Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: LETS TRY SOMETHING NEW

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Instead of the same boring constant trashing of candidates from both sides lets see some posts promoting the guy you want stating what he will do to make things better for the country. This forum is honestly getting boring with the same crap every day. All I see here is Bush did......... or Kerry did.......... If an outsider were reading some of the stuff here I would be embarrased if I were posting it.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    717
    Post Thanks / Like
    I support netither they are both twits in my book, I am going to vote for Bush.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pat Buchanan for President in 2008!!! Whoo Hooo!!!!!

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mitt Romney now!!! (just change the "i" in his first name to an "a"...pleeze!)

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    I support Kerry because he SAYS he will ACTUALLy Cut taxes on the Middle Class and roll back Bush's tax cuts on the people who earn over 200K a year.

    I also support Kerry because when he wins there will be NO MORE dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, paul wolfi and condi rice!!

    It's sad that there isn't a HUGE number of positives about Kerry..But the above reason is trully the only reason I need.

  6. #6
    Maxman
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 09:50 AM
    [b] I support Kerry because he SAYS he will ACTUALLy Cut taxes on the Middle Class and roll back Bush's tax cuts on the people who earn over 200K a year.

    I also support Kerry because when he wins there will be NO MORE dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, paul wolfi and condi rice!!

    It's sad that there isn't a HUGE number of positives about Kerry..But the above reason is trully the only reason I need. [/b][/quote]
    Do you think the people earning under 200k a year are going to be taxes less under Kerry, then they are right now?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 09:50 AM
    [b] I support Kerry because he SAYS he will ACTUALLy Cut taxes on the Middle Class and roll back Bush's tax cuts on the people who earn over 200K a year.

    I also support Kerry because when he wins there will be NO MORE dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, paul wolfi and condi rice!!

    It's sad that there isn't a HUGE number of positives about Kerry..But the above reason is trully the only reason I need. [/b][/quote]
    No president GOP or 'rat can raise or lower taxes. Congress passes laws and the president either signs or vetos. Kerry says Bush hasn't "created jobs" and he's right, but neither did Clinton. The president doesn't create jobs or destroy them. We had a manufacturing plant close during Bush's term and lost 200-300 jobs. Was that Bush's fault? No. It was the union's fault. We had a factory that closed during Slicker's term. Was that his fault? No. The work ethic in our town is the pits. That's why businesses leave and we can't get any new ones. Out town is a "dead dog" 'rat town. Most would vote for Osama if he ran on the 'rat ticket. BTW, the only areas of our state that are economically thriving are GOP areas. That says a lot.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good question Jetman, Ill try to answer in all seriousness. I think our country needs to examine what it believes the role of government is. I think this is the essential question that needs to be answered and is the root of philisophical difference between people.

    What serivices can we all agree government should provide?
    - national defense
    - protect personal and property rights
    - create and intrepret law, resolve disputes that arise

    There are probably a few other basic issues that we can all agree is the role of government. I think the problem between pewopl arise at the next step. Is it the role of goverment to help out the poor? To create retirement accounts for people? To setup public utilities that may or may not be economically feasible? To look for new energy sources? To provide health care?

    Personally, I don't think governemnt should interefere in most other issues other than the basic needs. Obviouslely, some peoples freedoms infringe on others freedoms and government is needed in theese instances to settle differences. But, I always will think less government is better.

    I also realize that I have completely ripped this idea off. There is nothing really earthbreaking it what I think is wrong.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]I also realize that I have completely ripped this idea off. There is nothing really earthbreaking it what I think is wrong. [/b][/quote]

    Yes you have completly ripped it off from the Republicans. Unfortunatly, the neo-cons are in power, not the Republicans.

    Name one Republican President who has decreased spending.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 01:04 PM
    [b] [quote][b]I also realize that I have completely ripped this idea off. There is nothing really earthbreaking it what I think is wrong. [/b][/quote]

    Yes you have completly ripped it off from the Republicans. Unfortunatly, the neo-cons are in power, not the Republicans.

    Name one Republican President who has decreased spending. [/b][/quote]
    Again, you're giving the president too much power. The president doesn't increase or decrease spending. Congress does that. The president either encourages a law or vetoes it.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 01:04 PM
    [b] [quote][b]I also realize that I have completely ripped this idea off. There is nothing really earthbreaking it what I think is wrong. [/b][/quote]

    Yes you have completly ripped it off from the Republicans. Unfortunatly, the neo-cons are in power, not the Republicans.

    Name one Republican President who has decreased spending. [/b][/quote]
    Wow, you really are amazing! I was asked what i thought was wrong and tried to offer an opinion. You go on the attack. That wasn't the purpose of this thread. I was asked what I thought could help the country. I gave an answer.

    How would you improve the country? I tried to give an opinion that we should try to come idea of what the role of government was and work from there. I guess you'd just rather argue all day.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    another BUSH LIE..He says, in his little rascaly voice, "John Kerry wants to expand the Gov't"....

    George Bush has expanded the Gov't more than any pres in recent memory...
    he's gone

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Section, are you talking in dollar terms, real dollar terms, or as a % of GDP, or in some other fashion and if so, how do you consider inflation and what assumptions are used in that model? 'Spending' is a vague and easily-manipulated word, depending on the agenda of the user. Keep that in mind. Reagan, by most objective criteria, reduced spending, especially non-defense discretionary spending. Reagan cut taxes and was able to lower spending..especially if you use the pragmatic view that even a reduction in the amount of an increase in spending is actually a de facto "cut." People often accuse conservatives of "cutting" a program, when in reality, all they have done is reduced the increase from one year to the next. If a program has 10% yearly increases planned, a conservative could "cut" that to only 8% in year 2, and be accused of "slashing" 2% from the program, and thus, demonstrate their insensitivity. Alternatively, if you want to display Republicans as big spenders, all you have to do is look at the same data and say that under the GOP, spending for Program X went up 10% in year one, and 8% in year two, a dramatic increase of 18% in two years...even though it is less than what was originally budgeted. It's obtuse, at best.

    I think the military is the only government program that has ever worked, and even [i]it[/i] is not very efficient. Government is supposed to enforce contracts, protect our civil liberties, and protect us from foreign invasions, both of the classical kind and even new-types, like small-arms terrorist attacks on soft targets, and to provide a reasonably stable currency with which to trade. The government is not a nanny, it is not a parent, it is not required to make sure that everyone has a job or disposable cash, it is not supposed to provide for your retirement, it is not supposed to make sure you have enough medicine, it is not supposed to authorize the murder of infants, it is not supposed to penalize you for the content of your thoughts (hate crimes) and it is not even required to make sure that the trains run on time. If you want something done wrong, let the government do it. If you want something doe right, let the market do it. At least in the market, you can penalize firms that are inefficient. We think we can in government, by voting people out or blaming one party or another, but that is a fool's game. It matters little what party gets the temporary blame, when the net result of both parties is endless inefficiency. It's even worse, since each party can simply manipulate data and blame the other party, as if we won't notice that they are both awful.

    I have always said, I trust myself to make my own life choices more than I trust a politician to do it for me. I realize that both parties are awful. One party, however, consistently demands more of my money when they put a gun to my head every year and tell me that if I don't pay up that I am going to jail. I often vote for the party that mugs me for less money, but believe me, I realize that I am getting mugged no matter what.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 01:59 PM
    [b] another BUSH LIE..He says, in his little rascaly voice, "John Kerry wants to expand the Gov't"....

    George Bush has expanded the Gov't more than any pres in recent memory...
    he's gone [/b][/quote]
    bman ther is no argument there. But Kerry will not make government smaller either. He says Bush isn't spending enough! Neither candidate is ideal in my opinion. But, my responsibility as a voter is to vote for the candidate who's vision I believe is best for america. Neither candiddate platform is what i believe is best, but Bush's is closer.

    A little off topic but, Part of what makes the elector college good is being a New Yorker, I know it doesn't matter if I vote for Bush. He will lose NY. So I can in good conscience vote for another candidate who has no chance of winning whose platform is closer to what I beleive needs to be changed. If it were a straight popular vote, I couldn't vote for a "third" party candidate.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    five...
    we need Key in the oval office...
    get some stuff done..and not complain!!

  16. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 02:03 PM
    [b] Section, are you talking in dollar terms, real dollar terms, or as a % of GDP, or in some other fashion and if so, how do you consider infaltion and what assumptions are used on that model? 'Spending' is a vague and easily-manipulated word, depending on the agenda of the user. Keep that in mind. Reagan, by most objective criteria, reduced spending, especially non-defense discretionary spending. Reagan cut taxes and was able to lower spending..especially if you use the pragmatic view that even a reduction in the amount of an increase in spending is actually a de facto "cut." People often accuse conservatives of "cutting" a program, when in reality, all they have done is reduced the increase from one year to the next. If a program has 10% yearly increases planned, a conservative could "cut" that to only 8% in year 2, and be accused of "slashing" 2% from the program, and thus, demonstrate their insensitivity. Alternatively, if you want to display Republicans as big spenders, all you have to do is look at the same data and say that under the GOP, spending for Program X went up 10% in year one, and 8% in year two, a dramatic increase of 18% in two years...even though it is less than what was originally budgeted. It's obtuse, at best.

    I think the military is the only government program that has ever worked, and even [i]it[/i] is not very efficient. Government is supposed to enforce contracts, protect our civil liberties, and protect us from foreign invasions, both of the classical kind and even new-types, like small-arms terrorist attacks on soft targets, and to provide a reasonably stable currency with which to trade. The government is not a nanny, it is not a parent, it is not required to make sure that everyone has a job or disposable cash, it is not supposed to provide for your retirement, it is not supposed to make sure you have enough medicine, it is not supposed to authorize the murder of infants, it is not supposed to penalize you for the content of your thoughts (hate crimes) and it is not even required to make sure that the trains run on time. If you want something done wrong, let the government do it. If you want something doe right, let the market do it. At least in the market, you can penalize firms that are inefficient. We think we can in government, by voting people out or blaming one party or another, but that is a fool's game. It matters little what party gets the temporary blame, when the net result of both parties is endless inefficiency. It's even worse, since each party can simply manipulate data and blame the other party, as if we won't notice that they are both awful.

    I have always said, I trust myself to make my own life choices more than I trust a politician to do it for me. I realize that both parties are awful. One party, however, consistently demands more of my money when they put a gun to my head every year and tell me that if I don't pay up that I am going to jail. I often vote for the party that mugs me for less money, but believe me, I realize that I am getting mugged no matter what. [/b][/quote]
    well said 5ever

    I wish I was even close to as articulate as you.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd take Keyshawn in the White House.


    "Just give me the damn confirmation!"

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lawyers, Guns and Money+Sep 17 2004, 02:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Lawyers, Guns and Money @ Sep 17 2004, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 02:03 PM
    [b] Section, are you talking in dollar terms, real dollar terms, or as a % of GDP, or in some other fashion and if so, how do you consider infaltion and what assumptions are used on that model? &#39;Spending&#39; is a vague and easily-manipulated word, depending on the agenda of the user. Keep that in mind. Reagan, by most objective criteria, reduced spending, especially non-defense discretionary spending. Reagan cut taxes and was able to lower spending..especially if you use the pragmatic view that even a reduction in the amount of an increase in spending is actually a de facto "cut." People often accuse conservatives of "cutting" a program, when in reality, all they have done is reduced the increase from one year to the next. If a program has 10% yearly increases planned, a conservative could "cut" that to only 8% in year 2, and be accused of "slashing" 2% from the program, and thus, demonstrate their insensitivity. Alternatively, if you want to display Republicans as big spenders, all you have to do is look at the same data and say that under the GOP, spending for Program X went up 10% in year one, and 8% in year two, a dramatic increase of 18% in two years...even though it is less than what was originally budgeted. It&#39;s obtuse, at best.

    I think the military is the only government program that has ever worked, and even [i]it[/i] is not very efficient. Government is supposed to enforce contracts, protect our civil liberties, and protect us from foreign invasions, both of the classical kind and even new-types, like small-arms terrorist attacks on soft targets, and to provide a reasonably stable currency with which to trade. The government is not a nanny, it is not a parent, it is not required to make sure that everyone has a job or disposable cash, it is not supposed to provide for your retirement, it is not supposed to make sure you have enough medicine, it is not supposed to authorize the murder of infants, it is not supposed to penalize you for the content of your thoughts (hate crimes) and it is not even required to make sure that the trains run on time. If you want something done wrong, let the government do it. If you want something doe right, let the market do it. At least in the market, you can penalize firms that are inefficient. We think we can in government, by voting people out or blaming one party or another, but that is a fool&#39;s game. It matters little what party gets the temporary blame, when the net result of both parties is endless inefficiency. It&#39;s even worse, since each party can simply manipulate data and blame the other party, as if we won&#39;t notice that they are both awful.

    I have always said, I trust myself to make my own life choices more than I trust a politician to do it for me. I realize that both parties are awful. One party, however, consistently demands more of my money when they put a gun to my head every year and tell me that if I don&#39;t pay up that I am going to jail. I often vote for the party that mugs me for less money, but believe me, I realize that I am getting mugged no matter what. [/b][/quote]
    well said 5ever

    I wish I was even close to as articulate as you. [/b][/quote]
    Thanks Lawyers. Don&#39;t go getting all McGreevied-out on me though, boss&#33; :lol: ;)

    Have you started reading Dr. Sowell&#39;s book yet?

  19. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 02:12 PM
    [b]
    Thanks Lawyers. Don&#39;t go getting all McGreevied-out on me though, boss&#33; :lol: ;)

    Have you started reading Dr. Sowell&#39;s book yet? [/b][/quote]
    Damn you see right through me&#33;&#33;

    Just got it yesterday, probably start it early next week.

  20. #20
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by asuusa[/i]@Sep 17 2004, 01:26 PM
    [b] BTW, the only areas of our state that are economically thriving are GOP areas. That says a lot. [/b][/quote]
    yes, nassau county is flush...



    i&#39;ll vote for kerry b/c i think they both have problems, but kerry&#39;s are less scary and it will help in the international court of public opinion. i think iraq is the worst foreign relations disaster in history, and with the world is getting ever smaller and borders disintegrating, it will affect our lives for generations.

    warring on nations that clearly have something we want under the guise of &#39;pre-emptive strikes&#39; is not good busines in this day & age, and i don&#39;t believe we can take over the world.

    as part of that, I also support kerry because he&#39;s got less cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz and rice on his ticket.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us