Daryl Manonica Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Does that mean that it doesn't matter if someone is allowed to vote or not? Let's watch the terminology there. Every is "allowed" to vote. Show up at your assigned polling station with ID in hand and there is no problem 99.9999% of the time. If you want/need an absentee ballot, you are accepting that the risk of error goes up. Your problem was administrative, no one was attempting to limit your right to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 I said:<<I ranked GWB Jr. above GHWB Sr. as well...>> Fine...but why? 168608[/snapback] Quick answers: GHWB did that stupid "raise taxes" deal. And I don't think he took serious how some would hold him to do exactly as he said. There are many things that I did like about GHWB though. And I am not one of those who say he should have gone after Saddam Hussein or Baghdad in 1991 because I understood the limitations of the U.N. resolutions and what getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait left for us to do - not much. For GWB, I like the "cowboy attitude" that so many others knock. I loved the "Bring 'em on" statement that most people used as a big negative against GWB. I don't even think he came close to lying about WMDs as others do. My impression is that he does exactly what he says he's going to do. Now, of course there are times when that does not exactly happen. And I know spending is "out of control". There is waste on the social spending as well as the intelligence & military spending. I essentially agree with him on taxes, war on terror, religious issues, and abortion. I did not vote against Kerry to only be stuck with my vote for GWB; but voting against Kerry was a plus to me. So, it is just my impression that I like GWB "better" than GHWB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 How the hell were we able to fight a World War on TWO fronts against elite militaries , but now we are "overextended" fighting a bunch of terrorists with hand-made weapons? 168807[/snapback] Give me a break. In WWII we had 15 million men in arms, with virtually everyone else working in their support (how many Fords or Chryslers were made between '41 and '45? How many airliners were purchased by civil avation companies like Pan Am? How many new radio sets were built? How much shipping was contracted for construction or use outside of military maritime programs?) When you can't go out and buy a brand new Ford Focus or fly in a 767 any younger than three years old, then comparing the level of national economic commitment to the military might - might - be valid enough to compare how "overstretched" we are now to what we were then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Quick answers: GHWB did that stupid "raise taxes" deal. And I don't think he took serious how some would hold him to do exactly as he said. There are many things that I did like about GHWB though. And I am not one of those who say he should have gone after Saddam Hussein or Baghdad in 1991 because I understood the limitations of the U.N. resolutions and what getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait left for us to do - not much. For GWB, I like the "cowboy attitude" that so many others knock. I loved the "Bring 'em on" statement that most people used as a big negative against GWB. I don't even think he came close to lying about WMDs as others do. My impression is that he does exactly what he says he's going to do. Now, of course there are times when that does not exactly happen. And I know spending is "out of control". There is waste on the social spending as well as the intelligence & military spending. I essentially agree with him on taxes, war on terror, religious issues, and abortion. I did not vote against Kerry to only be stuck with my vote for GWB; but voting against Kerry was a plus to me. So, it is just my impression that I like GWB "better" than GHWB. 169407[/snapback] Fair 'nough. I disagree...but I wasn't looking to argue with you, just wanted to know your reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Give me a break. In WWII we had 15 million men in arms, with virtually everyone else working in their support (how many Fords or Chryslers were made between '41 and '45? How many airliners were purchased by civil avation companies like Pan Am? How many new radio sets were built? How much shipping was contracted for construction or use outside of military maritime programs?) When you can't go out and buy a brand new Ford Focus or fly in a 767 any younger than three years old, then comparing the level of national economic commitment to the military might - might - be valid enough to compare how "overstretched" we are now to what we were then. 169710[/snapback] Hotpockets! Flightsuit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 When I think about it, I know quite a few republicans that would have voted for the democrat candidate, if they thought he was a viable candidate- they were not really pro-Bush. Last time the Democrats got a guy in office, it was a man from a red state, who garnered a conservative base. That being said, I think what the election was is the conservatives overcoming the vocal minority, which is the liberals. Anyone agree or disagree- I expect some very interesting opinions. 165830[/snapback] I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I will offer my $.02. The dems are in a sad state of affairs. Look at the 9 idiots they lined up in the primary, and then find me one attractive candidate in the bunch. Around the country, they lost congressional seats, senate seats and governorships. Do you think this was an accident. In the dem party, for every Mickey, who is sane, pragamatic and wants to make sense, there is a budsload of rule making, life controlling nut jobs that care more about whales, seals, smoking in bars and not eating meat than they do about issues that matter. The dems have a base of African-American voters, this I admit. Thier Hispanic base is sketchy, and the traditional Jewish base seems to be at long last shrinking. Almost all union bosses vote for dems, who take their votes for granted and give them NAFTA in return. Oh, did I fail to mention the Hollywood elitists such as wife beating Sean Penn, and Chelsea Clinton's pal Madonna? I am thinking African-Americans cast almost the same number of votes for Kerry as did Whites. Where are the AA senators and congressman? Answer: Few exist, because white liberals want to lead them by the nose and again, take their support for granted. Republicans, according to Dick Morris, devote little resources to getting AA votes because of the near certain futility. This is a state of affairs that concerns me. The dems will continue to flounder as long as their party is viewed by voters, or is in fact energized and controlled by the nut jobs who were demonstrating at the convention and draining us of our police resources, this in a time of terrorist threat. Also, dems lose the presidency when they tell the truth. I point to Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern as examples. In this election, they put forth another tactic....a candidate who stood for absolutely nothing. Ques: Senator Kerry, are you for or against gay marriage? Ans: Yes. It wasn't going to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Almost all union bosses vote for dems, who take their votes for granted and give them NAFTA in return. 170834[/snapback] The only point I want to make among the detritus.... Repubs spoon out a lie and people too lazy to pay attention or research things gobble it up. It's amazing how many times I need to point this out. This was one of the issues where Clinton broke from the Dems; yeah, some voted for it to go along w/ the Pres, or for their own reasons. Many didn't. NAFTA was essentially the reason Perot ran, to give conservatives who didn't want to sell out their country another choice. Washington Watch Archives This strategy of picking a course first and then finding allies is the pattern emerging from the Clinton White House's first year's legislative agenda. Unwilling to simply follow the course of least resistance within the Democratic party, the President begins by defining an issue and taking support where he finds it -- even if that means that the majority of his support comes from Republicans (as was the case with NAFTA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 Let's watch the terminology there. Every is "allowed" to vote. Show up at your assigned polling station with ID in hand and there is no problem 99.9999% of the time. If you want/need an absentee ballot, you are accepting that the risk of error goes up. Your problem was administrative, no one was attempting to limit your right to vote. 169400[/snapback] Well, I just dont have the $$$$ to get back down there at this point in time. I'm stuck where I am. As far as the being allowed to vote goes- someone working for the board of elections told me that my ballot, and many others were not sent out, although they were recorded as being sent out. No matter who won, that is wrong if it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts