Your Chance to Convince Me

[Double Trouble]

I'm amazed it took a while before this degenerated into a name calling personal attack thread. There's no need to make this a "the democrats did all the bad stuff vs the republicans did all the bad stuff!" thread.

ISLA, if you haven't made up your mind and you really want some ideas, here's a few things to ponder...

- Neither candidate will really help solve any major problems during their candidacy, they can only lay the groundwork for future solutions.
- Despite all the promises candidates make, they are virtually powerless to do anything[/b] without working together with congress.
- Whomever wins the election will be able to make a long lasting impact on our society because of possible supreme court appointments.
- The energy problem in the US is one of the very few things that could realistically derail the US economy in the next few years. It needs to be adressed.

Now, I'm not overly fond of either candidate, but I truly believe only one of them has the potential of making a positive impact.

Who's more likely to work with bipartisan support of congress? Whether you like Gore or not, over the last 8 years he's antagonized republicans in congress to the point where they will *not* work with him on anything. Bush on the other hand has done a very good job in Texas of working with the democrats there -- heck, major democrats even endorced him in the race for governor in that state (over the democratic candidate). How often do you see that??

The next president will make some supreme court appointments that will have a lasting impact. This comes down to your own personal views on abortion etc, but think about how each candidate would affect the court.

Social security WILL be in trouble if it is not overhauled - that's a mathematical fact. If we 'put it in a lockbox', we are simply guaranteeing that we leave a huge problem for a future generation. We have to adress the issue. Regardless of who's "plan" gets implemented, seniors WILL get their money, as SS has plenty of money for the next 15 or so years. The question is, will the current generation of 40-plussers be able to enjoy the benefits of their contributions? Only if the issues are tackled in one way or another NOW.

The environment goes hand in hand with energy policy. To their credit, Clinton/Gore have taken steps to try and protect the environment. Unfortunately, they have done so without also taking into consideration how it might affect energy generation. Short term, it hasn't impacted our economy, but now, after 8 years of no real energy policy, we've been put in a position of complete dependance on Arab oil, as shown by the summer gas price swings. Clinton was forced to dip into the strategic oil reserve meant for emergency (wartime) use.... that pretty much shows the situation we're in as far as energy.

There you have it, some things to think about

 

[Isla]

Thanks guys,

You have given me plenty to think about. I have to say this is the toughest election I have ever faced. I appreciate ALL your responses and will continue to check this thread for more insight as the day approaches...

Peace~

 

[ride525]

Isla,

I'd say go with Gore on the environment......Not too sure about education though.....though I'd Gore would be more of a supporter of public education.

This DUI thing with Bush bothers me some.....Actually, at first I thought the networks were making much ado about nothing....but now, it comes out that this is Bush's THIRD arrest......I'm not sure I want a president who has been arrested three times....

And then there is this thing of integrity that Bush himself has been promoting......Bush apparently didn't tell the truth about the DUI thing on both a jury duty application, and when answering a reporters questions. Both were in the last two years, I believe.

 

[64bitloopy]

No matter who you vote for as prez, make sure the congress is from the other party, at least that way, no one will get anything done.

It's always better to do nothing than the wrong thing.

 

[vi edit]

"Democrats try to hit the lowest common demoninator. Do you really want to vote for a candidate who is against kids having guns in school?"

WTF kind of comment is that??? I hope that you had a brain fart and mistyped something...either that or you have one very, very poor ability to relay sarcasm.

Sheesh!

 

[Isla]

<< No matter who you vote for as prez, make sure the congress is from the other party, at least that way, no one will get anything done. >>



64bitloopy, I consider that a brilliant strategy!

 

[Tripleshot]

vi_edit

Didn't you know? Thats Shrubs new method of making teachers accountable. Arm the students with concealed weapons and if the teachers don't teach,the kids can pop a cap int their ars. That will make those low life teachers fall in line.

>>Battle cry of republican youth<<

>>>Down with Teachers! Down with the teachers union! Up with the new fuzzy math carriculum. Guns for everyone! (Cept Liberals,They gottta hide in the woods why we take pot shots at them . Got sharpen our skills to kill!)<<<

 

[vi edit]

Brings a new meaning to &quot;Shooting for an A&quot;, eh?

 

[yllus]

<< Clinton and Gore sold our top nuke secrets to China for campaign cash. They hold political beliefs that assume that America is the focus of evil and that we shouldn't be the only ones with the Big Guns. >>


You seriously spout a statement like this, and have the temerity to call *me* a fool? Okay...



<< A Chinese general said that he didn't think that the US would be willing to sacrifice L.A. if they attacked Taiwan and we defended them like we're supposed to. >>


Contrary to seemingly popular belief, the leaders of China are not total brain-dead morons who got to their position solely through luck and family connections. They're got other, more pressing concerns than annexing a new portion of land and a couple million more people to find jobs and shelter for. Then there's the fact that they'll be trading Beijing for L.A.

Napalm, of the five wars you listed WWI and WWII had little to nothing to do with American involvement till at least partway through. So of your three other examples, looks like your Republicans win in 2/3 instances.

 

[thebestMAX]

ISLA-

Vote for me and &quot;Ill set you free&quot;

 

[rahvin]

<<How is Gore going to pay off the debt when he spends the surplus and then some?!?! Huh? HUH? He's promising free EVERYTHING to EVERYBODY in an attempt to buy votes, so where is this debt paydown gonna get it's cash from?>>

Because if there is a demo president and a republican congress neither of them will be able to spend it!!! Gridlock them and they can't hurt us!

<<Here's the source of my comment about private accounts, and a snip:>>

Your source is full of sh!t. There are quite a few countries in the western hemisphere without any type of retirement accounts or equivalent social security programs. I want a link to a source that will list every country in the western hemisphere and a detailed description of their plan. Cause ya know, I just don't buy it that Uraguay has a personal individual retirement account. (and BTW the US does have private retirement accounts, as a list they are the IRA, ROTH IRA, 401k, 401b and a couple others)

<<You are obviously a tree-hugging Utopian who believes that nothing is more important than being nice to Gaia. Kindly go drown yourself, please. (Hey! I said 'please'!)>>

You are such a dumbass. Why is clean air and water such a threat to you? Why is protecting natural places so scary to you? Do you realize your attitude is why lake erie <sp?> caught fire this century? I'm anything but an environmentalist, but I'm not stupid enough to suggest that drilling for oil in a national wildlife preserve is a good idea! Why we are at it why don't we just build that damn on the colorado at the edge of the grandcanyon (I can't remember the name of the site) that would put the grandcanyon underwater, just think of all the foriegn oil we wouldn't have to buy!

 

[Pennstate]

BTW, Argentina was the first country that put part of their Social security into the stock market. When the the stock market collapsed, people there were really really pissed.

 

[Napalm381]

<< Houston is the most polluted city in the country. >>

From the Cato Institute: For example, consider the charge that Houston has overtaken Los Angeles as the smoggiest city in America. This, not to put too fine a point on it, is a lie. If we do what the Environmental Protection Agency does to determine whether a metropolitan area is in compliance with federal air quality standards--that is, tally up the number of violations at the designated &quot;worst case&quot; air quality monitor for each city--Houston violated federal ozone (smog) standards 11 times in 1995 (Bush's first year in office), 15 times in 1996, 12 times in 1997, 10 times in 1998, 18 times in 1999 and 14 times so far this year. L.A. violated federal smog standards 65 times in 1995, 62 times in 1996, 30 times in 1997, 57 times in 1998, 35 times in 1999 and 17 times so far this year. EPA then averages the number of violations over a three-year period to determine whether an area is in or out of compliance. By that official yardstick, over the most recent three-year window, L.A. averaged 36 violations--33 more than the law allows--while Houston averaged 14. Data to the contrary naming Houston as No. 1 in smog is simply cooked and its methodologies deemed inappropriate and misleading by the EPA.

Despite this moderate trend upward in Houston's noncompliance, pollution has not worsened in Houston under Bush. EPA data clearly shows that the emission of pollutants that contribute to smog have been trending downward in Texas since Bush became governor. Smog concentrations haven't changed much recently, however, because the summers in Houston have been getting hotter, while it's been cooler in L.A.


<< Bush is Governor of the most polluted state in the country >>

What about toxic pollution? Texas does indeed rank high on the list of states with the most toxic air, land and water emissions, but that's because Texas is where 60% of the nation's petrochemical companies happen to be, and they're the biggest sources of toxic emissions simply given their chemical-intensive nature.

First, the petrochemical industry was in Texas long before Bush assumed the governorship; it didn't follow him there. Second, those emissions--even according to the EPA--are well below the threshold of human health concern. Third, nobody's breaking the law. Fourth, those plants have to be somewhere--otherwise, there would be no gasoline, no home heating oil, no diesel fuel--and whatever state those plants call home would sit at the top of any &quot;toxic pollution&quot; list. And finally, toxic emissions from major industrial sources in Texas have dropped a whopping 40% over the past decade.

But aren't the pollution laws voluntary in Texas? No. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and all the rest of the monstrous federal environmental regulatory code applies to Texas just like every other state. There's nothing voluntary about it. Bush indeed has put in place an incentive program to get industry to reduce pollution beyond federal standards, but why are regulatory &quot;sticks&quot; necessarily better than regulatory &quot;carrots&quot;?

On another front, Texas, like a number of other states, has a &quot;self audit&quot; program to encourage industry to report inadvertent violations of the federal environmental code that they would otherwise have legal incentives to conceal. If regulated entities come clean about inadvertent violations and negotiate remedies with Texas regulators, the state won't hammer the rule-breakers into the ground. There's nothing obviously anti-environmental about that.

But Bush hasn't relied exclusively on carrots; he's used the stick as well. In 1999, he supported and signed legislation to require Texas power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions (a potential source of smog) by 50% and acid-rain-causing compounds by 25%--reductions far beyond those required by Washington.

 

[Ferocious]

Actually Reagan had very little to do with ending the cold war. It was due to many issues. It was the courage of a Soviet Leader not to resist change for the better that ended it. By seeing to the benefits of capitalism over pure communism. During the 1970's East Berliners began to see and hear West Berliner television and radio and began to see the other side as not being so evil. It was by courageous and daring leaders not crushing the Polish solidarity movement, but rather to let it spread and along with Gorbachev's Perastroyka(sp?). The myth that Reagan's military buildup had something to do with the end of the cold war with the Soviets is a slap in the face of the courageous Soviet and Eastern European people. (Why didn't Cuba or China change from communism if it was because of our military buildup?).