NationStates Jolt Archive


Kerry

Reynes
27-06-2004, 22:38
I'm going to try this once more, and I'm pretty sure that by page two (if it isn't buried before then) that it will be yet another hornets-nest of bush-bashing liberals.

Why, on Kerry's merit, should he be elected?

We have established that you hate Bush. Now what has Kerry done to merit the position?

I'd just like some straight answers for once. I think it's a very bad idea to put somebody in the Oval Office just to get somebody else out. I mean, look at what happened with LBJ and Nixon.

I don't want to hear why Bush is worse. No comparisons, please. Just tell me why, on his own merit, Kerry should be elected. Nobody has been able to really answer that without swapping over to flamethrower mode.

Note: I have run a similar poll in the past, and surprisingly, more people said "Against Bush" than "For Kerry." That's why I decided to post this.
Reynes
27-06-2004, 23:32
It comes to me as no surprise that the left wants this to be buried. The fact is that what they mainly do is attack Bush, not boost Kerry.
Raysian Military Tech
27-06-2004, 23:36
Bush seems like a good man, he's got a good moral core, and the whole christian thing is a definate plus... I want a poresident who stands up for what i believe in. I will not vote for kerry, because he has no fixed position on anything... the guy can't stand for anything, and if he does, he speaks out against it 2 years later. I just can't trust someone like that! bush might not be perfect in any sense, but he's the best option we have right now.
Johnc
27-06-2004, 23:36
Kerry has 2 sides for every story, so he appeals to everyone...
Raysian Military Tech
27-06-2004, 23:42
Bush seems like a good man, he's got a good moral core, and the whole christian thing is a definate plus... I want a poresident who stands up for what i believe in. I will not vote for kerry, because he has no fixed position on anything... the guy can't stand for anything, and if he does, he speaks out against it 2 years later. I just can't trust someone like that! bush might not be perfect in any sense, but he's the best option we have right now.
Spoffin
27-06-2004, 23:58
Kerry has 2 sides for every story, so he appeals to everyone...This is classic right wing BS. And you've said it so many times that people start to belive it. The majority of examples of Kerry's "flip-flops" are where he voted against a bill with an amendment and then for the bill without it. Or where there were 20 years in between the 2 stances he took, more than enough time to change your mind. Or on something like the Patriot act, where most people voted for it initially, but wouldn't have when it came to light what it actually did. Or on the war on terror, where the initial information was convincing, but then turned out to be a lie.

You getting the picture?
Spoffin
28-06-2004, 00:04
Spoffin
28-06-2004, 00:07
It comes to me as no surprise that the left wants this to be buried. The fact is that what they mainly do is attack Bush, not boost Kerry.Thats absolute bullshit. The fact is that this so called "attacking Bush"... its just Kerry taking the opposite side to him. Its issue based even if you don't like the issues. Its only at points where Kerry is actually under attack that he's pulled out the big guns, like Bush calling Kerry a hipocrite for going to a war he didn't believe in. At this point I think it seems fair to point out that Bush dodged the draft defending Texas from the Vietcong, and didn't even turn up for doing most of that anyway.
Roach-Busters
28-06-2004, 00:19
Kerry is a radical internationalist (staunchly supports the UN, NAFTA, the ICC, and the WTO, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, etc.), pro-communist (supported the totalitarian, genocidal regime of Daniel Ortega in the 1980s and the horrific and ruthless North Vietnamese in the early 1970s; has connections to the ultra-leftist Institute for Policy Studies, which has links to Soviet and Cuban intelligence agencies), hypocritical (brags about being a great war hero when he gave an enormous morale boost to the enemy, did everything he could to undermine the war effort and vilify and smear his fellow soldiers, and was on friendly terms with flag-burners and rabid anti-American communists like Jane Fonda and Angela Davis; boasts of his support of veterans when, in the early 1990s, he helped cover up evidence that there were and are still living POWs in Southeast Asia; pretends to be proud of his military service even though he marched against the war and threw away his medals), and militantly anti-American (his allegiance to globalism far exceeds his loyalty or lack thereof to the U.S.). Don't get me wrong, Bush nauseatses me 100%, but Kerry is such an a**hole that I'd never vote for him. If someone put a gun to my head, I wouldn't vote for Kerry, Bush, OR Nader.
Roach-Busters
28-06-2004, 00:20
Bush and Kerry are BOTH arch-traitors (as is Nader).
Avenging Fists
28-06-2004, 00:26
This election is illustrative of the futility of being "anti" something, without simultaneously being "pro" something else.

The radical left-wing, mobilizing itself around the anti-Bush paradigm, will not overcome the fact that, since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has not experienced a successful terrorist attack upon the homeland. Joe Sixpack realizes that, had Gore been elected, this probably would not be the case. He also sees much of Gore in John Kerry.

The simple fact is that an "anti" message will never fly with Americans. We are a positive, optimistic society, and will not tie ourselves to a negative way of thinking. This is what the "anti-Bush" folks are selling, but they're not getting any takers from the bulk of American society.
Roach-Busters
28-06-2004, 00:35
Kerry, Bush, and Nader make me V-O-M-I-T!
Unfree People
28-06-2004, 00:40
It simply doesn't matter how good or bad Kerry is. The US needs a change desperately, and only Kerry can provide that.

I'll be voting in November against Bush, and I have no problems with that. We need a change...simple as that.
Formal Dances
28-06-2004, 00:43
It simply doesn't matter how good or bad Kerry is. The US needs a change desperately, and only Kerry can provide that.

I'll be voting in November against Bush, and I have no problems with that. We need a change...simple as that.

How will kerry be better?
Chess Squares
28-06-2004, 01:00
fine lets play pro kerry

he votes along a consistant liberal line which shows he isnt trying to burn and doesnt intend to burn the constitution (despite what you think, telling you you cant own an kalishnikov doesnt mean you are being denied your right to own a gun)

his supposed "flip-flopping" is an incompetent conservative propaganda line to make it looks like kerry is stupid and cant decide on things, when if you look at it, he is thinking about things more than ocne and reconsidering his position, he is actually using the big mushy thing between his ears to examine and re-examine problems. stay the course sounds intelligent only when you dont realise it means carrying out any decision despite its consequences.

he is not letting his religion get in the way of poltics and his political choice. everyone flash back to JFK's election when everyone was flying at him for being a roman catholic saying he would be a puppet of the vatican, and now people are flying off the handle at kerry about not voting according to his religious beliefs

ad wasnt this topic for kerry supporters to back themselves up, not GOP conspiracy punks and radical right wing twits to spout off conservative rhetoric and propaganda
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 01:31
It simply doesn't matter how good or bad Kerry is. The US needs a change desperately, and only Kerry can provide that.

I'll be voting in November against Bush, and I have no problems with that. We need a change...simple as that.

How will kerry be better?

Not seeing where he said Kerry would be better, but let me ask you, how has Bush been good? He is voting for Kerry because Kerry will provide change. You've implied that you will not be voting for Bush because Bush has done our country some good over the past four years...
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 01:37
I have been thinking of doing a poll like this, regarding the question of what the Kerry supporters are voting for: Against Bush, or for Kerry.

Just like I suspected, so far, most people who will be voting for Kerry, according to this poll, are really just voting against Bush.

This just shows why when Bush supporters attack Kerry's record, the Kerry supporters instead of answering the attacks, just attack Bush's record.
GWB-ville
28-06-2004, 01:40
If you vote for John Kerry, the USA will end up like this virtual country: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=John%20Kerria
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 01:41
I have been thinking of doing a poll like this, regarding the question of what the Kerry supporters are voting for: Against Bush, or for Kerry.

Just like I suspected, so far, most people who will be voting for Kerry, according to this poll, are really just voting against Bush.

This just shows why when Bush supporters attack Kerry's record, the Kerry supporters instead of answering the attacks, just attack Bush's record.

Kerry's record of paying attention to detail and paying attention to the people? Err, I mean his record of flip-flopping...
John Kerria
28-06-2004, 01:42
If you vote for John Kerry, the USA will end up like this virtual country: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=John%20Kerria

Ha! You think Pro-JK nation is bad?! Check out your bloody country!

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=GWB-ville
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 01:45
If you vote for John Kerry, the USA will end up like this virtual country: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=John%20Kerria
right now, the election in November could still go either way. Even if Kerry is elected, I don't think our economy will become imploded because Bush and his team have already put the country back on the right course towards economic recovery, and I am sure even Kerry isn't dumb enaugh to fuck it up.

As far as the US turning into a John Kerria, I like the idea of great civil and political rights, but is scary that if John Kerry supporters ran this country, how shitty our economy would get.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 01:46
The Dictatorship of GWB-ville is a small, economically powerful nation, notable for its complete absence of social welfare. Its hard-nosed, hard-working population of 7 million are free to succeed or fail in life on their own merits; the successful tend to enjoy an opulent (but moralistic) lifestyle, while the failures can be seen crowding out most jails.

There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, moralistic, pro-business individuals devotes most of its attentions to Law & Order, with areas such as Social Welfare and Religion & Spirituality receiving almost no funds by comparison. Income tax is unheard of. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Gambling, Basket Weaving, and Beef-Based Agriculture industries.

Voting is voluntary. Crime is a serious problem. GWB-ville's national animal is the bald eagle, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the US dollar.

Someone probably did this as a joke, but it is pretty accurate...

EDIT:
Civil Rights: Unheard Of Economy: Powerhouse Political Freedoms: Below Average

That too is seeming kind of accurate...
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 01:48
right now, the election in November could still go either way. Even if Kerry is elected, I don't think our economy will become imploded because Bush and his team have already put the country back on the right course towards economic recovery, and I am sure even Kerry isn't dumb enaugh to f--- it up.

As far as the US turning into a John Kerria, I like the idea of great civil and political rights, but is scary that if John Kerry supporters ran this country, how shitty our economy would get.

The Republican Party: Dropping the F-Bomb since 2004!
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 02:00
The Republican Party: Dropping the F-Bomb since 2004!
awesome cheap shot.

The Democratic Party, Dropping the F-Bomb since December 2003!
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/pluggedin/articles/1208monday1208talkers.html
Pantylvania
28-06-2004, 03:05
just to make sure some of the posts on the first page don't fool anyone into thinking that John Kerry isn't FOR anything, here's Kerry's campaign platform. Click on the topics you care about on the right side of the page to get to the policy directions http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
Chess Squares
28-06-2004, 03:14
hey the radical right wing ignorant, incompetent buffoons need to stay out of this topic because its not for yoou
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 03:16
I have been thinking of doing a poll like this, regarding the question of what the Kerry supporters are voting for: Against Bush, or for Kerry.

Just like I suspected, so far, most people who will be voting for Kerry, according to this poll, are really just voting against Bush.

This just shows why when Bush supporters attack Kerry's record, the Kerry supporters instead of answering the attacks, just attack Bush's record.
You must admit that Bush has obviously given his detractors very much to shoot at?
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 03:27
hey the radical right wing ignorant, incompetent buffoons need to stay out of this topic because its not for yoou
um, actually, you may want to look at the poll question:

How are you voting?
For Kerry
16% [ 6 ]
Against Bush
37% [ 14 ]
For Bush
40% [ 15 ]
Against Kerry
2% [ 1 ]
For Nader
2% [ 1 ]
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 03:27
double post, sorry
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 03:35
If you vote for John Kerry, the USA will end up like this virtual country: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=John%20Kerria
right now, the election in November could still go either way. Even if Kerry is elected, I don't think our economy will become imploded because Bush and his team have already put the country back on the right course towards economic recovery, and I am sure even Kerry isn't dumb enaugh to f--- it up.

As far as the US turning into a John Kerria, I like the idea of great civil and political rights, but is scary that if John Kerry supporters ran this country, how shitty our economy would get.
You know I find it amusing how many Republicans suggest that Democrats are not good at managing the US economy, even though Clinton was one of the best, as was Johnson, Kennedy, Carter, FDR, etc.

As a matter of fact, it appears that most of the worst US economies were during Republican years, such as Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Ford, Nixon, etc.

Why is that?
THE LOST PLANET
28-06-2004, 03:50
If you vote for John Kerry, the USA will end up like this virtual country: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=John%20Kerria

Ha! You think Pro-JK nation is bad?! Check out your bloody country!

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=GWB-villeAh, Visual Aides. These two nations illustrate what I feel is wrong with America and why I will vote for Kerry in November. I value civil rights and political freedoms much more than I value money and the things that they buy. I listen to right wingers rant about increased taxes and money 'wasted' on social programs. I've been paying taxes for 27 years and I don't mind paying them if they are used for the right things, I would even agree to pay a little more for some worthwhile things. How many of you right wingers would do that? Some of those worthwhile things don't even effect me directly, as a middle class resident of one of the most affluent countries on this planet, I think we as a nation can spare a little of what we have to help some of the less fortunate on our little sphere. I don't live obstentiously, I have a large family to support, and I have no birthright or inheritance to fall back on. My community college education was paid for by myself, attending classes at night while I worked two jobs to support my family. It is enough to keep me employed as as a skilled technician but I won't be retiring early or wealthy. I recognize the fact that social programs made my education possible, even though I paid my tuition and bought my own books, I know that taxes keep community colleges running. My mediocre slice of the American Dream is fast becoming unreachable thanks to slashes to things like this. All the Bush tax cuts have had very little effect on me, and I would gladly give them up to insure future generations the same opportunities I had.

I am no sheep, I question our government and it's actions. I won't vote for Bush because it's the 'right thing to do' in the 'war on terror'. Kerry isn't the wishy washy, anti military buffoon the GOP would have you believe. I change my mind on issues as the times and issues evolve and I would be more afraid of a candidate who's mind was closed and stand set in stone. I'm also well informed enough to know most military systems get voted on several times before they're approved, the devil is in the details and politicians love to weigh down thier bills with riders. A 'no' vote on a bill that includes weapon system funding along with other questionable funding and pork, doesn't necessarily mean you don't approve of the system, it is just as likely you disapprove of the packaging of the funding and are rejecting the 'package'. Kerry favors a 'living wage' minimum wage. With all the cuts in safety net programs, I think this is important to ensure that the bulk of americans have a chance at the 'American dream'. Kerry is the major candidate more likely to put the welfare of the struggling, lower income portion of our nation above the interests of the richest, most influencial members of it. I will likely vote for him in November for this reason, more than simply 'not voting for Bush' because of his failures in foreign policy.
Omni Conglomerates
28-06-2004, 04:42
You know I find it amusing how many Republicans suggest that Democrats are not good at managing the US economy, even though Clinton was one of the best, as was Johnson, Kennedy, Carter, FDR, etc.

As a matter of fact, it appears that most of the worst US economies were during Republican years, such as Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Ford, Nixon, etc.

Why is that?

Actually you have very skewed information. The Carter administration destroyed the economy. I don't have anything bad to say about the Cliton economy because it underwent normal economic fluctuations. All economies will have reccessions and periods of gains. The Clinton administration inherited a gaining period and it fluxed during his presidency and was at a down turn at the end of his administration. That wouldn't have been a problem had 9/11 not occured. 9/11 took a normal period of recession and caused in to become worse. Most of the Bush administrations term, economically speaking, has been spent trying to pull that back up. You don't know much about the American economic system do you? The best economic years our nation has ever had were pre-Civil War. The worst we ever had was the Great Depression which was not the fault of the president during that period, it was because the banks had no system to back up their funds and people were buying stocks on margin. The stocks too were classified as ''watered'' stocks. They were unnaturally inflated and did not represent the actual success of the companies the represented. The economy is really in the hands of the people, the president just reaps the consequences of what occurs. It is the presidents job to create good conditions for economic growth, but aside from that it is really out of his hands.

This has been you lesson in economics for the day. The lesson that should have been learned, you really can't blame either side for terrible economies.
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 04:49
It comes to me as no surprise that the left wants this to be buried. The fact is that what they mainly do is attack Bush, not boost Kerry.
What I can't understand is how many polls you run regarding the election. It doesn't seem to matter what slant you take, the polls invariably end up favouring Kerry.

However, it is your dime, and you can do what you wish with it, but it does seem that you want to keep going until you get one that favours Bush. Do you enjoy the pain?
Friends of Bill
28-06-2004, 04:53
hey the radical right wing ignorant, incompetent buffoons need to stay out of this topic because its not for yoouHAHAHAHAHA, huhuhuhu. This is hilarious, probably unintentionaly.
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 04:56
DP
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 04:56
You know I find it amusing how many Republicans suggest that Democrats are not good at managing the US economy, even though Clinton was one of the best, as was Johnson, Kennedy, Carter, FDR, etc.

As a matter of fact, it appears that most of the worst US economies were during Republican years, such as Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Ford, Nixon, etc.

Why is that?

Actually you have very skewed information. The Carter administration destroyed the economy. I don't have anything bad to say about the Cliton economy because it underwent normal economic fluctuations. All economies will have reccessions and periods of gains. The Clinton administration inherited a gaining period and it fluxed during his presidency and was at a down turn at the end of his administration. That wouldn't have been a problem had 9/11 not occured. 9/11 took a normal period of recession and caused in to become worse. Most of the Bush administrations term, economically speaking, has been spent trying to pull that back up. You don't know much about the American economic system do you? The best economic years our nation has ever had were pre-Civil War. The worst we ever had was the Great Depression which was not the fault of the president during that period, it was because the banks had no system to back up their funds and people were buying stocks on margin. The stocks too were classified as ''watered'' stocks. They were unnaturally inflated and did not represent the actual success of the companies the represented. The economy is really in the hands of the people, the president just reaps the consequences of what occurs. It is the presidents job to create good conditions for economic growth, but aside from that it is really out of his hands.

This has been you lesson in economics for the day. The lesson that should have been learned, you really can't blame either side for terrible economies.
Well thank you for the lesson.

However, you just refuted your own statement in this post, and that will be your lesson on debating for the day. :shock:
Omni Conglomerates
28-06-2004, 05:00
[However, you just refuted your own statement in this post, and that will be your lesson on debating for the day. :shock:

You mean the reference about the Carter administration destroying the economy. That is because his administration, not because it was democratic but because it was poor economically, created a bad business environment and thusly the economy went down the tubes. My point was that you cannot blame democrat or republican policies for economic failures, you can only blame circumstance and individual policy. You, sir, should pay more attention in class.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 05:19
hey the radical right wing ignorant, incompetent buffoons need to stay out of this topic because its not for yoou

I'm impressed. You actually managed to look up the words "ignorant," "incompetent," and "buffoon" in the dictionary and use them in a sentence. But since I am such an ignorant and incompetent buffon, would it be inappropriate for me to point out that "hey" should be "Hey", and "yoou" should be "you?" You only make your side look worse when you spout hateful, provocative, unnecessary drivel such as your last 3 comments that I wasted my time reading. Feel free to look up the words I just used, I'm sure you have the dictionary ready and waiting beside you.

As far as the economy is concerned, during the presidency of Clinton (and everyone knows Hillary made all the decisions anyway), the economy relied on virtual money. High stock prices and an overinflated economy do not equal a strong economy. In fact, this only makes the country more vulnerable to a crash in case of a crisis, which is exactly what happened in 9/11. As far as Kerry is concerned, he won't help the economy by creating new jobs, because companies are leaving the country for cheaper labor all the time. If the government creates more jobs, then that means that Joe Taxpayer will be footing the bill. Thanks a bunch, but I think I pay enough tax as it is. And besides, as far as the Constitution is concerned with regards to liberals and conservatives, the men who wrote the Constitution were all liberals of their day. However, if they could see our country today, they would probably all roll over in their graves. When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what kind of government we had (almost immediately following the creation of the Constitution) he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." Unfortunately, our country has drifted so far to the left that it has become a Socialist Welfare state, and that is about the nicest description I can give it. Read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire", and replace Roman Empire with USA. The USA cannot survive if it continues on the path that Athens and Rome took before it. It must swing back to the right and achieve equilibrium, or it will collapse.

Canuck, do yourself a favor and go back and look at the poll results. In fact, here they are.
How are you voting?
For Kerry

15% [ 8 ]
Against Bush

34% [ 18 ]
For Bush

44% [ 23 ]
Against Kerry

1% [ 1 ]
For Nader

3% [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 52
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 05:26
Canuck, do yourself a favor and go back and look at the poll results that were posted just a few posts back. Bush IS winning, even ahead of the people who don't what who they like, but know they hate Bush.

Well...Bush is winning if you take single selections. But I bet almost all of the 18 votes that are against Bush would be voting for Kerry, as well as the 1 that is against Kerry to go for Bush. So in reality...it looks more like:

Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush = 26 - 49%
Pro-Bush/Anti-Kerry = 24 - 45%
Nader = 2 - 3%
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 05:29
It's a good thing that Republic is a governing style and Socialist Welfare state is an economic style, because I thought for a second that you were arguing that they contradicted each other...
Pure Untamed Evil
28-06-2004, 05:45
just to make sure some of the posts on the first page don't fool anyone into thinking that John Kerry isn't FOR anything, here's Kerry's campaign platform. Click on the topics you care about on the right side of the page to get to the policy directions http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

I read the website. I honestly see a bunch of poli-speak and absolutely nothing about how he's going to do any of it. He has these ideas to "make the country better" but absolutely no information on how. Not to mention he starts off most of his platforms with "Bush did this....", he's running on an "I don't have any good ideas, i'm just not Bush" and he knows it!!! Just read the site. If you actually pay attention to the media too, that's all they are portraying too.

In this election you're either voting for Bush or against Bush. This election has absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry.
CSW
28-06-2004, 05:48
This election is illustrative of the futility of being "anti" something, without simultaneously being "pro" something else.

The radical left-wing, mobilizing itself around the anti-Bush paradigm, will not overcome the fact that, since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has not experienced a successful terrorist attack upon the homeland. Joe Sixpack realizes that, had Gore been elected, this probably would not be the case. He also sees much of Gore in John Kerry.

The simple fact is that an "anti" message will never fly with Americans. We are a positive, optimistic society, and will not tie ourselves to a negative way of thinking. This is what the "anti-Bush" folks are selling, but they're not getting any takers from the bulk of American society.

And the radical right will not realise that there had not been a successful attack before then from 1995(6?) until 2001.

Give it a few more years. It will happen.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 05:49
In this election you're either voting for Bush or against Bush. This election has absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry.

I'm glad someone finally understands why I'm voting for Kerry.
CSW
28-06-2004, 05:50
In this election you're either voting for Bush or against Bush. This election has absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry.

I'm glad someone finally understands why I'm voting for Kerry.

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would tell me what I am thinking.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 05:59
Government and Economics are so closely linked that a governing style and an economic state can contradict each other. For instance, in a Republic you would see a trend towards a laisses faire (sorry but it is 1:00 in the morning, I can't be expected to spell French correctly) economy, which means the government takes a hands off approach to business. However, a Progressive (aka Democratic/Liberal/left-wing) would be much more akin to a Communist state in that government has a good deal more control. Government policies center on the economy, and so they CAN be contradictory. So please shut up unless you know what you are talking about. As far as what I was saying, right now the government is very far left, with the Sherman Anti-Trust act setting the precedent for future generations. Basically, what I mean is that because of minimum wage laws and the cushy conditions American laborers enjoy, as compared to the rest of the world, businesses are moving out of the country so they can compete in pricing. If we don't remove some of the restrictions (which arguably neither I nor anyone else really wants to do) then the only alternative is to bring the rest of the world up to our high standards (which ain't gonna happen). Kerry has not answered this problem, and the simple fact is that the Democratic party is not equipped to deal with it, and honestly, neither is the Republican party. The middle class is shrinking, and no one really has an effective solution for it. Compound this with the enormous amount of money spent of welfare by the decidedly left-wing government we have now, and you have a serious economic problem.

Please don't get me wrong, repealing minimum wage laws would hurt me as much as anyone else, along with the rest of my family, but I simply see the problem honestly, and I also see that neither of the solutions are feasible. So guess what? We are screwed, and it is just that simple.
Friends of Bill
28-06-2004, 06:00
Voting for Kerry is virtually giving your vote away to special interest that don't care about you.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:01
Voting for Kerry is virtually giving your vote away to special interest that don't care about you.

As opposed to voting for Bush, which is a vote for the common man*.
















*over a $1 million dollar annual salary, a house in the Hamptons, and assets of over 45 million dollars.
THE LOST PLANET
28-06-2004, 06:03
Voting for Kerry is virtually giving your vote away to special interest that don't care about you. :?: :shock: :?: And the Bush administration cares about us? (Psst.... most of 'us' aren't millionaires or corporate CEO's)
Friends of Bill
28-06-2004, 06:04
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Kerry+%22the+big+dig%22&btnG=Google+Search
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:05
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Kerry+%22the+big+dig%22&btnG=Google+Search

Meaning what? Watch me care.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:05
How do you know I don't care about the things that Kerry wants to do?
Friends of Bill
28-06-2004, 06:09
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Kerry+%22the+big+dig%22&btnG=Google+Search

Meaning what? Watch me care.\
Wow, that was some rebuttal man. Your lack of care matches my lack of enthusiasm for schooling you on your man, Kerry
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:10
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Kerry+%22the+big+dig%22&btnG=Google+Search

Meaning what? Watch me care.\
Wow, that was some rebuttal man. Your lack of care matches my lack of enthusiasm for schooling you on your man, Kerry

This means nothing compared to the ties Bush has in the oil industry.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Bush+oil+ties

Your ball.
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 06:10
[However, you just refuted your own statement in this post, and that will be your lesson on debating for the day. :shock:

You mean the reference about the Carter administration destroying the economy. That is because his administration, not because it was democratic but because it was poor economically, created a bad business environment and thusly the economy went down the tubes. My point was that you cannot blame democrat or republican policies for economic failures, you can only blame circumstance and individual policy. You, sir, should pay more attention in class.
Well sir, I was paying attention, and not only did you say the "Carter administration destroyed the economy", which refutes this statement...

"The lesson that should have been learned, you really can't blame either side for terrible economies."

You also stated......

"The Clinton administration inherited a gaining period and it fluxed during his presidency and was at a down turn at the end of his administration."

Which says to me that he "inherited" from the Republican, and somehow it was "at a down turn at the end of his administration" prior to when a Republican took over. So for 8 years, Clinton lived off the inheritance?

Then this was just a fortunate inheritance?

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-jobs-2003.jpg

You realize that is over 22 million new jobs?

Debating lesson # 2. Never assume that your opponent is unable to read between the lines.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:12
Yes, voting for Kerry means that I can get straight A's in high school, apply for any school, and some random black guy who barely got his GED can get in instead of me thanks to affirmative action. The GOP does just fine by us folks who are willing to make a way for ourselves, rather than sitting around waiting for government handouts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the common man*.


By the way, if you don't mind, post a link to where you got that information( From the graph). Information you just copied off the internet is quite often inaccurate, such as one website I saw while doing a research paper that claimed the US was founded in 1976.






Common Man being a member of any minority such homosexuals, blacks, chinese, and any other non-caucasian with a yearly gross income that consists of social security and food stamps.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:13
Yes, voting for Kerry means that I can get straight A's in high school, apply for any school, and some random black guy who barely got his GED can get in instead of me thanks to affirmative action. The GOP does just fine by us folks who are willing to make a way for ourselves, rather than sitting around waiting for government handouts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the common man*.








Common Man being a member of any minority such homosexuals, blacks, chinese, and any other non-caucasian with a yearly gross income that consists of social security and food stamps.

You have no clue what affirmative action is, do you?
Straughn
28-06-2004, 06:19
"everyone knows" ...
everyone knows Clinton couldn't do it himself.
just like everyone knows Bush can't.
everyone knows that there is only one true religion of all the assumptions and printings since time near immemorial of a code of law and implications of moral certitude. That's why there's so many f*cking different countries on the planet and this very forum!
Everyone knows there's only one right way and all the others are wrong, no matter what little "mistakes" you make, with other people's resources, taxes, opinions, hopes and rights.
Everyone knows that a nation that is comprised of a vast sociological landscape is all going to agree that whatever seems to match the idea of "evil", wherever the source of the definition actually derives, will bond together and make sensible decisions based on not faulty biased "intelligence" and FACT instead of obviously one-sided rhetoric w/out coroboration.
And everyone knows there's one guy/gal on the forum smarter and more experienced than EVERYONE ELSE here, and THEY belong to the RIGHT party. Everyone else obviously needs to get their heads examined. Everyone knows that.
Did i catch the drift of what everyone knows or do i need some actual substance to educate myself outta this quandry?
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:21
Actually, I am very familiar with it, and if you disagree with what I said about, then why don't you tell me what is wrong with my definition. According to what I know, affirmative action deals with giving people (who are grouped according to ethnicity, race, color, national origin, etc. etc. etc. special recognition or opportunities. That is why there are scholarships specifically for minority students, and why certain schools are being asked to fill quotas to ensure proper diversity within schools that offer higher education (colleges, universities, etc.) Since a GED is considered to be the equivalent of a high school diploma, and with the added weight of the NAACP, it is possible for a minority student to gain entrance to a school over a more highly qualified white male, simply on the basis of race/nationality.

I'd say I am a good deal more knowledgeable about this subject than you could possibly ever believe.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:23
Actually, I am very familiar with it, and if you disagree with what I said about, then why don't you tell me what is wrong with my definition. According to what I know, affirmative action deals with giving people (who are grouped according to ethnicity, race, color, national origin, etc. etc. etc. special recognition or opportunities. That is why there are scholarships specifically for minority students, and why certain schools are being asked to fill quotas to ensure proper diversity within schools that offer higher education (colleges, universities, etc.) Since a GED is considered to be the equivalent of a high school diploma, and with the added weight of the NAACP, it is possible for a minority student to gain entrance to a school over a more highly qualified white male, simply on the basis of race/nationality.

I'd say I am a good deal more knowledgeable about this subject than you could possibly ever believe.

Okay, fine, you and a (D I assume) student would apply to Harvard. They wouldn't take the D student, but they might take you, if you are as good as you claim you are.

And yes it is, but the question is how well qualified. This is not a case of F students getting accepted over A students, this is a matter of 95.6 A students who are black getting excepted over 96 A students who are white.
BackwoodsSquatches
28-06-2004, 06:26
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=Bush+%2B+miserable+failure&btnG=Search
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:28
Is that what you believe? Honestly? Then you need to check up on the practical application of affirmative action. In any case, giving someone advantages based on race is only going to provoke racism. It would be better if they had no clue WHAT your race was, took the little box off the SAT, and made the decision based on the same standards that they use for everyone else. Choosing students based on academicmerit just happens to be more fair and unbiased.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:29
Is that what you believe? Honestly? Then you need to check up on the practical application of affirmative action. In any case, giving someone advantages based on race is only going to provoke racism. It would be better if they had no clue WHAT your race was, took the little box off the SAT, and made the decision based on the same standards that they use for everyone else. Choosing students based on academicmerit just happens to be more fair and unbiased.

Do you honestly believe that they sit there and take black D students at Harvard over white A students?
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:31
Do you honestly believe that they sit there and take black D students at Harvard over white A students?

Yes.
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 06:32
Okay, fine, you and a (D I assume) student would apply to Harvard. They wouldn't take the D student, but they might take you, if you are as good as you claim you are.

And yes it is, but the question is how well qualified. This is not a case of F students getting accepted over A students, this is a matter of 95.6 A students who are black getting excepted over 96 A students who are white.

Which is racial discrimination.
Omni Conglomerates
28-06-2004, 06:32
Well sir, I was paying attention, and not only did you say the "Carter administration destroyed the economy", which refutes this statement...

"The lesson that should have been learned, you really can't blame either side for terrible economies."

You also stated......

"The Clinton administration inherited a gaining period and it fluxed during his presidency and was at a down turn at the end of his administration."

Which says to me that he "inherited" from the Republican, and somehow it was "at a down turn at the end of his administration" prior to when a Republican took over. So for 8 years, Clinton lived off the inheritance?

Then this was just a fortunate inheritance?

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-jobs-2003.jpg

You realize that is over 22 million new jobs?

Debating lesson # 2. Never assume that your opponent is unable to read between the lines.

Actually, you put your own meaning into that. My statement was not allegorical. Clinton got an economy that was on an upturn. It wasn't neccesarily the doing of the first Bush Administration. It went down during the first Bush presidency and it went up during his presidency. That is not always the administration's doing. The sitting president just reaps the rewards or lamentations of whatever economy occurs. The only thing a president can do about an economy is push through legislation that creates a good conditions for economic growth. It is the people of America that have to be on the ball after that. For 8 years, Clinton had an economy that rose and fell as all economies do, in the end it was not a spectacular economy, nor was it a terrible one. Do you think that one man makes a movement. Carter was a man. Carter was also a democrat. Carter was also a bad president with a poor record on establishing economic conditions. His policies created a poor economic atmosphere, as a result, the economy suffered more that normal. Carter=Bad Economy. Carter=Democrat. Democrat=Bad Economy, no. Carter was an individual. His mistakes were his own.

Lesson #3 Never read more into the lines other than what is there. Not everything is sprinkled with hidden meanings.
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 06:33
hey the radical right wing ignorant, incompetent buffoons need to stay out of this topic because its not for yoou

I'm impressed. You actually managed to look up the words "ignorant," "incompetent," and "buffoon" in the dictionary and use them in a sentence. But since I am such an ignorant and incompetent buffon, would it be inappropriate for me to point out that "hey" should be "Hey", and "yoou" should be "you?" You only make your side look worse when you spout hateful, provocative, unnecessary drivel such as your last 3 comments that I wasted my time reading. Feel free to look up the words I just used, I'm sure you have the dictionary ready and waiting beside you.

As far as the economy is concerned, during the presidency of Clinton (and everyone knows Hillary made all the decisions anyway), the economy relied on virtual money. High stock prices and an overinflated economy do not equal a strong economy. In fact, this only makes the country more vulnerable to a crash in case of a crisis, which is exactly what happened in 9/11. As far as Kerry is concerned, he won't help the economy by creating new jobs, because companies are leaving the country for cheaper labor all the time. If the government creates more jobs, then that means that Joe Taxpayer will be footing the bill. Thanks a bunch, but I think I pay enough tax as it is. And besides, as far as the Constitution is concerned with regards to liberals and conservatives, the men who wrote the Constitution were all liberals of their day. However, if they could see our country today, they would probably all roll over in their graves. When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what kind of government we had (almost immediately following the creation of the Constitution) he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." Unfortunately, our country has drifted so far to the left that it has become a Socialist Welfare state, and that is about the nicest description I can give it. Read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire", and replace Roman Empire with USA. The USA cannot survive if it continues on the path that Athens and Rome took before it. It must swing back to the right and achieve equilibrium, or it will collapse.

Canuck, do yourself a favor and go back and look at the poll results. In fact, here they are.
How are you voting?
For Kerry

15% [ 8 ]
Against Bush

34% [ 18 ]
For Bush

44% [ 23 ]
Against Kerry

1% [ 1 ]
For Nader

3% [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 52

I don't understand your point? However, it looks like the numbers are even more anti-Bush.

How are you voting?
For Kerry
16% [ 10 ]
Against Bush
37% [ 23 ]
For Bush
40% [ 25 ]
Against Kerry
1% [ 1 ]
For Nader
4% [ 3 ]

Total Votes : 62
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:34
Okay, fine, you and a (D I assume) student would apply to Harvard. They wouldn't take the D student, but they might take you, if you are as good as you claim you are.

And yes it is, but the question is how well qualified. This is not a case of F students getting accepted over A students, this is a matter of 95.6 A students who are black getting excepted over 96 A students who are white.

Which is racial discrimination.

No, its not. What caused the problem to get so bad that we had to do this is.
BackwoodsSquatches
28-06-2004, 06:34
Is that what you believe? Honestly? Then you need to check up on the practical application of affirmative action. In any case, giving someone advantages based on race is only going to provoke racism. It would be better if they had no clue WHAT your race was, took the little box off the SAT, and made the decision based on the same standards that they use for everyone else. Choosing students based on academicmerit just happens to be more fair and unbiased.

Just out of curiosity HRM,
But by chance, are you a member of a nationalist group?

Im just curious.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:35
Canuck, once again I have to point out that for every job the government creates, that is more tax money that the taxpayer has to fork over. That would explain why 22 million jobs (created by Clinton) would not be a good thing. Instead, it would be better to find a way for American businesses to compete on level ground with foreign companies, without having to resort to enormously high tariffs or moving to Mexico and India for cheaper labor. That would encourage business, without the government having to raise taxes so they can hand out money to businesses or pay even more employees (since I believe everyone realizes that our government is far too large).
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:36
No, its not. What caused the problem to get so bad that we had to do this is.

Actually, it is racial discrimination used as the solution to...well...racial discrimination...
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:36
Canuck, once again I have to point out that for every job the government creates, that is more tax money that the taxpayer has to fork over. That would explain why 22 million jobs (created by Clinton) would not be a good thing. Instead, it would be better to find a way for American businesses to compete on level ground with foreign companies, without having to resort to enormously high tariffs or moving to Mexico and India for cheaper labor. That would encourage business, without the government having to raise taxes so they can hand out money to businesses or pay even more employees (since I believe everyone realizes that our government is far too large).

The government didn't physically create the jobs, the economic policy of Clinton did. You have a logical disconnect between "Clinton creates jobs" and "Government pays employers to employ".
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 06:39
Which is racial discrimination.

No, its not. What caused the problem to get so bad that we had to do this is.

So making a decision based on the race is not racial discrimination? Explain how choosing a less qualified person over another more qualified person because of their race is not racial discrimination.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:40
Which is racial discrimination.

No, its not. What caused the problem to get so bad that we had to do this is.

So making a decision based on the race is not racial discrimination? Explain how choosing a less qualified person over another more qualified person because of their race is not racial discrimination. Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:42
CSW: Definitely. Heh. I don't know. I got better scholarships than the valedictorian based of my 31 ACT composite and 3.6 cumulative GPA vs her 25 ACT composite and 4.01 cumulative GPA. And, I'm going to a better college...

BTW: I took the ACT 3 times, and scored the 31 on the second time. She took it 5 times.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:42
In that case, once again, where did you get the info from? Was it a reliable source? Do you believe everything you find in one place on the internet? I also found a website that claimed Elvis is currently in outer space, along with one that claimed marijuana has absolutely no bad effects. The point is, did you get the information from an unbiased source, or was it Clinton's home page. And, honestly, Clinton was too busy with other things while he was on the phone to know what he was agreeing to. Clinton may or may not have done well for the economy, but as I stated before, high stock prices and an overinflated economy are not going to result in a strong economy. After, half those jobs were probably in companies that have now either moved overseas or have gone bankrupt because they were lying on the accounting and artificially raising their stock price. I'm sure you remember all of those court cases...
THE LOST PLANET
28-06-2004, 06:43
Actually, I am very familiar with it, and if you disagree with what I said about, then why don't you tell me what is wrong with my definition. According to what I know, affirmative action deals with giving people (who are grouped according to ethnicity, race, color, national origin, etc. etc. etc. special recognition or opportunities. That is why there are scholarships specifically for minority students, and why certain schools are being asked to fill quotas to ensure proper diversity within schools that offer higher education (colleges, universities, etc.) Since a GED is considered to be the equivalent of a high school diploma, and with the added weight of the NAACP, it is possible for a minority student to gain entrance to a school over a more highly qualified white male, simply on the basis of race/nationality.

I'd say I am a good deal more knowledgeable about this subject than you could possibly ever believe.Read and learn. I'll give you a break because your definition fits with the environment you were raised in (you disclosed a lot of information about your life in your posts) and nobody without a bias probably ever explained it to you. First off AA does not give 'special recognition' to minorities. It also does not usually effect the private sector. A simple explanation would be that in large public institutions and employers the ethnic makeup of the employees/students/whatever should roughly match the makeup of the area population. Makes sense doesn't it? for it not to would usually indicate some type of bias. Well in many areas, including where you live, for many years there was a large difference. To correct this, rules were set down to restore the ratio. These rules don't say you must hire minorities over whites despite what your friends and nieghbors may lead you to believe. However if two candidates for a job are of equal qualifications and your ethnic makeup is skewed from the general population you must hire the worker who is from the underepresented group. We don't live in a perfect world and this is not a perfect fix. But regretably actions such as this are neccesary to correct wrongs that won't go away. I look forward to the day when this is a non-issue.
Omni Conglomerates
28-06-2004, 06:43
Oh yeah, Canuck where did you get that graph from anyways...I wouldn't mind seeing a link or source of some kind. I am not just going to assume that a colorful presentation is Bible truth. I am not debating the numbers just yet, I would simply like to see a souce.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:45
Actually, Clinton is not to blame for his awesome economy. It is actually Al Gore that deserves the credit, for it is he who created the Internet, which in turn created the dot-com mania. :?
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:46
Oh yeah, Canuck where did you get that graph from anyways...I wouldn't mind seeing a link or source of some kind. I am not just going to assume that a colorful presentation is Bible truth. I am not debating the numbers just yet, I would simply like to see a souce.

bartcop.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:47
Lost Prophet, none of those people were ever slaves, and neither were their parents or probably even their grandparents. And no, I don't think the number of employees of certain races should match the local makeup, I think, once again, it should be decided on ability and knowledge. May the best man win, dog eat dog, work hard to survive. It is what I will have to do, and I expect the same of anyone else.

And to make a point, your view is not unbiased either, rather it reflects where you grew and your own upbringing. it is the pot calling the kettle black.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:48
Oh yeah, Canuck where did you get that graph from anyways...I wouldn't mind seeing a link or source of some kind. I am not just going to assume that a colorful presentation is Bible truth. I am not debating the numbers just yet, I would simply like to see a souce.

bartcop.

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-jobs-2003.jpg <- that's the link to the image locating, implying that http://www.bartcop.com/ might have some information you are looking for...
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:51
Interesting how the home page of bartcop features a humorous comment made by Kerry about Cheney. Nice unbiased source. It also goes on to feature a quote from Jon Stewart that is making fun of Bush. Well done. Go find a source that doesn't have such an obvious bias. I do question the numbers, because the source is pathetic.
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 06:53
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

Yes. It makes no difference to me where they are from, what race they are or how many times they took the test.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:53
Interesting how the home page of bartcop features a humorous comment made by Kerry about Cheney. Nice unbiased source. It also goes on to feature a quote from Jon Stewart that is making fun of Bush. Well done. Go find a source that doesn't have such an obvious bias. I do question the numbers, because the source is pathetic.

Attacking the source without addressing the statistics is a big no-no. Have a better graph/numbers for us, or will you just continue making ad hominem attacks?
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 06:54
Canuck, once again I have to point out that for every job the government creates, that is more tax money that the taxpayer has to fork over. That would explain why 22 million jobs (created by Clinton) would not be a good thing. Instead, it would be better to find a way for American businesses to compete on level ground with foreign companies, without having to resort to enormously high tariffs or moving to Mexico and India for cheaper labor. That would encourage business, without the government having to raise taxes so they can hand out money to businesses or pay even more employees (since I believe everyone realizes that our government is far too large).
Creating 22 million jobs is not a good thing because more people would have to pay taxes?

If you are trying to create a new economic model, I suggest you work on it a bit more. It looks like it needs a major overhaul as it stands.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:55
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

Yes. It makes no difference to me where they are from, what race they are or how many times they took the test.

It does matter, because if that person from the slums was able to take the test 40 times he might have gotten a 1560-1600 (Old SATs, not the new ones). Think about this for a moment before you respond, the first person only did well because he has seen the test and is comfortable with the format, the second person took the test cold.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 06:56
Lost Prophet, none of those people were ever slaves, and neither were their parents or probably even their grandparents. And no, I don't think the number of employees of certain races should match the local makeup, I think, once again, it should be decided on ability and knowledge. May the best man win, dog eat dog, work hard to survive. It is what I will have to do, and I expect the same of anyone else.

And to make a point, your view is not unbiased either, rather it reflects where you grew and your own upbringing. it is the pot calling the kettle black.

And where you grow up has a lot to do with the reasons for Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action isn't in place because we need more former slaves in college. It is in place because it was only about 50 years ago when blacks started getting Civil Rights acts passed for them. They, along with other minorities, make up the majority of the lower class. A higher percentage of the entire minority community therefore would have less oppurtunity to attend decent high schools and get a decent pre-college education, even though they may be more intelligent than some of the people a little better off than them that can live in better neighbors, therefore go to better schools. However, I live in Arkansas and I think that because we are usually 49th/50th for best education system in the nation, we should get a little affirmative action...hehe...
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:57
Besides which, I have never heard of anyone taking the SAT more than 5 times. And I haven't taken it since the 9th grade and I got a 1310 then (I'm a senior now). So, yes, I do believe that the person with a higher score is more qualified, because, in all fairness, if you take the test 3 times in your junior year, your score is as likely to drop as it is to get higher. Also, I would look at GPA, which most schools do, to learn more about each individual.
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 06:57
Interesting how the home page of bartcop features a humorous comment made by Kerry about Cheney. Nice unbiased source. It also goes on to feature a quote from Jon Stewart that is making fun of Bush. Well done. Go find a source that doesn't have such an obvious bias. I do question the numbers, because the source is pathetic.
Okay, try this one:

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-1-269.html

No president since Herbert Hoover has seen job losses during his tenure. Private sector job growth has ranged from 1.3 million jobs under President Ford to 20.8 million jobs under President Clinton.

Although it is looking like Bush Jr. just might match the dubious record of Hoover?
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:58
Besides which, I have never heard of anyone taking the SAT more than 5 times. And I haven't taken it since the 9th grade and I got a 1310 then (I'm a senior now). So, yes, I do believe that the person with a higher score is more qualified, because, in all fairness, if you take the test 3 times in your junior year, your score is as likely to drop as it is to get higher. Also, I would look at GPA, which most schools do, to learn more about each individual.

Its called an exaggeration, and no, your score is far more likely to improve. Ask one of your guidance counselors when school is back in.
HadesRulesMuch
28-06-2004, 06:58
Say what you want about slavery, but if they hadn't come here, they would be even worse off now dying of AIDS or civil wars over in Africa. Way I see it, they are FAR better off here than anywhere else, we treat them good now, so stop trying to milk it for all it's worth.

And for Gods sake, whoever just posted that other link, it was from a Democratic site. What else would you expect. Christ, I'm going to go find a white house press release and use that to counter it. Of course, you would just say Bush was lying wouldn't you?

Ah yes, and check the unemployment rate, its been on the decrease now for months.
CSW
28-06-2004, 06:59
Say what you want about slavery, but if they hadn't come here, they would be even worse off now dying of AIDS or civil wars over in Africa. Way I see it, they are FAR better off here than anywhere else, we treat them good now, so stop trying to milk it for all it's worth.

*must resist*

Okay, now that I've calmed down a bit, let me respond: What is occuring now in the 21st century has what to do with the 16th-17th century as far as wellbeing goes? It still doesn't change the fact that slavery was wrong.
Opal Isle
28-06-2004, 07:03
Say what you want about slavery, but if they hadn't come here, they would be even worse off now dying of AIDS or civil wars over in Africa. Way I see it, they are FAR better off here than anywhere else, we treat them good now, so stop trying to milk it for all it's worth.

And for Gods sake, whoever just posted that other link, it was from a Democratic site. What else would you expect. Christ, I'm going to go find a white house press release and use that to counter it. Of course, you would just say Bush was lying wouldn't you?

Clearly, you are intelligent enough to have independent (well...aside from the KKK BS that you're reading) thoughts, but you are not intelligent enough to grasp the concept of Affirmative Action. I am against the thought of it because I think our society should be built so it isn't needed, but our society isn't built that way, we do need it, and so therefore I recognize it is necessary. It's kind of like seeing how nice a communistic world would be, but at the same time realizing it is idealistic and not reality. The fact that they are better off here than they would be in Africa is not justification for racism. If you disagree, then I shall call you unAmerican.
THE LOST PLANET
28-06-2004, 07:04
Lost Prophet, none of those people were ever slaves, and neither were their parents or probably even their grandparents. And no, I don't think the number of employees of certain races should match the local makeup, I think, once again, it should be decided on ability and knowledge. May the best man win, dog eat dog, work hard to survive. It is what I will have to do, and I expect the same of anyone else.

And to make a point, your view is not unbiased either, rather it reflects where you grew and your own upbringing. it is the pot calling the kettle black.The name is Lost Planet, young man. It is a reference to this ball of mud we all ride through space on and misguided youths such as you are the reason for the 'Lost' part of the name. You will kindly note my explanation of AA made no reference to slavery, it is not an issue here. Whether you think ethnic representation should be reflective of population is also irrelevant. In puplic institutions, lawmakers have deemed that it should, so they enacted rules to try and make it so, I was explaining those rules to you. I also believe in ability and qualifications ('merit' is highly subjective and misuse of that disdinguisher is one of the reasons for ethnic misrepresentation) and apparently so does AA because it is only aplicable if these are equal between candidates. Most scholarships are privately funded and not subject to Affirmative Action also. As for your claim that my views are biased, the only view I offered was that AA was a regretable neccesity, beyond that I was simply correcting your misinformation with fact.
CanuckHeaven
28-06-2004, 07:08
Say what you want about slavery, but if they hadn't come here, they would be even worse off now dying of AIDS or civil wars over in Africa. Way I see it, they are FAR better off here than anywhere else, we treat them good now, so stop trying to milk it for all it's worth.

And for Gods sake, whoever just posted that other link, it was from a Democratic site. What else would you expect. Christ, I'm going to go find a white house press release and use that to counter it. Of course, you would just say Bush was lying wouldn't you?

Ah yes, and check the unemployment rate, its been on the decrease now for months.
The unemployment rate remains relatively unchanged since Dec. 2003 (5.6%)
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 07:36
It does matter, because if that person from the slums was able to take the test 40 times he might have gotten a 1560-1600 (Old SATs, not the new ones). Think about this for a moment before you respond, the first person only did well because he has seen the test and is comfortable with the format, the second person took the test cold.

It still has nothing to do with race or where you live. Why can't the college or employer consider the academic record of the candidates? If the person took the test 40 times (an exaggerated example no less) then that would be a consideration as far as their academic record would it not? Regardless of their race or socioeconomic background.
Unfortunately colleges and employers cannot go on "might haves" when deciding who to employ or grant a place in college.
The more you drag out this example the more removed from your original aims you go. You are now debating academic record not race or socioeconomic background.
Academic record is what these selection processes should use.
Only Americans
28-06-2004, 07:42
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

You cannot assume just someone is white they were able to take the SAT or ACT more times and earned a better score than someone that is black. Every college and university I have attended has only asked for my highest ACT score, not all three scores. (good news for me because I somehow did the best on my 1st ACT while taking the test under adverse conditions).
Mallberta
28-06-2004, 07:44
Tygaland- Interesting post, but I think you're missing part of the point in having public universities- it's not only to train towards excellence (though this is a key part of their programs) but to allow for (the illusion of?) class mobility. The fact is that without public education, class mobility is essentially nil. I think it should be obvious to most of us that in general, richer socio-economic groups are going to do better on the average than poorer socio-economic groups. This is due to a number of reasons that I don't think we need to go into at this point.

I think the optimum solution is to increase public funding, to allow more people who want into universities to get in, rather than skewing admissions, but the American public doesn't seem that interested in expanding public universities at present. Basically, I think that we absolutely need to increases access to these institutions, particularly among the poor, and while skewed admissions is not a great way to do so in my mind, it is better than nothing at all.
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 07:59
Tygaland- Interesting post, but I think you're missing part of the point in having public universities- it's not only to train towards excellence (though this is a key part of their programs) but to allow for (the illusion of?) class mobility. The fact is that without public education, class mobility is essentially nil. I think it should be obvious to most of us that in general, richer socio-economic groups are going to do better on the average than poorer socio-economic groups. This is due to a number of reasons that I don't think we need to go into at this point.

I think the optimum solution is to increase public funding, to allow more people who want into universities to get in, rather than skewing admissions, but the American public doesn't seem that interested in expanding public universities at present. Basically, I think that we absolutely need to increases access to these institutions, particularly among the poor, and while skewed admissions is not a great way to do so in my mind, it is better than nothing at all.

CSW was trying to show that race based acceptance to college was not discrimination. He then threw up an example that contained many factors other than race which would be considered in assessing the best candidate for the college place.
I understand what you are saying and agree except on affirmative action. I am against affirmative action because no matter how much you sugar-coat it, it is discrimination. As such I don't think its the right way to increase the numbers people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to college. It may be the easiest "solution" but it is not the right "solution".
I would much rather money was fed into the education system to give people from poorer areas the chance to achieve on their merits. The solution to the problem is not race quotas or special consideration for people from poorer areas. The solution is to raise the levels of education from the beginning all the way through to high schools and colleges. This gives people a chance to achieve the best results they can rather than making excuses for them.
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:01
Tygaland- Interesting post, but I think you're missing part of the point in having public universities- it's not only to train towards excellence (though this is a key part of their programs) but to allow for (the illusion of?) class mobility. The fact is that without public education, class mobility is essentially nil. I think it should be obvious to most of us that in general, richer socio-economic groups are going to do better on the average than poorer socio-economic groups. This is due to a number of reasons that I don't think we need to go into at this point.

I think the optimum solution is to increase public funding, to allow more people who want into universities to get in, rather than skewing admissions, but the American public doesn't seem that interested in expanding public universities at present. Basically, I think that we absolutely need to increases access to these institutions, particularly among the poor, and while skewed admissions is not a great way to do so in my mind, it is better than nothing at all.
very well said.
the differance in test scores can best be seen by the differant in "classes" in America instead of race.
Mallberta
28-06-2004, 08:02
CSW was trying to show that race based acceptance to college was not discrimination. He then threw up an example that contained many factors other than race which would be considered in assessing the best candidate for the college place.
I understand what you are saying and agree except on affirmative action. I am against affirmative action because no matter how much you sugar-coat it, it is discrimination. As such I don't think its the right way to increase the numbers people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to college. It may be the easiest "solution" but it is not the right "solution".
I would much rather money was fed into the education system to give people from poorer areas the chance to achieve on their merits. The solution to the problem is not race quotas or special consideration for people from poorer areas. The solution is to raise the levels of education from the beginning all the way through to high schools and colleges. This gives people a chance to achieve the best results they can rather than making excuses for them.

I agree with you mostly, but unless people are willing to pony up the dough, so to speak, and either raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else, AA will remain as a 'quickie fix' to a larger, endemic problem. Personally, I think AA is better than nothing, but certainly do think it makes much more sense to address the root of the problem. Unfortunately, the stereotypical Republican/Conservative answer tends to be to eliminate AA, but not put anything in it's place, which is IMO the worse possible scenario.
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:05
isn't is strange that the same people who support AA are the same people who we opposed to school vouchers?
CSW
28-06-2004, 08:05
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

You cannot assume just someone is white they were able to take the SAT or ACT more times and earned a better score than someone that is black. Every college and university I have attended has only asked for my highest ACT score, not all three scores. (good news for me because I somehow did the best on my 1st ACT while taking the test under adverse conditions).

Most do.
CSW
28-06-2004, 08:08
It does matter, because if that person from the slums was able to take the test 40 times he might have gotten a 1560-1600 (Old SATs, not the new ones). Think about this for a moment before you respond, the first person only did well because he has seen the test and is comfortable with the format, the second person took the test cold.

It still has nothing to do with race or where you live. Why can't the college or employer consider the academic record of the candidates? If the person took the test 40 times (an exaggerated example no less) then that would be a consideration as far as their academic record would it not? Regardless of their race or socioeconomic background.
Unfortunately colleges and employers cannot go on "might haves" when deciding who to employ or grant a place in college.
The more you drag out this example the more removed from your original aims you go. You are now debating academic record not race or socioeconomic background.
Academic record is what these selection processes should use.

Why can they not consider the socioeconomic background? If someone works harder to gain a comparable grade (a 3.9 is very close to a 4.0, and could just be the matter of a single point), why should they not be rewarded for working harder?

We do it with high schools (harder schools often get more acceptances into better colleges with comparable GPA's).
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:10
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

You cannot assume just someone is white they were able to take the SAT or ACT more times and earned a better score than someone that is black. Every college and university I have attended has only asked for my highest ACT score, not all three scores. (good news for me because I somehow did the best on my 1st ACT while taking the test under adverse conditions).

Most do.
just because I check "African-American" in a box on a college ap doesn't mean I only took the SAT once.
CSW
28-06-2004, 08:12
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

You cannot assume just someone is white they were able to take the SAT or ACT more times and earned a better score than someone that is black. Every college and university I have attended has only asked for my highest ACT score, not all three scores. (good news for me because I somehow did the best on my 1st ACT while taking the test under adverse conditions).

Most do.
just because I check "African-American" in a box on a college ap doesn't mean I only took the SAT once.

Nor does saying you have a pHd mean that you know anything. Your point? Most African Americans do not take the SATs/ACTs as many times or take as many SAT prep courses as European Americans do.
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 08:18
It still has nothing to do with race or where you live. Why can't the college or employer consider the academic record of the candidates? If the person took the test 40 times (an exaggerated example no less) then that would be a consideration as far as their academic record would it not? Regardless of their race or socioeconomic background.
Unfortunately colleges and employers cannot go on "might haves" when deciding who to employ or grant a place in college.
The more you drag out this example the more removed from your original aims you go. You are now debating academic record not race or socioeconomic background.
Academic record is what these selection processes should use.

Why can they not consider the socioeconomic background? If someone works harder to gain a comparable grade (a 3.9 is very close to a 4.0, and could just be the matter of a single point), why should they not be rewarded for working harder?

We do it with high schools (harder schools often get more acceptances into better colleges with comparable GPA's).

You assume because they came from a lower socioeconomic group that they worked harder. How can you guage how hard someone works for their grades base on their socioeconomic group?
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 08:20
Nor does saying you have a pHd mean that you know anything. Your point? Most African Americans do not take the SATs/ACTs as many times or take as many SAT prep courses as European Americans do.

I assume you have something to back this up?
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:23
Is a person who took 40 SAT tests in order to boost their scores to a 1480 more qualified then the person from the slums who never was able to pretake the test and still got a 1470?

You cannot assume just someone is white they were able to take the SAT or ACT more times and earned a better score than someone that is black. Every college and university I have attended has only asked for my highest ACT score, not all three scores. (good news for me because I somehow did the best on my 1st ACT while taking the test under adverse conditions).

Most do.
just because I check "African-American" in a box on a college ap doesn't mean I only took the SAT once.

Nor does saying you have a pHd mean that you know anything. Your point? Most African Americans do not take the SATs/ACTs as many times or take as many SAT prep courses as European Americans do.
So why should I get special treatment? I am sure there were many white kids at my school and at the other school in town that only took the SAT once, why should it be "assumed" I took the SAT less than them?
CSW
28-06-2004, 08:25
http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/hepg/freedle.html
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQincome.htm#I
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:30
those numbers and studies do not prove anything.

At my school the two highest SAT scores in my graduating class were earnd by minorities, the lowest was by a white kid who's mom and dad made her take the SAT, even though she was no prepared and had no hope of attending a 4 year university.

Why should colleges assume by color of skin how well someone will do or how many times someone will take a test?
CSW
28-06-2004, 08:34
those numbers and studies do not prove anything.

At my school the two highest SAT scores in my graduating class were earnd by minorities, the lowest was by a white kid who's mom and dad made her take the SAT, even though she was no prepared and had no hope of attending a 4 year university.

Why should colleges assume by color of skin how well someone will do or how many times someone will take a test?

Outliers. Flukes. Statistics and averages are everything.
Tygaland
28-06-2004, 08:36
http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/hepg/freedle.html
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQincome.htm#I

can you direct me to the place where it states most African American students take the test less that European Americans? I can't seem to find anything about that in these references.
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:36
those numbers and studies do not prove anything.

At my school the two highest SAT scores in my graduating class were earnd by minorities, the lowest was by a white kid who's mom and dad made her take the SAT, even though she was no prepared and had no hope of attending a 4 year university.

Why should colleges assume by color of skin how well someone will do or how many times someone will take a test?

Outliers. Flukes. Statistics and averages are everything.
Statistics show most violent crime is comitted by blacks and hispanics, are you saying racial profiling is okay too?
CSW
28-06-2004, 08:38
If you admit that you must allow some racial/social element into college admissions.

(Are you aware that racial profiling is legal to a degree?)
New Auburnland
28-06-2004, 08:47
If you admit that you must allow some racial/social element into college admissions.

(Are you aware that racial profiling is legal to a degree?)
I, along with possibly everyone in America, want to be judged by my actions and results, not by what a statistical study says. Statistics say I should be 3rd generation walfare hogging, unemployment taking, drug dealing, impoverished trash. Statistics can be wrong.

Statistics say I have a 60 something % chance of going to prison by the time I am 25. Statistics say the number one cause of death for people my age is "legal interdiction" (aka the death sentence). Statistics say I should have never been able to made the grades, let alone be able to pay, for a degree from a 4 year university. Statistics can be misleading.

As long as AA is around, the establishment will look at all minorities and women that graduate with undergraduate degrees and law degrees and think that it was because of AA. Give minorites and women no help, and when they achieve great accomplishments, there will be nothing to place the success upon but that individual's hard work.
Dragoneia
28-06-2004, 09:11
Kerry has 2 sides for every story, so he appeals to everyone...This is classic right wing BS. And you've said it so many times that people start to belive it. The majority of examples of Kerry's "flip-flops" are where he voted against a bill with an amendment and then for the bill without it. Or where there were 20 years in between the 2 stances he took, more than enough time to change your mind. Or on something like the Patriot act, where most people voted for it initially, but wouldn't have when it came to light what it actually did. Or on the war on terror, where the initial information was convincing, but then turned out to be a lie.

You getting the picture?

Well he did voted for the war then blamed everything that did go wrong on the president the president made his disision based on the Info handed to him by the britsh and CIA. Then he votes againts paying for it. Well we are there why not just finish the job? Besides kerry is a war hero..not our war hero some where in veitnam his picture is hanging up in some kind of war hero hall for demoralizing amercan families back at home. He lies constantly and in my opinion has nothing better to offer that bush hasn't done already except that he would some how get us out of debt with out raising taxes...sounds like when clinton systematicly brought our military to its knees.
Helioterra
28-06-2004, 10:33
If you vote for John Kerry, the USA will end up like this virtual country: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=John%20Kerria

Well it certainly sounded a lot better place than the suberb country called the USA.... :D
THE LOST PLANET
28-06-2004, 10:52
Well he did voted for the war then blamed everything that did go wrong on the president the president made his disision based on the Info handed to him by the britsh and CIA. Then he votes againts paying for it. Well we are there why not just finish the job? Besides kerry is a war hero..not our war hero some where in veitnam his picture is hanging up in some kind of war hero hall for demoralizing amercan families back at home. He lies constantly and in my opinion has nothing better to offer that bush hasn't done already except that he would some how get us out of debt with out raising taxes...sounds like when clinton systematicly brought our military to its knees. :roll: You need to gather your information from sources other than Fox news. Thats all I'll say right now on your statement about the Iraqi conflict, there's not enough time left before the server goes down to go over everything wrong with what you said about that. Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, he did what his country asked him to do, and then when he took off that uniform he spoke his mind about what he saw and proclaimed his dissatisfaction with America's policies and involvement, just like countless other Americans of that period who were marching in the streets across the country, perhaps you haven't heard but that was a very unpopular war by the time Kerry became involved in the protests. (I lived through the period, I remember) As for his economic policy, it couldn't be any worse than Bush's plan to get us out of debt by cutting taxes. And you must be really gullible if you believe that the American Military was crippled by Clinton and somehow miraculously recovered in the short time Bush has been in office. Do you have any grasp on the testing and implimentation cycle of military weapons systems? When do you think all the high tech weaponry we're seeing in use was budgeted?
Helioterra
28-06-2004, 10:58
And for Gods sake, whoever just posted that other link, it was from a Democratic site. What else would you expect. Christ, I'm going to go find a white house press release and use that to counter it. Of course, you would just say Bush was lying wouldn't you?


Please do...I'm waiting. And maybe I'll say Bush was lying, as you are saying democrats are lying. Your point?