Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Campaign "Issues"
Author Message
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #1
 
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453/</a>
05-31-2004 08:55 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #2
 
Good column. It really shows the dark underbelly of political pandering.

Quote:Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq.

While the quote is generally inaccurate, I do think the US "went in alone" in a sense. While we had a smattering of small military help from a wide assortment of countries, it was apparent that the vast majority of the populaces within those countries were against sending troops. Moreover, it's actually questionable whether these nations' own governments were really 'into' it, or just went along for the ride based on some arm-twisting and allied loyalty.
05-31-2004 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #3
 
Maybe my computer is having a brain fart, but when I opened the link, the msnbc page was blank. It just had links to other pages on their site.

I can tell you what the issues are NOT, but the two major parties want these to be issues:

1. Abortion--it will never be illegal again, and how many folks get abortions. I'd like to see some hard research on that.

2. Gay marriage--not important. Many homosexuals live together, and would do so whether gay marriage is state sanctioned, or if civil unions were state sanctioned. Maybe one of the lawyers can comment on this, but it seems that it is perfectly within personal, citizens' rights to go to a lawyer and write a living will and upon death of a gay person, they can leave their entire holdings to their lover, life partner, etc. They can also make that person executor of their estate. As far as taxes go, I think it would behoove most gay folks living together to file separately.

3. Flip-flopping--all presidents, politicos, etc change their minds. All claim that X is their policy and it's unchanging. But if the winds of popular opinion blow in the opposite direction of X, politicos on either side will change their positions accordingly.

4. Tort reform--big issue in my home state, but the press does such a deplorable job of explaining it that no one even knows what in the heck a tort is. Nobody knows exactly how trial lawyers and insurance companies affect them personally.
Also, tort reform packages in most governing bodies and proposed reform packages do not limit, nor aid, one's right to sue.

5. War records--I have commented on the two major parties' candidates respective war records or lack thereof, but I did so only to characterize their personalities and the nature of their respective ambition to either take office or continue in office. In all reality, the constitution does not state that a president must have an exemplary service record or even a service record in the military, hence any person who is a natural U.S. citizen over 35 can be president provided they get enough electoral votes.

6. Patriot Act--niether candidate will be able to pass PA II or repeal PA I. PA I is not, from what I can tell, a violation of any of our basic civil rights.

7. Labor--the recent Bush-junta's initiative to limit overtime pay protections to American workers does not affect the majority of workers. It affects many workers who were not under the overtime pay provisions' umbrella to begin with, i.e. doctors, policemen and women, firemen and women, truck drivers, nurses, etc.

8. Michael Jackson--No thinking American gives a fock about what the size and shape of Jacko's nose is this week. :roflol:

9. Legislating judges--although the Republicans would like this to be a big issue, the judicial branch is distinctively seperate from the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Gov. Judges have the duty of oversight on the other two branches as per our Constitution. Judges DO NOT legislate, the oversee the application of laws passed and do so within the framework of our Constitution and state constitutions.
If a judge in your locality hands down either a judgement or sentence that you do not agree with personally, then vote that judge out of office in your respective local elections. If that judge was appointed, then vote the one appointing that judge out of office in either the local, state, or national election in which that appointer was brought into office.

10. Moving corporations overseas--this should be an issue, but it is not. Both sides of the aisle require monies from corporations to fund their campaigns, and most of these corporations will continue to fund candidates' campaigns. Therefore, either candidate will kowtow to corporations and allow them to move overseas, north to maple syrup land or south to dirty water heaven, Mexico.
Also, consider that many corporations cannot competitively afford to pay American workers what they can pay Indonesian school-children to make Nike shoes. Americans will pay for Nike shoes as long as they are relatively cheap and their pre-approved credit card applications continue to arrive in the mail.
Lastly, even if candidate X wanted more corporations to stay in the United States, it is outside of their power to make that law. By extension, the economy and the solvency of it is not solely in the power of the U.S. president.
05-31-2004 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1125 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,957
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Cincinnati, NKU
Location: Cincinnati

Folding@NCAAbbsSkunkworks
Post: #4
 
Motown Bronco Wrote:Good column. It really shows the dark underbelly of political pandering.

Quote:Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq.

While the quote is generally inaccurate, I do think the US "went in alone" in a sense. While we had a smattering of small military help from a wide assortment of countries, it was apparent that the vast majority of the populaces within those countries were against sending troops. Moreover, it's actually questionable whether these nations' own governments were really 'into' it, or just went along for the ride based on some arm-twisting and allied loyalty.
We didn't go in ourselves...Just without the UN...How is that inaccurate?
05-31-2004 12:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
 
UCBearcats1125 Wrote:
Motown Bronco Wrote:Good column.&nbsp; It really shows the dark underbelly of political pandering.

Quote:Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq.

While the quote is generally inaccurate, I do think the US "went in alone" in a sense. While we had a smattering of small military help from a wide assortment of countries, it was apparent that the vast majority of the populaces within those countries were against sending troops. Moreover, it's actually questionable whether these nations' own governments were really 'into' it, or just went along for the ride based on some arm-twisting and allied loyalty.
We didn't go in ourselves...Just without the UN...How is that inaccurate?
Were you asleep when the war began?
05-31-2004 12:13 PM
Quote this message in a reply
1125 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,957
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Cincinnati, NKU
Location: Cincinnati

Folding@NCAAbbsSkunkworks
Post: #6
 
Oddball Wrote:
UCBearcats1125 Wrote:
Motown Bronco Wrote:Good column.  It really shows the dark underbelly of political pandering.

Quote:Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq.

While the quote is generally inaccurate, I do think the US "went in alone" in a sense. While we had a smattering of small military help from a wide assortment of countries, it was apparent that the vast majority of the populaces within those countries were against sending troops. Moreover, it's actually questionable whether these nations' own governments were really 'into' it, or just went along for the ride based on some arm-twisting and allied loyalty.
We didn't go in ourselves...Just without the UN...How is that inaccurate?
Were you asleep when the war began?
Why the hell do we always have to go along with the UN???
05-31-2004 12:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
 
UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Why the hell do we always have to go along with the UN???
Ask Rumsfeld that question, especially since he's recently lobbied the U.N. for help in Iraq.

In general, however, we have to go along with the U.N. because we are a member nation, and a member of the U.N. security council. Members of the U.N. agreed in writing to follow the mandates and resolutions of the U.N.
In regard to invading Iraq, it was the violation of U.N. resolutions by Saddam that precipitated the call for invasion.

Also in general, the U.N. is the brainchild of the victors of WW2, whom we are a part. The body was designed to settle disagreements between member nations in hopes to avoid massive, worldwide destruction as was the case after WW2 (and WW1).

If our gov. does not wish to go along with the U.N. then our gov. is fully entitled to pull out.
05-31-2004 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.