Read this if you think the media is liberal:

[Dnil]

Anyone read to story on Speilbergs new movie and how he had it edited to favor the liberal view?  That that was pretty funny, plus when they added up how much he, geffin and the other producer contributed to the democrats it was $750K combined compared to around $2k for the repubs.  

Have any of the main news stations reported the Gore/Russian deal that violated some big laws?  Just curious as to if it has been.

I think most people dont understand who the LT. Governor of Texas was that Bush had to win over.  He was probably the most powerful person in Texas politics who happened to be a democrat.  This is the most intriguing thing of this election, the joining of the major parties instead of dividing them.  

------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[StSanta]

Dnil, ya gota admit, there are issues where the democrats and republicans disagree  

Bush is a very charmy bugger - he has lots of charisma. Mayhap some democrats are won over by personality and not issues? (assuming average democrats, i.e stricter gun laws etc etc ad nauseum.

Hell, if I didn't think he was such a poo head, *I* would probably like him  .

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Toad]

Sorry for being cynical...but I am who I am after voting for US politicians the last 40 years or so and watching them after they gain office.

Vote the "issues" if you like...but don't be disappointed (or surprised) when, if elected, NEITHER one of these <ahem> gentlemen carry through on even one single small promise that they have made.

First, it is the nature of politicians to promise far more than they deliver.

Second, even if they do try, they have to get their idea/plan through a divided Congress.

So, vote issues if you like.

I voted based on the type of Supreme Court Justices I thought each would appoint.

I personally believe the Court has the MOST power in the system of "checks and balances"...and the Justices serve for life.

It's a pretty clear division, too.

Gore favors more government involvement in a private citizen's everyday affairs and life. Expect him to appoint Justices that will allow Government to do so.

Bush favors less government involvement in a private citizen's everyday affairs and life. Expect him to appoint Justices that will allow not Government to do pester the sh*t out of citizens.

I don't want to hear people say in a few  years:

"When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it." [anon]

It was a VERY easy choice for me.

       

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-22-2000).]

[StSanta]

Yah but Toad, that slippery slope argument can just as easily be said about the Republicans using yer own logic  .

Seems to me it is a matter of personal preference rather than objective thinking, this election, since both are scumbags that'll lie and obfuscate the truth.

I'm happy I don't have to vote in the US. I'm unhappy about the candidates here, but at least there are some I can agree with.

As with issues, you mention the Supreme Court. There's a reason I wouldn't vote for Bush; he'd do what he could to overturn Row vs. Wade through employing Supreme Court judges who do not favour it. Much like in the case of guns, the pro choicers feel they're defending a right here.

So, again, I can say the same thing about rights and still be a non republican  .

Another issue is the separation of church and state - with government supporting faith based schools or charities through vouchers, we have a big hole in the wall.

Just examples of issues where I *DO* think the candidates will hold their promises as best they can.

I'll not be affected much by the outcome, you gotta live there, so you gotta do what ya think is right. And, if you do that *and* vote, you have my respect no matter what ya vote for. I might not like it, but at least it is based on something more than flimsy "uh this guy is like, uhm, cool" teenage mentality  .


------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Udie]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
As with issues, you mention the Supreme Court. There's a reason I wouldn't vote for Bush; he'd do what he could to overturn Row vs. Wade through employing Supreme Court judges who do not favour it. Much like in the case of guns, the pro choicers feel they're defending a right here.

 Then the states would all make laws keeping it legal.  It's not in the constitution, so it doesn't belong in national/federal polotics. It should be an isue that each state decides for itself what to do.  And where does it say in the constitution that the supreme court makes law?  I thought they decided what was constitutinal and not?  If it's not in the constitution how can they keep it legal?  Yet another raping of our constitution?

Udie

[StSanta]

Udie, that's the thing. They've ruled that women's right to self determination is just that.

Now, the same court might overrule their own decision in the future.

Sorta amusing huh?

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Toad]

Two things....

The abortion question, whether people like to admit it or not, is simply over who is going to pay.

Abortions were available in the US LONG before Roe V Wade. LONG before. It was simply a matter of finding the right doctor, getting the right diagnosis and paying what he asked. All done in nice, clean sanitary hospitals with excellent care.

In short, if you could pay, clean, safe abortion was available at almost any stage of the pregnancy. That has never changed.

What's going on now (IMHO) is a fight over whether the government will fund abortions using the public till, although both sides frame the dialog differently.

I'll agree that "a women's right to choose" is her choice. If there is a Supreme Being (and who really knows for SURE?) that is going to be P*ssed Off over her choice, that's her problem, not mine.  

However, I don't feel I should be forced to subsidize her choice through an involuntary contribution collected by the government.

As to "School Vouchers" I'm not sure I see the church/state conflict. All of us pay into the public till to fund schools. The voucher system directs your particular contribution to a particular school. This may or may NOT be a public school (there are non-sectarian private schools). In either event, you are still funding education to the same degree you were before; you are just getting a voice in where your money goes.

I think the voucher issue could be made to work in some fashion without endangering the separation between church and state.

I like it in that it provides incentive for schools to perform. Responsibility & Accountability.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-23-2000).]