View Full Version : OWO's 2004 Election Thoughts
First off let me say I am 16 so I can't vote tomorrow night, if I could I am not sure who I would vote for. Also let me mention that tho I am trying to be "Fair and Balanced" I tend to think kind of Liberal.. In 2000 I was rooting for Bush to win, I was pro-bush on most issues intill BPL, which got me looking at other issues that Bush might be mis-informed on.. or plain not caring.. Then again Kerry scares me with all the flip-flopping, and I read somewhere that he is also pushing BPL..
Cons Against Bush:
Against Gay Marriage (I am pro-gay marriage.. based on my personal oppinion that people have to right to choose who they want to marry if they are 18 or older (and the person they marry is 18 or older) there are things that people might debate with against me on this, and feel free to do so... but I am basically going to stick with my views, unless you can seriously prove me otherwise)
Pro-BPL and he also mentioned that we need to auction privately owned spectrum for use in BPL, that does not mean Ham radio Spectrum does it?
The war on Terror- can we win a war against extremists?
What I will give to bush is that he stands to his beliefs, and does not flip-flop every time things start to get rough, and I am still unsure about weather or not we found WMD's, because the news I read is usually biased and either pro-bush or anti-bush, and not the facts.. "Just the Facts Mam" -From Dragnet (one of the greatest detective shows off all time)
Cons against kerry:
He is a flip-flopper.. also I read he is pro-bpl aswell as Bush.. Kerry also has never been in the presidents shoes.. so does kerry know what will happen? Or is he just making fake promises?
I will say that John Kerry is giving the American people many reasons why four more years of Bush is not good.. Also Kerry is Pro-Choice in many ways, and I like this.. but does Kerry's anti-war believes of the 70's matter today in a time of war?
Is Kerry just making scare-tatics? Or is he really the better choice?
and Nader, he won't win.. and if he did I hate to think how Taxes would shoot sky high, and no telling what he thoughts are on half these issues..
Tomorrow night is election night, and I think that Kerry will win.. and if you look at the way things are going in Iraq and on the homfront that might not be a bad choice. Like I have heard many say "Kerry can't be worse than Bush" and that I do agree with.
W8LBO
11-02-2004, 12:11 AM
Hey Steverino,
# # How's the NAYN going, I haven't heard much about it since I wrote that part of the article for it.
# # # Well, I hope we don't have the chance to find out if Kerry would do anything in office. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
73,
Tim W8LBO
Hey Tim, The net is still not getting any activity, but I hope to be around this friday to run the net, and I hope to pull in some more check-ins.. The back-up net control was not hearing anybody when he was running the past few nets..
You said you hope we don't have the chance to find out if Kerry would do anything in officce, I say I hope we don't have to find out what another four years of Bush may bring..
On the BPL Issue.. Kerry may not stop BPL if elected, but he can appoint a new FCC Chairman..
Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ Oct. 31 2004,18:39)]On the BPL Issue.. Kerry may not stop BPL if elected, but he can appoint a new FCC Chairman..
John Kerry's FCC Chairman
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/181/1232/400/moore_fat.jpg
Bummer.. the picture you posted did not show up... maybe you could post the link directly to the picture...
Steve,
Odd that you should mention the Iraqi war. There are still a lot of people who think Kerry is going to end it within 6 months, as he was saying earlier in the campaign. However, he sounds almost identical to Bush these days when he talks about being in it for the longer haul. I don't think we will see the end of it anytime soon with either guy.
The confusion comes from the anti war stance he took on in order to out gun Howard Dean on the war issue, and his utterings of "I am the anti war candidate". You do not hear him saying it now.
73
George
K3UD
KA7RRA
11-02-2004, 01:49 AM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 01 2004,18:40)]Steve,
Odd that you should mention the Iraqi war. There are still a lot of people who think Kerry is going to end it within 6 months,
from my understanding on Kerry's postion for Iraqi.. He is goingt o keep the troups in it for anther 4yrs...and he well use it to get re-elected maybe he flip flop again
KA7RRA
Bravo to OWO for the post. Keep thinking and observing and studying. Remember that very little of what you are being exposed to by the media is not biased if not outright false. They will point to the one kernel of truth that they buried in the rest of the misleading statements, to keep them out of hot water for lying.
For instance, what do you know, or what were you taught about the phrase "Read my lips"? President Bush (the elder) campaigned using that phrase. "Read my lips, no new taxes". Every day after he won, the TV news headlines was Bush has to raise taxes. Bush has to raise taxes now. This proves that Bush has to raise taxes. 3 years he held steadfast, no new taxes. Then the numbers forced him to raise taxes. So what is his legacy that you were taught? Bush didn't keep his word, he raised taxes. But after 3 years of every day being hounded by Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the like.
Keep studying for the real story, not the one that the TV wants to tell you. No WMD my ___! They were there, but 12 years is a long time to move them or hide them in the sand. But you are being told there weren't any.
N7SYY
KA7RRA
11-02-2004, 02:41 AM
Sadam had WMD Sadam used them on the Kurds
KA7RRA
Quote[/b] ]The war on Terror- can we win a war against extremists?
When I was a little younger than you are now, terrorists were blowing up airliners, hijacking planes and cruise ships, and the like. Hardly a month went by without something happening that was due to a terrorist attack.
Ronald Regan warned the nations harboring terrorists that we would strike if the terror continued. Back then Lybia was the terrorist stomping ground. Gadaffi thumbed his nose at the USA and the terror continued. European nations were hesitant to do anything, so we acted alone. The USA bombed Lybia. Gadaffi's palace was hit and some of his family members were killed.
The terror attacks pretty much stopped for some time after we did that. They knew that Reagan meant business and they did not want to chance the bullseye moving to their turf. The same countries that oppose the war now are the same ones who opposed strikes back then (France would not let our warplanes fly over thier airspace when we attacked Lybia).
Now we have Bush. He could be doing the same thing, but he has let politics get in the way. He has fallen into the deadly trap of war by popular opinion. If we would strike fast and hard, the nations that harbor terrorists would hand them over. Instead, we try and be politically correct and 'sensitive'. The result is what you see now.
Some folks did not like Ronald Reagan, but you knew where he stood and he would not hesitate to use military force when necessary.
Quote[/b] ]However, he sounds almost identical to Bush these days when he talks about being in it for the longer haul. I don't think we will see the end of it anytime soon with either guy.
Yeah, I was listening to one of his speeches and he was talking about going in and fighting to finish the job in Iraq if elected.. So now comes to the big question of who is more fit for the job..
Quote[/b] ]Some folks did not like Ronald Reagan
Some folks find wrong in a lot of presidents, the majority is what really matters.. Reagan was liked by a lot of people, atleast enough to spend his 8 years in office.. Than again Clinton (who I think is a pervert, and who I don't think was a good president) served his 8 years, and it appeard like many people disliked him.. Now we will see if W will serve another four years..
9/11 came hard on President Bush, and I hate to think how it would have been delt with if Al Gore was president.. There are some people that are under the impression that Bush knew ahead of time about 9/11, but if you ask me the U.S was getting tons and tons of threats of all sorts, basically it would have been very difficult to piece these things together.. 9/11 happened, and Bush was faced with choices that had to me made.. Kerry says he would have made different "better" choices, but so does Bush.. Hindsight is 20/20...
Election 2004 will be very close, Florida being Neck To Neck on approval ratings in that state.. and the swing states chance of going to Kerry's side because they are wanting change..
Fox News is reporting that they think Bush is going to win, CBS seemed to be on Kerry's side.. Bummer there is no network rooting for nader ;)
I will be watching Election Coverage tomorrow evening.. I will see how many states are Red and how many are Blue.. (what color do they turn if Nader wins the state, hot pink? hihi)
W3MIV
11-02-2004, 02:36 PM
Ah, the sharp clarity and contrast of youthful vision! Everyone is liberal in their youth, and that is as it should be. Even I once was a rampant liberal. Age and experience, however, have a way of showing that most swans are really ducks. At best.
I still believe that BPL is a dead end and will fall of its own deficiencies. No candidate is going to come out against something that has the potential of making him or her look progressive and in favor of providing better service for everyone. Once the voting is over, reality dawns and economics takes precedence. Wireless will gain and BPL will decline.
Chairman Powell has always had a vendetta against the mini-Bells, who are the primary carriers of internet links, and this whole BPL thing has been pushed hard by his personal position vis a vis Verizon, SB, etc. The pols, naturally, are not going to stand in front of the bus and get run down, whether they are Dems or Republicans. To be seen as against BPL is nearly the same as being seen as against rural electrification in an earlier time.
At one time, JFK was my great hero. Now, with the perspective of forty years, I am pressed to admit that he was all gloss and no depth. As a leader, he was magnificent (and there is much to be said for that) but as a president, he must be accounted as close to a failure as was Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton was really a centrist whose only real interest was winning the presidency, not in actually governing—he really had no ideas, no plan, no agenda other than getting there. His only real impact has been on the image of the office, which he trashed in ways that are truly historic, but other than that, he will be counted as a mundane, lower than middle rank president. Hillary had all the notions and big plans, and we have not heard the last of her. Fortunately, she does not have her husband's incredible skill with people.
AE2NY
11-02-2004, 02:41 PM
The one thing I've always done is support someone's right to their own beliefs. Way to go Steve and keep up the research and observation.
Anthony - KI4VPR
Quote[/b] (KL1RO @ Nov. 01 2004,22:09)]Quote[/b] ]The war on Terror- can we win a war against extremists?
When I was a little younger than you are now, terrorists were blowing up airliners, hijacking planes and cruise ships, and the like. Hardly a month went by without something happening that was due to a terrorist attack.
Ronald Regan warned the nations harboring terrorists that we would strike if the terror continued. #Back then Lybia was the terrorist stomping ground. #Gadaffi thumbed his nose at the USA and the terror continued. #European nations were hesitant to do anything, so we acted alone. #The USA bombed Lybia. #Gadaffi's palace was hit and some of his family members were killed.
The terror attacks pretty much stopped for some time after we did that. They knew that Reagan meant business and they did not want to chance the bullseye moving to their turf. #The same countries that oppose the war now are the same ones who opposed strikes back then (France would not let our warplanes fly over thier airspace when we attacked Lybia).
Now we have Bush. #He could be doing the same thing, but he has let politics get in the way. #He has fallen into the deadly trap of war by popular opinion. #If we would strike fast and hard, the nations that harbor terrorists would hand them over. #Instead, we try and be politically correct and 'sensitive'. #The result is what you see now.
Some folks did not like Ronald Reagan, but you knew where he stood and he would not hesitate to use military force when necessary.
And Kerry wants an even more sensitive war which passes the world test. Kerry is certainly not an anti war candidate.
Remember when Reagan was going to blow up the world in a nuclear inferno and was even labled the Anti Christ by a number of people on the left?
None of it ever bothered him and he went right on with his agenda and literally changed the world.
I agree that Bush seems to be running away from the war and Kerry has somehow made it his issue. I wonder how the hard left anti war, anti gun, anti hunting, and PETA feel about him now. Like Clinton, he probably gets a pass because he promises to do so much for them after he is elected.
Sometimes we need a cowboy or gunslinger.
73
George
K3UD
Quote[/b] ]Ah, the sharp clarity and contrast of youthful vision! Everyone is liberal in their youth, and that is as it should be. Even I once was a rampant liberal. Age and experience, however, have a way of showing that most swans are really ducks. At best.
In 2000 I was pro-bush, then again at that time I was 12 years old and only knew about what I saw on TV and what my parents said.. I have seen stuff over the past few years that have made me become more liberal. Changes can be made, and Kerry is appealing to the voters, he tells the voters he will make that change. Conservative people do not want change, but liberals are always looking for reform.
Tonights results are going to be close.. I got to a very conservative southren baptist school and so I have been hearing "go Bush" all day.. I on the other hand am a very independent-liberal and I am not baptist.. so you can imagine what I have been hearing all day long from everyone. A lot of the people talking are heavly mis-informed.. why is it when CBS reports some truth its false liberal media.. but when Fox News makes predictions and voices oppions its "gods word"?
W8LBO
11-02-2004, 10:37 PM
Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ Nov. 02 2004,14:15)]Quote[/b] ]Ah, the sharp clarity and contrast of youthful vision! Everyone is liberal in their youth, and that is as it should be. Even I once was a rampant liberal. Age and experience, however, have a way of showing that most swans are really ducks. At best.
In 2000 I was pro-bush, then again at that time I was 12 years old and only knew about what I saw on TV and what my parents said.. I have seen stuff over the past few years that have made me become more liberal. #Changes can be made, and Kerry is appealing to the voters, he tells the voters he will make that change. #Conservative people do not want change, but liberals are always looking for reform.
Tonights results are going to be close.. I got to a very conservative southren baptist school and so I have been hearing "go Bush" all day.. I on the other hand am a very independent-liberal and I am not baptist.. #so you can imagine what I have been hearing all day long from everyone. A lot of the people talking are heavly mis-informed.. why is it when CBS reports some truth its false liberal media.. but when Fox News makes predictions and voices oppions its "gods word"?
Wouldn't it be Liberal to take God out of the pledge of allegiance? Gay marriage is clearly wrong, but isn't it liberals who support it? In my view, liberalism seems like it has a lot of anti-christian views; but I don't know for sure.
73,
Tim
I said before, I support Gay Marriage..
anyways this should scare most of you:
"And we need to open up more federally controlled wireless spectrum to auction in free public use, to make wireless broadband more accessible, reliable, and affordable." -Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040426-6.html
Amateur Radio Spectrum is federally controlled....
Quote[/b] (W8LBO @ Nov. 01 2004,16:37)]Wouldn't it be Liberal to take God out of the pledge of allegiance? Gay marriage is clearly wrong, but isn't it liberals who support it? In my view, liberalism seems like it has a lot of anti-christian views; but I don't know for sure.
73,
Tim
Yes
Yes
Religious views have no place in a Liberal society.
Dave
Religion does not belong in congress.. There should be a seperation of church and state...
W8LBO
11-03-2004, 02:15 AM
Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ Nov. 02 2004,15:40)]anyways this should scare most of you:
"And we need to open up more federally controlled wireless spectrum to auction in free public use, to make wireless broadband more accessible, reliable, and affordable." -Bush
The amateur code says loyalty to country before radio.
Radio plays an important role in homeland security, and though Bush is big on homeland security, he appears not to care if radio goes to the way side.. With his support on BPL and with him appointed Micheal Powell as FCC chairman.. If he wins this, who knows what will happen....
AB8TM
11-03-2004, 06:39 AM
It's very interesting to hear your views Steve.
On the BPL issue, I'm not sure you could find a good percentage of people outside of our "ham radio community" that is against BPL. Yes, we are very sensitive to the down falls of this technology, but the lobbyists and politicians only see the potential (because that is partly what they are told and partly because of $$).
Oh no! Not more election crap! (hands covering ears) Ahhhhhhhh. I can't hear you! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.:)