<p>a lot of the people around here (a very white, religious suburb) voted Bush because of morals. which to me is ridiculous, since we're electing the president and not the pope, but anyways. they were more up in arms about things like the thought of gross dirty queers getting equal rights rather than the economy and foreign policy.</p>
<p>I get the feeling that people like that are more willing to accept what the government says and does (...even if the two don't agree) simply because they DON'T know details about what's going on, and are easily distracted by the lesser but more controversial issues.</p>
<p>I would understand electing a person on moral grounds...if that person were moral. But Bush is a lying, cowardly, thieving man. I do not see how a person that is openly racist, a drug user, alcoholic etc... can claim to be a moral man. And whatis moral? Lying about another country's military capability and connections to terrorists in order to invade it, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and thousands of young soldiers from the US and other countries? The man is corrupt to the bone.</p>
<p>But Bush is a lying, cowardly, thieving man. I do not see how a person that is openly racist, a drug user, alcoholic etc... can claim to be a moral man. And whatis moral?</p>
<p>This is a perfect example of what I am trying to explain. Uneducated people tend to get easilly swayed by corrupt leaders. Educated people are able to make a deeper analysis of what the candidates stand for.</p>
<p>There is no set standard of which to compare party platforms and judge whether they are right or wrong.</p>
<p>Well, in terms of their tax policy, they will. Bush' economic policy may cause a greater deficit. Kerry's plan is to tax the rich (who can still survive with the taxes :) and aid the poor . Which plan to you think is right? If you were in the middle class as I am, then obviously Kerry's plan would be more suitable. Buah calls for tax cuts, which are also beneficial, but Kerry's plan seems more effective.</p>
<p>Education has nothing to do with it. I'm sure there are just as many educated conservatives as there are dumb liberals, and there are just as many dumb conservatives as there are smart liberals (though why anyone that is educated would be a liberal beats me!).</p>
<h2>Well, in terms of their tax policy, they will. Bush' economic policy may cause a greater deficit. Kerry's plan is to tax the rich (who can still survive with the taxes and aid the poor . Which plan to you think is right? If you were in the middle class as I am, then obviously Kerry's plan would be more suitable. Buah calls for tax cuts, which are also beneficial, but Kerry's plan seems more effective.</h2>
<p>Why would Kerry's plan be so suitable? They're not aiding you in any way, they're aiding the poor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lying about another country's military capability and connections to terrorists in order to invade it, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and thousands of young soldiers from the US and other countries?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess that makes Kerry a corrupt man too. I don't know if you remember, but he voted to go into Iraq. And if you want to talk about corrupt, let's talk about Clinton!</p>
<p>wait did you just say African Americans tend to be more conservative?</p>
<p>primitive...there you go bashing conservatives again....you brought this upon yourslef, but you're one of those dumb liberals...hahahahahaha...African Americans tend to be more conservative...that's funny...why do you think there was a big fuss in the Supreme Court over gerrymandering(pronounced Gary-Mandering not Jerry-Mandering) along racial lines?...Republicans tried to group most African Americans in a single district, so they could win a majority of seats in the House. Blacks tend to be LIBERAL.</p>
<p>furthermore...party platforms tend to be very very extreme...so to say that every member of a certain party thinks and acts exactly by the content of a party platform is absurd....they're just meant to give you an idea of where the party stands, not exactly what each member will say.</p>
<p>and who are you? Robin Hood? Steal from the rich and give to the poor? Why should those in the upper rungs of the economic ladder have to pay for a majority of the social welfare programs that they won't benefit from? Healthcare?...we can afford our own insurance...if you wanted a decent healthcare plan, base it on a payroll tax for those who wish to gain the benefits...don't charge those who don't get anything....that's the thing about a majority of Democratic policy...they want one group to pay for the other's benefits...this isn't a "free rider" society...it's an individualistic society...if you want something, pay for it your damn self... The top sector of the economic ladder funds more than 50% of all the social welfare programs in the U.S. and uses virtually none of it.</p>
<p>Wha? I click to the last couple pages of this thread and it's another pointless debate! What happened to the five best presidents thing? Oh, and primitivefuture, thank you for never failing to brighten my day with your "fun" posts, from your attempting to invalidate my argument on another thread just because I'm conservative, to your constant insistence that we treat an internet like a school paper (proper citing, natch), it's always fun reading your posts. </p>
<p>Anywho, threads like these are excellent examples of why the Republicans have kicked the Democrats you-know-whats in the last several election cycles. One of the main reasons is that ya'll put too much emotion and passion into your hatred of Bush that you lose sight of the larger picture. Bush is pretty much a lame duck in two years (once campaigns start) and all you emotion will be for naught. Meanwhile, the GOP will tighten its grip on Congress...</p>
<p>And as a second point, I believe that "more educated" people are liberal (ie. college kids) because they are more idealistic coming out of school, whereas conservatives are more realistic, practicle, etc. I've always loved the statement: if you're under 30 and conservative you have no heart, if you're over 30 and liberal you have no brain.</p>
<p>it's funny...you call Republicans "thieving," but you articulate "thievery" in your argument...."tax the rich to provide for the poor....it's perfectly righteous for one person to earn the money and another person to get what it's spent on."</p>
<p>Before I make this statement, I'd like to clarify that I don't like President Bush :).</p>
<p>But...he used drugs in the past...ppl have made mistakes and they straighten up, and I don't think anyone is righteous for stigmifying anyone for a past they have outlived. I used to use cocaine on a regular basis, but I've straightened myself out, and now I'm totally clean...should such a mistake be a black mark that plagues me forever? If anything, I consider myself strong, because many who do use such illicit drugs cannot quit. You live and learn from your experiences, and you don't truly realize the magnitude of a mistake until you commit it.</p>
<p>Kerry voted for going into Iraq given the information Bush fed the Senate. </p>
<p>Nahra, I agree with you, but my point is, a man with Bush's record for military avoidance, military misconduct, drug use, alcoholism etc... has no business sending thousands of soliders to their deaths or preaching about morals.</p>
<p>"they were more up in arms about things like the thought of gross dirty queers getting equal rights rather than the economy and foreign policy."</p>
<p>HAHAAHAHAH thats funny i laughed.</p>
<p>"Kerry voted for going into Iraq given the information Bush fed the Senate."</p>
<p>yeah well its not like Bush just made that stuff up it was actual military analysis</p>