I must be heard
 

How anyone could have viewed the debates of the last three weeks and still view George bush as a viable candidate for the "highest office in the land" is a mystery for the ages. Issues aside-- George Dubya continually struggled to string together five words to make a complete and comprehensible sentence. On this weakness alone, Bush should lose this election.

The general consensus seems to be that Bush is a more approachable, people person--a "softer" kind of leader. But as Bush stared vacantly at Gore, unable to wrap his mind around the "fuzzy"--read exact numbers--math of Gore's responses, I was struck not by his approachability, but more by the Forest Gumpish quality of his demeanor. This combined with his Elmer Fuddesque manipulation of the English language--and, I wager-- whatever Spanish he speaks read less like charisma and more and more like a man in completely over his head.

The election for the "highest office in the land" should not be conducted like some high school popularity contest. The candidate who wins should not win because we as a nation feel that he is more approachable. We must vote for the candidate with a grasp of the issues and the experience to deal with said issues. Ladies and Gentlemen, Bush is not that man.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Yeah, I know. But I figured more people would read it here and that it would eventually be moved.

If you want to post on an issue that is not related to GREEK LIFE then please post it under Chit Chat. When the post IS moved I will be happy to comment further.



[This message has been edited by AXO Alum (edited October 20, 2000).]

Just like a Bush person, dancing around the issue. Actually that was said all in good fun, I did not come here to fight. I never said I was for Gore. All I was saying is that I am not for Bush. Anyway perhaps John will move it for me. If not, I will just have to miss what I can only assume will be scintillating and thoughtful comments on your part.

[This message has been edited by Little32 (edited October 19, 2000).]

My goodness! Why all the drama?

------------------
We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.

Aesop c550 BC

AXO - that was SO unnescessary. Geta grip. How about - just don't respond. Really. What exactly was the point?

Here was the point, Badilly. What was I thinking - I was really under the impression that this board was where people could post their opinions in the correct forum. I guess I could have posted as an unregistered though...

Um, excuse me, listen to yourselves. You're arguing over a post. It's not that big of a deal. Sure, it probably should have been posted under chitchat, but it wasnt and it hasn't been moved yet, so if you have something to say, say it, and when and if it's moved, you can still follow the thread in chitchat. It's really not that big of a deal, don't get worked up over nothing.

I think both candidates suck, personally. If I were forced to vote for one of the two, yes, I'd go for Gore, but I'm leaning more and more to the side of not supporting either of them by just not voting. You hear the 'if you don't vote, you can't complain' speach, but I will complain anyway, because I don't feel there is a candidate out there WORTHY of my vote, and that is what I'll complain about. It sucks that we have to vote 'for the lessor of the two evils' we shouldn't have to do that. I hate politics, a reason I'd love to just move into the woods and become a hermit.

I think the debates made it clear to me that Bush is the right choice for me. If nothing else - when Gore was attacking him for the "special rights" deal and Bush said "I'll vote for equal rights but not special rights" that really hit home. We are all *special* people and we all have needs - but having equal rights is the basis of our freedom.

As far as your "exact" numbers - when have you ever heard a politician stand up and give the "exact" figures. It doesn't happen. They all stretch the truth when it suits their needs.

Another issue - even though you said "issues aside", I prefer to argue the "issues" - is the big government campaign of Gore. I do not think Big Brother needs to have any more power than it does right now. I want to be able to send my child to whatever school best suits his or her needs. Not where Big Brother says I should send them.

What about Gore? He knew that money was dirty and he took it and then lied about it. I think we have had enough lies in the White House for the past 8 years!

Out of respect for other opinions, and because I don't want a flame war started, I won't touch the late-term abortion issue.

Yes - I will agree that politics have gotten way out of control. I hate the fact that my tax money goes to support their campaigns, welfare for people who can - but refuse - to work, $900 toilet seats for Congress, and a desk from underneath which our current president received a *special* present which he lied about and nobody seemed to care. But I also know that I enjoy my freedom. I enjoy the fact that I am allowed to worship who I want. I enjoy the fact that I am allowed to vote...or NOT to vote. I enjoy the fact that I'm allowed to state my opinions.

So I think that Bush is the right choice. People are going to disagree - obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't have people run for office - but the issues do matter.

As far as the personal thing...I hope I have lived up to your assumption.

"I think we have had enough lies in the White House for the past 8 years!"


There have been lies int eh White house for a heck of a lot longer than that, and we'll never get rid of them.


"I do agree that if you don't vote you shouldn't complain about how sucky your life has become since so and so got into office. Even if you don't vote for gore or Bush, I beleive that there are two other candidates, Nadar and Buchanan who are on the ballot."

Like I said, I'll complain that there isn't anyone worthy of my vote. Guess my vote is high priced, but shouldn't it be? And so far, nobody has even come close to offering me what I believe is right, so why should I just give it away?

Just to clarify - that wasn't my quote. I said "I enjoy the fact that I am allowed to vote...or NOT to vote.

Yes, I know. I was quoting Little32. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

I am feeling you on the woods and the hermit thing. Unfortunately politics is often choosing the lesser of the two evils and I do agree that if you don't vote you shouldn't complain about how sucky your life has become since so and so got into office. Even if you don't vote for gore or Bush, I beleive that there are two other candidates, Nadar and Buchanan who are on the ballot. Perhaps one of their philosophies meshes (is that spelled right?) with yours. Again, I have to reiterate, our next president should be able to speak in complete sentences.

[This message has been edited by Little32 (edited October 20, 2000).]

Here's a site that gives a pretty good breakdown of candidates:

http://www.aren.org/candidates.html

Awesome sight! Thanks for the info!

------------------
"Alpha Chi Omega - If you only had 2 wishes, what would your second one be?"

Very informative! Thanks for the link!

------------------
We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.

Aesop c550 BC

AXO Alum, I will do my best to answer you point for point.

First of all, equal rights is the ideal (if I knew how to underline, that word would be underlined) basis of our freedom. The reality is far from it.

As far as what politicians have I seen who have come up with exact numbers, Gore has done it throughout this campaign (i.e. Bush's 1 billion dollar social security bumble).

In terms of big brother, it is an interesting contradiction that you would support a candidate who is at once against big government, but would then presume to tell the woman of the nation what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

As far as school vouchers are concerned, not only are they not a feasible solution, because only one in twenty child would qualify for them--not to mention the fact that these vouchers would not pay the entire cost of the school, but they would siphon monies away from the public schools that can use as much funding as possible. (Another interesting contradiction, is it not another form of big government to have governmentally funded vouchers--this is not to even think of all the red tape that you would have to go through to obtain the voucher money.)

Bush says that he is about offering choices, but Gore is about offering options. How can you have a choice if you do not have options. Gore is about giving insurance to the 44 million children in this nation that do not have insurance. Gore is about offering everyone a fair shake at an excellent education, not just the privileged and the one in twenty who would qualify for Bush's proposed vouchers (Interesting, though Dubya's camp claims that Texas has gone up in education it is still ranked only 48. Dubya has admitted more that once that education is not his priority and furthermore the federal government should have no hand in rehabilitating schools across the nation.)

I will stop for now though I have much more. I know that I probably won't change your mind, but others, who are perhaps less informed need to see both sides.

Maybe the issue is that "special" rights should be renamed "Rights for the historically underprivileged, abused, degraded, and mistreated", then you'll see why "special" rights are needed. I think those of us who have never experienced blatant discrimination are the ones who are opposed to "special" rights. What do you think the Equal Rights Amendment did for women? Women were equal before 1974, but were never treated as such and were historically treated as second class. So, why do we need a special amendment?? Because its there to PREVENT any FURTHER mistreatment of women, and that's what these special rights would do. Prevent a landlord from refusing to rent to a gay couple, prohibit an employer from making his hiring decision based on weight, correcting the misguided cab driver who refuses to drive minorities into less priviledged areas. I need a candidate who will fight for equality of these historically mistreated groups and I believe the AL GORE is this candidate!!!

After reviewing the link that I provided and printing it out, reading it again and again, I've come to the conclusion that IF I vote, I will vote for nadar. He does hold values that i can live with in a president. I agree with his points more than anyone elses. When reviewing the site, not only did I agree more with him, but he seemed to have provided a lot more information than the rest of the candidates, especially the environmental secion. I think he stands for a whole heck of a lot more than the rest of the bumbling idiots running. I know he won't win, but at least I won't feel like I'm throwing my vote away, or giving it away to someone that I feel isn't fit to run a McDonald's let alone a country.

Little,
"George Dubya continually struggled to string together five words to make a complete and comprehensible sentence. On this weakness alone, Bush should lose this election."

Hmm, let's see, last time I checked, GW (1) was not the candidate that flunked out of divinity school, (2) was not the candidate that had to withdraw from law school due to poor academic grades, and (3) was not the candidate that had a lower GPA as an undergrad than his opponent. (In respect to the other 3rd party candidates, I should say his "leading" opponent).

If you're trying to make an argument about intelligence amongst our candidates, you lose.

If you're trying to make an argument about issues, issues are too personal to most Americans to allow someone else opinion change theirs.



[This message has been edited by LXAAlum (edited October 25, 2000).]

Gee - guess that was a slap in the face to me. I forgot that everyone on this board knew me and knows what race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc. that I subscribe to...I am taking this statement to mean that you assume I have *NEVER* been a *VICTIM* of discrimination. If so, you are wrong. I face discrimination every single day but not in the way most people would think about. If this was not your intended point, then please clarify.

Little 32,
but would then presume to tell the woman of the nation what they can and can not do with their own bodies

I said I would not go into this one, but I fail to see how a full-term baby (not cell...not fetus...but a baby) coming out of a woman's birth canal while a doctor is holding its head and subsequently sucking its brain out thereby killing it during birth can be classified as a woman's body and right to choose. This is my opinion.

Gore is about giving insurance to the 44 million children in this nation that do not have insurance. Gore is about offering everyone a fair shake at an excellent education, not just the privileged and the one in twenty who would qualify for Bush's proposed vouchers

Gore is about what ever way the wind happens to be blowing. Jim Leher in the 2nd debate looked right at him and asked him if the environment was STILL his #1 priority and he said YES...then during his closing remarks, the first thing he said was CHILDREN were his #1 priority. ???

I think his #1 priority has been making soft core porn movies on national tv with his wife after the debates and after the democratic convention...I mean we all know that Bill and Hilary will be splitting soon and that the PR people have told Al & Tipper to lay it on thick...but come on! I don't subscribe to the Playboy channel for a reason. (Just trying to throw a little humor in)

LXAAlum,
If you're trying to make an argument about issues, issues are too personal to most Americans to allow someone else opinion change theirs.

As usual - right on the money.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well I'd love to stay and argue, but the series is on and I need to catch up so I'll be ready at the water cooler tomorrow.



------------------
"Alpha Chi Omega - If you only had 2 wishes, what would your second one be?"

AXO - gee, thanks so much. But are they really talking about the series at the cooler where you work? I hope you're in New York...here, people just yawn...it'll be Yankees, just a question of when (NOT said with pride, not a Yankees fan here)

OK, back onto the soapbox:

"Gore is about giving insurance to the 44 million children in this nation that do not have insurance. Gore is about offering everyone a fair shake at an excellent education, not just the privileged and the one in twenty who would qualify for Bush's proposed vouchers"

Hmm, under Clinton/Gore, how many FEWER people have insurance now than when they started? What is the number? I think it is 8 MILLION - roughly the entire state of Colorado.

Clinton/Gore campaigned on this message in 1992. What happened? NOTHING, even with a Democratic majority for the first two years in the Congress. Clinton/Gore again campaigned on this message AGAIN in 1996. Result? NOTHING happened. Now, Gore is STILL campaigning on this SAME, OLD, EMPTY-PROMISE message. Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Gore is offering EVERYONE a fair shake? Really? I get an estimated $4300 in tax relief from Bush, and as far as I can figure with Gore, it's $220 or so...but then, I'm not sure I "Qualify" because I might not be part of his "targeted" cuts.

Gore for better education? How? Do his children attend public schools? No. GW's do. The proposal he has gives $500 Billion (Yes, Carl Sagan's favorite number, "Billlllion") to FIX school buildings. Bush offers a similar amount for schools to do with what they want..fix buidings, hire teachers, train teachers, outreach programs, etc....

It comes down to a fundamental difference in philosophy: Gore is for big government: who determine what you get, when you get it, and how you get it, whereas GW, the next President of the United States, trusts the PEOPLE to determine: what they need, when they want it, and how to get it. Isn't the Consitition framed with those words "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? If you want Gore as president, please support an Amendment to the Constitution to change the word "people" in the above quote to "government"...that, in my opinion, is exactly what you'll get.

[This message has been edited by LXAAlum (edited October 25, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by LXAAlum (edited October 25, 2000).]

<yawn> come on people, move into the forest with me and forget about the bumbling idiots!

lets go back to trade and barter and living in huts and growing/hunting our own food. Yes yes. Sounds good to me.

LXA- You're right issues are personal, but generally there are two sides and most people take a stance one way or another on the issue. It is good to know what issues the candidates support and oppose because most people choose the candidates based on that.

At its heart, the first post was my questioning of George Dubya's ability to handle the job he is applying for and I still don't believe he can. I think that this is evidenced not only in the debates, but also throughout the rest of the campaign, where George has shown time and again that he does not have the firmest grasp on his own plans and stances on each of the issues. To me the debates were merely an extension of this show of incompetence. This election should not be a popularity contest. The candidate should not be voted for because he comes across as "nicer".

AXO and LXA- The comment that I made about abortion was not really to discuss the issue or take sides on the issue but to say that George Dubya's proposed intiatives involve quite a bit of big government as well and quite a bit of governmental involvement in the personal lives of the "people". Both of the candidates are "big government" candidates. The difference is in where the government comes in. So this also should not be reduced to a race between the "Big government" party and the Small Government party.
I won't debate (particularly on-line) the abortion issue, because a discussion like that can only get ugly and it really is the individual choice.

Some one mentioned tax cuts. One of the (many) clinchers for me was that George Dubya never once refuted--though he had plenty of opportunity-- Gore's claim that the majority of his tax cuts would benefit only the richest 1%. He never refuted this claim, not during the debates, not in the days that have followed. That leaves the other 99% of us (and I am included in that number) receiving significantly less benefits from this billion dollar tax cut.


I think that we should just agree to disagree. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. I find it rather frustrating to have these sorts of debates on-line without knowing anything about the people with whom I am debating. I by no means concede defeat, but I find the going back and forth here fruitless. I would like to thank mg433 (I hope you don't mind that I shortened your name.) for posting the website. Bottom line-people should make an informed choice.