With all the information we have about both candidates, who do you plan to vote for?

Roc_Kor,

That's a nice thought. "Vote for a principle." Very nice.
Click to expand...

I know, I know... It's sad that they don't teach AmGov and the writings of the DWEM's that founded this country anymore. It bums me, too...

I don't want Kerry to win, but as long as people vote for Third Party Candidates, the majority of uniformed people will vote for Kerry.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you meant "uninformed", not "uniformed". :o

Sure, I'd like Kerry to fulfill his promise of raising the minimum wage to $7
Click to expand...

Why? Do you want to lose your summer job and not get to buy a 1911? Maybe you should do more research on what "living wage" minimum wages do to an economy. Look up the Von Mises Institute; do some reading. Get back to me. ;)

I don't want that hypocritical, baby killing, gun hating, son-of-a-bitch liberal running my country.
Click to expand...

Me neither. That's why I won't vote for him.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but since I voted in my first presidential election when you were a couple weeks old, I think I know how to make my choices. ;)
 
Ah, Tam, you didn't get my point. Sad.
I see I need to put an "Imagine I was voting there..." stamp before every post to state the obvious - "We're discussing our preferencese for political candidates". :)
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will vote to keep SKerry out of office. If that means voting for Bush, then so be it.
 
Tex,
I have not seen a SINGLE argument for voting other than Rebublican that justifies giving up at least TWO and very possibly FOUR Supreme Court nominations in the next presidential term. NOT ONE! This single issue is worth voting for the lowest scumbag out there, let alone a merely mediocre sitting president.
Click to expand...
How about "Unless you live in one of the few swing states, your vote will likely not influence the race in any fashion whatsoever."?

If your state isn't a close race (either way), you can be free to vote for anyone you like and no argument involving the supreme court nominations or the dangers of the evil Nazi candidate (spelled with either an R or a D) need apply.

Roc,
Why are some of you voting for third party candidates? None of them are going to get elected. That means a vote for them is a wasted vote.
Click to expand...
If you lived in an area where a particular race (say, a Senate position) was polling at 70% Democrat and 28% Republican with 2% other candidates and had gone just that way for the past decade or three, would you vote Democrat because they're the only candidate who has a chance? After all, voting Republican would just be throwing your vote away.
 
Mb,

THat's a very honest, unbiased source for you... NOT.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "Supply & Demand" is a description of reality, like the law of gravity, not a wishful expression of philosophy, like Das Kapital.
 
"Asking Liberals where priced and wages come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from." --Thomas Sowell

That statement extends to a whole lot of moderates and Conservatives as well, I think. The wealth redistribution fans, however, have an especially hard time with the concepts behind prices, wages, supply, and demand.

It's really quite simple. The higher you jack up the "minimal wage", the less low-income adults get hired. After minimum-wage hikes, employers generally hire less, replace low-income adults with teenagers from middle- and high-income families, and increasingly rely on automation or reduction in services to save money. Self-serve scanners are installed in supermarkets, businesses automate their telephone receptions, and fast-food diners bus their own tables. For a limited payroll, and no extra profit margins to compensate for the increase in payroll, businesses will save by hiring less and cutting back services. Minimum wage laws therefore reduce available jobs, and they hurt the low-income population.

Even the liberal crwod understands this concept, even though they fail to acknowledge the mechanics behind it. If it was a great tool for improving the conditions for low-income families, why not jack the minimum wage up to $20 per hour? None but the most rabid socialists would even consider such a step, because they understand that companies would just lay people off en masse, because they would not be able to meet payroll. Well, if $20 is unreasonable, who decides what *is* a reasonable hike? Answers from the Statist crowd will vary, but the answers are always wrong. The "fair" minimum wage is determined by contract, between the employer and the employee...not by do-gooder wealth redistribution champions.

Of course, the crowd that screams for "fair minimum wage hikes" always has answers, and in this case they usually blame the evil, profit-making plutocrats who exploit workers in order to maximize their profits.
 
True, I never considered the fact that unless you live in a swing state, your vote could be worthless. Does anyone know how Virginia is expected to vote this election? (I don't believe it is a swing state, is it?)

Sorry for any statements I made that were too much. I'm just a kid, so what do I know? :rolleyes:
 
The democrats want to stack the federal courts with activist judges so that they can use the judicial branch to circumvent the Constitution.

The Republicans want to stack the federal courts with more conservative judges so that they can use the judicial branch to check the other branches.

I want in on this fight! I want to vote republican. It's a lot bigger than Bush/Kerry.
 
I'm ashamed to admit I had no idea Kerry was calling for a $7 minimum wage. That in and of itself is reason enough to not vote for the fool. I'd hate to have to fire more people like the last two times the Fed insisted I pay out more.
 
Sorry, but "Supply & Demand" is a description of reality, like the law of gravity, not a wishful expression of philosophy, like Das Kapital.
Click to expand...

And that makes a "research fund" preaching, of all things, Anarcho Capitalism, credible? :D
 
The democrats want to stack the federal courts with activist judges so that they can use the judicial branch to circumvent the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like they did in Brown vs. Board of Education. The same accusations were levelled against the Supreme Court back then: political activism that contradicted the will of the people.

I have many problems with the Supremes, but they have made often unpopular decisions that have enabled unpopular, but necessary changes in society. The Constitution is not about what the majority wants...if that was the case, there would be no need for a Supreme Court. If their decisions were never controversial, it would mean the Supreme Court was just window dressing.
 
I have many problems with the Supremes, but they have made often unpopular decisions that have enabled unpopular, but necessary changes in society. The Constitution is not about what the majority wants...if that was the case, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

It's not about the will of the people, it's about the Constitution and our form of government. The federal judicial branch is not supposed to abide by the will of the people. But they are supposed to abide by the Constitution ... is there some particular section of the Constitution that you see as delegating the SCOTUS the power to be social engineers and make decisions simply because they believe they are necessary to society? Why even have a Constitution and an amendment process if the SCOTUS can just decide what is right and steer us accordingly?
 
Well, a higher minimum wage law is a grave error on principle alone. But then allowing swarms of millions in a cheap labor pool into the country - both illegal and needless legal immigration - is a destructive abomination that continues to suppress wages, among other things.

If we were not subjected to the latter, the former would not be a problem. But of course there is an agenda at hand here that transcends the party names of the two frat boys, and nether one is going to stand in it's way ;)
 
But then on a lighter note there is THIS question

"How come we choose from just two people for President and fifty for Miss
America?"
 
Kerry has a 100% anti-RKBA voting record according to the anti-RKBA Brady Campaign.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=42

Texas, the state that George W. Bush was governor of, got a D- grade from the anti-RKBA Brady Campaign in 2000 and 2001.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2001/state_cards.php?state=TX

That's a pretty significant difference. Claiming that Bush and Kerry are equal on RKBA is just objectively false. Regardless of what you think of either candidate on other issues, on this issue the gulf between them is IMMENSE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top