NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republicans have done it again!!
What we need is LESS governemnt in our lives, not MORE!!! Bush has done nothing to prove the "conservative" values, instead, he is pushing for more government, such as abstinance and the Patriot Act, which was passed so quickly.
Weren't the Republicans a party which strived for people to do their best instead of the government helping them? Explain the increased money for abstinance. I am sorry, but I believe we need less government in our lives and the Republicans are adding more. HALF, YES HALF, of the American people do not agree with Bush, THAT IS 48%. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN... 48%!!!!!
I think this country, unfortunatetly, is divided because of this man.
Bush is a divider and does not listen to his people!!
DEMOCRACY=GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

The Republicans have done it again!!
What we need is LESS governemnt in our lives, not MORE!!! Bush has done nothing to prove the "conservative" values, instead, he is pushing for more government, such as abstinance and the Patriot Act, which was passed so quickly.
Weren't the Republicans a party which strived for people to do their best instead of the government helping them? Explain the increased money for abstinance. I am sorry, but I believe we need less government in our lives and the Republicans are adding more. HALF, YES HALF, of the American people do not agree with Bush, THAT IS 48%. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN... 48%!!!!!
I think this country, unfortunatetly, is divided because of this man.
Bush is a divider and does not listen to his people!!
DEMOCRACY=GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.
Yes. Write to your congressman.

If the democraps ran on a platform of less government and demonstrated a commitment to follow it I and many others would vote democrat. Of course, it may be a bit chilly with hell freeizing over and all. But until then, I'm stuk with the Repubs.

Actually, believe it or not, the Republicans actually were the party of less and or smaller government. That was they were, until they got hijacked by the religious right. The Republicans, as in the days of Goldwater is gone. Some believe there will be a civil war of sorts within the Republican party over the next 4 years. The question is who will come out on top? Will it be the small government, fiscal conservatives? Or will the religious right completely take over the party? As for now, the religious right has the Republican party held hostage.

Actually, believe it or not, the Republicans actually were the party of less and or smaller government. That was they were, until they got hijacked by the religious right. The Republicans, as in the days of Goldwater is gone. Some believe there will be a civil war of sorts within the Republican party over the next 4 years. The question is who will come out on top? Will it be the small government, fiscal conservatives? Or will the religious right completely take over the party? As for now, the religious right has the Republican party held hostage.

My suspicion is that the religious right will eventually take over the party, but they will also eventually marginalize themselves to the extent that they have little power.

Who are these "religious right" and what exactly are they doing? From what I've seen it appears that the "leftist\moderate right" has control, thats why they keep passing things like prescription drugs and campaign finance reform.

If the democraps ran on a platform of less government and demonstrated a commitment to follow it I and many others would vote democrat. Of course, it may be a bit chilly with hell freeizing over and all. But until then, I'm stuk with the Repubs.The Democrats already did that in 2004. You supported the party of bigger government and now you're stuck with it

The Republicans have done it again!!
What we need is LESS governemnt in our lives, not MORE!!! Bush has done nothing to prove the "conservative" values, instead, he is pushing for more government, such as abstinance and the Patriot Act, which was passed so quickly.
Weren't the Republicans a party which strived for people to do their best instead of the government helping them? Explain the increased money for abstinance. I am sorry, but I believe we need less government in our lives and the Republicans are adding more. HALF, YES HALF, of the American people do not agree with Bush, THAT IS 48%. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN... 48%!!!!!
I think this country, unfortunatetly, is divided because of this man.
Bush is a divider and does not listen to his people!!
DEMOCRACY=GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Actually it was 49%, 48% voted for Kerry, 51 for Bush the other 1% obviously doesnt like Bush as they voted for Nadar, Cobb, those candidates obviously like Kerry over Bush. Even though they dont really like either of them.

The Democrats already did that in 2004. You supported the party of bigger government and now you're stuck with it

When was the last time any party actually made the government smaller?

Who are these "religious right" and what exactly are they doing? From what I've seen it appears that the "leftist\moderate right" has control, thats why they keep passing things like prescription drugs and campaign finance reform.

Well, historically the Republicans were more of a libertarian view. Small government, less tax, fewer laws, etc.. this was back in the days when Reagan joined the party under Goldwater. Then some where a long the way, starting probably after the huge defeat of Goldwater tried to extend their reach and it's been a slow but apparently a successful attempt by the religious right (what we now know as social conservatives) to over take the party. The Republicans in fact use to be very in favour of personal freedom and civil rights. Hard to believe for you young ones'.. but it is true.

Well, historically the Republicans were more of a libertarian view. Small government, less tax, fewer laws, etc.. this was back in the days when Reagan joined the party under Goldwater. Then some where a long the way, starting probably after the huge defeat of Goldwater tried to extend their reach and it's been a slow but apparently a successful attempt by the religious right (what we now know as social conservatives) to over take the party. The Republicans in fact use to be very in favour of personal freedom and civil rights. Hard to believe for you young ones'.. but it is true.

You couldn't have done less to answer my question had you even tried. Not that I was actually expecting an answer. The fact of the matter is that there is no monolithic religious right sitting in a dark room plotting to strip you of your civil rights. Unless of course you think killing your unborn child is a civil right. Now I am somewhat disturbed at the big spending Republican party of today, passing new entitlement programs, etc However, in reality most of the yearly mandated government expenses are the result of the expansion of New Deal and Great Society programs that have been around for decades. It would be nice if the Republicans would start to eliminate those programs, but in the current political climate elimination is impossibe.

The fact of the matter is that there is no monolithic religious right sitting in a dark room plotting to strip you of your civil rights. Unless of course you think killing your unborn child is a civil right.

You must be new around here. I am married, happily with two children. I have never had an abortion thank you very much, nor do I believe I could, however it is not my right to decide what another woman should do with her own body. So, I am pro-choice, my choice was to have my two wonderful children. As for no monolithic right sitting in the dark waiting to pounce, while I agree perhaps not monolithic in every aspect, certainly monolithic in their goals. Which is to impose their views on the rest of us, like it or not. Of course when push comes to shove people generally choose freedom, so they will fail.

You must be new around here. I am married, happily with two children. I have never had an abortion thank you very much, nor do I believe I could, however it is not my right to decide what another woman should do with her own body.

However, it is right for a woman to decide what to do with her child's body, namely suck it down a hose. The woman's control over her body exists as her right not to engage in activity which may result in the creation of a child. However, once that choice is made and human life is created that life should be protected by the full force of the Constitution and the law.

So, I am pro-choice, my choice was to have my two wonderful children. As for no monolithic right sitting in the dark waiting to pounce, while I agree perhaps not monolithic in every aspect, certainly monolithic in their goals. Which is to impose their views on the rest of us, like it or not. Of course when push comes to shove people generally choose freedom, so they will fail.

What views are these religious right people trying to push on you? Are they trying to take away your freedom of speech? Are they trying to use the power of Congress to establish religion? Are they trying to take your property? You need to offer up some specifics.

However, it is right for a woman to decide what to do with her child's body, namely suck it down a hose. The woman's control over her body exists as her right not to engage in activity which may result in the creation of a child. However, once that choice is made and human life is created that life should be protected by the full force of the Constitution and the law.

Well we can make it sound all messy.. sure. Fact is even the bible it's self doesn't define life till after birth, so spare me.



What views are these religious right people trying to push on you? Are they trying to take away your freedom of speech? Are they trying to use the power of Congress to establish religion? Are they trying to take your property? You need to offer up some specifics.

First, I think it's important since you're new around here to point out I'm a Canadian, not from the United States. I'm not in fear for myself.. only my U.S. neighbours.

-snip-
Ah, Stephistan remembers the good times of the Republican Party! (I'm Libertarian but most of the non-Libert politicians I support are actually model Republicans; IE McCain)

The Democrats already did that in 2004. You supported the party of bigger government and now you're stuck with it
Did you take a look at all of Kerry's spending proposals? And you're saying they're the party of smaller government?

Ah, Stephistan remembers the good times of the Republican Party! (I'm Libertarian but most of the non-Libert politicians I support are actually model Republicans; IE McCain)

Indeed, most of the kids don't remember those days.. I actually given the choice though would rather be young and not recall then my age and do.. *LOL* :D

Well we can make it sound all messy.. sure. Fact is even the bible it's self doesn't define life till after birth, so spare me.

I don't recall ever mentioning the Bible. While I'm not familiar with when the Bible says life begins, in my view its quite clear, when the egg is fertilized. That human life deserves the protection of the law. When the day arrives that technology allows us to mature a baby to a sustainable level outside the womb then the woman may choose to expel it whenever she desires. Until that day abortion is the equilivant of tossing a newborn into the snow.


First, I think it's important since you're new around here to point out I'm a Canadian, not from the United States. I'm not in fear for myself.. only my U.S. neighbours.

I'm unconcerned with national distinctions, only ideas matter.

Less government would be great if people (me included) weren't so damn lazy and made the government do all our work..

Did you take a look at all of Kerry's spending proposals? And you're saying they're the party of smaller government?
Lol, I could cite a good few examples of how Democrats have turned government into a sprawling bureaucracy myself

Did you take a look at all of Kerry's spending proposals? And you're saying they're the party of smaller government?

No, I believe most independent economists who crunched the numbers said there would be little difference between Kerry and Bush when it came to spending.. They wanted to perhaps spend in different ways.. but the total was about the same.

No, I believe most independent economists who crunched the numbers said there would be little difference between Kerry and Bush when it came to spending.. They wanted to perhaps spend in different ways.. but the total was about the same.
I'd believe that. There was no "smaller government" party this time.

I don't recall ever mentioning the Bible. While I'm not familiar with when the Bible says life begins, in my view its quite clear, when the egg is fertilized. That human life deserves the protection of the law. When the day arrives that technology allows us to mature a baby to a sustainable level outside the womb then the woman may choose to expel it whenever she desires. Until that day abortion is the equilivant of tossing a newborn into the snow.

Listen, you're wasting your time with me.. I have been pregnant twice and I have two very happy, healthy children. However I do believe there is a case to be made where abortion is justified. I can only decide for me. As you can only decide for you. We (you nor I) have the right to decide that choice for others. I wouldn't even try to pretend to.

How is a thread on less government being subverted to discuss abortion now? :confused:

And on the subject of less government, who here advocates states' rights?

How is a thread on less government being subverted to discuss abortion now? :confused:

And on the subject of less government, who here advocates states' rights?

I dunno.. he brought it up.. :confused:

Listen, you're wasting your time with me.. I have been pregnant twice and I have two very happy, healthy children. However I do believe there is a case to be made where abortion is justified. I can only decide for me. As you can only decide for you. We (you nor I) have the right to decide that choice for others. I wouldn't even try to pretend to.

You're trying to use the word 'choice' to gloss over the true nature of what abortion is. While I'm sure there are cases where abortion would be justified, such as to save the life of the mother, it isn't a 'choice' its a life.

You're trying to use the word 'choice' to gloss over the true nature of what abortion is. While I'm sure there are cases where abortion would be justified, such as to save the life of the mother, it isn't a 'choice' its a life.

No, it's not.

In fact, that's where the debate lies. When is a fetus a human is the big question.

You're trying to use the word 'choice' to gloss over the true nature of what abortion is. While I'm sure there are cases where abortion would be justified, such as to save the life of the mother, it isn't a 'choice' its a life.

See folks? This is what I'm talking about, these are the people who have hijacked the Republican party! :gundge:

Abortion is abhorrent, but it's better to get a healthy abortion in a legit abortion clinic rather than on the streets or by other.. "unstable" methods.

See folks? This is what I'm talking about, these are the people who have hijacked the Republican party! :gundge:

Abortion does not have to be a religious issue.

See folks? This is what I'm talking about, these are the people who have hijacked the Republican party! :gundge:

Yet oddly enough I don't support big government which is one of the primary things you were complaining about. Then when someone suggests that we should be protecting human life and you get upset, start throwing around terms like "hyjacking," and generally make comments about your characterization of the "religious right" instead of confronting the substance of what is being discussed.

What does an American get for their taxes?

Down here at the bottom of the world maximum total tax burden gets to about 48%, including income and value added tax. I think this is similar to USA - including state and federal taxes.

Here we get 90% subsidised education, subsidised healthcare, national pension and a fair number of social services. The high tax almost seems worthwhile.

In America they pay about the same to get a big army, lots of prisons, subsidies for farmers and a fair number of social services. Each year the amount paid increases. There seems bugger all direct return for the American taxpayer.

Why do Americans continue to elect such large governments?

What does an American get for their taxes?

Down here at the bottom of the world maximum total tax burden gets to about 48%, including income and value added tax. I think this is similar to USA - including state and federal taxes.

Most Americans do not pay that much, only the very richest pay on the top tax scale.

Here we get 90% subsidised education, subsidised healthcare, national pension and a fair number of social services. The high tax almost seems worthwhile.


About 2\3 of the American federal budget and probably a larger portion of most state budgets is social programs.

In America they pay about the same to get a big army, lots of prisons, subsidies for farmers and a fair number of social services. Each year the amount paid increases. There seems bugger all direct return for the American taxpayer.


The army and the criminal system are mere fractions of the social program spending. Try checking out the statistics of the OMB sometime, you can browse to them through the official White House website.

Ok-b4 you all flame me...yes, I am new around here.
Im a 27yo former Marine Infantry veteran. So, yes, been there, done that, shot that....whatever.
I voted for Bush. Let me tell you the reason why. Its very simple.
>I agree with about 50% of what GW Bush believes in.
>I agree with about 1% of what John Kerry believes in.
SIMPLE.
But let me say this. WE NEED A THIRD PARTY FOR MOST OF US ALL WHO DO NOT TREAD BLINDLY BEHIND SOME UTOPIAN IDEAL FROM EITHER SIDE. And dont you dare all say the Libertarians b/c I refuse to live under that immigration policy! But, I do agree with them the most.
Can I get a politician who really is looking out for me? The answer is: no.
It wont happen. There, more than likely, will never be a legit third party. And to all you fringy "leftys," I dont mean the Greens. If you want that style of government, move to Europe or Canada with there high taxes, regulation, and weak-ass militaries.

Thats realism. And even though I dont agree with the 2 party system....I'll vote for the better of the two. VIVA REVOLUCION! AMERICA FIRST.
NATIONALISM AND PROTECTIONISM WILL SAVE US.
Oh, and for Gods sake...legalize marijuana.

As a matter of fact....legalize weed and prostitution- Tax it, regulate it, and use the taxes for a streamlined, basic healthcare system.

SEMPER FI TO ALL.
-JOE

Ok-b4 you all flame me...yes, I am new around here.
Im a 27yo former Marine Infantry veteran. So, yes, been there, done that, shot that....whatever.
I voted for Bush. Let me tell you the reason why. Its very simple.
>I agree with about 50% of what GW Bush believes in.
>I agree with about 1% of what John Kerry believes in.
SIMPLE.
But let me say this. WE NEED A THIRD PARTY FOR MOST OF US ALL WHO DO NOT TREAD BLINDLY BEHIND SOME UTOPIAN IDEAL FROM EITHER SIDE. And dont you dare all say the Libertarians b/c I refuse to live under that immigration policy! But, I do agree with them the most.
Can I get a politician who really is looking out for me? The answer is: no.
It wont happen. There, more than likely, will never be a legit third party. And to all you fringy "leftys," I dont mean the Greens. If you want that style of government, move to Europe or Canada with there high taxes, regulation, and weak-ass militaries.

Thats realism. And even though I dont agree with the 2 party system....I'll vote for the better of the two. VIVA REVOLUCION! AMERICA FIRST.
NATIONALISM AND PROTECTIONISM WILL SAVE US.
Oh, and for Gods sake...legalize marijuana.

As a matter of fact....legalize weed and prostitution- Tax it, regulate it, and use the taxes for a streamlined, basic healthcare system.

SEMPER FI TO ALL.
-JOE
Welcome to the forums and I hope you have a good time, there will be no flmaing from me; that said...
So sorry, my good man, but I am forced to disagree.

After seeing Bush's track record for the last four years I am inclined to vote against him. Kerry wasn't the best, and by far not the best, thing that the dems could throw at the nomination; but seeing what Bush and co did to our country, we needed a change. Now that hes in office, certain people need to STOP CRYING ABOUT IT! The solice we can find is that in the '08 elections (and I heard this from someone else on the forums) the republicans won't have the record nor the candidate for a successful election, besides maybe a McCain ticket. Jon Steward said it best: "Four more years for George Bush to finish the job he never started."

3rd party: Wouldn't we all love to see that one. Now all we need to do is vote the electoral college off the island and then we are getting somewhere. The libertarians, while looking good on paper, probably wouldn't survive in reality.

Canada or Europe? those places are lovely; I've been to them both. Taxes I am unsure of but I've heard they're comparable to America's but weak military? Do you know why? Because neither Canada nor the EU want to police the world. Since when has USA become the worlds big brother? We are a militant people, the constitution gives us the right the bear arms. In Japan, guns are outlawed and you see kindergarten students walk to and from school alone. Unless you are always in fear ( Thank you John Ashcroft) there is no need to have a brutal military force. I think the EU is fine with what they have; unless they feel like running after terrorists. Regulations? Pfft, EU and Canada are some of the most liberal places on earth.

Viva la revolution indeed. I like Viva la resistance! You know nationalism is how germany got to where it was in both our world wars. I do enjoy immense patriotism, but too much of anything is bad, especially when too much of something causes us to do things without thinking.

Be careful what you wish for; with our chaotic society, marijuana (although good in medical concept) would probably be abused. But then again, legalize it and the novelty might wear off. Point validated.

Prostitution... Maybe that would allow people to sate their carnal appetite.. but I don't see any good in it. Even taxing it; we don't want our country to be known for legal prostitution.

This is not in the "10 words or less" format so liked by Blind Liberals. My appologies.

VOTE LIBRETARIAN
www.lp.org
downsize government
check out some of their issues and positions
this is nice to
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
^worlds smallest political quiz^

Canada or Europe? those places are lovely; I've been to them both. Taxes I am unsure of but I've heard they're comparable to America's but weak military? Do you know why? Because neither Canada nor the EU want to police the world.


The EU may not want to 'police the world' per se, but they definately want to dicatate as much as possible how the world conducts its affairs. The difference between the US and the EU is that the EU believes that negociations and UN collective action based on concensus can effectively foster world prosperity. To the EU its all about using what I term for lack of better words a concept of world socialism with the EU leading the way. They want the rich nations, especially the evil US, to pump massive amounts of aid into the third world and to join in various intergration programs designed to erode Westphilian style state sovereignty. The US on the other hand traditionally likes to be left alone in isolation. Historically we've cared little about the rest of the world, we fled from it after all. However, after the second world war Americans have decided, for good or ill, that the world is no longer safe to ignore. Now we inject ourselves in various situations we see as particularly dangerous to world security or our own national interests. If we could be assured of our safety without having to 'police the world' then you can bet we would close up shop and leave you all to your own squabbles like we used to.



We are a militant people, the constitution gives us the right the bear arms. In Japan, guns are outlawed and you see kindergarten students walk to and from school alone. Unless you are always in fear ( Thank you John Ashcroft) there is no need to have a brutal military force. I think the EU is fine with what they have; unless they feel like running after terrorists.

Those who live under government must always live in fear of tyranny. The founding fathers knew this and as a last line of defense against government excess it was recognized that the people must be a power unto themselves. We've watered down the original concept of what the founders intended that this desire that the people be able to defend themselves almost no longer exists.

Regulations? Pfft, EU and Canada are some of the most liberal places on earth.

Unless you want to fire an employee, pay whatever wage you want, open a business, or do almost anything else that the government regulates.


Viva la revolution indeed. I like Viva la resistance! You know nationalism is how germany got to where it was in both our world wars. I do enjoy immense patriotism, but too much of anything is bad, especially when too much of something causes us to do things without thinking.


Nationalism isn't good or bad, the ideals that the nation being idolized represents are what count. There can never be too much nationalism in the ideals imbodied in the US Constitution. Any nationalism in a nation like old Germany is an immense danger.

Be careful what you wish for; with our chaotic society, marijuana (although good in medical concept) would probably be abused. But then again, legalize it and the novelty might wear off. Point validated.


Who cares? So called victimless crimes only hurt the person abusing the drug (or whatever). If we make sure we have adequate punishments to prevent them committing other crimes (which admittedly is not happening with alcohol right now) then let people do as they will.

Prostitution... Maybe that would allow people to sate their carnal appetite.. but I don't see any good in it. Even taxing it; we don't want our country to be known for legal prostitution.

Why not? Prostitution is just another act of commerce, I see no reason to tax it or forbid it. Again, the only losers are the people who engage in the trade and if they do so willingly then so be it.

Of course the EU would like to dictate what happens in the world, when its to their advantage. I just don't see the logic in going into someplace that for one, is against US and forcing our ideals on them. If all places were like America, the only difference would be language, geography and history.
This is by no means condoning dictatorship or tyranny, but didn't saddam break his WMD when the inspectors came? I am still trying to figure out how we got from Osama to Saddam...

Please explain a little more, to me that looks more like a comment. But I would like to understand.

Mmm if Canada and the EU are so fickle, maybe people like that fickleness. But the minumum wage is there for us so we might as well be thankful for it.

I guess I'll agree with you on this one. I was just pointing out that if patriotism and nationalism cloud or minds and block out common sense, then we've gone to far.

Marijuana and Prostitution. I just don't see any actual benefit to it, other than just another thing we can tax and scrape revenue off of.

Listen, I started this thread so people would look and debate over it.

The point is, I am a concerned citizen for the US. I believe abortion IS WRONG, TERRIBLE, OTHER CHOICES SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED like adoption. Yet, It is NOT my choice, nor the governments, to tell me what to do or not to do with my body, likewise a woman's; especially in this situation. You can argue, protest, or whatever all you want, but it is not your freedom to decide for anyone.

That means the government has no right to decide for another person, period. For heavens sake, we seperated from the British to set up a government for the people by the people, hence a democracy. Boston Tea Party, what were they protesting about? Taxes and the rule of the Brits who were dominating the colonists.

I consider myself a left-leaning moderate because I believe the people should have a the right to choose. On most situations our current government doesn't.

Our government is taxing people like me: a 16 year old from Alabama to repay everything, including the $800,000,000,000 Congress just added on top of the $7.4 Trillion. That's $1000/year that the government is making me pay on top of the current tax position, WHEN I am in charge, or so we say. I think the American people need to wake up and think about the future generation!
Our current debt is held onto by China and Korea, what are they going to do when they want our money back? Tax the people some more??

REPUBLICANS ARE NOT LOOKING AFTER US, THEY ARE DIGGING A HOLE AND PUTTING IT ON OUR FUTURE TO SAVE THE DAY.
I will never vote Republican, I will stand firm with the Democrats. I don't think taking away people's rights are fair. ABORTION, GUNS (even though it's on the "republican side"), LIVING YOUR LIFE IS A CHOICE.

Oh, by the way, just to let you know, a large majority may have vote for W in the religious matter, but a very, very big minority voted for John.

Actually, believe it or not, the Republicans actually were the party of less and or smaller government. That was they were, until they got hijacked by the religious right. The Republicans, as in the days of Goldwater is gone. Some believe there will be a civil war of sorts within the Republican party over the next 4 years. The question is who will come out on top? Will it be the small government, fiscal conservatives? Or will the religious right completely take over the party? As for now, the religious right has the Republican party held hostage.-Stephistan

Uhh, the Religious right portion of the Republican party is the part that’s being marginalized. The current administration are Neo-Conservatives – the Buchanan type Republicans are Paleo-Conservatives. The prefixes alone explain the gulf of differences. Neo-Conservatives are the “Democracy has magical powers!!!1!!1!!!one!one” geniuses.

Anyways, don’t vote Libertarian. Libertarianism has been tried. Remember the 19th century and 18th century’s of America? There are very solid reasons as to why we moved away from that.

Yet, It is NOT my choice, nor the governments, to tell me what to do or not to do with my body, likewise a woman's; especially in this situation. You can argue, protest, or whatever all you want, but it is not your freedom to decide for anyone.

Get over yourself. You tell people what to do everyday of your life - we all do. It's part of being "human". The Government is made for the sole purpose of telling people what they can/can't do.

I'm not against abortion (overpopulation is a major problem and anyone who has had more than 1 child after 1990 is immoral) - but, odin, get over the individualism. It leads to this thing called "decadence" that causes another thing, "culture", to disappear - and America needs to keep what little culture it was born with.

The point is, I am a concerned citizen for the US. I believe abortion IS WRONG, TERRIBLE, OTHER CHOICES SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED like adoption. Yet, It is NOT my choice, nor the governments, to tell me what to do or not to do with my body, likewise a woman's; especially in this situation. You can argue, protest, or whatever all you want, but it is not your freedom to decide for anyone.


If a woman can abort an unborn child then why can't she abort a newly born child? There is no difference, both are living humans, it just happens that one is a bit more mature than the other, maybe only a few days more mature.




Our current debt is held onto by China and Korea, what are they going to do when they want our money back? Tax the people some more??

A great deal of our debt is internal as well. Furthermore, as a % of GDP our debt is not much different than much of the rest of the first world. Even freezing spending would soon yeild us rather large surpluses.

REPUBLICANS ARE NOT LOOKING AFTER US, THEY ARE DIGGING A HOLE AND PUTTING IT ON OUR FUTURE TO SAVE THE DAY.

This is quite funny. The Democrats have been piling bricks onto the proverbial camel now for over 60 years. The Republicans have come along and tossed on a handful of straw and now you are accusing them of breaking the animal's back.

Of course the EU would like to dictate what happens in the world, when its to their advantage. I just don't see the logic in going into someplace that for one, is against US and forcing our ideals on them. If all places were like America, the only difference would be language, geography and history.

So you'd rather let Saddam force his ideals on them? At least this way they've been given a chance. If they elect some radical islamic fundamental government then we can't help that, but we may have to take it out too someday.

This is by no means condoning dictatorship or tyranny, but didn't saddam break his WMD when the inspectors came? I am still trying to figure out how we got from Osama to Saddam...


We really don't know what happened to a lot of the WMD. Did the unaccounted for stockpiles get destroyed or did they get disposed of in other ways during the long drawn out UN drama that led up to the war?



Mmm if Canada and the EU are so fickle, maybe people like that fickleness. But the minumum wage is there for us so we might as well be thankful for it.

Why should we be thankful for a regulation that creates unemployment, inflation, and economic weakness?



Marijuana and Prostitution. I just don't see any actual benefit to it, other than just another thing we can tax and scrape revenue off of.

People being free to do what they want is its own benefit. Everything isn't about how you can get more money off your fellow citizens.

Did you take a look at all of Kerry's spending proposals? And you're saying they're the party of smaller government?Most of his spending proposals were on condition of a smaller deficit. The rest of his spending proposals amounted to less than his spending cuts, thus a smaller government

Man, been here two days, posted once, and DAMN, I LOVE THIS SHIT!

I really agree with you, NA

Most of his spending proposals were on condition of a smaller deficit. The rest of his spending proposals amounted to less than his spending cuts, thus a smaller government
No, he was still going to expand the government, just not as much as Bush was. By increasing taxes on the rich, he could afford to increase spending (somewhat) while still cutting the deficit. He would cut the size of the deficit, not the government.

No, he was still going to expand the government, just not as much as Bush was. By increasing taxes on the rich, he could afford to increase spending (somewhat) while still cutting the deficit. He would cut the size of the deficit, not the government.the size of government is determined by spending, not taxes. Increased taxes usually mean increased spending and decreased taxes usually mean decreased spending, but that wasn't the case in Kerry's platform. $300 billion per year in spending cuts exceeds $200 billion per year in spending increases, with or without the $90 billion of tax increases. The Libertarian Party found almost $16 billion of pork that Kerry had promised to veto in last week's spending bill, even though it would kill the entire spending bill, if he were president. So now the proposed Kerry government is already about $16 billion smaller than the real Bush government if Kerry could have somehow become president early

the size of government is determined by spending, not taxes. Increased taxes usually mean increased spending and decreased taxes usually mean decreased spending, but that wasn't the case in Kerry's platform. $300 billion per year in spending cuts exceeds $200 billion per year in spending increases, with or without the $90 billion of tax increases. The Libertarian Party found almost $16 billion of pork that Kerry had promised to veto in last week's spending bill, even though it would kill the entire spending bill, if he were president. So now the proposed Kerry government is already about $16 billion smaller than the real Bush government if Kerry could have somehow become president early

Right...and G.H.W. Bush said 'no more taxes.' They all lie.

I, for one, am all for taxes.

Wasteful government spending (such as on the military) needs to be curbed and taxes raised to cover social services and still maintain a surplus.

Note that the countries with the highest tax rates (N europe, also canada) also have the best standard of living in the world.

I, for one, am all for taxes.

Wasteful government spending (such as on the military) needs to be curbed and taxes raised to cover social services and still maintain a surplus.

Note that the countries with the highest tax rates (N europe, also canada) also have the best standard of living in the world.

I agree about cutting spending. My point was that all presidents go back on their word.

Based on what?


http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2002/eca4e.html


Oh, and Canada's federal taxes are actually lower than the US's

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_37427_1942460_1_1_1_37427,00.html


Has a collection of spreadsheets with information on tax rates in various countries.

There are a few lists of the best countries in the world, here's a recent one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_37427_1942460_1_1_1_37427,00.html


Has a collection of spreadsheets with information on tax rates in various countries.

There are a few lists of the best countries in the world, here's a recent one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm


Thanks, that's some good info there. Interesting how the US has a higher corporate tax rate than most.

The best countries in the world are all the most industrialized ones. No big surprise there.

#6 + #1 GDP. Not too bad.


EDIT - oh, and I found this pretty amusing:


Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister Olav Kjoerven expressed satisfaction that his country had come out on top again.

But he joked that it may have been a very different story if climate had been a factor.

"Have you spent winter in Norway, with the cold and darkness?" he said.

the size of government is determined by spending, not taxes. Increased taxes usually mean increased spending and decreased taxes usually mean decreased spending, but that wasn't the case in Kerry's platform. $300 billion per year in spending cuts exceeds $200 billion per year in spending increases, with or without the $90 billion of tax increases. The Libertarian Party found almost $16 billion of pork that Kerry had promised to veto in last week's spending bill, even though it would kill the entire spending bill, if he were president. So now the proposed Kerry government is already about $16 billion smaller than the real Bush government if Kerry could have somehow become president early
Whatever. If the man wasn't planning on following up with any of the things he promised that made sense, like helping small businesses or increasing funding for national security, its just replaces one reason for me not to vote for him with another.

All you folks out there who keep bitching about switching from Osama to Saddam. There was never a switch. The intel and military communities of which Im a part of- never collaborated and said...."gee, lets just forget about this Osama guy and go get revenge on old Saddam the tyrannical dictator."
Listen, and this is the truth......
There are close to 30-40,000 of the worlds (mostly USA) best special forces and intel operators after this guy and his network. We are focusing AS MUCH AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE to get this guy. And I think we are doing a damn good job destroying the terrorist network.
Do I agree w/ the Iraq war? No. Not now. I did intially but do I think it was a giant conspiricy to divert funds and troops for oil. Give me a break. I dont think George Bush lied. If he lied about WMD's than so did Kerry, Clinton, democraps, republicans, as well as most world leaders who didnt have back-door deals with the dictator that lined his and there pockets for years. CHIRAC! PUTIN! I DONT GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS OF US. iF IT WASNT FOR THE USA-THE WORLD WOULDNT BE THE WONDERFUL PLACE IT IS AND BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT DEMOCRACY MEANS. YOUR ALL WELCOME!
GW Bush isnt a bad person. I dont like some of the people who he surrounds himself with but he isnt a bad guy with bad intentions.
To the young 16yo earlier with his finger up his ass about the democratic party. DONT TREAD BLINDLY BEHIND EITHER ONE. BE AN INDEPENDANT THINKER. THEN MAKE YOUR CHOICE BASED ON THE ISSUE OR CANDIDATE.
But hey, at least your thinking about things like this. I didnt even give a shit at 16.

Oh, and the whole marijuana/prostitution thing I mentioned earlier-
Welcome to reality. I noticed afew of you closet socialists responded by saying that you dont see how those two things legalised wouldnt do any good and why should we tax it. We need a basic,cheap healthcare system and I would rather not have my income tax raised anymore. I can take care of myself. And if I want to smoke pot, than I'll pay the tax and reap the free healthcare and the nice littlebuzzz......hey maybe I'll have a hooker dance around naked. ;)
People will always smoke pot. Certain women will always sell there bodies.
IM JUST SAYING THAT IF ALL YOU PEOPLE ARE PRO-CHOICE AND ALL ABOUT PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY then what the f is the double standard?- but pot is bad, prostitution is wrong.....but go ahead and slaughter the little soul who never got a chance to see flowers, a fish, a football game, etc.
Liberalism baffles me. Utopians are exactely that. Welcome to reality!
BORDERS, LANGUAGE, CULTURE, ARMS.
:fluffle: :sniper: