Slashdot Mirror
Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry
ramoth4 writes "Local Crawford, TX (Bush's adopted hometown) paper The Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry for president. Kerry's home paper, the Boston Globe, hasn't come out with an endorsement yet. It's a very interesting editorial, especially in light of Bush's performance in the first debate."
A paper in town of 46,000 people makes an endorsement? Who cares if it's Bush's 'adopted' home town?
I think that it just goes to show, that true conservatives cannot vote for Bush. The Republican Party is no longer conservative, they are a bunch of various single-issue voters who cobble together for political strength. As the debates progress, more people will see John Kerry, not as the man Bush and his cronies has spent million to defame, but as a strong leader, who really cares about the people of America and America's place in the world. Other than a couple of retread ideas from his first campain (tort reform, etc) Bush has a campain based on attacking Kerry as weak; he cannot run on his record, so he tries to burn his opposition.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
The interesting thing about the pre-existing partisanship comes out in the editorial- where they go through every single instance of supporting the President going back to the 2000 campaign, and exactly how he failed in EVERY instance. In addition, I found the section on what his real campaign promises should have been to be quite interesting- and they're right, nobody would have voted for what he actually accomplished.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This junk is quoted from the Democratic Party's website and framed as the independant thoughts of the editors. If you want to slam someone at least be creative about it instead of committing plagarism.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's sad that the AP picks up the fact that a paper with a circulation of 425 supports Kerry. But there is not mention that the Lowell Sun, a ciculation of 100,000+ and a major newspaper in Massachusetts, Endorses Bush.
No Bias here. Noooooosiirrreeee.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
I was just wondering, why would a Newspaper or a news outlet go out and say "We're endorsing this candidate over this other one".
I mean, shouldn't they at least TRY to be non-biased about the news they report? I know I know...there is this "Liberal Media" that's suppose to pump up all Democrats and rake-across-the-coals all Republicans...at the same time there are conservative news outlets that almost try to convince us that Democrats cause cancer....but shouldn't they at least pretend to not be biased?
I want my news from unbiased..."we don't endorse anyone" kind of thing. I know, it's a pipe dream to try to find just raw news reporting without SOMEONE saying it's biased one way or another.
Just always wondered why newspapers go out on a limb like that.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
On the basis of a couple of social issues that won't change (abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress), you're voting for a President who:
pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.
has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.
constantly switches position on the important issues, such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.
lets his religious views drive his policies, hurting science and cutting proven social programs to give tax money to churches.
can't admit mistakes.
Good plan.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
As with most of the stories that wind up in this section, this is:
1) Ludicrously insignificant
2) A week old
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Well that settles it then! Everyone vote for Kerry!
I mean, really - I have no idea who to vote for until someone tells me. I'm just scared that someone will come along and endorse Bush, and then I'll have no idea what to do...
Social Security as it exists today is a massive government mandated pyramid scheme that lets politicians in Washington dupe millions of people out of hard earned money on the grounds that it's "for retirement". In truth had the government issued savings bonds (the lowest yeild investment you can get) to everyone on Social Security everybody would have been better off. The government could have used the lower interest debt to pay off higher interest debt and the retireees would have more money. Furthermore the retirees would know EXACTLY how much money they have for retirement and know it is gauranteed instead of having some vague promise subject to political whims. Instead, the current scheme was concocted where people working today pay for those who worked before them and they in turn will be paid for by those who work after them. Obviously this rely's on the pool of workers never dropping, a rediculous assumption. Furthermore, as it is, the payouts on Social Security for almost all beneficiaries are below inflation (that is they are getting less value out then they put in) and served as a worse investment than savings bonds (which is considered the lowest return you should every accept and then only in small ammounts). While this isn't that big of a deal for those of us making enough money to plan for retirement without social security, many people who are less fortunate then us NEED that money to be invested wisely so that they CAN retire. Ripping them off for political gains is amoral behavior and should stop. What we need to do is get the government and it's bueracray out of running a retirement bussiness. Steps:
- Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in. Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has. This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.
- The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).
- Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).
These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's ironic, but meaningless. The owner/editor is a Democrat who has run for office, been defeated, and doesn't live in Crawford.
Most of the town residents have started boycotting the paper since the editorial ran.
Quotes from various places in the article:
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda."
"He let us down."
"He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong."
"Again, he let us down."
"Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House."
People in Crawford are in a position to know George W. Bush a little better than most citizens. It seems that the newspaper is merely saying openly what a lot of people in that town think.
Also, Bush's alcoholism is a matter of importance. For example, look at this: Is Bush drinking NOW?. For a more in-depth analysis, see this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Remember, Bush quit the Air National Guard the same month the ANG instituted drug testing. Did he fall off the wagon again?
--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."
When Democrats like Kerry come out talking about how eliminating the death tax was pandering to the rich. Farmers sitting at home trying to figure out how they are going to scrape by conclude that the Democrats have their head in the clouds.
I've known too many farmers get ruined by that tax to ever vote for anyone stupid enough to support it and I've got to conclude that if you can't (or won't) do simple research on this issue, you probably won't do it on others. I've even told some democrats about this problem and have met with nothing but name calling, denial, and rejection.
On a personal note, as someone who has personally spoken with many politicians on both sides I can at least say that whenever I've had a problem, the Republicans have listened and usually tried to help. I've NEVER had a democrat politician take the time of day to quit with their retoric and try and understand what I have to say.
That's not to say I don't disagree with the Republicans on many issues (I'm probably split about 50/50). But having repeated good experiences with them does influence my voting.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
This is like the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. What you will find in the establishment clause is that the state should not establish religion. It is actually the "Supreme Court mandated separation of church and state" based on its interpretation of the Constitution.
Abortion is the same. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow or forbid it so legislation must settle the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, but that still doesn't put any words about abortion in the Constitution.
Please note that I am not saying anything about my views either way. I am merely pointing out what the Constitution does and does not say. My views on what legislation should or should not be passed are a different matter.
No, it's much more complex than that. What you call "embryos" are actually zygotes, fertilized eggs that are frozen for possible future implantation.
Human embryonic stem cells are harvested from blastocysts, which are very young embryos. In order to turn a zygote in to a blastocyst you have to let it grow.
That's the key difference. Harvesting embryonic stem cells is, ethically, equivalent to letting a baby grow only to kill it and use it for experimentation.
Medical ethics is important. It's better to be overly cautious in the face of hard ethical questions to give time for the philosophers to catch up with the engineers.
Particularly in this case, since the results from tests involving embryonic stem cells have, to date, been so utterly dismal.
I write in my journal
Doesn't Kerry support a "Family Farm" loophole for the death tax? Of course, I'm in an area of the country where a family farm rarely exceeds 100 acres and $900,000 in value, and so family farms haven't been swallowed up as quickly by agribusinesses here.
However, having said that- there's something I could support Bush on if I was convinced that he'd do anything about it properly (that is, relieve the family farmer without putting in a giant loophole to allow all his friends to continue to hoard liquidity for multiple generations).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sorta. From the Baltimore Sun:
Sen. Kerry and President Bush also differ sharply on estate taxes. Under current law, the basic exclusion from federal estate taxes this year is $1.5 million. That exclusion is scheduled to rise in stages, reaching $3.5 million in 2009, while the top tax rate, now 48 percent, is set to decline in stages. The estate tax is scheduled to vanish completely in the year 2010 -- only to reappear in 2011.
Sen. Kerry favors raising the basic estate-tax exemption to $2 million "immediately," Furman says, and also setting an exemption of $10 million for a small business or family farm. The exemption would grow with inflation. President Bush wants to kill "death taxes" completely.
I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL. I get taxed on my income, I get taxed on my interest, I get taxed on profit from my property when I sell it...how many times do I need to get taxed? The fact that the estate tax is 45% is also a killer.
--trb
This isn't a respectable paper. Its founder was a very virulent anti-Baptist writer. One who took very negative views of black Americans.
Nah, I don't think I would want this endorsement, regardless of how many years since its founding. The original founder is just to shameful.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
According to the officer I bothered to track down and speak to before forming assinine opinions about something I know nothing about (unlike a certain other slashdot poster): the terrain was incredibly dangerous and air support wasn't an option, and our troops hadn't had time to do proper recon and the military felt (this is the key here, MILITARY EXPERTS, not some POLITICIAN, but an OFFICER DOING HIS JOB; the SAME OFFICER that will work for Kerry if he's elected) that the risk to our soldiers lives was far too great given our alternative options. I'd love to see you make better calls IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR. Do you know anybody in the Army or National Guard (trained for Mountain Duty or not) that wouldn't have volunteered to go into that battle to try and kill that son of a bitch?
They didn't know the certain SoB was there until AFTER battle plans were drafted up and the fighting had started. Again you are making a call after the fact. The whole issue is moot however, No matter who was president, the call would have been the same because the president doesn't sit around micro-managing the military.
I mean Donald Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his generals
Maybe because others (including the General I spoke with and I'd presume other military advisors working with Rumsfeld) felt they had a better plan? Rumsfeld did his job: he made the call as to which plan to go with
As I stressed above, the real problem with the plan seems to be that Turkey jumped ship at the last minute and wouldn't let us lauch an assault from the north at the same time. That fubared the plan after it was too late to change. Turkey's pullout is a legitimate complaint against Bush, his team's diplomacy FAILED and cost our troops lives because it fubared the military plan.
How come everyone wants to throw out BS complaints when there are perfectly valid ones that can be made? Maybe just maybe it's because it's a lot easier tow some party line and quote sound bytes off of national TV then it is to find experts get their thoughts and make an informed decision independant of what the spin-masters tell you.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Both major parties want to control your life. There's about five inches between the agenda of the Democrats and the Republicans, and only on highly divisive issues which are harped on because they're highly divisive.
They're also both aided and abetted by a media which never concentrates on substantive issues and instead gives us a constant, meaningless stream of soundbytes, empty endorsements, and stupid comments about which candidate had the slicker speaking style or better hair.
We've let politics in America degenerate to the banality of the Redskins/Cowboys rivalry, (btw: Go Cowboys!) and in effect, insured that the government will grow stronger at our expenses, and for the benefit of big business and other special interests.
What to do about it? This year, I'm seriously planning to vote for a third party candidate who more closely matches my values. I'm also taking the attitude that I should live my life the way I want to. If I don't like one state's tax policy, I'm not moving there. I voted with my feet and moved to Texas instead of California. If you don't like Wal-mart and other unethically run businesses, then find some locally owned businesses to patronize. If you don't have any, please move to Austin and support our local businesses. I didn't buy an SUV bacause I don't want to consume that much fuel, and I bought a 1000 square foot condo instead of the big house I can afford. I don't see the need to buy a bunch of needless crap to fill up a big house.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
The grandparent is referring to the idea of supply-side economics, which states that high taxes discourage people from working and/or honestly paying their taxes, which in turn lowers government revenue. This has been thoroughly discredited in regards to the US as our tax rate isn't even close to high enough to be on the "wrong side of the curve."
Rob
Talk is cheap, bullshit is free, vote the record.
XML causes global warming.