scruffy
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2000
- Messages
- 1,445
- Tractor
- None (at present)
Glenn, do you think we could assume that evidently there are no politicians in the house? Otherwise......
Bush or Gore
- Thread starter glennmac
- Start date
- Views: 7044
Kelvin
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2000
- Messages
- 798
- Location
- East Tennessee
- Tractor
- B2910 & BX23 (previously B2150 & B7100D)
Should we keep quiet about religion and politics? I say “air the issues out in the open; mold grows where items are kept in the dark too long”.
Religion: Christians are called to “spread the word” around the world (note that Christians are not called to shove their religion down people's throats; God intended for everyone to have the free choice to choose hell if they want). For those that consider themselves Christian, it is difficult to "spread the word" when one believes they shouldn't "talk about religion". It is this belief that has cost Christians the freedom of public prayer (free speech?) that they have enjoyed for so many years. I am making these statements now since I am fully convinced that one day the attitude “you shouldn’t talk about your religion” will become law. Hopefully this is at least 10 years off, but you never know. Smirk if you must; just look at how far our "One Nation, Under God" has turned away from God over the last 20 years.
Politics: I think it is a GOOD thing to POLITELY discuss and challenge each other’s stand on various issues. So here goes: I am amazed at how often the argument comes up that the economy is more important that whether the President breaks laws or otherwise has low morals. Would any of you say that it wouldn't matter what kind of law-breaking scum marries your daughter as long as he provided a good income for her? I doubt it. Where do you draw the line where the economy becomes more important than morals? Yes I am blessed to be in this country and to have the 2 compact tractors that I have; I thoroughly enjoy my tractors. But I would gladly give up that luxury any day for a country with good morals (I believe that this gives our country more LONG TERM stability). I would miss this board, however.
Kelvin
Religion: Christians are called to “spread the word” around the world (note that Christians are not called to shove their religion down people's throats; God intended for everyone to have the free choice to choose hell if they want). For those that consider themselves Christian, it is difficult to "spread the word" when one believes they shouldn't "talk about religion". It is this belief that has cost Christians the freedom of public prayer (free speech?) that they have enjoyed for so many years. I am making these statements now since I am fully convinced that one day the attitude “you shouldn’t talk about your religion” will become law. Hopefully this is at least 10 years off, but you never know. Smirk if you must; just look at how far our "One Nation, Under God" has turned away from God over the last 20 years.
Politics: I think it is a GOOD thing to POLITELY discuss and challenge each other’s stand on various issues. So here goes: I am amazed at how often the argument comes up that the economy is more important that whether the President breaks laws or otherwise has low morals. Would any of you say that it wouldn't matter what kind of law-breaking scum marries your daughter as long as he provided a good income for her? I doubt it. Where do you draw the line where the economy becomes more important than morals? Yes I am blessed to be in this country and to have the 2 compact tractors that I have; I thoroughly enjoy my tractors. But I would gladly give up that luxury any day for a country with good morals (I believe that this gives our country more LONG TERM stability). I would miss this board, however.
Kelvin
Ian
Member
Question from a northern neighbour...
If McCain (for example) recieved enough votes on a "write-in" basis, would he become POTUS even though he is not the official candidate of either party, and is not even officially in the running?
Seems to me that this forum generates a better debate than the networks could ever hope for. Real, honest opinion sure counts. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
If McCain (for example) recieved enough votes on a "write-in" basis, would he become POTUS even though he is not the official candidate of either party, and is not even officially in the running?
Seems to me that this forum generates a better debate than the networks could ever hope for. Real, honest opinion sure counts. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Alan L.
Elite Member
I really think the good economy cannot be attributed to Clinton/Gore whatsoever. Theres not a single action this administration has made that can be responsible.
But think back. Reaganomics, the "trickle-down" theory resulted in low inflation and business success, which eventually resulted in more jobs, better jobs, and more economic activity.
I think this and a combination of less pressure on the military in terms of keeping up with the Communists in building up the ability to blow up the world many times over is the biggest reason for the current state of the economy.
But think back. Reaganomics, the "trickle-down" theory resulted in low inflation and business success, which eventually resulted in more jobs, better jobs, and more economic activity.
I think this and a combination of less pressure on the military in terms of keeping up with the Communists in building up the ability to blow up the world many times over is the biggest reason for the current state of the economy.
ERNIEB
Platinum Member
JimBinMI, As I've said elsewhere I'm not a big fan of ether of the two major parties. But as a Texan I'll take a shot at your questions about Bush.
<font color=blue>He was a drunk until about age 40?</font color=blue>
It is my understanding that He Himself came to the conclusion that he was drinking too much and quit. It wasn't something his wife or mother was getting on to him about, He just did it on his own. Not sure how old he was, but even now says he drinks no alcohol.
<font color=blue>He borrowed $600,000 to buy some land and then sold it to the City or goverment for 3 million?</font color=blue>
This is something I haven't heard before, but it wouldn't surprise me. "Connected" people often are brought in to these sweetheart deals. Remember Hilary's million buck profit on cattle futures?
<font color=blue>Daddy bought him a sports team?</font color=blue>
I don't think anyone knows where the money actually came from, but yes he was part of a group who owned the Texas Rangers. A small part. He may have made some money when he sold. Most sport teams are not money makers. It's more of an ego trip for the owners.
<font color=blue>What about the problems posted in Texas under his reign?</font color=blue>
Well, this one covers alot of ground. I think it's important to keep in mind that in Texas, a governor's power comes from appointments. I think he has done pretty well at this. Compared to the former governor, Ann Richards, I would say Bush is an improvement.
It may sound like I'm trying to sell the guy, but I have tried to be unbiased. You mentioned education, I don't know who is better or worse. In my opinion, our school systems are a mess. I would also add that one of the problems in todays America is that no one wants to talk politics. They are too willing to be spoon fed by the media. Where would we be if our founding fathers had not been willing to talk politics?
ErnieB
<font color=blue>He was a drunk until about age 40?</font color=blue>
It is my understanding that He Himself came to the conclusion that he was drinking too much and quit. It wasn't something his wife or mother was getting on to him about, He just did it on his own. Not sure how old he was, but even now says he drinks no alcohol.
<font color=blue>He borrowed $600,000 to buy some land and then sold it to the City or goverment for 3 million?</font color=blue>
This is something I haven't heard before, but it wouldn't surprise me. "Connected" people often are brought in to these sweetheart deals. Remember Hilary's million buck profit on cattle futures?
<font color=blue>Daddy bought him a sports team?</font color=blue>
I don't think anyone knows where the money actually came from, but yes he was part of a group who owned the Texas Rangers. A small part. He may have made some money when he sold. Most sport teams are not money makers. It's more of an ego trip for the owners.
<font color=blue>What about the problems posted in Texas under his reign?</font color=blue>
Well, this one covers alot of ground. I think it's important to keep in mind that in Texas, a governor's power comes from appointments. I think he has done pretty well at this. Compared to the former governor, Ann Richards, I would say Bush is an improvement.
It may sound like I'm trying to sell the guy, but I have tried to be unbiased. You mentioned education, I don't know who is better or worse. In my opinion, our school systems are a mess. I would also add that one of the problems in todays America is that no one wants to talk politics. They are too willing to be spoon fed by the media. Where would we be if our founding fathers had not been willing to talk politics?
ErnieB
scruffy
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2000
- Messages
- 1,445
- Tractor
- None (at present)
ErnieB, it is rather hard to talk politics with those that have bought into the spoonfed bias of the media. Honest, open / fair minded / unbias reporting has long since taken a hike, and many people still believe everything the media says without delving into all sides of an issue.
Bird
Rest in Peace
<font color=blue>Re: What about the problems posted in Texas under his reign?</font color=blue>
ErnieB, as you said, much of a Texas governor's accomplishments, or lack thereof, are the result of appointments he makes. You know some history books refer to the Texas governor as a "paper tiger" because in reality the lieutenant governor probably has much more actual power and authority than the governor. And as he says, Republican Bush was able to work with and gain the cooperation of a Democratic lieutenant governor to accomplish much more than the previous Democratic governor did. And that lieutenant governor even endorsed Bush for re-election over the Democratic candidate. Of course, I think both candidates stretch the truth a bit and make promises they'll never be able to keep, make "mistakes" in what they say sometimes, etc., but at least I think Bush is right when he says he's been able to work with both parties.
Bird
ErnieB, as you said, much of a Texas governor's accomplishments, or lack thereof, are the result of appointments he makes. You know some history books refer to the Texas governor as a "paper tiger" because in reality the lieutenant governor probably has much more actual power and authority than the governor. And as he says, Republican Bush was able to work with and gain the cooperation of a Democratic lieutenant governor to accomplish much more than the previous Democratic governor did. And that lieutenant governor even endorsed Bush for re-election over the Democratic candidate. Of course, I think both candidates stretch the truth a bit and make promises they'll never be able to keep, make "mistakes" in what they say sometimes, etc., but at least I think Bush is right when he says he's been able to work with both parties.
Bird
EddieW
Silver Member
As of this morning the Zogby poll shows Bush and Gore statistically deadlocked. I guess this is where it gets really interesting and they start calling each other all sorts of names. In my opinion, garnered from people much more knowledgeable than I, 401Ks and tax-free savings is the main contributor for the ecomomy since the late 80s. Baby boomers have been sticking money in retirement accounts at a record rate preparing for retirement and this extra money has allowed interest rates to stay low and provided capital for growth. Alan Greenspan has provided excellent leadership in raising and lowering the interest rates to control inflation so things have been good. Congress did their part in forcing a balanced budget. Bill Clinton takes credit for balancing the budget but I don't believe it would have ever happened without a Republican controlled Congress forcing the issue.
Will
Gold Member
I think Republicans have lost some of their favorite issues in this campaign. For instance,
whatever happened to “tough on crime” as a Republican issue? Crime is down 20% under democratic leadership.
Military preparedness? Republicans still talk more about it, but due to a smaller tax cut (especially for top ..., but I think you’ve heard this once or twice), Gore will spend more on the military than Bush. I don’t think many people will choose to send part of their Bush tax cuts to the military.
Balancing the budget? Reagan set the record for talking about it, but Clinton and Gore corralled enough Democratic and Republican support to actually do it.
And whatever happened to all those “Don’t blame me, I voted for Bush or Dole” stickers? With the lower interest rates, people have new cars, and instead of blaming, everyone (especially Gore unfortunately) is try to claim credit.
Alright, maybe you say the only issue is morality, but I find this hard to believe, after all, I can’t imagine this group pushing for Carter over Reagan or McGovern over Nixon. I wish Gore didn’t consistently exaggerate his contributions, I wish Bush could speak English as if it were his first language.
I think one of the most important things that Clinton did, that Bush and Gore are following, is that he made elections a fight for the center of the political spectrum. Notice how we aren’t hearing about NRA vs ACLU in this election. (If you want my opinion, the two groups are both crazy, they are perfect examples of taking a reasonable idea to the most lunatic possible conclusions.) We aren’t even hearing about the other standard hot button issues like prayer in school or abortion rights. The point is that people with strong opinions on these issues have made up their minds long before subtleties like the Family Leave Act are offered to people in the middle.
whatever happened to “tough on crime” as a Republican issue? Crime is down 20% under democratic leadership.
Military preparedness? Republicans still talk more about it, but due to a smaller tax cut (especially for top ..., but I think you’ve heard this once or twice), Gore will spend more on the military than Bush. I don’t think many people will choose to send part of their Bush tax cuts to the military.
Balancing the budget? Reagan set the record for talking about it, but Clinton and Gore corralled enough Democratic and Republican support to actually do it.
And whatever happened to all those “Don’t blame me, I voted for Bush or Dole” stickers? With the lower interest rates, people have new cars, and instead of blaming, everyone (especially Gore unfortunately) is try to claim credit.
Alright, maybe you say the only issue is morality, but I find this hard to believe, after all, I can’t imagine this group pushing for Carter over Reagan or McGovern over Nixon. I wish Gore didn’t consistently exaggerate his contributions, I wish Bush could speak English as if it were his first language.
I think one of the most important things that Clinton did, that Bush and Gore are following, is that he made elections a fight for the center of the political spectrum. Notice how we aren’t hearing about NRA vs ACLU in this election. (If you want my opinion, the two groups are both crazy, they are perfect examples of taking a reasonable idea to the most lunatic possible conclusions.) We aren’t even hearing about the other standard hot button issues like prayer in school or abortion rights. The point is that people with strong opinions on these issues have made up their minds long before subtleties like the Family Leave Act are offered to people in the middle.
Ian, yes, whoever gets the most votes wins, even a write-in candidate. But no "third party" candidate has ever won, and I don't think one ever got more than 20% of the vote, in the 20th century anyway.
Actually, it is a more complicated than just the popular vote. The candidate who wins the most "electoral" votes wins the presidency. There are 540 (I think) electoral votes that are parcelled out among the states based on the decennial population census. Whoever wins the popular vote in a state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes. Therefore it is statistically possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote count. For example, if California, New York and Texas each had 100 electoral votes, and if Gore won by just one popular vote in each of those three states, he would win the presidency even if he lost every person's vote in all the other 47 states. Therefore, it is crucial for the candidates to win the populous states in order to get the winner-take-all electoral votes.
Reading this board will give a really distorted and one-sided view of the closeness of the race. It is very close. There are groups that, in the aggregate, traditionally have voted for the Democrat candidate for the past 50 years: minorities (especially African-Americans), women, Jews, unionized labor, lower income groups, and artsy and academic types. Unfortunately for Bush, these voting blocs are particulary prevalent in the populous states with large electoral votes--New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida. Bush has an advantage in Florida, where his brother is governer, and in Texas, where he himself is of course governor.
Glenn
Actually, it is a more complicated than just the popular vote. The candidate who wins the most "electoral" votes wins the presidency. There are 540 (I think) electoral votes that are parcelled out among the states based on the decennial population census. Whoever wins the popular vote in a state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes. Therefore it is statistically possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote count. For example, if California, New York and Texas each had 100 electoral votes, and if Gore won by just one popular vote in each of those three states, he would win the presidency even if he lost every person's vote in all the other 47 states. Therefore, it is crucial for the candidates to win the populous states in order to get the winner-take-all electoral votes.
Reading this board will give a really distorted and one-sided view of the closeness of the race. It is very close. There are groups that, in the aggregate, traditionally have voted for the Democrat candidate for the past 50 years: minorities (especially African-Americans), women, Jews, unionized labor, lower income groups, and artsy and academic types. Unfortunately for Bush, these voting blocs are particulary prevalent in the populous states with large electoral votes--New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida. Bush has an advantage in Florida, where his brother is governer, and in Texas, where he himself is of course governor.
Glenn
