34 replies to this topic

[Drew]

Who knows how long it'll be before I can't access Ex Isle again (See the downtime reporting thread) so let me get this in.

What issues do you think are important to this campaign, and which issue is the most important one in terms of how you will vote.

I was going to make a poll, but first I want to gather some responses.

[G1223]

From Kerry I am wanting to know What he would do that is different about Iraq. While I suspect ti would have been wait till Saddam and his sons died of old age. I want what he would actually do.  I want the preisdent whoever it is to leave the reovery alone. the tax cuts are getting business to expamd in the US there are  new manufacturing jobs ( Such as the Truck assembly plant in Texas) They may not be the most money making of jobs for the employees (The days of $23 a day assembly line jobs are mostly gone)

From Bush I want  to drop this silly idea of blocking civil unions to whomever. I would like to see a way of working a budget in now that the intial wave of the War on teror is over.  I think this really needs to start with Congress tightening it's belts but if the White House will start VETOing bills that have too much pork on it even if means voting against items he would liek to get.

[Rov Judicata]

I think it's going to focus on personality to a large degree. Bush has made it abundantly clear that one of his main tactics is going to be attacking Kerry's consistency, and he has a fair bit of material to work with. Conversely, the left-- particularly the 527's-- are going to focus on Bush's honesty.

As for actual issues, I imagine it will be jobs and the war on terror. In that order. For me, the decisive factor will be the latter... but I have that luxury, since I'm not yet in the job market.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 05 March 2004 - 02:58 PM.

[Anna]

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 5 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

Conversely, the left-- particularly the 527's-- are going to focus on Bush's honesty.

??? Okay, I must be out of touch, what are 527s?

Anna

[ArmourMe]

1) What will the candidate do to get rid of the Patriot Act and further advance civil rights?

2) How and how fast will the candidate get us out of Iraq?

3) What is the candidates plan to help our economy in the short and long terms?

my slogan, "its the Rights, the War and the Economy, Stupid!"    

[G1223]

Armour Me are you wanting to go back to the way things were done before 9/11? There are parts that this law actually are helpful to the way things are done.

  Now if you are wanting to be more selective of what is done in the way of these actions I agree but I am against pitching the baby out with the bath water.

Speaking of Iraq  I want to stay no longer than nessicary to get a stable government organizedThat has been the position of the current president. But once again are you suggesting we just let it fall down rather than actually improve conditions?

I am asking the questions for answers not to pick a fight.


My Slogan is the Economy is working we got rid of Saddam and why put  a Stupid guy from Mass into the White House

Edited by G1223, 05 March 2004 - 03:31 PM.

[Kosh]

Quote

Armour Me are you wanting to go back to the way things were done before 9/11? There are parts that this law actually are helpful to the way things are done.

Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin.

[the 'Hawk]

*sigh*

I'll be over there.

[Delvo]

Taxes
Overall Federal spending
Social Security and health care and old-age funding

If these stresses on the American economy aren't dealth with, the economic trouble will make the war on terrorism, intelligence investigations, and most supposed/accused conspiracies irrelevant, along with homosexual marriage and abortion and anything else. And the funny thing is that these issues are mostly being ignored by both sides and both Presidential candidates look similar to each other on these issues, which means the differences available for me to pick one based on are a notch below these things in importance.

Edited by Delvo, 05 March 2004 - 04:37 PM.

[G1223]

Kosh, on Mar 5 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin.

So Kosh we should pitch it all?  I mean under the act the CIA and FBI can now legally talk which had been illegal for nearly 30 yrs. But we can have all the services go back to running their departments without sharing the info. I am certain that INS does not need a access to a wanted list of people suspected of being Terrorists or of other criminal acts.

The FBI can drop coordination efforts with local and state police  let alone the CDC about what evidence they need to be aware of when dealing biological weapons .


So Kosh it neat to pitch Franklin's line around but consider what we got out of this act that has helped the nation before just throwing it away.

[MuseZack]

Say, how have those 306,000 jobs a month the tax cuts were supposed to generate worked out, anyway?

Oh, yeah.

http://www.j-bradfor...ves/000419.html

[Godeskian]

of course, there are the manifold downsides tot he act as well. Which i note, the freedom restricting aspects you aren't mentioning

[Rov Judicata]

Kosh, on Mar 5 2004, 02:03 PM, said:

Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin.

And Franklin's exact quote was:

http://www.wisdomquo...com/000958.html

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

This is one of those statements that sounds good, but kind of falls apart if you try to apply it to public policy. 'Essential' liberty is in the eye of the beholder. We give up liberty every time we agree that congress and legislatures have the right to make laws, and the reason for many of those laws IS security.

Now, I have my problems with the Patriot Act (and I loathe the name), but Franklin's quote is overused.

RPITA:

Quote

??? Okay, I must be out of touch, what are 527s?

Anna

527's are the new hotness in getting around campaign finance laws. http://www.ncseonlin...cfm?NLEid=16574

Quote

Abstract: Virtually all political organizations are "section 527" political organizations. While most 527 organizations report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and, if they have taxable income, to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), political activists have recently formed 527 organizations which do not have to disclose their activities to either the FEC or the IRS. By structuring their activities so that they do not engage in express advocacy, these organizations do not meet Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) criteria for political committees.

One of the most famous 527's in recent years has been the liberal moveon.org, which has put out a series of anti-Bush ads. It's rather amusing, because while the ads don't TECHNICALLY give an opinion, you'd have to be a blind leper not to figure out what they want you to do... so, really, what's the point?

Having 527's fling the mud may allow both candidates to remain substantially above the fray. I'm really interested to see which candidate will have more overall 527 support. They also need a better name than 527's....

[G1223]

And Gode the act itself is able to legally edited to correct  for.  Also the act has privisons to phase it out.  

We have medicare we did not pitch it out when there were problems we fix the parts that do not work and continue to watch it.

[CJ AEGIS]

Kosh, on Mar 5 2004, 04:03 PM, said:

Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin.

"There is danger that, ...., it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." -Justice Jackson

[Anna]

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 5 2004, 04:06 PM, said:

RPITA:

Quote

??? Okay, I must be out of touch, what are 527s?

Anna

527's are the new hotness in getting around campaign finance laws.

Ah. It was only a matter of time before the campaign finance fun and games would start. Yeah, they do need a better name than 527s. "McCain/Feingold Follies?"

Anna

[Rov Judicata]

RPITA, on Mar 5 2004, 04:15 PM, said:

Ah. It was only a matter of time before the campaign finance fun and games would start. Yeah, they do need a better name than 527s. "McCain/Feingold Follies?"

Anna

Well, some of them can be a little crazy... how about McCainiacs? .

[Anna]

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 5 2004, 04:19 PM, said:

Well, some of them can be a little crazy... how about McCainiacs? .

D'oh! How come your boss gets all the notoriety?  

Meanwhile, back to the topic. None of the candidates are speaking to my issue: Put the 10th Amendment back in the Bill of Rights. The Federal govt has far overstepped its bounds and NO ONE in ANY party is talking about it. In fact, everyone seems to be falling all over themselves extend the Federal govt further (farther?) than ever.

That's my issue. I don't expect anyone to speak to it, though.

Anna

Edited by RPITA, 05 March 2004 - 07:54 PM.

[Enmar]

ArmourMe, on Mar 5 2004, 10:14 PM, said:

1) What will the candidate do to get rid of the Patriot Act and further advance civil rights?

[the 'Hawk]

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 5 2004, 06:19 PM, said:

Well, some of them can be a little crazy... how about McCainiacs? .

They're McCainiacs, McCAINiacs, that's for sure!

And they're lobbyin' like they never lobbied before!