|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 19, 2004 19:50:41 GMT -5
Pretty self explanatory. Which candidate do you support and why?
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 19, 2004 19:52:05 GMT -5
ABBB (AnyBody But Bush)
Ive always hated Bush. I dont know why, he just strikes me as a complete moron, and Kerry seems to be better.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 19, 2004 20:15:42 GMT -5
I was looking around and found an article that used Bush's SAT scores and an SAT-IQ converter to find that his IQ was approximately 129. (100 is considered avergae, 130 is considered genious). So, he's by no means a moron.
As for my choice, I say Bush. I agree with him on many issues which I deem to be important, although I do disagree with him on some less important issues. One perception that I've always gotten of Bush is that he's very straightforward and stands behind what he says.
As for Kerry, I disagree with him on major issues, but agree with him on some minor ones. Kerry and I are both Catholic, but I don't think that religion should be a basis for a vote, especially if the person takes actions that go directly against the views of the religion. I know that Kerry has a tendency to go back on things and be... undependable for lack of a better word. Like, for example, he voted for the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, and then criticized them later. Also, I've heard that he was photographed throwing his Vietnam medals over the Whitehouse fence in order to protest the war, but I've also heard that he has those same medals hanging in his office.
And I have to wonder about people who say "Anyone but Bush." I could take an educated guess that under Bush your quality of life hasn't decreased noticably. And the action that Bush has taken to prevent terrorism seems to be pretty effective. So, what's wrong with him?
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 19, 2004 20:37:04 GMT -5
I was looking around and found an article that used Bush's SAT scores and an SAT-IQ converter to find that his IQ was approximately 129. (100 is considered avergae, 130 is considered genious). So, he's by no means a moron. Minor point: Genius is 150. Any converter that tells you otherwise is faulty to begin with. What were his SAT scores anyway? As for his voting records, he voted for the Patriotic Act because it was necessary at the time. He thinks it may be time to repeal it now that America has its Homeland Security under better management. Bush thinks it should stay. No Child Left Behind was adressed in the Democratic debates. The original policy was good, but the government's refusal to fund certain areas has left it ineffective. He's not being undependable, he's evaluating each situation based on ever-changing facts. In regards to some other stats on his voting record that are bound to come up, a Bush campaign stated that Kerry had voted for some absurd number of tax-hikes. They got that number by counting votes for bills that raised taxes in more than one area for each area and by counting votes where Kerry voted for a proposal that lowered taxes less than the Republicans wanted. That's simply irresponsible to me. A similar example is the War in Iraq. President Bush said they would stay as long as it takes. However, as the situation changed he re-evaluated and set a pull-out date for June 30. Another example involves Dr. Rice, who originally decided not to testify in front of the 9/11 Committee. She re-evaluated and changed her mind. I don't blame either Dr. Rice or President Bush for changing their minds, and they weren't being undependable, so by that same token I understand that John Kerry is not being undependable when changing his mind because of new factors. The Vietnam medals issue is another thing. He was photographed throwing medals over the White house fence. He never claimed they were his, and it turned out they weren't. His buddies who had been unable to go asked him to do it for them. The fact that it appears otherwise is not Kerry's fault, but the fault of an irresponsible media. My quality of life under Bush has decreased,a nd I'm not even American. He has shut-down the border to Canadian beef exports, something he is only beginning to open now even though America had its own Mad Cow Scare, making American beef just as dangerous as Canadian. He won't let Canadian drug manufacturers export to the United States because our drugs are "dangerous" (even though we use the same policies of the US). I think the real reason is that Canadian drug exports would undercut American business, which is acceptable under free trade, but which he is trying to prevent anyway. All that said, I don't get to vote, so all my knowledge on this subject is wasted because I'm Canadian.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 19, 2004 21:10:40 GMT -5
The thing with the taxes, I believe you on that, I actually just read an article about that. People do stuff like that a lot, I remember hearing that Bush was accused of doing something like cutting Medicare or Education or something like that by $62 Million, when in reality he just proposed an increase that was $62 Million less than what the Democrats wanted (What Bush wanted actually ended up being a 30% increase)
As for the imported Canadian medicine, the drugs themsleves aren't FDA approved, so they may or may not be dangerous (probably not). However, as I understand, Canada has laws that force pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs at a certain price, meaning that Canadians only pay for the materials needed to make the drugs. American drugs are much more expensive because you're paying for the materials to make the drugs as well as the cost of the research needed to create them. So, if the US were to import Canadian drugs, Americans would buy them, and pharmaceutical research would essentially die, causing a halt in new medicinal developments.
And, Bush's SAT scores were 566 Verbal, 640 math. Supposedly the SATs were more difficult back when he took them. But, I also figure that in order to do as well educationally as he did, become governer of Texas as well as President, and to be doing this well, there's no possible way he could be a flat out idiot. I do admit that he is a bad public speaker, though.
As for 130 being genius, I did a google search trying to figure out what number is considered to be genius. I found a lot of varying results, but they were all within the range of 125-140. I didn't find 150, but I don't doubt that you could find at least one source that does.
And, how exactly has the Canadian beef export thing affected you?
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 19, 2004 21:30:10 GMT -5
I know people do that kind of thing for voting records, and I condemn it on both sides of the aisle, but I think something is really wrong when an official campaign ad is that misleading.
Considering that the FDA (Federal Drug Association) approves American drugs, its kind of no wonder that the Canadian drugs aren't approved. As for research on new drugs, the US agreed to a Free Trade Agreement with Canada. That means that whatever is sold in the US by Americans should be able to be sold by Canadians too. However, Free Trade is a tricky issue, so I'm willing to let that go. Beyond that, its true that the Canadian government invests in medical research to make drugs cheaper for patients but perhaps the US should consider this method so it can make its own drugs affordable rather than shutting out countries that are trying to help American citizens.
On Bush's intelligence, I've read that he was a C student through college. Perhaps he just didn't put in a full effort though, there's no way to tell. Also, maybe I have the information on IQ tests wrong. If I do, that's my mistake. Sorry. I don't know if he's an idiot, but I do think he is too easily influenced by the wrong people.
Finally, Canadian beef exports affect me because my government had to pay out billions to bail out farmers because US border control panicked. That's billions that could be used making my post-secondary education cheaper, improving health-care, or just providing my family as well as others with a tax cut. That's how the policy affected me.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 19, 2004 23:41:20 GMT -5
-=Notes his 2.7 GPA in college and his 1280 SAT score=- GPA is no means to judge intelligence.
I'm not going to get too far into this debate because I don't know my facts very well. This will provide an interesting source for factual information, though. ^_^
One note, though...I think anyone who votes by the slogan "Anybody But Bush" really needs to not go to the polls on election day. It's a retarded slogan and, although I know what it's supposed to mean, it just...is...stupid. Bush has done a helluva job considering the circumstances and to just randomly pull the non-Bush lever is ludicrous. Get your facts straight and vote FOR someone like a responsible voter, not AGAINST someone for the hell of it.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 20, 2004 0:01:24 GMT -5
He's not going to the polls. He's Canadian, eh?
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 20, 2004 0:07:37 GMT -5
Yes, yes, yes, I realized that. I'm not THAT dumb.
But there are more than enough people in this country that use the same phrase. Probably my roommate, for example.
-=Must resist urge to strangle short-sighted hateful little man....=-
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Apr 20, 2004 10:16:40 GMT -5
Those are my only two choices? Even more reason not to vote.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 20, 2004 19:51:23 GMT -5
Well, you technically do have more choices, such as Ralph Nader, some other independents, and you may be able to write in, I'm not sure about that. However, it's pretty much impossible for any of those people to win. So, the only reason that you'd have to vote for them is to help the party get more funding.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 20, 2004 20:29:10 GMT -5
Its too bad you guys don't have more than two parties. In reality, there are four different views one can take. For example, some people are fiscal and social conservatives. Some people are fiscal and social liberals. However, there are also some people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals and vice-versa. Personally, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which suprisingly associates best with John Kerry, who wants to stop or reduce a deficit that is, in my opinion, reckless and is at least more socially liberal than President Bush. Unfortunately, I don't like the man much, but that's not something I would base my decision on.
In Canada we used to have five parties (we're now down to four). On has the sole goal of separating Quebec from Canada, but the others divide along those lines. Right now we have a "conservative" party, a "liberal" party, and a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (called The Liberals), which I support and is currently in power. I prefer the system, because almost everyone has a party they actually support, creating a lack of "Anbody But So-and-So" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 20, 2004 20:46:04 GMT -5
Well, apart from Republicans and Democrats, we also have the Green Party and the Libretarian Party. Although they don't contend with the main two, they do have some impact on politics. Green Party is generally more liberal than the Democrats, and their main belief is in helping the environment. Libretarians are more conservative than the Republicans, and their main belief is on reducing the size and power of the government. It may be possible for those parties to gain a hand in American politics, we'll just have to see.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 20, 2004 20:56:19 GMT -5
-=Writes in himself=-
C'mon, vote for Bass! He'll make the US a Pantless Paradise!! WHOO!!!
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 20, 2004 20:59:26 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, do you think Quebec should secede from Canada, Elfie?
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 20, 2004 21:12:40 GMT -5
The majority of Quebecers want to stay in Canada, and the separation of Quebec from Canada would result in economic disaster. However, many Quebecers maintain that the province of Quebec is a distinct society, and should as a result have more powers than other provinces. This bothers me immensely. Just because a group of people speak a different language, doesn't make them deserving of any more rights than the rest of us. These difference of opinions need to be reconciled for the good of the nation and they won't be reconciled by segregating one region from another.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 21, 2004 10:12:41 GMT -5
Hmmm...Static can i have a say in this too? I live closer to Quebec then Elfie;D
If Quebec seperates from Canada, Quebec will die. They say they will use our currency, if i were the government of Canada, forget that! And i agree with Elfie, just because they speak a different language, they shouldnt be considered distinct. That would isolate the rest of Canada, so why should Quebec be treated differently just because some people speak a different language. Heck, we've done way too much for Quebec anyways. All signs must be in English and French and French is one of Canada's official languages. When I was researching The Constitution Act of 1982, i learned alot about seperation. No matter what you give Quebec, they always insist on more. Thats my opinion, may be mis-informed, but heck.
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Apr 21, 2004 17:15:53 GMT -5
Not bush cause bush... well he's bush, and Kerry's a hypocrite, they both suck so bad it's hard to choose.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 21, 2004 18:24:52 GMT -5
@ DA: If you're an idiot for saying that, so was Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 21, 2004 18:43:47 GMT -5
And Pierre Elliot Trudeau (r.i.p.) was IMO the best prime minister Canada has ever known. I wasn't alive when he was in power, but from researching him (which i have done alot of), he was a brilliant man.
|
|