It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thoughts on the Presidential Election

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
With Kerry and Bush both having a similar education and fraternity background you know they'll share many ideals.

The big issues I see are our international deployment, taxes, homeland security, drugs/medicine and the economy.

Democrats want less forces overseas while Republicans want to take care of business, I dont think we can pull out and leave a country unstable or worse, giving an enemy more power.

Taxes, where do our tax dollars go? The country needs the funds to run a country and keep the military strong no less. There is such a thing as too low of a tax because the country will run out of resouces. Tax breaks encourage weathy people to develop more land.

We need to be safe from major terror attacks and already have preventative and "cleaning up" plans in place, it is right to see the next one as innevitiable. We have the CIA, FBI, and DPo Homeland Security to deal with intelligence threats,why 3? Every big coroportion/government is prone to corruption and with 3 we got more problems. We also have other important groups like Red Cross that clean-up after an attack or natural disaster, we cannot forget how portions South Florida was in anarchy after Andrew in '92, civil unrest in tough times is going to happen. Part of Homeland Security needs to take care of the gang, crime, and drug trafficking rings that is already here.

The masses are addicted to medicine and drugs. Seeing a family Dr. in a timely manner has become impossible, Dr offices are extremly busy constantly and the common man cannit get meds in a timely manner. We need more professionals who are able to prescribe drugs or the nation will continue to lose business to online oversea pharmancy's. Prescription drugs like opiates are also a problem because of addicts. Addiction needs to be addressed and dealt with.

The Republican conservative view pretty much says we cannot preserve or natural resources and expect out economy to continue to grow. Developing wooded area does create jobs, but those are only temporary. The Democrats want more safeguards for the enviroment and know that jobs more long term jobs can be created and government projects and funds will create employment oppurtunities. The Green party represents the need for more enviromental friendly practices. I wanna see more re-development of run down areas and more conservation of the wildlife.


Maybe this year the canidates will be able to openly express where they want to take the US. 2000 meat-puppet show has laughable and there is no wonder why so many cried foul when they couldn't accept the outcome. Gore lost the electoral college end of story.




posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Thanks for discussing the issues.


Maybe you'd enjoy this thread and could assist this poster: Bush versus Kerry: EDUCATE ME

Note to all posters: At some point we'll be overrun with new threads about Here's what I think... Please attempt to contribute to existing threads on the election when at all possible.

This one may remain open for a while for discussion, but keep in mind flaming closes any thread or sends it to the MUDPIT.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
This one may remain open for a while for discussion, but keep in mind flaming closes any thread or sends it to the MUDPIT.



So if a topic is started with intelligent debate in mind, and enough members get on it and trash each other and/or the initiator, the topic is closed or moved?

That seems interesting editorial policy, in a strange way. Punish the initiator for the actions of the uncivil.

On topic, it looks more and more like there might actually be an election, but August will be hotter than hell. All quiet at ATS on the Diebold front and where things matter.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
So if a topic is started with intelligent debate in mind, and enough members get on it and trash each other and/or the initiator, the topic is closed or moved?

That seems interesting editorial policy, in a strange way. Punish the initiator for the actions of the uncivil.


I should have said when "fire is returned" the cause is lost. Though a singular disruptive poster certainly may recieve consequences that won't effect the author or thread. Sometimes they just go *poof*



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
It maybe one thing to discuss the issues of the coming Presidential election; and to share your opinion on the various questions facing us today. But for you to present, what you believe is fact but more of fiction, is not appropriate for intelligent discussion.


Below is a list of assertions you have made which I find shocking and some outrageous, to my understanding of the reality, as it is to me. Not wishing to deal in motivations (a pointless exercise) , and beginning with the assumption I AM MISTAKEN, would you mind proving/explaining the list noted below: ( A link to a recognized authority will suffice)



“Democrats want less forces overseas…”

“Republicans want to take care of business,…) [Not for US to pull out of Iraq]

Now, you’re suggesting that the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq

“Tax breaks encourage (sic)weathy people to develop more land”.

( To be safe from major terror attacks)“already have preventative and "cleaning up" plans in place,…”

“Homeland Security needs to take care of the gang, crime, and drug trafficking ring…” Why? Is it there responsibility? Or are you suggesting new responsibilities.

“Seeing a family Dr. in a timely manner has become impossible,”

“Prescription drugs like opiates are also a problem because of addicts. Addiction needs to be addressed and dealt with.” Please explain

“Republican conservative view pretty much says we cannot preserve or natural resources” Is that so?



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I have always wondered why gangs were not being treated as terrorist. They are essentially inspiring fear and terror in their respective neighborhoods. Now, the more visible police force in the country as a result of terrorists may disperse some of these activities, but they still exist. I think it would be a good idea if Homeland security focused on these problems as well. While I'm not for centralized domestic security, I do believe some of these problems should be addressed as domestic terrorism, but that will be a fine to tread. Maybe terrorism should be defined as "organized terrorists" rather than individuals who may smoke pot and then disappear.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join