Name one good issue the other side promotes.
 

Just thinking about hate politics and thought maybe this could bring about good discussion.

Dems. pick an issue the President has that you like the stance on and tell why.

GOP pick an issue Kerry and the Dems have that you like and tell why.

Libertarians and others well...... pick an issue from the Dems and the GOP and discuss why you like it.

Hopefully, the point will bring some moderate righties and lefties to respect each other a little bit more.

In reality (I am a pessimist by nature, please forgive me), I have a feeling this thread may die a fast death as someone will undoubtedly say, "The other side has nooooo issue stances I support in anyway." and for those people I truly pity them because they are so blind and full of hate that they'll never change and grow up.

My one issue is the space program. I like the fact Bush is wanting to get men back on the moon and in space. We just let that whole program kind of die and it is sad because there is so much we can learn and so much potential there.

By rebuilding the space program perhaps it would bring forth new technologies and jobs and create new oppurtunities for the future generations.

I just truly like Bush for this and IF this were the only issue I was voting on I would vote for him, without any hesitation, because I don't see Kerry taking this issue and running with it.

Again, hope this thread opens up some positive dialect between opposites.

I honestly can't say one item that the Kerry campaign stands for that I fully support because there aren't enough details out (at least that I'm aware of) about their specific plans.

This isn't meant as a dig at all as I fully understand why details are slow in coming out and it has everything to do with campaign tactics.

One issues that's important to the Dems that I agree with is health insurance for the poor and un/under insured.

Of course the specifics on this issue are a little more complicated since there are multiple plans but the overall concept I fully agree with.

The other side? I guess for me, that means the Republicans as I lean to the left. The one good issue that they promote is opposition to abortion. I'm morally against it, but the population growth resulting from its proposed delegalization would cripple the nation.

Being closetst to the libertarians in belief, I'll pick from each. Overall, the Republican party tends to be very supportive of gun ownership rights. The Democrats tend to be more supportive of individual liberties (big flashing neon sign with "abortion rights" and "gay marriage")

i cant think of a single issue advanced by the bush version of the republican party on which i agree with them. and i have been sitting here for five minutes trying.

fifteen minutes.

nothing...i got nothing....this cant be good.

Thanks for the constructive thread, pan6467.

There are many things good and necessary about Democratic positions. The loyal opposition is to be respected and appreciated in the spirit of bipartisanship.

From its idealism to its committment to social equality and human rights, the Democratic party is a crucial and necessary part of the progress and evolution of our nation toward a more humane and humanistic situation.

I appreciate the positions the party takes on health care and free expression. I may oppose individual applications of some of the actionable items that may spring from these positions. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the fact that they are traditionally husbanded by the Democrats.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Republican_Gun rights.

Same with Superbelt, I like that the Republicans don't let the Democrats get away with too much gun control.

One thing I appreciate about the platform of the GOP is their resolve to cut wasteful spending. I may not agree with what and where they want to cut, but i believe that trying to be as meticulous and careful about how everything is spent so that our taxes aren't wasted in beaurocracy, red tape and by swindlers and other such tomfoolery is a wonderful leash to kept upon.

three hours later and still nothing.....

I'm a registered unaffiliated, so I'll go for both sides:

Republicans: I like their views on gun control (NFA of 1934 is quite enough), as well as their staunch support of the military.

Democrats: I am a large fan of their support of civil liberties (particularly their opposition to the USAPATRIOT Act), and their support for healthcare.

John Kerry has alot of secret plans, but not much up front that you can chew on.

Edit: I got nothing.

That was pretty weak you guys...

I endorse the military aspect of the "war on terror" - it is an unfortunate reality that police and FBI, acting only defensively, is just not enough to defend our nation.

(does it count that I picked a position on which Kerry and Bush are virtually identical ;))

I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind. My opposition was created when he failed to fund it.

Off topic and not needed. Refrain from posthing things like this please.

roachboy,

that might be because to the right for your beliefs would be Democrat.

Not digging, but I wouldn't have expected you to come up with anything as Moderate is far-right for your stances.

You would probably do better by using the Libertarian idea, see if you can come up with at least a Dem idea that you agree with.

Way to smack one troll but not the other, Seaver.

I went and looked at the President's agenda on his to try to find something I agreed with. I also think NCLB is a great idea, but with almost every school I go to complaining they can't meet the requirements because they are so completely underfunded, I am disheartened. (I also like that two of the six points are security. Seriously, what is that?)

I like the idea that we need to restore values to our country, even if I disagree about some of those values.

Like Kadath, I went to JohnKerry.com

How is this answer, I found two things that I agree with half of (two halves make a whole, right).

The first:

The part I agree with regards gov't expansion and middle-class opportunites.

The second:

I agree with the foreign oil thing, but the top two importers of oil to the U.S. are Canada and Mexico. Alternative energy aside, I would like to see us get more oil from within our territory. I don't have a problem with importing from Mexico and Canada as they are our "friends" and they need a healthy economy just as we do (plus, it is better to have a neighboring country with a growing economy). I would like to see the oil we get from the Middle East at least cut in half (that way we can't be held hostage by OPEC).

The problem I had was that several issues that are important to me, Kerry and Bush are very similar on.

Veteran's Benefits would be another one, but I can't really tell what is true and what isn't from either side.

i decided to find one for the libs and dems

for the libs i found this
• Marriage is a religious commitment in which the government has no place
• Lifestyle is an individual right

first of all marrige is a state issue and the feds should have no say in it and the feds really should have no definate impact on my life that should be left to state govt. i think libs are closest to this

for the dems
Great teachers are the foundation of a great school. As president, John Kerry will enact a new bargain that offers teachers more, including better training and better pay in troubled schools, and asks for more in return, including fast, fair ways to make sure that teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there.

education is an extremely important issue and even as a pretty frugal republican i am willing to pay a little more for someone to have a better education

Roachboy ya gotta find somthing i looked a long time so i think you can do more than just think about it look at their site

I hit him because he went against what this thread was intended for, offering nothing positive whatesoever. Who was the other troll praytell?

If I were to hazard a guess, Seaver, it was jcookc6's post.

I don't know if it was a troll, but if you have nothing to add then don't add.

O.k., I have a better, more constructive one:

Abortion.

I am morally against abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal. I would much rather have it unnecessary (I am adopted) than illegal.

That is one of the very few instances where I differ from my side.

HRmmm good thread

Probably one of the few issues i aggree with the GOP on would have to be smaller goverment, and fiscal responsiblity (though you wouldnt know they supported this from the example of the current president)

its 12:41 am, about 12 hours later and i still cannot think of a single issue endorsed by the bush version of the republican party that i support.

i am well to the left of the democrats, kma--that is probably the problem.....as to why i am not a libertarian--well, that would be another thread.

see? i am learning this game....

As a registered Independent I will tell you what I like about partisans. I like that when the neither one is in total control, there is a great deal of compromise and reworking of legislation. The best bills get passed when one side or the other can't just force something through.

Thats one thing that most people don't get. The official Opposition is as important in a democracy as the ruling party. Its the opposition's job to balance out the scales, be the tell tale on the ruling party nd to basically be the watchdog. Democracy cannot work without a strong opposition.

I like the democrats' opposition to the controversial portions of the Patriot Act. I've yet to hear a sufficient defence of them.

I like the pro-drug legalization (never tried drugs) and the pro-gay marriage (never tried that either) positions, but I don't know that Kerry holds either.

I was watching one of Bush's campaign speeches last week and he mentioned something about getting rid of frivolous lawsuits. I like that.

Shortly after he was talking about doctors, so I don't know if what he was describing only pertained to malpractice, or frivolous lawsuits in general.

For example, "I'm fat so I'm suing McDonald's" or "I smoked for 40 years, ignored warnings, got cancer. Now I want to sue Phillip-Morris". People need to stop blaming others for their mistakes in life.

I was wholeheartedly behind Bush's first "stimulus package" which helped give the economy a quick boost. It had pretty significant bi-partisan support, because it was a good idea, done at an appropriate time.

I thought about this for a half hour and finally came up with something I sort of agree in. Mainly the GOP's stated less taxes stance. However, a balanced budget is much more important.

Good Things about the Dems -

Stem Cell research

I'm morally against abortion but want it legal. There are too many situations that arise when it is banned.

I also am for stem cell research.

Republicans:
taking care of military
gun rights
lower gov. spending
keeping a balance (one party system is a bad idea)



We need a open debate in this country. EVERYONE! Stop with the "I know how I feel and I'm never changing my view." Review your views challange them. Stop watching "The Factor" and put down the ranting editorials. Come together as a country. Attempt to see issues from all angles. Make decessions based on stances and important issues. Become involved. Promote true debates to be won by points made and not who said what louder. Both sides, come together for America.

Some very good dialog and a lot of positive.

A few have had problems but hate runs deep and sometimes it's all you can see.

I know I learned some new things, it doesn't affect my vote, BUT it does allow me to be a little more ok with Bush if he's reelected.

Art, Skyscan, Phenom, and all thanks for the input on why it's necessary to have 2 parties.

I like the Democrats stance on health care and opposition to the Patriotic Act.

For the Republicans I like their views on gun control, military support, and less taxes.

I'm a really strong democrat, and I would have to go with the Republican view of gun ownership rights.

and yet you voted for an amendment to the missouri const. banning gay marriage.


oh, and for myself, i have to go with the repub's gun control and platform of less govt./fiscal responsibility. i would actually consider voting for a republican that promised not to hurt (necessary) social programs while following a conservitive economic policy.

I appreciate the typically Republican ideals of smaller government and fiscal responsability. I wish that they would get back to that.

and i stand by my position on the issue. i feel that the government should have no say in marrige at all. i think it is a religous institution and deverse nothing in our legal system. my vote came down to money and this view. i don't want the infection to spread. maybe i can not erradicate it but if i can help slow i feel i did the right thing. this is just my belief and i can think of many people on this board with very radical to the left mine just happens to go radical to the right. sorry if it offends you.

while i don't always agree with radical ideas, i have no problem with the idea of getting govt. out of marriage. make it a religous thing only. great. but denying gays marriage rights because you don't want "the infection to spread" smacks of bigotry. rather than working towards getting govt. out of marraige, you'd deny them the rights that everyone else has. i personlly think that the reasons you gave in teh other thread were nothing more than BS. if tehy weren't, then i don't think you have a very realistic or rational view of the world.

as it were, based on your reasoning, i'd have to say that if i were gay, i would probably find a lesbian friend to marry, and maybe have my life partner marry hers, so that way we're still getting the tax breaks and whatnot that you're so against. so since they can still marry people tehy don't love, you really haven't done anything.

I think we should try to keep this set of posts as peaceful and non-agressive as possible please, it is my belief that this topic was started to promote good-will between all sides of the political spectrum. So, to keep with that, I'll support the libitarian's push for more than a two party system and the republicans help to create a ballance between enviromental needs and the need for economic progress. =)

While I disagree with his approach, I also disagree that it's necessarily the least bit bigoted. I think the idea is that the government would be irretrievably entrenched in the marriage thing if it handles gay marriages as well, and the best time to get govt out of marriage is before state marriage is extended to teh gheys.

i found one! i actually found something bush proposed or did that i actually support:

this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/07/po...gn/07bush.html

an edit of the text:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 - President Bush told a convention of 5,000 minority journalists on Friday that colleges should not give preferences for admission to the children of alumni, a position that put him at odds with his own history at Yale University.

Mr. Bush made his remarks at the Washington Convention Center in response to a question from Roland S. Martin, a syndicated columnist and a member of the National Association of Black Journalists, about whether colleges should give preferences to applicants, commonly called legacies, whose parents or grandparents attended the same institution.


"So the colleges should get rid of legacy?" Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bush at a question-and-answer session that followed the president's address to the convention.

"Well, I think so," said Mr. Bush, who is a son, grandson and also a father of Yale graduates. "Yeah. I think it ought to be based on merit."

Mr. Bush said that he assumed Mr. Martin had brought up the issue because of the president's Yale legacy, but Mr. Bush also joked that "in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps." Mr. Bush apparently meant that he had to work hard to succeed.

Mr. Bush was questioned in the context of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that preserved affirmative action in college admissions by upholding the system of the University of Michigan's law school, which considered race as only one factor in admissions. At the same time, the court ruled that a formulaic racial point system used by Michigan's undergraduate school was unconstitutional. Mr. Bush opposed both policies, calling them thinly disguised quota systems.

Supporters of affirmative action have long said that legacy admissions are effectively affirmative action for whites, and that anyone who opposes affirmative action as special treatment should be intellectually consistent by opposing legacies as well. Mr. Bush appeared to embrace that argument on Friday when he said, in the context of legacies, that there should not be "a special exception for certain people in a system that's supposed to be fair."

Mr. Bush made his comments about legacies at the end of a speech that was coolly received and at one point interrupted by a heckler who shouted, "Shame on you for your lies." The man was removed from the room, and organizers of the conference said that he was not a member of any of the black, Hispanic, Native American or Asian-American journalists' organizations that are taking part in the convention.

Mr. Bush, who delivered a version of his campaign stump speech and did little to tailor his remarks to the group, received mostly tepid applause and was greeted with far less enthusiasm than his Democratic opponent for president, Senator John Kerry, who addressed the convention on Thursday.

========
only 4-5 days after everyone lost interest in this thread, by some miracle, i managed it.

When political discussion is more than rants, attacks, or propaganda life is good.
Gasp, we even talked about issues rather than canidates.

Thanks Pan6467.

i'll resist the urge to give yet another backhanded compliment.

i think the democratic stance on worker's comp and worker's rights are better. they may not be the most efficient ways to get the economy going white-hot, but i know from experience that without the regulations the democrats often promote the average working person will get trodden on. sometimes the republicans advocate the economic equivalent of the "law of the jungle" which might be good in the short-term but really opens the door for employee neglect.

Republicans:
- Promotion of personal responsibility (unfortunately, this is taken too far into the defense of corporations)
- Gun ownership (for the hobbyists and the paranoids)

Democrats:
- Pro-choice
- Gay marriage (for the gays)
- Corporate regulations (unforuntately, this is taken too far into absolving personal responsibility)
- Affirmative Action
- Support for the United Nations
- Progressive taxation

Greens:
- Environment. Obviously.

Libertarians
- Promotion of personal responsibility (but with the same issue with the Republicans)

Anarchists
- The definition of freedom


Negatives equally shared in common by both Republicans and Democrats:
- Campaign tactics
- Both parties are unfortunately led by politicians
- The complete lack of recognition that the U.S. is a good deal responsible for creating the conditions in the Middle East which produce terrorism.

Yes, this is a good thread and glad it has found new life. No need to thank me tho, it was the posters who didn't troll and flame... and even Roachboy found something finally. Was worried for awhile.

I think I must come under the "other" heading (one time in this forum someone posted some survey to tell how far left you were, I was the furthest to the left by about 2 points (out of 10) of the whole board)... I was supposedly futher left than Chairman Mao!

But I support the fact that John Kerry supports the equal right for all adults to marry - I believe that to deny some citizens the legal right to marry (regardless of the religious ceremony of marriage, which is not a matter for the state at all) is an infringement on those citizens human rights. If Kerry becomes president I hope that he will push forward the right for single sex marriages in all states... if any individual state resits they will have to be overcome by legal means - they must be forced to allow their people to be free.

Though it hasn't happened yet, I have much more faith in the Democrats to treat Gay rights as a full-on civil liberties/equal rights issue. We aren't there yet, but I believe the Dems will be leading the way.

Dems: Corporate Responsibility, although they do take it too far sometimes, but it does counteract the extreme of the sometimes view by the Republicans of Pure Classicist Economics, so it allows for both sides to make compromises and come to a bi-partisan conclusion (hopefully).