Bush or Kerry

[Gelgoog Pilot]

Heh...I'm voting for Kerry prolly, I wanted John Edwards, hell ever Screaming Dean would have been better. At least that guy is optomistic heh.

seriously though........check out my link in a previous post. It will help you decide who to vote for.

Btw: why would you think voting for Kerry will bring alot of change Mage15? We might get out of this retarded war, or finally get someone who knows how to handle a war. The only thing about the Bush admin I like is the Moonbase/mars mission plans. Im big on space programs. But really wanting to stay the 'same' or something is not a good desicion to use as a justification to vote for the current president. ( I hope that last part made sense its getting late and Im tired lol)

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Gelgoog Pilot']Why would you think voting for Kerry will bring alot of change Mage15? We might get out of this retarded war, or finally get someone who knows how to handle a war. The only thing about the Bush admin I like is the Moonbase/mars mission plans. Im big on space programs. But really wanting to stay the 'same' or something is not a good desicion to use as a justification to vote for the current president. ( I hope that last part made sense its getting late and Im tired lol)[/quote]

While the Democrats would like to get out of the war, I believe that they would not do so in a very graceful or wise manner. Not that we're doing terribly well now; we're not, but at this point it might be ok to stick around in Iraq and somehow put in power someone guaranteed to be on our side and make sure he doesn't die too soon.

Space programs... well Bush was just B.S.ing there. The amount of funding he claimed to add to the Mars expedition (from what I remember) was nickels and dimes compared to what is actually needed. Sure, it's something cool to look forward to, but I think the Democrats would be just as willing to fund space exploration as Bush's administration.

I don't know if I'm gonna vote at all. I probably will, and if I do, it will actually be for Bush. I'm pretty much a full-blown left-wing liberal, but Bush's administration is more supportive of things that benefit Israel than Kerry's administration would be. And because I have family there, it concerns me a lot. Also, a couple of outspoken Democratic senators have been pushing to bring back the draft in some shape or form (I guess they don't plan on calling the war off any time soon), including just a special skills draft (which would be much easier to pass). Bush and Rumsfelt are opposed to the draft, and since the special skills they'd be looking for (foreign language and computer science skills) are ones I possess, I figure I'm safer with Bush. Really only like 28% of Americans are for a draft (well, that IS a lot, but it's far from cracking 50%), so I'm not all that worried, but still it concerns me more than some other issues that Bush is not so good on.

[[Sound_Nin]]

Well, If I could, I'd vote for Kerry, because like someone said earlier, Bush is a discriminative redneck that never belonged in office. But I'm not going to play the 'Bush is a moron' card, because that's just not that creative. I see a lot of Bush supporters saying things like that without any supporting details, and all I think is "What an idiot..." No offense, of course, but it's the lack of any facts to prove it. Now, I've seen the picture of Bush holding a book upside-down, and I know (and always thought) that most of the people here are too intelligent to vote for him.
And as for Nader? Nah. Third-party, big deal, but to be honest, he'd be better than bush (Who wouldn't?).

EDIT: And reading back on one of the newer posts, Bush does NOT support NASA. If he's elected, he'll close it down! Not to mention get rid of welfare. So therefore I think the only people whos upport him are rich. (And I'm poor, so this isn't a personal debate, just that my family'd do better with him out of office.)
In fact, I had a friend who was obsessed with space, studied it, knew all the facts, etc. and supported Bush. Until he declared the shutting down of NASA. See how easy Bush gets rid of his own supporters?

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]
Of course if Bush does win this election those of us who didn't vote for him can always look forward to a few things:

5.) THere are more speeches with big words for him to mess up.
Yes, it's a scary thought, but we must always look to the bright side!
[/color][/QUOTE]

LOL. Yeah, I just don't think late night comedy would be the same with Kerry in office. Life without "George W. Bush's joke that isn't really a joke" and similar Letterman segments would somehow seem empty. ;)

[Guest Crimson Spider]

If I could (barely under legal limit), I would vote for Bush again. I mean, all these little bad things, such as the blind assumptions made about his medicare plan (bet you don't even know what it is)... all strait-out lies.

People seem to have a problem with not being able to see both sides of the issue. They don't ask why, how, in what way, for what, in what purpose, and other questions like that. It's almost strange how someone would accept the first thing told to them just to support what they think, no matter how un-informed they are, or how there isn't any proof to back up their claims other than what some privately made commercial says.

Something I've learned: The democratic party likes to play on what you don't know, while the republican party likes to twist the truth. The democratic party took advantage of how most media stations were distracted by the war, and didn't broadcast Bush's economic plans, while the Republican side took advantage of the various taxes-raising bills Kerry supported, while neglecting his plan to lower taxes in other areas.

It isn't really Kerry's war/medicare/taxes/economical plan that I have a problem with. He wants to raise taxes to put more money into the government. I'm cool with that. Taxes on gasoline while releasing more of it. I'm cool with that too.

It's this: He is pro abortion outside of rape, incest, and in order to save the mothers life.
That is the quickest someone could lose my respect.

[Guest Midnight Rush]

Bush or Kerry?

I must ponder that for a minute.

Ok done.

Not ******* contest.

Lets compare out two candidates.

Economy: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.

War: I don't like the war, but it gives USA credibility, thus I'm for it. Kerry has no plan for the war.

Education: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.

Morality: Bush is against abortion, gay marriage, irrational liberalism, ect. Kerry is for all of these things.

Conclusion?

A strong man with a plan?

Or a loser who can do nothing but throw insults to win?

I pick the strong man with the plan.

By the way: THE UNITED STATES NEEDS NO ******* BACKING FROM THE "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" TO DO ANYTHING! We are the last super power! And we can do anything we damn well please! GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!!

[Guest n1wolf'srainfan]

I'm going for John Kerry! Kerry for perz!

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='n1wolf'srainfan']I'm going for John Kerry! Kerry for perz![/quote]

Hahahahhahahahahahhhahahaahahahh!

Anyway it's silly to think that the Democrats do not have an agenda. They do; they simply don't have a campaign.

I with the Democrats were a bit more strong when it comes to foreign policy, though, because otherwise as a rather far-left liberal I'd vote for them.

[NeoNabishen]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]I think that by doing the things that get you elected, Bribes, slander, lies, and anything else that they can do to get a vote, makes politicians unworthy to hold the office of President.

Now most of you probably don’t believe that presidential candidates do these things. And some of you may know that they do, lie, cheat, ext, ext, but that it’s just something that has to happen and there isn’t anything you can do about it so you don’t care.

Now this is all just my opinion, so don’t hate me for it but I think that our government has gone to hell. Don’t get me wrong; I still think that our government is the best on the planet. But we have allowed too much corruption to go on and we have done nothing. We gave the government power that it was never meant to have and we have given up rights that never should have been taken away.

But this is all just my opinion.
Fight the MAN!
[/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Undefeated']Economy: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.[/quote]

Correction, Bush has a BAD plan, Kerry has no plan. I'd take a possibility for a good plan over an already proven bad plan.

[quote]War: I don't like the war, but it gives USA credibility, thus I'm for it. Kerry has no plan for the war.[/quote]

Correction, Kerry has no plan to continue war.

[quote]Education: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.[/quote]

Again, a bad plan. A plan that hasn't worked so far, what makes you think it's gonna work in the next 4 years? The US is still ranked way below what is considered "the greatest country ever."

[quote]A strong man with a plan?[/quote]

Correction, a weak man with a bad plan.

[quote]Or a loser who can do nothing but throw insults to win?[/quote]

Maybe you should look at the current presidents campaign and tell me who else is throwing insults. Oh yeah, don't forget to look at yourself for those issults. Seems to be a quality of all republicans.

[quote]By the way: THE UNITED STATES NEEDS NO ******* BACKING FROM THE "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" TO DO ANYTHING! We are the last super power! And we can do anything we damn well please! GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!![/QUOTE]

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were serious there for a second. Phew, I almost lost faith in all humanity.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Undefeated']We are the last super power! And we can do anything we damn well please! [/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Oh, for...

Look, we [i]could[/i] 'do anything we damn well please'; the question is, [i]should[/i] we? I'm a very patriotic individual, and statements like the above quoted make us all look bad. [/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='NeoNabishen']I think that by doing the things that get you elected, Bribes, slander, lies, and anything else that they can do to get a vote, makes politicians unworthy to hold the office of President.[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms] Then support people you believe wouldn't do those things. [/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='NeoNabishen']it?s just something that has to happen and there isn?t anything you can do about it so you don?t care. [/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms] It doesn't have to happen, and I don't tolerate it. (Granted, my ability to not tolerate it is directly proportional to my current sphere of political influence, but still...)

If you just accept these circumstances instead of doing all in your power to alter them, you give them your silent consensus.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='NeoNabishen']I think that our government has gone to hell.[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Governments don't go to Hell on their own; if they're there, it's because the citizens allowed it to happen. Don't tolerate this kind of situation; act to change it. [/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='NeoNabishen']we have given up rights that never should have been taken away. [/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Which rights, out of curiosity?[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='NeoNabishen']Fight the MAN![/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Uh, what the...

Who is this man, and why are you fighting him?[/color][/size][/font


[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I'd take a possibility for a good plan over an already proven bad plan.[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms] Better the devil you know than the one you don't, in my opinion. [/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Maybe you should look at the current presidents campaign and tell me who else is throwing insults. Oh yeah, don't forget to look at yourself for those issults. Seems to be a quality of all republicans.[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]While we're mentioning it, I'd like to simply state, for the record, that i'm tired of hearing both sides complain about the other side slinging mud. It's politics, guys; it's what you're supposed to do.

Bush is gonna' insult Kerry, and Kerry is gonna' insult Bush, and it wouldn't be fun if they didn't. I not only expect them to, I'd be disappointed if they didn't. [/color][/size][/font]

[Roxie Faye]

[quote name='Undefeated']Education: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.[/quote]
[color=#9933ff]Do the research and ask public school teachers what they think. They'll tell you that Bush has one of the worst education plans. The No Child Left Behind Act is not what this country needs. A while ago, and English teacher at my school submitted an article to the Newspaper. Here is a quote from it on the NCLB: [size=1]"How dare you.......because we see through the sham that is the No Child Left Behind Act, because we realize that this is merely a smokescreen to push a voucher system throughout the country, because we choose to object to an unfunded mandate that depends solely on test scores and false adequate yearly progress indicators, because our lobbyists are working to make substantive changes to the NCBL that will make the law work for our children, because we realize that true form lies in the hearts and hand of America's Educators and not it's politcians? How dare you?"[/size]
My mother is a teacher; I do not support Bush's stupid plan, and like TN said, Kerry with potentional for a plan is better than a bad plan already tried.[/color]


[QUOTE]Morality: Bush is against abortion, gay marriage, irrational liberalism, ect. Kerry is for all of these things.[/QUOTE]
[color=#9933ff]It's really a matter of opinion on those, and whether or not you follow the Bible down to every last punctuation mark. Your remark is not really...legitimate? o-o; I'm struggling to find the correct word for it.[/color]


[quote]By the way: THE UNITED STATES NEEDS NO ******* BACKING FROM THE "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" TO DO ANYTHING! We are the last super power! And we can do anything we damn well please! GOD BLESS THE USA!!!![/quote]
[color=#9933ff]Hookay... Those are the kinds of statements that makes us all look like pompous morons to the rest of the world. And BTW, we are NOT the only superpower in the world, lol. N. Korea would probably wipe us out in a second. o-o; (not that we couldn't, but they're more likely to use their bombs), and then we wouldn't be a superpower. :D[/color]


[quote name='NeoNabishen']I think that our government has gone to hell.[/quote]
[color=#9933ff]Wow. At least I'm not the only one who thinks that. Thank goodness. lol.[/color]

[quote]we have given up rights that never should have been taken away. [/quote]
[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Which rights, out of curiosity?[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

[color=#9933ff]I assume he's referring to the patriot act, which basically says the government can tap all phone calls on pay phones (haven't you seen the stickers on those things?) and hold a "suspected terrorist" longer than 48 hours with out an attorney, and a bunch of other ludicrious things that DIRECTLY violates right guaranteed under the constitution, I believe. Damn you Bush administration. Where do you get off violating our rights as citizens of the US?

P.S.: Love your view on political mud slinging, DeathBug. =)[/color]

[Guest Midnight Rush]

North Korea couldn't even kill a football team before Pyongyang is buried under a cloud of nuclear rubble.

No Child Left behind demands accontability. That is what our nation needs, not a bunch of neo-feminist touchy feely crap.

The Bible has nothing to do with morality in secular government. That is not what I based my statements on:

Fact 1. Rome was unstoppable when moderate logicism ruled the Senate.

Fact 2. Rome fell in less than 100 years after accpeting homosexuality and other loose morals (from the standpoint of secular humanism, not Christianity.)

Fact 3. Relativism is ********. Carthage learned this, because when it's philosophies became relative, it got whiped out by Rome.

Fact 4. Strong leadership keeps nations alive, not weaklings.

Fact 5. I can't change your mind and am not trying to.

By the way, other than basic humanitarian rights granted by Int. Law, foriegners aren't technically covered by the Constitution.

[Dagger]

[quote name='Undefeated']No Child Left behind demands accontability. That is what our nation needs, not a bunch of neo-feminist touchy feely crap.[/quote]

NCLB must be quite effective, since your spelling skills are absolutely dazzling. Anyway, I find your assertions rather amusing, considering that President Bush originally marketed himself as a "compassionate conservative."


[quote]Fact 1. Rome was unstoppable when moderate logicism ruled the Senate.

Fact 2. Rome fell in less than 100 years after accpeting homosexuality and other loose morals (from the standpoint of secular humanism, not Christianity.)

Fact 3. Relativism is ********. Carthage learned this, because when it's philosophies became relative, it got whiped out by Rome.[/quote]

Even assuming that your facts can indeed be taken as such (I lack the time to verify this on my own), I'm amazed that you can so confidently present us with a single [i]ancient[/i] example and expect it to strengthen your argument. If you're capable of proving that "loose morals" have led nations to self-destruction time and time again throughout the course of history, then I might stop taking your posts with a liberal dose of salt.

I'm not old enough to vote. If I was, I'd have to go for Kerry. I'm not his biggest fan, but the current administration has screwed up so badly that I really think we should give someone else a chance. It's not entirely Bush's fault; many of the nation's current problems can be blamed on his staff rather than on the man himself. However, he shows so much downward loyalty that I doubt he'd be willing to fire any of them.

~Dagger~

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='MistressRoxie][color=#9933ff']I assume he's referring to the patriot act, which basically says the government can tap all phone calls on pay phones (haven't you seen the stickers on those things?) and hold a "suspected terrorist" longer than 48 hours with out an attorney, and a bunch of other ludicrious things that DIRECTLY violates right guaranteed under the constitution, I believe. Damn you Bush administration. Where do you get off violating our rights as citizens of the US?[/color][/quote]

[color=green]While I agree it's disconcerting that the federal government now has far more freedom to obtain information, without warrants, than it used to, I'd argue that these "violations" of civil rights shouldn?t be greeted with such outcry.

This is not the first time that the right of habeas corpus, or the right to be told why you're in jail, and the subsequent duration of time in which you must be charged with a crime or be released, has been suspended. Abraham Lincoln did this for the first time during the civil war. Woodrow Wilson also used this suspension to further U.S. interests in World War I.

Also, this doesn?t violate the constitution. The president is within his powers to suspend habeas corpus. This power was given to him by congress through the use of the elastic clause, just as the power to declare war was.

While I agree that it's uncomfortable to know that this could happen to you, or any other innocent American, it's an important tool in fighting the war on terror. Ultimately, it comes down to how much you trust the government.

There's also a very fine line between protecting citizens and controlling them. If we do violate constitutional rights, are we really protecting what we claim to be fighting for?

Both sides of this issue are easily seen, at least by me, but I just thought I'd express my opinion and provide some historical context which would allow people to make more informed decisions about this matter.[/color]

[Guest SpaceCowboy156]

[SIZE=4]I HATE ALL OF THE PEOPLE RUNNING WE THE US STRIVE ON LIES SET FORTH BY THE GOVERMENT[/SIZE]...............but if i have to choose [SIZE=4]NOT BUSH[/SIZE] :devil:

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Undefeated]Lets compare out two candidates

Economy: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Yes, if you call turning one of the largest surpluses our nation has had in a while into one of the largest deficites our country has had in a while a plan for economy-well sure I guess it is. If you like poverty and worrying if you'll hav a job tomorrow.


Add that onto the uneployment rate going up due to jobs going over seas and yes Bush has a plan for sending this country's economy to Hell in handbasket[/color]

[quote name='undefeated'] War: I don't like the war, but it gives USA credibility, thus I'm for it. Kerry has no plan for the war.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I fail to see how going to war when you have no support from your allies or the rest of the world for that matter give you credibility, but if you like kharmic butt kickings as much as Bush you can have at it.

As for the war in general I hate it with a passion therefore I detest Bush for getting us into this whole ordeal where men and women hardly older than the rest of us (if your parents sign a waiver you can join at 17) or maybe even your age or younger are risking their lives and not knowing why. Thank you Bush administration for another Vietnam.[/color]

[quote name='Undefeated']Education: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]The Rochester City school district has schools closing because they don't meet the 'criteria' of the no child left behind act which sounds like another failure to me. Since as a result of closed schools there will be larger classes and less teachers to deal with them. That doesn't sound like a very good plan for education to me. Infact it sounds like a bomb ready to go off.[/color]

[QUOTE=Undefeated]
No Child Left behind demands accontability. That is what our nation needs, not a bunch of neo-feminist touchy feely crap.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Because it's done wonders for both your spelling and grammar I can see. Yes, our nation needs accountability, not a bunch of failed programs which are draining our budget. Perhaps if our nation got more in touch with its feminine side instead of going with the masculine don't stop and ask for directions idealism that's been so predominant in this administration this country could go back up hill instead of down hill as it is right now. So maybe, defeated, you could do some of us a favour-quit disrespecting your mother and get in touch with your feminine side[/color]

[quote name='Undefeated']Morality: Bush is against abortion, gay marriage, irrational liberalism, ect. Kerry is for all of these things.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Morality is a very debateable subject. You find the government getting involved in a woman's right to reproduce, and telling people who are in love that they can't be married legally because they're the same sex as a moral obligation. I find it wrong to tell a woman she can't choose whether or not to have a child (because I also believe that after Bush gets rid of abortion-birth control is next) and it's wrong to tell people they can't get married because of who they chose
to be in love with and how they were born. Does that make me an immoral person? I doubt it.

Besides, Bush is against more that abortion and gay rights. While govenor of Texas he made a few speeches against paganism as well saying that he hopes the military will rethink their hasty descision. In 1986 an ammendment was added to the constitution making paganism a government protected religion. If Bush is willing to involve himself in people's sex lives, who's to say he wouldn't consider revoking people's freedom of religion as well?

And as for being a liberal thinker-what's so bad about being a forward thinker and trying to change the world? Wouldn't you rather have a few changes than let everything stay the same?[/color]

[quote name='undefeated']I pick the strong man with the plan.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]That would be Deathbug, right? :laugh: [/color]


[quote name='Undefeated']By the way: THE UNITED STATES NEEDS NO ******* BACKING FROM THE "INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" TO DO ANYTHING! We are the last super power! And we can do anything we damn well please! GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!![/quote]

[color=darkviolet]As my mom says 'If you can't say something without swearing it's not worth saying in the first place'

True, we don't need backing to go start a war, but having support from an international community while starting a war sure as hell does help. Just ask any soldier over there, I'm sure they'd rather have some positive reinforcements in this stupid 'war on terror' than all the crap they keep getting.

Finally the last part of this paragraph. We're hardly a superpower and even if we are shouldn't the USA be aware that all our movements are being watched? Yes, people in general can do whatever they damn well please. I could go commit fraud with my husband's social security number because I have it, but that doesn't mean I should do it. That's the whole thing with being responsible with power. Which Bush obviously doesn't know how to do.[/color]

[quote name='Undefeated']By the way, other than basic humanitarian rights granted by Int. Law, foriegners aren't technically covered by the Constitution.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Which is something they were denied while being detained. Infact I believe Donald Rumsfeld stated that the detanies at Guantanamo Bay were even to be denied basic rights under the GEneva Conventions which as you stated are supposed to be granted to all members of this global community.[/color]

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Besides, Bush is against more that abortion and gay rights. While govenor of Texas he made a few speeches against paganism as well saying that he hopes the military will rethink their hasty descision. In 1986 an ammendment was added to the constitution making paganism a government protected religion. If Bush is willing to involve himself in people's sex lives, who's to say he wouldn't consider revoking people's freedom of religion as well?
[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Erm? after reviewing both the Texas state and US constitutions, I still cannot find any amendment to either one protecting paganism, in 1986 or any other year.

Furthermore, I'm unable to find any speeches of Bush's that attack paganism.

Could you link me to evidence of either of these? Or even site a text source so I could look it up?[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

There seems to be some confusion going around. I'll try to clear things up.

[quote]Yes, if you call turning one of the largest surpluses our nation has had in a while into one of the largest deficites our country has had in a while a plan for economy-well sure I guess it is. If you like poverty and worrying if you'll hav a job tomorrow.[/quote]Very common mistake. You see, the surpluse/deficite comes from a projection of economical development made in the 1950's. During the same decade issued, the nation soon fell into the deficite mark, and has yet to ever reach a surplus since then. Constant deficite for 50 years now.


Good ole NCLB, or No Child Left Behind Act.


The NCLB act is a regularly schedualed revision of the ESEA, or the Elementry and Secondary Education Act, of the 1950's. The ESEA had it's goal to keep the education level of America to a certain level for each grade. In order to keep up with time, a mandatory revision is required every 5 to 7 years.

Problems arose. The ESEA, and the multitude of revisions to follow it, all failed. They lacked solid backing, base, and were something very commonly seen in the political world: plans with good starts, and bad endings. The ESEA was basically just a waste of money, and for a time was forgotten amongst the political parties that were in control of the nation.

Awhile back, the solution to the rapidly falling educational level of American Pupils was proposed. This proposition was Vouchers. What Vouchers would do is reduce the tax money givin directly to schools, and instead offer it to parents/caretakers, which would then use that money to pay their way into school. Along with this idea, Vouchers had included a plan that had non-profit organizations and other such establishments help assist in schools that were failing.

The NEA, an orginization of 2.7 million, rejected this, saying that Vouchers would only make the problem worse, and would be unconstitutional to send kids to schools other than ones that taught evolution as fact (which is why I don't like them). Though their second reason is greatly debatable, the first reason held ground, and the Voucher Idea was dropped, once again leaving America's youth into a decline of general intelligence.

I'm sketchy on the details, but either Clinton or Bush had revived the ESEA, or the attention was brought to them at that time.

The origonal proposition for NCLB infact did have the voucher program in it. After deliberation, they decided to remove the voucher program and went with a system a little more effective:

Firstly, the general funding for the Education Districts of America was increased by some billion or so dollars.

Secondly, the program issued that states had control over the spending of the money, with set allotments for when certain occasions, which could be spent after a meeting determins that the money, indeed, would needed to be spent.

Third, the funding from NCLB act focuses on schools that are failing, following a set of step-by-step plans that would instate more and more help into a school the longer and more it continues to fail.

There was only one mention in the NCLB act that mentioned taking away money, and it was this: If the state doesn't implement the NCLB act, it removes the additional funding. This last step was added on after the act had been made, during it's passing into law.

After deliberation, the white house committee decided to pass the more recent revision of the ESEA into law one year after it was made.

The problems that you see now are arising from a very simple fact: 7/10 states are pressing the law too strictly, despite the many sections and paragraphs that outline flexibility. But regardless, the schools are being punished by the single state alone, and not by the act, which doesn't outline any sort of punishment at all.

Several years later, minor glitches in funding and overspending due to the large amount of schools failing causes problems. These problems are easily fixable, but only if someone would tell the other 7 states to pull back on it's enforcement of the act a bit. But alas, those schools are failing, and helps us with the ability to see two sides of the issue to notice either one of two things: the act is too strict, or America's schools are crap.

The goal, not requirement, is to have each child without a disabilitly such as retardation or recent immigration to be able to read and do math at their grade level, and to have each teacher be properly qualified to instruct in schools. This last clause is in debate as to which qualification each teacher would need for their profession.

One hard unignorable fact: the GPA of America's students have climbed since the passing of the NCLB act into law.

Next history lesson: the War on Iraq.

As you may or may not know, America was the one who put Saddam into power of Iraq, and stayed friends with him until an unfortunate incident in which Saddam tried to kill George Bush Senior. This quickly changed America's mind on the issue of Iraq, and then later, a bill was passed during Bush Sr. presidential term by the White House Committee that issued a regime-change for Iraq.

Fast forward a couple of years to the Clinton Administration. As many people fail to realize, Clinton did not hesitate to implement actions towards a regime change. During his term, the main offense against Iraq was composed of Aerial Strikes. Most noticably was during the final year of his presidency.

These little bombing raids kept the majority of Americans safe. But not with reprocussions: the bombings had too little of an affect on the regime, and too many innocent people were dying.

Next year, Bush Jr is in power, and soon after a Bill that strengthened the American army and O.K.ed the ground military action, or the foot invasion, was handed to Bush Jr. soon into his presidency. This Bill sat for a few months, before eventually being signed after the 911 attack.

The 911 attack also gave justification to enter into Iraq other than past occurences, though it does coincide with them: the war on terror. Saddam was easily classified as a terrorrist leader for cruel actions against many of the other countries around Iraq, and not just the U.S.A.


And for my final subjects to hope to make the conversations here more intelligent: there is no "horrible" plan, or "no plan", or even "great" plan.

Something I've observed over the years is that regardless of how good a plan is or isn't, people are not going to like it. Due to their mechanical response to not liking the plan, they seek to justify it with every thing they can involuntarily.

After reviewing over these Plans that some large amount of people somewhere called bad, I've found that each and every single plan is, in fact, good when you look at both sides of the issue instead of the closed-minded nonsense that I observe amongst those who claim to be really intelligent.

Analyzing the modern expectations and qualifications for what would be elected president or not, I have determined this one very simple statement: [b]There are no longer any "bad" presidents. Only ones you disagree with.[/b]

Then we reach the issue of "nit-picking". I say that this, in any circumstance, is unacceptable in order to tell who would or would not be president. I find that if someone doesn't have the best grammer, or didn't come out with an advertisement that wasn't attacking the other side first, or complaining about a persons beliefs, morals, or looking into one's history to find some little mis-hap and treat it like it's a divine factor... all to be utter nonsense.

But alas, I feel as if my statements fall on deaf ears, seeing as Undefeated pulled the exact nonsense that I spoke of before after I had posted.

EDIT: Help me with a predicament. I'm debating whether or not to go off on a tangant of sorts and begin to break down the issues of same-sex marriages, since from what I've observed as being stated as rather inane or void evidence from either side.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I messed what I said up in my last post. However, I'm too lazy to redo the whole post, so let me do this instead.

I didn't mean ammendment, I worded my sentence wrong. Back in 1986 the federal appeals court ruled that Wicca is a legal religion which means that Wicca is protected by the constitution.

I couldn't find the article on where Bush had made the comment about the military allowing pagans to worship, but I know he did say something about it.

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the guy. I trust him even less than I trust most politicians for that matter. He's too-how can I say this without sounding like I'm bashing Christianity?-too much of a bible beater.

The funniest thing about the Bible and Same sex marriages is that the bible (In my opinion, for all I know I could be wrong since I'm not a Theology student) actually just means that men shouldn't sleep with other men since basically that's spilling teh seed. It says nothing about women sleeping with women.

However, if you really want to get into how the purpose of marriage is to produce children then my parents have obviously not done their duty in getting married since my brother and I are adopted. I know of other people who never plan on having kids even though they're married or may be married again. Does that mean that people who don't intend to have children shouldn't be allowed to be married since they won't reproduce?

And what about abortion? Bush is very strongly pro-life, I don't know Kerry's actual opinion on the subject. Bush has already signed a law prohibiting partial birth abortions. I honestly have no problem with that. In fact I think a partial birth abortion is cruel since you're already in the process of giving birth. Why not just give the child up for adoption? El knows there are pleanty of people who can't have children who would be willing to adopt.

But Bush seems determined to over turn Roe vs Wade and as a woman and some one who is very strongly pro choice that worries me.

The government has no place in the bedrooms of the people it governs. Or for that matter the faith of the people it governs. However, this administration doesn't seem to grasp that concept and is constantly trying to maintain a strictly monotheistic conservative point of veiw and impose it on the entire population reguardless of anyone's opinion.

Well, I've added my thoughts for the evening. Take them as you will.[/color]

[pbfrontmanvdp]

I think it's safe to say that I'm going to vote for Kerry this year. To tell you the truth...I would have voted for any Democratic this year, possibly even Al Sharpton (sarcasim just in case some people couldn't see that). Anyway though the next few paragraphs will have citations from this website just in case anyone wants to read it [url="http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.teachers.admins.htm"]http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.teachers.admins.htm[/url] .

The main reason why I am not voting for Bush is quite simple, the NCLB. Right now I'm majoring in Chemistry/Secondary Education and since im becoming a future teacher this affects me. Like Crimson Spider stated, the NCLB states that school districts must hire and regulate "highly qualified" teachers:

[size=2][font=Verdana][i]"[b]Middle school and high school teachers[/b] must meet the new "[b]highly qualified[/b]" standard in the [b]subjects they teach[/b]. Teachers in higher grades are responsible for gains made by their students. These teachers will be responsible for educating students who transfer into their schools without the level of instruction they should have had." ~Suzanne Heath~[/i][/font][/size]
[i][font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font][/i]
My question has always been, how do you know if a teacher is considered "highly qualified" by simple taking a test in your subject area. Just because a teacher may know everything in a given subject, that doesn't necessarily mean they know how to teach the subject. Some teachers teach simply from books or constantly give notes on transparencies. What the NCLB act extremely lacks is testing for the techniques teachers use in a classroom setting. To some this may not sound important, but what I have been following greatly is Gardner's theory on multiple intelligences. In other words, teachers should have numerious ways to teach students in order to satisfy every child's aspects of learning. A straightfoward test that Bush has proposed will not solve anything, but instead hinder the education students should be receiving.

[font=Verdana][size=2][i]"The No Child Left Behind Act affects virtually every person employed in the public school system. All schools in districts that accept Title 1 federal funds must make detailed annual reports on the progress of all children. Each school must also report the progress of four subgroups: [b]minority children, children with disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, and children from low-income families[/b]." ~Suzanne Heath[/i][i]~[/i][/size][/font]
[i][font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font][/i]
[font=Verdana][size=2] Later on it also states that teachers must also be able to do this right away for LEP students. I find this hard to believe since most standardized tests in America are based on our culture and might be a little prejudice towards LEP students who aren't given proper eductional instructions before hand. Anyway, it seems hard to believe how one can compare a child with a disability to an average every day student based on a standardized test. For example, if someone that has a severe case of ADHD and does horribly on a standardized test that shouldn't have been given to him/her in the first place based on the disability at hand, the school shouldn't be held responsible for it. Like Crimson said, if a school district fails under the NCLB they must follow a step-by-step plan until the school district has the required improvements. What the step-by-step plans are, I'm not exactly sure of.[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]There are other issues I'm concerned of with the NCLB, but since this isn't really a thread for this topic I only limited it down to these two main points for why I will not be voting for Bush this year. If you read further on in the site it states the benefits of what the NCLB has done, but I don't consider them to be extremely important factors in improving a childs education.[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]As for the war, I have little comments towards what should happen in Iraq. There's so much the public doesn't know that goes on inside Iraq that I can't really make a safe arguement on what to do in this situation. What I'm more concerned with is our own economy and I feel that by staying in Iraq and trying to solve the problems there is just a waste of time. The only thing that is going to happen is what happen in Vietnam, we're just eventually going to withdraw from the country one way or another. There are to many citizens in Iraq that don't want to accept the help from America and all I really see happening on the news are more and more reports of another American soldier[/size][/font] being killed. I'm swayed more by whatever candidate just takes our troops out of the country by now and instead focuses on the problem at hand...our economy. Many people don't really realize how badly unemployment is currently. Just in my dads local alone there are 215 people currently unemployed and thats just in a township. He was telling me theres around 4,000 that are possibly unemployed in the state of New Jersey for electricians. My dad has worked hard his whole life and was planning on retiring within the next 5 years, but he doesn't see that happening now.

All in all, I feel that Kerry is the better candidate to be elected this year. I'm not sure if he's the best man for the job, but i do know that Bush isn't. Only time will tell and I guess I'm going to have to wait.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]What should we do in Iraq? I almost wish I was running for president now because I have some ideas-and keeping a majority of our armed forces over there isn't one of them

I think they should definately hand over the power to the Iraqi people at the end of next month as planned. (I also think they should stop blowing up things like people, and cars and mail trucks. That last one won't be on the news, but I heard from my husband today that they blew up a mail truck. Thing is, Iraqi civilians drive the mail trucks to the bases, but now I'm on a tangent)

However instead of keeping a large ammount of our military personnel over there purhaps the US should try what they've done in other countries after wars and set up small bases in the area. They could keep a speed bumps worth of troops over there for peace keeping purposes, but as in say: South Korea the countries laws and police would run the country not the occupying forces. The troops would be on year long tours.

As for the next presidental candidate. I'm still a bit undecided. I hope that will change by November and I won't be pursuded to vote Bush.

I had this conversation with my mama (mom's mom, not the ultra conservative Catholic who thinks homosexuals are sinners and Bush is so great , but the moderate Catholic who believes that everyone has a right to their opinion and thinks Bush is an idjit) on Wednesday. She was saying originally most peopel during a war will reelect the president who's been leading them through the war.

She also said that in the beginning of all this it looks like most people may vote for Bush because of the fact they know where he stands and they know what to expect. Of course with that in mind that could be a bit of a detrant. I mean if you look at what he's done with the economy and the budget in four years, just immagine what he'll do in eight! :eek:

I really wish I knew more about where Kerry stands on issues like economy and the whole 'War on Terror' issue. What would he do about the troops in Iraq? WHat will he do to get the economy back on track? Nevermind the fact about birth control, same sex marriages and abortion.

I know the saying is 'You don't trade the devil you know for the devil you don't." But what if the devil you know is leading you down a road to ruin and the devil you don't know could help you out? That's something to consider.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I think they should definately hand over the power to the Iraqi people at the end of next month as planned.[/color][/quote]Just out of interest... What power are they intending to hand over? Last time I checked America was having a hell of a time holding their own let a lone asserting complete control over the country. And if what ever power America has is handed over what will Iraq use to hold together and enforce it? Then once you've handed over that kettle of fish you come up to the blank wall that is an agreement where as the Americans have full control of the Iraqis police and army that was handed over by the transitional government a while ago. They are not a sovereign country and even after this 'hand over' takes place they still will not control their own country.

Welcome to the mess Bush has got us all in.

[quote name='hotpage2004']If Kerry gets elected and brings all our troops back, than all the tropps that died would have died for nothing.[/quote]I thought they had died for nothing? Oh wait, you guys are getting all the 'why we went to war' propaganda. ...What is it now? Osama is in bed with Sadam who had WMD that he could sell to the French and using German missiles that Hitler left from WW2 could be fired at England and America from the Talebans secret bunker in Iran? Or was that last week?

I really don't care who else people vote for but Bush needs to be removed (democratically) as soon as possible.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=cloricus]Just out of interest... What power are they intending to hand over? Last time I checked America was having a hell of a time holding their own let a lone asserting complete control over the country. And if what ever power America has is handed over what will Iraq use to hold together and enforce it? Then once you've handed over that kettle of fish you come up to the blank wall that is an agreement where as the Americans have full control of the Iraqis police and army that was handed over by the transitional government a while ago. They are not a sovereign country and even after this 'hand over' takes place they still will not control their own country.

Welcome to the mess Bush has got us all in.
[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Dammed if I know what power we're handing back to them. As far as I'm concerned the Coalition troops could all come home and somehow Iraq could sink into the Persian Gulf. I know that's not the most mature take on this matter, but it's the best I could come up with on such short notice.

As far as I can tell, what the military means by handing the country over to the Iraqis is that there's less chance of the tours being extended indefinately and maybe they can all get home early (with my husband's unit it could be February instead of March)

The thing the people in charge should be worried about is what Cloricus brought up which is: they don't seem to have a handle on their country. This could go one of two ways: America pre 1789 or what brought Afghanistan to the lovely mess that allowed Al Queda to take over. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but right now i think these guys have more of a chance of becoming Afghanistan at the moment and we'll be back in another 11 years or so because this can of worms just won't quit. So I'm pessimistic.

As for the whole Bush mess. Kerry isn't all that better, right now all he's coming off as is a Bush basher. While that may be all well and good for people on the street who aren't trying to run for office do that, a person tring to get into the office of President should actually have more about him than kicking up dirt on the competition. As it stands now I may as well follow what someone else I know is doing and vote for Nader. Hell, maybe he could put some light on the subject[/color]

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]Urgh, I know how you feel about Kerry. He's dawdling behidn in this campign trail. I mean, jeeze, this is what he's like: "I'm runnign for president, but I don't know where I stand on the issues. But vote for me!"

I'd vote for him anyways because his name isn't Bush, but there's so many people who vote on the way they feel about the issues. Kerry needs to win those votes (that's my opinion), and he's being an idoit about running for Prez. right now.[/color]