Let's talk about domestic issues by Geezer

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Let's talk about domestic issues

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Thursday, September 16, 2004 04:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1040
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:27 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Just to get off the Iraq thing and the "what did you do in the war, candidates?" thing. Relating to the upcoming election, valid topics are:

Jobs
Tax Policy
The Economy
Reproductive Rights
Gender Issues
Genetic Science (Stem cell research, Cloning)

Three of these we can pretty much catagorize the candidates as for and against. Just hitting the high points:

- Kerry is relatively pro-choice, and Bush anti-abortion.

- Kerry is more open to alternate lifestyles, and did vote against the "Defense of Marriage" act, although he apparently stops short of actually endorsing same-sex marriage, while Bush appears to be against legally recognising same-sex relationships of any kind.

- Kerry's site indicates support for stem cell research while Bush limits but doesn't ban it.

- Bush wants to ban human cloning while Kerry's site has no mention of it I could find. Putting the word "clone" in their search engine brings up articles with the word "clean" highlighted. Oops?

Jobs, taxes, and the economy in general are more middle ground for both.

Anyone want to throw out the first ball?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 8:49 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Waita pick the topics!

Since no-one has, here is my opinion from the side lines.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

- Kerry is relatively pro-choice, and Bush anti-abortion.

I think it is important to mention here that one *can* be pro-choice while being against abortion. It's where I sit after all.

And for any religious zealots out there, it's *not* your job to judge, it's your job to love. Let 'em do what they will and let what-ever is after deal with them then.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

- Kerry is more open to alternate lifestyles, and did vote against the "Defense of Marriage" act, although he apparently stops short of actually endorsing same-sex marriage, while Bush appears to be against legally recognising same-sex relationships of any kind.

I find it funny that this is such an issue. What is it about homosexuals that scare people so much? Ooooo, if we let he homosexual boogie man out then who knows, maybe the US will get a city to be primarily known for having a large gay population... Oh wait, that's San Fransico.

Religious zealot, see above remark altering to fit here as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

- Kerry's site indicates support for stem cell research while Bush limits but doesn't ban it.

Thorny issue. There should be limits on how one does get the stem cells (ie Creating a fetus just to harvest the cells, IMO, is wrong.), but to ban it is just foolish.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

- Bush wants to ban human cloning while Kerry's site has no mention of it I could find. Putting the word "clone" in their search engine brings up articles with the word "clean" highlighted. Oops?

Put me up for a ban. I don't like the idea of multiple me's walking around. Now if one could clone *part* of a human, I'd have no issues. It would be nice to have a custom liver/kidney/etc if one needed one.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 9:08 PM

SERGEANTX

Does the Patriot Act count as a domestic issue? The Patriot Act II is also waiting in the wings for the next terrorist attack. There are those who want to see much tighter control over malcontents at all levels and this is their wedge.

As far as I can tell Bush supports it and Kerry, mills around and 'sort of' opposes it, some of it anyway. I know he's trying to attract as many middle of the road voters as possible, but wouldn't people respond better across-the-board to a candidate with the balls to stand up and say what's what?

Someday, maybe, a candidate will come along who quits listening to the focus groups and marketing experts and just lays it on the line. It's my hunch that this will prove remakably successful with voters of all persausions. The desire for candor and conviction doesn't show up well on polls, but its there, waiting to be tapped.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 11:56 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
- Kerry is relatively pro-choice, and Bush anti-abortion.

I'm not convinced that Bush is anti-abortion. He says that he is. But there is a big difference between what he says and what he does. The Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress and the White House. If Bush was really anti-abortion he could've tried to push through a repeal of Roe v Wade. What legislation did we see during his tenure? The partial birth abortion ban. In my opinion this bill was never designed to bear up under judicial review. The purposeful lack of inclusion of a clause waiving the ban in the interest of the health of the mother was a dead give away. This piece of legislation was designed as a piece of candy for the pro-life groups out there. "Look. We tried to get this horrific type of abortion outlawed but the activist judges stifled our efforts." In all the analysis of the bill that I read, at the time it was passed, there was agreement that this would not be upheld by the courts. So why pass a bill that you know will be thrown out? Well, one reason is to get people on record as voting for or against it (something similar is happening with the DOMA). Another reason is to throw a bone to a group of voters that are single issue. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, there are people who base their voting decisions on who is pro-choice or pro-life. And they donate money, lots of money. Pro-life groups have voted overwhelmingly Republican (and presumably donated overwhelmingly Republican). I think Bush wants to keep these people happy but he has no intention of banning abortion itself. I think this issue is not important to the current leadership of the Republican party (although they pay large amounts of lip service to it). Right now is the ideal time for the Republicans to pass whatever legislation they want without the threat of a veto. So I judge them on their actions rather than their words. The only thing they've done while they've had power is to pass legislation that was guaranteed to be struck down concerning a type of abortion that is very rare.

So on this topic I would expect the action taken by the President over the next four years to be the same, whether that person is Kerry or Bush. And that would be no challenge to Roe v Wade.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:12 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Bush wants to ban human cloning while Kerry's site has no mention of it I could find.

Kerry/Edwards D
Kerry opposes reproductive cloning (adult DNA cloning, like Dolly). At a speech at Stanford University on 2003-08-08 he said "And while I oppose reproductive cloning, I will support research in therapies that allow an individual’s own cells to treat or cure that person’s disease." http://tinyurl.com/72cfg

Bush/Cheney R
Bush opposes all human cloning. In a statement on 2003-02-27 he said "I strongly support efforts by Congress to ban all human cloning." http://tinyurl.com/3ma7a

Cobb/LaMarche G
The Greens oppose cloning. In their 2000 platform, adopted 2000-06-24, they state that "To classify a human (or any part thereof, including human DNA or body organ) as a commodity[,] is to turn human beings into property." http://tinyurl.com/6urxl

Badnarik/Campagna L
The Libertarians are in favor of allowing any kind of cloning. In their national platform, adopted on 1998-07, they state: "We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research, including cloning." http://tinyurl.com/3ue6v and a 1997-02-25 press release states "the Libertarian Party supports reproductive freedom of choice for Americans -- whether they choose to reproduce using the traditional method, or artificial insemination, or in-vitro fertilization, or cloning." http://archive.lp.org/rel/19970225-clone.html

Geezer, please change the topic to be more descriptive; maybe "Domestic issues in the US presidential election"?
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/about-fiction/ftl-firefly.en.html>

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 5:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:

Geezer, please change the topic to be more descriptive; maybe "Domestic issues in the US presidential election"?
--

Topic name changed. Good idea. Thanks for the info on cloning. I limited my original comments to what was found on the official candidate sites.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 5:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I find it funny that this (same-sex marriage) is such an issue. What is it about homosexuals that scare people so much? Ooooo, if we let he homosexual boogie man out then who knows, maybe the US will get a city to be primarily known for having a large gay population... Oh wait, that's San Fransico.

Religious zealot, see above remark altering to fit here as well.

I've always been puzzled by this as well. Never could figure out how my cousin and his partner getting the privilege and legal benefits of marriage could destroy what my wife and I have. Guess that it's supported by the same folk who used to have "No Irish need apply" and "No dogs or Chinamen allowed" signs on their businesses. They have to have someone to hate and feel superior to. I'm particularly bothered that Christian churches seem to be taking the lead on this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 6:44 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

I'm not convinced that Bush is anti-abortion.

Given Bush's comments on some other issues (ie gay rights), I think this is a good assumption.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

If Bush was really anti-abortion he could've tried to push through a repeal of Roe v Wade.

I don't know if I'd agree with this. Most governments are smart enough to realize that people don't like drastic change under normal circumstances. It's one of the reasons why he was able to get the Patriot Act through, but also the reason why anything that is a "non-issue" at the moment must go through stages before it'll pass. Namely, get the seed in the brain and then over time fertalize that seed and let it grow. Given enough time they'll be able to get it through. This also gives the people the illusion that they still have the same rights as, say, 20 years ago, but if you look the rights and freedoms have changed drastically.

It's all about apperance.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 6:52 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I'm particularly bothered that Christian churches seem to be taking the lead on this.

I think they forgot about that "Love thing", don't you?

They're called the Conservative Party up here (there's a story but it's OT) and they just got a horride number of seats in our last election. I think they got the angry vote (against the Liberals) but hopefully it isn't the true opinion of the people here.

Here we seem to be pretty divided (unfortunately). What do the polls say about this down there?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:38 AM

ARAWAEN

I don't think either candidate has a very good tax policy.

So many people, including the 'resident' Libertarians here at fff.net, have an seething hatred of the income tax and will support anybody who calls for its reduction or elimination.

A lot of people don't even understand how income tax works, they just hate it. Many claim that it is unfair because the wealthy pay a higher rate than other people. This isn't true a person that makes $15,000 and one that makes $30,000 pay the same rate on the first $15,000.

The problem with income tax IMO is that it has been used as a way to control and manipulate the population when its purpose should be soley to raise revenue. Offering tax incentives to encourage people to engage in one type of behavior or another has made the system hopelessly complex.

I am torn on the concept of taxing businesses. On one hand businesses don't pay taxes they merely pass them along to the consumers. On the other hand a business is a consumer, yet it provides goods and services to others that must account for those taxes. But the consumer is also a business as he provides his labor to somebody and his taxes must be taken into account when determining what salary he works for.

No matter what tax system you use, money is taken out of the economy to pay for the government, money that could have been used to fuel the economy. However, without a government and the services it provides, people and businesses would have to pay for those expenses out of their own pockets (in the best case scenario, while if anarchy reigned the economy would suffer.) It can be argued that we don't get our fair share from the government based upon what we pay (I would actually agree with that) but that seems to me an argument totally separate from what tax system is used.

I also have trouble taxing income from labor at a higher rate than income from interest or dividends. The claim is made that this encourages investment. I am supposed to believe that if you have surplus cash and your choice is to bury it in the back yard or invest it to make some money, people are going to choose to bury it because they can only make some money not a whole lot of money? Of course I am very old school in this regard,

Quote:
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

--Abraham Lincoln

I have undoubtedly rambled and I apologize.

Arawaen

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-- Theodore Rosevelt

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE