported terrorism from the equation. he's also put all other states that may support terrorist on notice that we will remove them from the equation also, and that is a very good thing, the fact that he had to do it without our NATO allies is a disgrace to NATO as an organization and maybe further proof that with the fall of communism NATO is better off defunct than the hollow shell it now is. let France and Germany pay for thier own defense. Along with the rest of Europe, instead of reling on the US to come to there rescue.
lets see how they like spending 30% of there GNP's for defense instead of the miniscule numbers they now enjoy. the cold wars over time for them to grow up and fend for themselves.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/budget.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
 
Wow. A comment about Kerry from a Bush supporter that doesn't try to make him look like a pro-terrorist idiot or a coward regarding foreign policies, and to convince people with such as "Who would a terrorist would like you to vote for?" (seen that on a lot of banners lately)

👍 Thank you ledhed.
 
wellyrn
oh i noticed this...

"Ever been to the ghetto? Not the bad neighbourhood in Dover or Wilmington, but truly, government-built housing with police substations within the buildings, like in Chicago? These places are unbelievably out of control with drugs illegal.. If you legalize drugs, it'll be worse beyond belief. You admit it'll be ugly when the Libertarians take over and drugs are legalized - why go through that?"

The drug problem can't possibly get any worse than it is in the states. It seems illogical. The US was the first to prohibit drugs, they have spent the most money for enforcement, they have the strictest laws and most addict/dealers in jail. Somehow they still have the highest rates of use and abuse. I don't have a clue why but you can't argue the fact prohibition makes it worse. So support legalization and harm prevention.
Click to expand...

Dude, the US just sucks at "controlling" anything. I blame it on the Puritan background. You see, England and the US have the worst teen prengancy ratings in the world. Where did the Puritans settle? The United States. Where did they come from? England. Since England had a large number of Puritans, it has a lot of teen pregnancies. Luckily, it kicked out a bunch of the Puritans before they could settle in the US, so its TP rates aren't as high as they could be. Now you take DWI's and the like. The US has got to be the worst country in that, too. The US also has the most incidents in the world where crazy folk bring guns to school/work and go on shooting sprees. Why? Because of Puritans. Now, if you look at the better countries, like Germany, Austria, Canada, etc, they don't have any real ties to Puritans. Sure, Puritans tried to take over Canada back in the day, but France said "Heck no!" and pushed them all away with one hand while it took care of daily matters with its other. Germany? Austria? No, they only really had WW2, other than that, their history is pretty much clean. In fact, other than AIDs, the US is pretty much the worst country for any problem. Well, I take that back, Israel is the worst for suicide bombers. If Iraq wants to catch up and take the title, it'll take a while.... But hey, the US is involved with Israel too. So, yeah, I found my scape-goat, the Puritans....
 
VashTheStampede
Where did you happen to get these numbers from?
Click to expand...
Vash, who are you talking to? You need to specify who you're talking about, like what I did, with the whole "Vash, who are you talking to?" thing. Not one name in your post.... I'm disappointed.... Anywho, if you were talking to me, just do any search and you'll find that the US and the UK have the hightest rates of teen pregnancies.
 
Why do I need to specify who I am talking to when the post I am talking about is right above mine??? 💡

Ok, say the US and UK do have the highest teen pregnancy rates, you still did not give me any numbers. I do not seen the point in searching for this information, as I don't really care too much about it. And what about the rest of your points? You make WWII sound like it was a joke in your post. The Germans only killed like eight billion Jews--this is only Jews; this does not mention all the other people they killed during the war also--and I'm guessing that is not too bad of a thing to have on your record? Seems having all those murders on their record does not mean a whole lot. And let's not talk about the number of murders a country has committed because Russia has every beat by a long shot. Stalin only killed like eight billion of his own people while he held power.

And I also do not really see how teen pregnancies have anything to do with government control of things; the government has no control over what teens do with their lives. It is not the government responsibility to educate people about what can happen from having sex and that they should not do it; on that same note, it is not the school's responsibility to do so either; though as long as it does not cost a fortune, it cannot hurt for them to do so. But most of all, it is the parents responsibility to teach their children about this. They hold more influence over their children. They also are the ones that help to develop the child the most too.

All of this raises another point and that is every country is going to have it's fair share of problem. It does not matter if they are a large country or a small country, they are still going to have problems to deal with it. No matter what kind of legislation is put into effect, there will still be problems to deal with. These problems will never cease to exist--it just so happens that one problem will be replaced with another problem--whether that new problem is worse than the first one, it can be hard to tell, but there will always be something new to deal with.
 
I was kinda wondering the same thing, as the Puritan beliefs have kinda fallen off since early US history.
 
jpmontoya
"Who would a terrorist would like you to vote for?"
👍 Thank you ledhed.
Click to expand...

I like you jp.
You always do a good job with your post.

However, I am sure that Kim Jung Il, Osama, and dozens of other enemies to the state have openly said that they want John Kerry in that office.

The fact is, George Bush is the biggest enemy those terrorist have, and for that reason they would rather see Kerry in office any day of the week.

Personally, as long as I know Kerry is their choice...
This is a time where the term "death by affiliation" goes a long way.

Who do "they" want in office?
I am sure it is not the man who has been actively putting them out of buisness.
 
Thanks GoKents :), good to have a discussion with you.

Neither of us can be sure about what Al Quaeda leaders would want to be president. It would also be very likely that current policies, and anything that go wrong in Iraq is helping them a lot to recruit new members in the Middle East, or as I've heard from our side, strengthen their resolve against us.

If you look at it that way, what's happening in Israel is going on for decades, and it doesn't look like it'll end up any time soon. The strenght ratio between Israelis and the palestinian looks pretty much the same as the US vs Al Quaeda, And they've not been able to make it stop or to slow it down yet on such a small territory, with pretty strong tactics. Now the playground is growing to the entire Middle East, or to some extent, worldwide. Good idea to be very careful about the possible outcome of our current actions, isn't it?
 
**** that **** bush sent us to war because he thought there were chemical weapons in
iraq, but obviously he hasn't found none.

i understand that he was probably scared of sadam but he shouldv'e sent a Navy SEALS team or army green berets. Do you'll notice how many troops have been killed since sadam was taken out of power? mostly by those damned suicide bombers.
 
**** that **** bush sent us to war because he thought there were chemical weapons in
iraq, but obviously he hasn't found none.
Click to expand...

Nice double negative. He isn't the only one who thinks there are WMD in Iraq. He was (at elast at the time) joined by most of the world in that thinking.

I have explained this many times before, but what the hell, one more can't hurt.

These countries were not targeted because unlike these countries, Iraq is one that we defeated in armed conflict recently and set terms with to end hostilities. Those terms have been blatently defied (evidenced by a decade of UN resolutions). The result is that (especially after 9/11) we need to make it known that when the US (or a council that the US is a member of) sets terms, we expect them to be lived up to. Iraq is not just an example for the rest of the world, though (an example that we will enforce our terms). Iraq is also a starting point for democracy and freedom in the middle east, a plan that Bush thinks is the solution to terrorism. Bring them freedom and they'll no longer hate us for it. That's the idea. Iraq just happened to be the country that we had the most ligitimate reason for invading.

The result is the following:

- Free Iraqi people (possibly the most important)
- A closer target for the terrorists to strike (rather than more attacks here in the US)
- No more Saddam
- Stronger US foreign policy (especially under Bush) because the world knows we walk the walk
- A foothold for democracy and freedom in the middle east that may prevent future 9/11's

Sounds like everyone but the terrorists win. Notice oil was not mentioned.
Click to expand...
 

Latest Posts

Back