Just A General Idea
Find a Conversation
Just A General Idea
| Tue, 08-10-2004 - 1:25pm |
I was just curious on everyones opinion on this up coming election. I personally want Kerry to win, cause all around, I dont agree or like Bush one bit. C'mon now, call me naive but was it completely neccesary to start the whole war in Iraq? I understand Sudam is a murding pysco dictator, but how come the families in America have to suffer because of that. Why is our economy so horrible that the people who desperatly need jobs cant get them, our oil is so exspensive and the lives of our americans are being killed because of this war. I know, the army and navy and all that military go in knowing they are risking their lives for us, and i greatly apperciate, just as any other american would, but is it neccesary. Im not one to be against war, but i deffiantly am against a war that is unneeded. And 9/11 in my opinion was handled soooo inappropriatly. Bush put that school and the lives in it in danger, he didnt act the moment he found out of America being under attack, whats up with that? Do we really want the person who is leading our country to be some kind of fool like Bush? We all need to vote and vote for Kerry or Nader. Just vote for anyone thats not Bush.
But enough of my opinion. I am really interested in reading and hearing alot of your opinions, Bush supporters or not. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
-jessica

Pages
Regarding the economy - what country are you living in? We have been experiencing the greatest economic growth in 20+ years. This growth has produced more than 2 million jobs. If you actually research this subject, you'll find out that the economy is the opposite of horrible. I recommend that you visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics website for further information.
Why do our families have to suffer because Saddam Hussein is a "murding pysco dictator?" I suppose you have a point. We could have asked the same question during World War II. After all, Germany didn't attack us. Hitler was just murdering a bunch of European Jews and taking over other people's countries. What did that have to do with us? He wasn't hurting any Americans. Why did our families have to suffer? It wasn't our problem.
And by the way, John Kerry voted to go to war with Iraq, and just today he said that he would still have voted for the war even if there were no allegations of WMDs in Iraq. So why do you hope he wins? According to your own arguments, he's no better than the "fool" Bush when it comes to Iraq.
Oh you poor, poor dear you, having to pay a little over $2.00 for a gallon of gas. Before you start bewailing the injustice of this I suggest you take a look at what much of the rest of the world pays for a gallon of gas, especially western Europe. They're at and have been at about $5.00 American for gas for a while now, and even before that were paying substantially more than us for it.
"I live in a country that more and more factories in my area are closing or laying off."
Then you live in an area which is atypical of the economy in general.
"I live in a country where our young people are asked to RISK their lives to go to war where we were not greeted with open arms."
Our people in uniform are volunteers, and serve at the word of their commander and chief. He doesn't need anyone to "greet them with open arms" to determine that their armed service is required.
"I live in a country where the president should have immediatly left that school."
And done what, exactly, that wasn't already being done? That's aside from the fact that rushing out of that school would have conveyed an impression of panic, raising awkward question from all present that he wouldn't have had the answers to as of yet.
Commanders & leaders generally fall into two categories... those who rush to act immediately without due consideration of circumstances/situations, and those who take a few minutes to digest information and decide what to do after taking that time. Both types have their merits, but it's illogical to condemn the man for taking a few minutes to decide on his and our next moves.
"I live in country where the president has his own agenda."
All presidents have their own agenda in addition to that of the country they serve. That's nothing out of the ordinary.
"Thats my country and that is why I will vote for John Kerry."
Have at it. But get a proper sense of perspective first.
~mark~
What statistic are you looking at when you say "economic growth?" That could stand for so many things. Are you just talking about job growth? In what time span were those 2 million jobs produced? I assume you are speaking of the time in which Bush was president. Statistics can be very tricky and subjective. They can be twisted to mean and represent so many different viewpoints. As far as job growth goes, we definitely have seen better job growth in the last 20+ years. During Clinton's two terms we saw more than 20 million jobs produced. Unfortunately for Bush, the majority of economic statistics do show now that the economy is not as good as it has been in the past. Blame it on the 9/11 or whatever, but we aren't "experiencing the greatest economic growth in 20+ years."
"Why do our families have to suffer because Saddam Hussein is a "murding pysco dictator?" I suppose you have a point. We could have asked the same question during World War II. After all, Germany didn't attack us. Hitler was just murdering a bunch of European Jews and taking over other people's countries. What did that have to do with us? He wasn't hurting any Americans. Why did our families have to suffer? It wasn't our problem."
Technically you're right, but Japan did attack us and they were allied with Germany at the time. So, in a sense Germany did, indirectly, attack us. Your point is still somewhat valid, though. Waging war against a country and making families suffer are sometimes necessary regardless of whether or not the country/leader has cause direct harm to the United States. Still, to compare Hitler and WWII with anything is always tricky. The world is a different place today, obviously. Saddam, as bad as he is, is not Hitler. He didn't have the nation wide support that Hitler received and was not in the process of committing genocide (not that he didn't want to). Don't get me wrong, Saddam is not a good guy. It's just that his badness doesn't compare to Hitler. Not to mention Iraq was really no miltary risk to the rest of the world, unlike Germany. If Iraq and Saddam is the model used to determin whether or not we go to war and let our families suffer, then I think we can expect many years of war seeing as their are many countries/dictators that fit this model. Personally, I suggest we accept a model that more closely resembles Germany/Hitler and not one of Iraq/Saddam.
As far as supporting Bush or Kerry. I really can't see why one would support either one. I know I'm not going to vote for Bush, but the only thing Kerry offers me is the fact that he's not Bush. Although, I did like what I saw of Kerry's recently released energy plan. We definitely need to invest more into alternative fuel sources.
Danille
Hello jickyj79!
Welcome to the board!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Hi Haley420000!
Welcome to the board!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Visit My Website!
Email me!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
The economic growth numbers come from the BEA, and refer to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is where you get the percentage of economic growth figures:
2001, 3rd quarter: -1.5%
2001, 4th quarter: +1.5%
2002, 1st quarter: +3.5%
2002, 2nd quarter: +2.5%
2002, 3rd quarter: +2.5%
2002, 4th quarter: +.75%
2003, 1st quarter: +1.9%
2003, 2nd quarter: +4.1%
2003, 3rd quarter: +7.4%
2003, 4th quarter: +4.2%
2004, 1st quarter: +4.5%
2004, 2nd quarter: +3.0% (estimate)
To compare figures, here's some from Clinton's term:
1996, 1st quarter: +2.0%
1996, 2nd quarter: +4.8%
1996, 3rd quarter: +2.1%
1996, 4th quarter: +4.7%
1997, 1st quarter: +4.9%
1997, 2nd quarter: +3.3%
1997, 3rd quarter: +3.1%
1997, 4th quarter: +3.7%
1998, 1st quarter: +5.5%
1998, 2nd quarter: +1.8%
1998, 3rd quarter: +3.9%
1998, 4th quarter: +6.0%
By the way, a 3% GDP is considered a strong economy, less than 2% is growing but still sluggish, and two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP is a recession.
The claim of the strongest economy in 20+ years stems mostly from two things: The astonishing jump from very low numbers to very high numbers, similiar to the growth in the 1980s, and the 3rd quarter 2003 7.4% GDP followed by the next two quarters of very strong growth. This claim has been made by many different sources, not just me.
If I haven't put you to sleep yet, I could go into all this even more if you're interested.
I understand that using either the household or establishment figures may distort the picture, but it doesn't matter which one you use when comparing Bush with Clinton because Clinton had better job growth using either survey.
"The claim of the strongest economy in 20+ years stems mostly from two things: The astonishing jump from very low numbers to very high numbers, similiar to the growth in the 1980s, and the 3rd quarter 2003 7.4% GDP followed by the next two quarters of very strong growth. This claim has been made by many different sources, not just me."
Maybe you should say, then, that we saw the greatest GDP growth, during the third quarter of 2003, in 20+ years. Instead you conclude that this growth means we have the "strongest economy in 20+ years." I don't think one, specific statistic can show whether or not the whole economy is strong or weak.
Danielle
Danielle
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Pages