[ER]

I haven't been following the RNC but I read Neal Boortz's column daily. He was talking about what Arnold had said last night and he quoted a few lines. I haven't verified that they are correct but he is usually pretty good:

"If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, then you are a Republican!" ... "And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican!"..."There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ... and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: "Don't be economic girlie men!"

I love it. My point, though, is that you don't have to agree 100% with Bush or label yourself as a Republican to agree with these issues. Bush is simply more likely to uphold these values than Kerry is. Bush is more likely to allow the American people to decide how to spend more of their money - hence the tax cuts (let's talk about the Fair Tax plan, by the way). Kerry on the other hand will raise taxes because he comes from the line that more Government is good. While both have pandered to the NEA - which really bugs me - Bush has shown that he wants to hold our public education responsible and he has at least tried to offer more opportunites through the use of vouchers. Bush has resolve (misguided or not) against terrorism while Kerry states that the UN should have more say in the direction of our national defense.

What many people fail to grasp in their hatred of Bush is that they are lining up to elect a socialist, radically Liberal politician who will raise taxes, grow the Government even faster, and do everything he can to bring more people into dependency. That's not propaganda, that's his mission-statement - when he's not reminding us of his service in Vietnam, that is. When he promises everything and nothing and can't seem to take a particular stance on a single issue (without later reversing or flip-flopping), you have to look at his political history to determine what he really will or won't do if elected. Once again, he is the single most Liberal politician in the Senate.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by ER

What many people fail to grasp in their hatred of Bush is that they are lining up to elect a socialist, radically Liberal politician who will raise taxes, grow the Government even faster, and do everything he can to bring more people into dependency. That's not propaganda, that's his mission-statement - when he's not reminding us of his service in Vietnam, that is. When he promises everything and nothing and can't seem to take a particular stance on a single issue (without later reversing or flip-flopping), you have to look at his political history to determine what he really will or won't do if elected.

Yep.

They also fail to grasp Kerry does not say he'll leave Iraq. So, the number one issue that most people hate Bush for, will be continued by Kerry.

If elected Kerry will be a one termer for sure, but I shudder at the thought what that **** will manage to get done in 4 years.

[fumbducker]

Finally some common sense around here...

If I could choose anyone to lead our country for the next four years would it be Georgie...probably not...but it damn sure wouldn't be Kerry. Picking the far lesser of two evils is a natural here...


J

[oldfogey]

Fumb, that's what democracy is all about. Welcome to cynicism .

[Baketech]

I think most of you know where I stand on the Bush/Kerredy issue...but I'll offer this little criticism of Arnold's speech if I may.

During his speech Arnold spoke of a defining personal moment where he "realized" he was a Republican... He claimed this moment came while listening to the 1968 Presidential debate between Humphrey and Nixon. He had some cleverly crafted rhetoric.....but factually, I don't believe this debate ever happened....

We've discussed the melding of media, politics and Hollywood quite a bit on this board, and I think this is yet another example of why we should always question the mix. When delivered by professionals, even an outright fabrication can seem plausible.... (here come the leg humpers)

Ok....so Arnold told a lie, but where were the Leftist fact checkers, and where was the media? They were there all week to respond to such things. How could they snooze so heavily on this one...??? We even heard Terry McAuliffe himself prattle on about how they were going to catch all this crap! With all his other failures, primarily the Swift Boat response, Kerry has got to be thinking about canning his ineffective ass this week.


Someone please correct me if I am wrong about the 68 debate...

[Proto]

It was reported over here that Arnie claimed to have experienced Communism at first hand, had seen Soviet tanks parked in the town square back in Austria just after the war (1947 I think he claimed). This has been debunked as by then, that part of Austria was under British control.

Maybe he just got confused but I'm sure it went down well with the Rublican faithful.

[luvtolean]

Interesting.

But I work with many engineers who had the misfortune of living in countries that became communist. Their hatred for communism would make Joe McCarthy blush.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Interesting.

But I work with many engineers who had the misfortune of living in countries that became communist. Their hatred for communism would make Joe McCarthy blush.

I had two GREAT engineering professors that escaped communism, and they frequently lectured on the benefits of living in a Democracy.

[dB]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about the 68 debate...

I didn't see/hear Arnold's speech, but you are correct that this debate never happened.

[Proto]

frequently lectured on the benefits of living in a Democracy.

Would that be the same democracy from which some Florida citizens found themselves excluded?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by Proto

Would that be the same democracy from which some Florida citizens found themselves excluded?

No...that one was in the Liberal Fantasy Land of WouldCouldaShoulda.....

[QuikMike]

Originally Posted by Baketech

No...that one was in the Liberal Fantasy Land of WouldCouldaShoulda.....

that maybe so, Bake, but those folks in Dade and Broward county still deserved to have the votes counted....just my 2 cents....

[Proto]

OK, so that's ok then.

But following on from LTL and Baketech's comments, the US (oh what a generalisation ) seems to think that there is ONLY Communim or US Conservatism. But there are plenty of examples where the middle path, dare I even say it, even Socialism, has built a sucessful, thriving society, with opportunities for all and high standards of living. Sweden, France, Germany, UK, er ........... most of Europe really.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Proto

Would that be the same democracy from which some Florida citizens found themselves excluded?

No, it'd be the one where people meet the minimum intelligence test for voting.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Proto

OK, so that's ok then.

But following on from LTL and Baketech's comments, the US (oh what a generalisation ) seems to think that there is ONLY Communim or US Conservatism. But there are plenty of examples where the middle path, dare I even say it, even Socialism, has built a sucessful, thriving society, with opportunities for all and high standards of living. Sweden, France, Germany, UK, er ........... most of Europe really.

I work with a bunch of people in Scandanavia, and ALL of them complain mightily about their system.

I was referring directly to the comments on communism. I of course understand socialism, and would love to debate the negatives of that stagnant society it has built.

[Proto]

What you only get voting rights if you've got an IQ of 140, or is it 130, hell that's only ten Americans in total. Better make it 80.

LTL I do hope you're joking.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Proto

What you only get voting rights if you've got an IQ of 140, or is it 130, hell that's only ten Americans in total. Better make it 80.

LTL I do hope you're joking.

Kinda. If you can't figure out a voting machine though, I don't care if your vote is counted.

[ER]

Originally Posted by Proto

OK, so that's ok then.

But following on from LTL and Baketech's comments, the US (oh what a generalisation ) seems to think that there is ONLY Communim or US Conservatism. But there are plenty of examples where the middle path, dare I even say it, even Socialism, has built a sucessful, thriving society, with opportunities for all and high standards of living. Sweden, France, Germany, UK, er ........... most of Europe really.

When you take from one citizen to give to another, that's not a free country. I don't see how a Socialist country can thrive indefinitely without turning into a military state. What is the motivation to work (without being forced) if the Government is going to confiscate your earnings and give it to someone else? Also, what will motivate the growing population in the Government's pocket to work their way out if they're getting a free ride?

I'm not an expert, so show me with facts how a Socialist government has developed a country into the place you've described above.

[Baketech]

Voter intelligence is a non-issue. When both sides agree on the ballot and counting method beforehand then the result cannot be argued. The U.S. Supreme Court decision substantiates that position.

The methods and rules were agreed upon pre-election, so the outcome of these ballots MUST be accepted. This includes tossing out the votes of those that made mistakes.

The Florida Supreme court decision was a mathematical/logical error plain and simple. They tried to re-write the way votes were counted, contra to the agreement prior to the election. This is not only illegal, but the very act would have nullified the entire election.

Do the math fellas....


Edit:

Originally Posted by Proto

Would that be the same democracy from which some Florida citizens found themselves excluded?

This is logical fallacy. They were not excluded from the process.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Proto

But following on from LTL and Baketech's comments, the US (oh what a generalisation ) seems to think that there is ONLY Communim or US Conservatism.

I have said nothing to allow you to make that generalization about my views. By all means, let's continue the discussion, but please let me speak for myself...

[Proto]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

No, it'd be the one where people meet the minimum intelligence test for voting.

LTL the first post in this thread should attract your attention.

PS I can't remember how I stumble on that link. No involvement in minaitures at all (apart from the wiring in my wife's dolls houses!)

I have said nothing to allow you to make that generalization about my views

That's why I was mocking myself with (oh what a generalistion)

[Baketech]

Here's a fun illustration that graphically explains why we have an electoral college.....

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Here's a fun illustration that graphically explains why we have an electoral college.....

Heh, at a quick glance, the only state Bush looks to have cleanly swept was Utah.