Wow. Talk about one issue focus! We were discussing this over in LINK. And to top it off, you know that IT IS ELECTIONEERING and that it will another 30 years before we get there? Huh? There are a lot more immediate problems that we face right now (although I’d also like to see us get to Mars sooner rather later). And if we weren’t wasting so much money on nation building in hell-holes like Iraq, we might have been able to spend part of that money on the space program, instead of flushing it down the toilet.
I’m voting against Shrub and for Kerry. Not only is the Shrub dumb and a national embarrassment, but he has destroyed any international credibility that we did have and he has destroyed the economy through his unwise tax cuts that primarily benefit big business and his friends, has yet to veto even one spending bill in 3 years and has accumulated a deficit that may reach 7 TRILLION dollars in 4 more years.
My scores on the AOL poll were:
1 Kerry Score: 84%
2 Kucinich Score: 76%
3 Bush Score: 18%
Funny, that’s why I voted for Bush last time around. I knew the economy was going to tank and knowing the American public, I fully expected whomever was in office when it happened to get the blame. Not that my vote mattered anyway, since I live in California. Oh well…
Well, apparently my views match up 80% with Kerry (78% with Kucinich, 7% with Bush). I will be voting for Kerry, and I’ve already volunteered for his campaign, but getting Bush out of office does make up about half of my motivation.
Good news, Tuckerfan! John Kerry is also in support of space exploration.
So, surely you will now be voting for him, right?
I, by the way, will be happily voting for John Kerry. I like his track record, except for his vote in support of what turned out to be the Dubya Gulf War resolution. I like his plans for repatriating overseas American corporate investments and jobs. I like his plans regarding Iraq, which Bush himself is currently co-opting.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Good news, Tuckerfan! John Kerry is also in support of space exploration.
So, surely you will now be voting for him, right?
[quote]
Nope. Look at exactly what Kerry says in your quote:
This means that he is putting a manned mission to Mars behind balancing the budget, paying for things like education and health care. He does not say, “Let’s go to Mars.” If he said, “Let’s go to Mars, no ‘if’s’ and’s or but’s about it,’” I’d happily vote for Kerry.
I’m in the “Voting Against Bush” camp, so that means Kerry by default. Nader no longer would get my vote, simply because he seems, presently, to represent a minority of about 1, and so that would be a throwaway vote in the truest sense.
Granted, being a MA resident, my staying home and scratching my ass will have about as much impact on the election as casting a ballot. Kerry is guaranteed the MA electoral votes, so what I think about him or Bush is really quite moot.
I have to wonder: If Bush won a narrow majority of votes in MA (a Twilight Zone scenerio, I’ll conceed), would our Electoral Collegiates still cast their votes for Kerry?
Incorrect. It was stolen from the taxpayer who is now being able to recover part of his/her money back from the fed’s. If that person wants to then make an optional donation to the school of their choice, more power to them. That way it will actually get to the school in need instead of some Washington moneyhole (or pocket).
I damned near burst into tears after reading that. You apparently acknowledge Kerry is better in every conceivable way, yet you still vote for Bush because he’s willing to put going to Mars ahead of education and health care.
The only thing we’re going to get out Mars is some pretty rocks. Sorry to burst your bubble. Sure, going there has value in the sense that we can say that we went there, but that’s about it. There are real, living human beings on earth who are going to be adversely affected by 4 more years of Bush. It boggles my imagination that you know this but don’t care enough to sacrifice your pet project.
If you think Space Exploration has a lot of practical benefits, read this article by our beloved master, Cecil Adams:
The electoral delegates are determined by the popular vote outcome; if Bush wins Massachussetts, all the delegates will be Republicans, thus unlikely to vote for Kerry.
How do you figure? If the government goes into debt to provide a tax cut, the debt falls on succeeding generations. The surplus Bush planned on returning to the taxpayers was long gone by the time the tax cuts were enacted. Had there been corresponding spending cuts to offset the tax cuts, it would make sense. But those borrow-and-spend Republicans don’t care, the get a windfall both ways, through lower taxes on the wealthy, and increased government spending on their pet projects. The middle class taxpayer of 2020 is the loser.
The money belongs to the person - not the government. If our “spend like a drunken sailor” congress can’t spend within their means, why is that automatically the taxpayer’s problem? Why do they automatically get to stick their hand deeper into the taxpayer’s pocket?
Where do you think the money they’re spending “like a drunken sailor” is coming from? It isn’t all coming out of today’s tax revenue, but it isn’t falling from the sky either; that debt and the interest on it is paid out of present and future tax money. Just like a credit card, you can’t get stuff for free - you can only defer your payments until later, and you’ll pay extra for the privilege of doing so.
Because deficit spending causes the cost of borrowing to go up. Sooner or later, it comes out of your pocket, either through higher taxes, or higher interest, or higher prices due to both. You can’t just clamp you hand on your wallet and pretend the deficits will go away if you don’t let the bastards raise taxes. The economy will seek its own level eventually, and it is naive to think that you are not a part of the that economic system. I agree, the key is reducing spending, but until that happens, you and I will pay for it, one way or the other. The argument is should we allow the wealthiest 2%, who reap the greatest benefits, to continue to avoid paying a commensurate progressive tax for the economic system that allowed them to create their wealth, while down the road, the rest of us pay higher taxes, higher interest rates and higher prices caused by deficit spending??
I will not bother to repost my comments that I made in the two threads which appeared in “Comments on Cecil’s Column” in response to that, you can read them here and here. Suffice it to say that myself and several other posters disagreed with Cecil on this matter.
I’m surprised that you think that any Presidential candidate is going to be a miracle worker. No matter how good an individual a President might be, he or she, is limited by what they can and cannot do. People have been suffering ever since they first walked upright, four more years of anybody isn’t going to eliminate that, not by a long shot.
I think that this issue (a trip to Mars on gossamer wings) for Tuckerfan is like the medal throwing incident for Mr. Moto, and for others the simplistic assertion that Kerry must, simply must, automatically be a bad president. It is simply something to hang their hat on because they would find difficulty in resolving their cognitive dissonance in a more plausible way. They will support Bush no matter what, regardless of their honest appraisal of his skills or performance, but also recognize that this is hardly a reasoned and just position. Yet they are reasoned and just people, so their is a conflict. They latch on to some one issue or some smear to find a measure of comfort with their predetermined “decision.”
What has been very much a pleasant surprise, and has made me both challenge my own thinking and have more respect for Republicans, has been reading on this board and elsewhere that not all Republicans suffer from an inability to make a reasoned and balanced appraisal.
Except I never said that I thought Kerry would make a bad President. Mr. Kerry and I simply disagree on the one issue that it most important to me. I’m sure that there are going to be Republicans out there voting for Kerry simply because he seems more favorable to abortion rights than Bush does. I could throw out a lot of smoke and mirror BS about how I think Bush is better because of this or that, but why bother to lie? It comes down to one thing for me, other people may not be like this, and it’s their right to do so. Had Bush not proposed going back to Mars, Kerry most certainly would have gotten my vote.
