Presidential Debates

I've noted that much of the discussion has been disconnected to the material of the first debate.I considered trying to suppress this (close topic?), but I figured this was as good a place as any for Bush/Kerry debate.When debate 2 comes, this topic should be closed and a debate 2 topic started.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

You didn't answer my question.WHY DON'T YOU MIND THAT BUSH REDUCED THE TAX BURDEN FOR THE RICH AND FOISTED IT UPON THE MIDDLE CLASS?You told me that you didn't mind that.Why don't you?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-03-2004 03:36 PM

Is it fiscally responsible to cut taxes and increase spending, such as on an invasion of and long occupation in Iraq, and an entire large new government agency like the Office of Homeland Security?What has that current action done to the deficit?

quote:

---

You forget that GWB want to make his tax relief permanent, and JFK wants to do away with tax relief, a reason to Vote for GWB.

---

Why do the rich deserve a tax cut? Recent scandals such as Enron and Tyco show that the rich should not be trusted with extra money. They can't be trusted to use that extra money to create more jobs. What do they do with that money? They pocket it or shuffle it off to make factories in other countries.What does the middle class do with the money? They spend it on consumer goods. What does an increase in consumer spending equal? More jobs. If there is going to be a tax cut it needs to be in the lower income brackets.Next, we have rising costs, especially after 9/11 and a new "War on Terror". If you increase spending guess what you have to do? Increase taxes. GWB making the tax cuts permanent is a reason to vote for KERRY, not Bush.

After reading his posts, this is my personal opinion on why he didn't mind. I think he is one of those that would support anyone that claims to be (1) religious, (2) conservative, (3) a bigot, and (4) a republican.Whatever has failed to directly support some of Bush's positions, and I think for obvious reason. He doesn't know squat about politics just like me. However, he's just being loud because he thinks Bush has all the qualities that whatever thinks a president should have: (1) religious, (2) conservative, (3) bigot, and (4) republican.This is why we saw his introductory post about how Kerry brought up the international court issue. Even after a link of the script was given to him, he continued to go on with his unsupported belief. This is a clear indication that he know not what he is talking about.So, I suspect he doesn't even know why he doesn't mind.

I'm hoping that the gay rights issue will come up in one of the other debates. One thing that has disappointed me about Kerry and Edwards is that they've been dodging the whole issue all this time. On a debate like this, I'd like to see how Kerry is going to dodge it again.

You miss the point of Kerry, his trillion plus health care package would do away with the tax relief program, meaning lifting the tax rates higher for all(rather than keeping rates locked), what you need is to lessen the tax burden, not increase it by a Kerry plan,
However, what we need is less social programs that would only raise the national debt, faster than is the bush programs, however, it might be the price of freedom, something the democrats appear not to understand, the democratic party believes only in creating shortages, environmental laws, preventing electric power plants being built in california which is creating electricity shortages in california, or to pour water like in california on the desert while their is water shortages in the cities of southern california, prevent new oil refineries being built which creates shortages of gasoline, gifting the drug companies to sell drugs at elevated prices in america, while they sell at half the price in canada and still call it free trade, etc...P.S. What you need is to share the vision of the republican party, fairness in the free trade treaties(high drugs in America while half the cost in Canada, etc...), more refineries, more coal burning power plants, farmers and small buisness health insurance groups, developing coal scrubber clean air technologies, bush wants to develop hydrogen technolgies for energy for the 21st century, what you all should be is for the empowerment of the people and not the democratic parties continual depowerment of the people by all the shortages that are only causing the prices to be higher, like the bush plan for selective cutting of national forests, instead of the democratic party's plan for the selective pruning being these massive forest fires, that only dwindle a natural resource, you all know of the massive coal reserves we have, yet the democratic party crys air pollution, refusing to address the wisdom of developing clean coal burning technologies, drilling for oil in alaska, off shore florida, so the people will not be empowered by cheap energies that would only empower the economy and job growth, something the democrats fear, which was likely why they sent our polluting industries to china, mexico, and now say the republican sent them packing when in truth it was the democratic party, under Clinton, but you all got what you asked for by branding Pat Buchanan as a radical for wanting to close our borders to prevent these industries to beable to pack all their equipment and ship it to countries outside our borders and to make matters worse to beable to sell products once made in america back to america without penalties, truly the democrats are not being fair and are responsible for all the jobs not present in the free trade treaties under the clinton watch, now you need to bring fairness to the free trade treaties, unfortunately Kerry will not bring fairness, because he will sign us up to strick air emmissions that will burden industries that had the guts to remain in America while industries that fled to Mexico, China, etc...will continue to spew out pollution to the airs of the world, truly we don't want to be unfair to us and ours, but Kerry is an environmentalists and will place this burden on our industries. If you want to bring fairness to both the environment and industry you can but vote for the republican plan that will address an energy plan, that the democratic party will refuse to address because to do so, would empower industry and the american people desire to be empowered with quality employment.It would be interesting to see Kerry say he is for or against same sex marriages, because he knows that the people in all the states that allowed the people to vote, voted overwhelmingly against same sex marriages. This is an example of what only a few judges are forcing their will on the will of the people when the judges are suppose to be protecting the will of the people, all we have left is to vote the liberal mindset out of office, cause they are about forcing their will upon the people, that was not the intent of the constitution, etc....GWB is putting limits on tax rates, Kerry wants to do away with this tax relief, so it matters not what rates I'm paying because Kerry will only do away with tax relief, meaning he would tax to death the american people, raising my rates, taxing gasoline, because that is the democratic parties solution to empower their socialistic communistic rubberstamp midis wells that have no bottom, helping create rubber stamp jobs, but not addressing root causes, etc...

quote:

---

You miss the point of Kerry, his trillion plus health care package would do away with the tax relief program, meaning lifting the tax rates higher for all(rather than keeping rates locked), what you need is to lessen the tax burden, not increase it by a Kerry plan

---

Why would Kerry need to tax everyone? Why do we need to lessen the tax burden on the rich?

quote:

---

However, what we need is less social programs that would only raise the national debt, faster than is the bush programs, however, it might be the price of freedom, something the democrats appear not to understand,

---

So the price of freedom is raping the social security system, running up the national debt, doing away with unemployment insurance, supplying health care to veterans, etc. If that is the republican view of freedom then I don't want any part of it. So much for compassionate conservative.

quote:

---

the democratic party believes only in creating shortages, environmental laws, preventing electric power plants being built in california which is creating electricity shortages in california, or to pour water like in california on the desert while their is water shortages in the cities of southern california, prevent new oil refineries being built which creates shortages of gasoline, gifting the drug companies to sell drugs at elevated prices in america, while they sell at half the price in canada and still call it free trade, etc...

---

Who paid off our last national debt? President Clinton, a democrat. Also, there is no shortage in oil nor will there be any time soon. What the democrats want to do is lessen our reliance on oil by creating more fuel effecient alternatives. You say drill for more oil, I say use less. The amount of oil that we would get from ANWR could be offset by increasing fuel effeciency.If you want food, guess what, you have to water it.And next, I really don't see Bush pressuring the drug companies to lower their prices here in the states. Do you have any evidence that Bush has made headway on this topic?

Whatever, it would be nice to see you engage in a coherent and to the point discussion with people for once. Everytime someone asks you a question or is disputing with you on some point, you change the subject and talk about something else. Please go back and talk to Shraf and other people that posted questions for you.This is not battle chess. You don't win by dodging the current issues and do an offensive elsewhere.Added by edit:By the way, it would be nice if everyone not try to answer him everytime he tries to change the subject. Force him to address the things that are being disputed rather than forget about them and move on.This message has been edited by Lam, 10-03-2004 07:21 PM

Because he needs money that is not there, for his big plans for America. The republicans have stimulated the economy, the stock market has not crashed, proof that the GWB plan is working, give GWB more Senators so Democrats can not filibuster an energy plan, buisnesses will flourish, jobs for the middle class, more money generated to pay off the national debt, this is how to help big buisness to play an active role in paying more taxes, is to create an environment for industries to thrive, more industries more jobs, more tax moneys collected, no difference than in municipalities expanding sewer / water lines to generate more tax money's by creating a bigger tax base, more people building houses, more property tax collected, etc... So they don't go bankrupt, leave the country, to help them expand, grow, branch out across the country, creating jobs for us and ours, etc... You need water to grow oranges, but when the people need water in the cities, leave the growing oranges to the places that have excess water, so to make California a better place to live. Just the water evaporating in the desert sun, would make Californian water bill to decrease, its just poor management of needed utilities, creating shortages when they have more than adequate water, but democrats have this need to create shortages, so to depower the people to excessive water bills, electricity bills, excessive fuel additives to raise gasoline costs, etc...You don't see the Bush administration prosecuting people getting their drugs from Canada, its something that likely can be settled by Congress, suspect the republicans agree with making free trade fair, or they would be prosecuting seniors that are getting drugs from Canada, the drug companies should be bringing this to the supreme court, but are not, Why ? the republicans and democrats might work together on this one, the drug companies likely realize they are treading on thin ice, because the republicans and democrats both feel the need to address the high health insurance costs, etc...

Schraf, you didn't answer my questions. Please answer my specific question as to whether the poor and middle class pay more, the same, or less taxes than before the tax cuts.

Lam, I don't see GWB being a bigot, what the problem with the same sex marriage thing, is a power play to prosecute Christians as being bigots, like what is happening in Canada, people that believe the bible says what it means, likely are or will be prosecuted for saying same sex is an abomination(its a frontal attack on Gods Word), the constitution protects religion from hate laws, that are aimed at attacking the fundemental tenents (doctrines) of religion, this freedom is protected by the Constitution, its called freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, tolerance between the religions and the infidels, etc...The bible says to allow the filthy to be filthy still and to let the righteous can be righteous still, think its kjv rev 22:11, if you make hate laws, then how will the righteous be allowed to be holy still, if they are forced to marry same sex which is considered an abomination. Thomas Jefferson made an important point that separation powers extend to the infidel, which seems in line with allowing you to be filthy still, but not to allow the gay agenda to be making a frontal attack upon the churches(as is happening in Canada), to force this abomination upon the churches that are striving to be holy still, righteous still, to teach what Gods Word says about this abomination, etc...God is our judge, and he will reward the filthy, the unjust, and the holy and the righteous, according the verse following kjv rev 22:11.George Washington said that Congress was to protect the Religion of Jesus Christ, and GWB is simply going to Congress to try to correct activist judge rulings, trying to subvert the Bill of Rights against the will of the people, it may take Congress to protect the Sanctity of Marriage that it is between one man and one woman, in every state that has voted on same sex marriages issue, the will of the people is crystal clear, to not allow same sex marriages, thus the activist judges are subverting their will against the will of the people, which was never the intent of the Constitution. The constitution was to be about the will of the people, not the will of several liberal activist judges whose only intent it to force their will upon the people, instead of protecting the will of the people in their rulings, etc...

Um... what the hell does the bible has anything to do with the constitution? What the hell happened to seperation of church and state?

You don't understand separation of church and state, our founding fathers were Christians, Thomas Jefferson made a vow to protect religion from religion, even extending this freedom to include the infidels, so the infidel wouldn't become more powerful than the Religion of Jesus Christ, the separation from government includes the infidel, so the government is to not allow you to force your beliefs upon the other religions, and the churches can not force you to tithe to the churches, granted the activist judges are subverting the constitution, attacking the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, etc...P.S. This is why you have Chinese that love the freedoms our constitution provides, the Muslims the freedoms from sharia law, its because the Bill of Rights protect not only the religion of Jesus Christ, but includes the infidel, but not for the infidel to force their lifestyle upon the Religion of Jesus Christ, or for the Muslim to force sharia law upon your beliefs, or you to force your beliefs in same sex marriages upon the muslim religious doctrines, or the Jew, the hindu, the buddist, etc...

Define "infidel".