See how the rich benefit more ? But how does it make it "favoring the rich", he's just cutting it down for everyone, and the rich pay the most taxes ?
What does that have anything to do with rewards ? Or favoring people ? They simply pay more, therefore when there's a taxcut, they get more back because they spend more.
Shhhhh, stop making sense. You realize they stopped being open to reason when your "Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two party's propaganda" posts failed to make an impact...right?
Can't we leave it at the lefts say "Bush is a complete moron" and the right says "Bush is doing a good job?" Really, what will arguing it over the internet do? Not much, unless someone is copying and pasting this thread into an email which is sent to their local senator.
...In fact...
Why don't we all write to our senators about the grievences or kudos we have with them? It will achieve ever so much more than bickering about it here.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 12 2003, 09:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 12 2003, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Nov 12 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Nov 12 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> His tax cuts surely will benefit the rich...I'm sure they're all scrambling at restructuring their reward schemes to take advantage of the dividends.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol. His tax cuts benefit many poor as well. It just so happens that taxes were not cut in any one area. Multiple types of taxes were cut. And of course the rich would get more back in taxes... They pay more. Its simple math there.
As to the rich not liking to part with their money... I just want to give a big DUH! to that. I'm a poor college student and I despise parting with my money. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The rich have different <b>kinds of assets</b>... is it really that hard to understand ? It is not a question of whether my 10% is worth less than a rich persons 10%. That much is sadly all too apparent.
The issue is that the tax on <b>work</b> i.e. me is higher than the tax on things such as dividends (not me)
In other words they have assets(income) that are not taxed whereas I possess no such thing. Therefore I am effectively taxed on all income that I get whereas they are taxed on part of what they get. I really can't make it any more clear than that.
The point about the rich not liking to part with their money is to show a problem with the bush tax idea that suddenly rich people are going to share their money i.e. trickle down economics.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 12 2003, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 12 2003, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let's take this logically mmm k ?
Bush gives a 10% flat tax cut.
Rich people pay 50 k a year.
Average pay 10 k
Poor pay 5 k
(These are just random numbers )
Rich save 5 k Average save 1 k Poor save .5 k
See how the rich benefit more ? But how does it make it "favoring the rich", he's just cutting it down for everyone, and the rich pay the most taxes ?
What does that have anything to do with rewards ? Or favoring people ? They simply pay more, therefore when there's a taxcut, they get more back because they spend more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again... as above, this is not a question of a flat 10% cut. It is a question of the kinds of assets that rich people possess that are _not_ taxed.
I understand very well that my 10% is not their 10% and therefore they will get back proportionately more. I'm fine with that. It's when they find nice loopholes and such to avoid paying taxes. That is the issue.
I don't think you know how much taxes they pay. You leave me bewildered. It sounds like you think they pay a lower percentage of taxes then you do. We have a progressive tax system, which means the rich pay a whole lot of taxes, a much much larger portion than you do.
So what is the big deal ?
By the way, the rich pay almost 1.75-2.5x more than then the average person. They're paying about 40% of their income in income taxes alone. And even more if you're married I believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evis, you are the epitomical archetype of a person who is completely convinced of Bush's inadequacies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't take much to convince me. Bush tries very hard to make sure I'm loaded with ammunition for these kinds of discussions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand what you mean about the values of our country, you could be insinuating that his economic policies are causing the decay of America morally, I'm not quite sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Economic policy is the one issue, his policies towards all kinds of things, including those that relate to moral values, is another set. That is what I meant. I basically was pre-empting the conversation about the slew of problems he has caused, not just economically but socially as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure, he had to increase some bureaucracy based on the whole national security incident, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you like to rephrase your original statement about liking Bush because he's really in it for a smaller and more efficient government? You obviously still like him, so this newfound bureaucracy at home must be acceptable to you now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Big myth eh ? Bush was running on a platform he planned to commit to, unless you can prove me wrong, we had an incident you see, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I guess all of his pre-election lies can just be wiped clean. Gets him off the hook easily enough. I just wonder about all of those lies that should have nothing to do with the war on terror or 9/11. Let's stick to those and avoid all of the military talk.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not going to blame Clinton because he couldn't control it either !<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clinton was the first president in decades to have a budget surplus. That quickly turned 180 degrees the opposite way shortly after Bush came into office. Economics do not lag behind. Economics anticipate what is going to come. This is how the stock market works. They anticipate everything you can possibly imagine. The only time things start to go bad (or really good) is when things do not go as anticipated. Companies get sued if they don't meet what was expected of them, and what they claimed they were going to earn. No one is sitting around wondering what is going to happen. They know, by and large, what the consensus is going to be. The stock market is driven by this anticipation; without it you don't have a stock market at all. The only thing that lags is consumers. They are the weakest link in all of this. So if by economics you mean "average Joe Shmoe consensus" and what he's willing to cough up, then yes... that lags behind. It's because the weakest link really is too ignorant to understand how the economy operates. Since we are consumer-driven, everything you hear revolves around them.
So your economic scenario is actually in reverse; it's not a result of Clinton's actions that caused the recession. Wall Street and everyone else with a buck to make knew that there was a high likelihood that a Republican was going to win the office in 2000. Everyone could tell the election was going to be really close. Everyone understands what a Republican in office is going to mean to the economy. They anticipated this happening, and they accounted for it. In fact they took measures to soften the blow. You do this to hedge your bets. This wasn't something Clinton enacted to cause the recession, it is purely anticipation of what Bush was going to start doing. Tax cuts, military spending, war, yadda yadda. The exact same thing happened when Bush I was in office. Everyone knew that Bush was out the door, so they were anticipating what a Democratic president was going to bring to the table. The economic expansion therefore took place before Clinton took office. It had nothing to do with Bush I doing anything at all; why would a Republican do anything to help the Democrats? Save whatever magic bullet you've got for after November 1992.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perot got...maybe 2% of the popular vote ? You really can't use a candidate with 2% of the vote to push that all it takes is money. If these "evil republican spinmeisters" were running this "puppet" it really wouldn't make sense to run the candidate that you think is a "stupid moron who can't do anything right". I'm sure that this major political party could do better than that, assuming Bush really is stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Check your sources again. Perot got 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. He got close to 20 million votes, including one from me. Bushy got 29 million, and Clinton got 44 million. Perot got more than half as many votes as Bush did. Not bad for a complete outsider, don't you think? Need I say he was a billionaire? The most successful independent candidate ever. It surely wasn't his good looks or his political resume that got him that far.
What you need in a candidate is someone who can deliver a pre-made speech without sounding (too much) like an idiot. Sadly, even Dubya fails at that sometimes. A candidate must be likable, he must have a full head of hair, he must be vibrant and energetic, he must be Christian, he must be a white male, he must be married and preferably with children, he must do as his handlers tell him, and he must have something that his handlers can pull on in case he needs to be yanked. Those are the basic criteria for a party candidate.
I actually don't blame Bush 100%. He is a puppet, and therefore like any messenger he really isn't making the major decisions that are affecting this country. He doesn't write the speeches, he didn't draft the Patriot Act, and he didn't fake the WMD "evidence." I do blame him for his outright lies and his inability to speak coherently without a teleprompter. If you'd like me to start in on the mountain of lies this pathological liar has spun, you'll have to give me a lot of time because it's going to take a while to document them all.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 13 2003, 11:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 13 2003, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, the rich pay almost 1.75-2.5x more than then the average person. They're paying about 40% of their income in income taxes alone. And even more if you're married I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You think the rich pay too much tax? Hah, with the amount of tax-evasion and corporate loop holes they use, you'd be surprised how little they pay.
What the heck are you talking about spidermonkey ?
I never said it was alright for tax evasion, if they're criminals, treat them like criminals, but don't act like all the rich are that way, and we should raise taxes because the federal government doesn't pursue criminals.
That's some pretty faulty reasoning.
Evis, <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you like to rephrase your original statement about liking Bush because he's really in it for a smaller and more efficient government? You obviously still like him, so this newfound bureaucracy at home must be acceptable to you now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said I liked Bush, I never said I disliked Bush. Sure I agree with him more than Gore, and I like him <i>more</i> than Gore. I was disappointed in how he handled some things, but I'm not foolish enough to be duped by the media and slander from people who just want to hammer him. I don't buy into partisan.
The rationale is that Homeland security and all that good stuff is a product of the 9/11 incident, they were created over foreign policies. It wasn't that Bush decided to make some more bureaucracy in order to take care of social things, like welfare and the like.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Economic policy is the one issue, his policies towards all kinds of things, including those that relate to moral values, is another set. That is what I meant. I basically was pre-empting the conversation about the slew of problems he has caused, not just economically but socially as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to hear about this "slew" of things. Although, I'll pre-empt the conversation that I don't believe that the President is responsible for every event that occurs in American legislation. Or social aspects for that matter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton was the first president in decades to have a budget surplus. That quickly turned 180 degrees the opposite way shortly after Bush came into office. Economics do not lag behind. Economics anticipate what is going to come. This is how the stock market works. They anticipate everything you can possibly imagine. The only time things start to go bad (or really good) is when things do not go as anticipated. Companies get sued if they don't meet what was expected of them, and what they claimed they were going to earn. No one is sitting around wondering what is going to happen. They know, by and large, what the consensus is going to be. The stock market is driven by this anticipation; without it you don't have a stock market at all. The only thing that lags is consumers. They are the weakest link in all of this. So if by economics you mean "average Joe Shmoe consensus" and what he's willing to cough up, then yes... that lags behind. It's because the weakest link really is too ignorant to understand how the economy operates. Since we are consumer-driven, everything you hear revolves around them.
So your economic scenario is actually in reverse; it's not a result of Clinton's actions that caused the recession. Wall Street and everyone else with a buck to make knew that there was a high likelihood that a Republican was going to win the office in 2000. Everyone could tell the election was going to be really close. Everyone understands what a Republican in office is going to mean to the economy. They anticipated this happening, and they accounted for it. In fact they took measures to soften the blow. You do this to hedge your bets. This wasn't something Clinton enacted to cause the recession, it is purely anticipation of what Bush was going to start doing. Tax cuts, military spending, war, yadda yadda. The exact same thing happened when Bush I was in office. Everyone knew that Bush was out the door, so they were anticipating what a Democratic president was going to bring to the table. The economic expansion therefore took place before Clinton took office. It had nothing to do with Bush I doing anything at all; why would a Republican do anything to help the Democrats? Save whatever magic bullet you've got for after November 1992.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, until not to long ago Liberals were just going after Bush pretty badly about how we were in a recession, and that he caused it with his policies and so on. Well, my point is that it was the result of the contraction of the economy because of the business cycle, and now, were expanding once again after the recession, then we will peak and then recede. This occurs on a normal basis, regardless of the president. Certain policies can help speed things up or slow them down, but it's not possible to stop them, at least, not in economic history.
So you can talk all you want about the stock market, because as I was skimming through the above quote, I was hardly reading it, because I knew you missed the point. And actually, you point out to me that "it's not a result of Clinton's actions that caused the recession", because I'm glad your so emphatic about what I said earlier that "I'm not going to blame Clinton because he couldn't control it either !". You can't control business cycles, you can push along, or pull them back they will occur. You understand what I mean ? My point is that the recession had nothing to do with policies or the stock market, it's just an avoidable constant that happens in the world of economics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay, I guess all of his pre-election lies can just be wiped clean. Gets him off the hook easily enough. I just wonder about all of those lies that should have nothing to do with the war on terror or 9/11. Let's stick to those and avoid all of the military talk. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, good point...instead of answering my question, requesting proof, you call him a liar. See why party politics are faulty ? You dislike him because he's Republican, or whatever reason you hate him, and that's that. You will be utterly convinced that he's a liar, and if he ever does anything you would probably say that it was a result of Congress or some anomaly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you need in a candidate is someone who can deliver a pre-made speech without sounding (too much) like an idiot. Sadly, even Dubya fails at that sometimes. A candidate must be likable, he must have a full head of hair, he must be vibrant and energetic, he must be Christian, he must be a white male, he must be married and preferably with children, he must do as his handlers tell him, and he must have something that his handlers can pull on in case he needs to be yanked. Those are the basic criteria for a party candidate.
I actually don't blame Bush 100%. He is a puppet, and therefore like any messenger he really isn't making the major decisions that are affecting this country. He doesn't write the speeches, he didn't draft the Patriot Act, and he didn't fake the WMD "evidence." I do blame him for his outright lies and his inability to speak coherently without a teleprompter. If you'd like me to start in on the mountain of lies this pathological liar has spun, you'll have to give me a lot of time because it's going to take a while to document them all<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that you're convinced that all politicians are evil, like they're a certain special breed of people. I don't know, it's just really hard to talk to someone who in my opinion, is a "puppet" to media sources, people with their own agendas, you're more willing to readily listen to what people tell you then search for your own facts. I can tell because you're spouting the same things that every anti-Bush website says, the same thing that radical liberals say. You once again, use his poor ability to speak in front of millions of people against him, as if it's criminal that someone may be nervous, or just be bad when speaking in front of people. Surely, you wouldn't commit such an evil deed.
The truth is that you can never readily believe what you're told, everything is being "spun" from the Liberals and the Conservatives. They both stay in power by convincing you that they're right and the other side is wrong. Can you really believe someone who's only goal is to get your vote ? I'm not saying they're all bad, I believe all of them would like to help America in their own way, and for more than less honest reasons. I mean, that's like easily trusting whatever a used car salesmen says, believing it whole-heartedly, you can't trust everything you hear, look at the car, see how it runs then make your decision.
By the way, I really admire that Clinton tried to reduce the debt, It's important that we try and get the interest lower, because right now we need to trim down spending. Although I may disagree with some things he may have done, he still did good things for this country. I think that Bush and future presidents should start paying off the debt to foreign countries, even though it's only 18% of the debt, it's good to be economically untied to a country.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 12 2003, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 12 2003, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think you know how much taxes they pay. You leave me bewildered. It sounds like you think they pay a lower percentage of taxes then you do. We have a progressive tax system, which means the rich pay a whole lot of taxes, a much much larger portion than you do.
So what is the big deal ?
By the way, the rich pay almost 1.75-2.5x more than then the average person. They're paying about 40% of their income in income taxes alone. And even more if you're married I believe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The big deal is that alot of rich people know how to play the system.
E.g. Want a new SUV ?...hey cool, it's a tax write-off for my business...I mean it is for my business and not for me *wink wink* <a href='http://www.insightman.com/data1/suv_tax.htm' target='_blank'>tax_loop</a>
Hey...lets pay ourselves in dividends..the tax is all but gone *wink wink* ...
Loopholes...loopholes...loopholes. If they're there chances are a rich person has exploited them.
I.E. they pay far less than what they should. I'm not saying all rich people are like this...but it is usually the case.
There are many tax loop holes. If you were to draw a graph of wealth on the x axis and tax % payed on the y axis, u might see an upside down parabola shape <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
There is also no tax on capital gains, where most of the money is used, selling property/shares etc. Also, you can use spend business revenue on 'business things' before you are taxed. All quite legal too.
Well, australia is attempting tax reform to avoid evasion, they introduced capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax etc. But, apparently they want to stop govt spending into pensions, instead it will be compulsary to have superannuation, tax will be cut majorly.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 13 2003, 12:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 13 2003, 12:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, good point...instead of answering my question, requesting proof, you call him a liar. See why party politics are faulty ? You dislike him because he's Republican, or whatever reason you hate him, and that's that. You will be utterly convinced that he's a liar, and if he ever does anything you would probably say that it was a result of Congress or some anomaly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, here's why I despise him (and his administration,) in no particular order:
1. His environmental policies are abhorrent. Slashed the budget for preserving natural resources and the environment and increased the budget for mineral and energy exploitation. He favors reducing restrictions on businesses to emit fewer greenhouse gases. This will make his friends, such as those in the oil refinery sector and fossil-fuel power plants, more profitable. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to reduce greenhouse emissions. They have deleted any reference to global warming in EPA reports on air pollution trends. They sued CA to overturn its law that 10% of cars sold between '03 and '08 be either hybrid or electric vehicles. Fought long and hard to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Censored and suppressed reports dealing with industrial abuses of the environmental laws enacted over the last few decades. Ad nauseum.
2. The Patriot Act. Quietly passed through Congress with zero debate and signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, this act eviscerates the very freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, and what our soldiers today are dying for. Acts of terrorism should never require raping our constitution. I quote Benjamin Franklin for the best response to this horrific act: <i>"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."</i> This is never more fitting than today. Anyone who supports giving up their rights in exchange for supposed security does not deserve their freedoms or their security. Not in this nation. Go to China if you want to live under a repressive regime. <i>"Give me liberty or give me death."</i> The second amendment is the only security I need. I can defend myself against some crazy terrorist cell living in my townhome complex.
3. No Child Left Behind Act. Poorly designed and poorly implemented, this act is doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. The act is a direct violation of the fundamental tenet of separation of church and state. This act provides additional resources to faith-based eductional facilities and organizations. The act removes a state's ability to determine on its own how it should spend its federal funds. This is centralization, the exact opposite of "smaller government, less bureaucracy." The act forces teachers to standardize on their educational approach, something that has never withstood the test of time. The act allows students to move from one school to another, but the funding for those schools does not change. This leads to an imbalance on both sides, reducing one school's ability to cope with the added burden while promoting waste and encouraging poor performance on the other school. Rewarding a school for poor performance by reducing head count but maintaining funding is not a good way to ensure the success of our education system. As a result, states are at their worst financial point since WW2. Many are close to bankruptcy. Many schools have to cut their extra curricular activities.
4. Bush lies about funding health care. In one breath he walks through a children's hospital and says that his job is to make sure the health care systems are funded. Then he proceeds to cut the very budget of the hospital he visited by 15% and proposes to cut an additional 30% out of grants to children's hospitals in 2004.
5. Bush stands in front of workers at an ethanol plant and tells them he supports ethanol. Ethanol is an alternative fuel to gasoline. Gasoline is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels, aka oil. Ethanol is derived from renewable agricultural sources such as corn, grain, and sugar cane. The problem to an oil man like Bush is that ethanol is the competition. So he tells these people that he supports ethanol, that it's important to the ag sector, the economy, the environment, and removing our dependence on foreign oil. Then he proceeds to propose the complete elimination of funding for the bioenergy program that funds the very plant he visited. Say one thing to the people dependent on that funding, then turn around and cut them off completely. Two-faced liar.
6. Bush walks through a new house in Atlanta that was made possible by funds from the HUD Hope VI program. A nice photo op, he talks about how great home ownership is. Thanks the people for their hospitality, and claims it helps Americans to be more secure. Then he proposes in his 2004 budget to phase the Hope VI program out completely. Two-faced liar.
7. Bush walks through Walter Reed Army Hospital and says how comforted he is knowing that the troops who put their lives in harm's way deserve the best care. The very same day the administration announced that it is cutting off access for 164,000 veterans to its health care system. Two-faced liar.
8. Bush visits a Boys and Girls club and claims how wonderfully diverse and loving these people are. He thanks the volunteers for their work and claims what a nice, safe haven it is. Then in his 2002 budget, he proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. When that failed, he tried again in the 2003 budget by proposing to cut their funding by 15%. Two-faced liar.
There's a start. I'd keep going but it's lunch time and I'm hungry. I despise Bush for what he and the administration have done to rape our constitution, rape our public schools, rape our environment, rape our veterans, and rape the social programs that have benefitted so many under-priveledged people. They do not care about the poor and working class. They care only about the rich, the powerful, the elite. That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that.
did anyone mention his new policy on Collage/ University Educaation yet?
<a href='http://www.dancesafe.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Politics&Number=118756&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1' target='_blank'>Info is here</a> [appologies for a link to a forum]
now thats wide open (read designed) to be exploited.
one step closer to keeping the masses uneducated and harmless.
Do you think all the things you listed Evis are new? Nearly every president has lied, cheated, and broken promises, Bush is no worse. You act as if no president before Bush has ever done the things you listed, they all have at one time or another, and I can think of worse presidents then Bush. I don't like allot of the things he does, but I don't hate him and he has done some good things as well. Its just politics as usual in America. Now when we get a president who DOSEN'T do these things that’s when I'll be worried <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Nov 13 2003, 12:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 13 2003, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do you think all the things you listed Evis are new? Nearly every president has lied, cheated, and broken promises, Bush is no worse. You act as if no president before Bush has ever done the things you listed, they all have at one time or another, and I can think of worse presidents then Bush. I don't like allot of the things he does, but I don't hate him and he has done some good things as well. Its just politics as usual in America. Now when we get a president who DOSEN'T do these things that’s when I'll be worried <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When did I claim anyone else was any different, and how do I act like he's the only one? This topic is about George W Bush... not Clinton, not Bush I, not Reagan, and not "all presidents in our history." I merely offered my opinion as to why I hate the man and his administration. Now if you'd like to talk about the difference between Clinton's environmental policy, where he set aside more land for national preserves than any other president in history, then I'd be happy to discuss that... in another thread that you start relating to "Bush vs Clinton" or "which president is the best?" In the meantime, stick to the topic of this thread and its focus on Dubya, and stop using classic deflection moves to avoid discussing Bush's shortcomings. You cannot argue Bush is acceptable because other presidents did the same kinds of things. Bush is not Abraham Lincoln. Bush is not Teddy Roosevelt. Bush is not Dwight Eisenhower.
One can only hope and pray for a president that doesn't do these things. I look forward to nothing else. Worry would not be an emotion I would feel.
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Nov 12 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Nov 12 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Nov 12 2003, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Nov 12 2003, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At least his tax cuts and exonomic views are sound and work. His tax cut doesn't kill the rich because the rich OWN the companys and the companys CREATE THE JOBS!!! Don't give me any BS about helping the rich if you take 95 cents from every dollar over a million for taxes you disincent people. The bad thing is the Iraq war wasn't nescessary yet even if Saddam was evil. I don't really give a damn how he talks so long as he boosts the economy. BTW Economic changes lag several years so thats why the tax cuts didn't work right away. Have some patience and think rationally you democrats <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure the companies create the jobs... in India... China ... God knows where else.
Business ethics = oxymoron.
My former company at the first sign of trouble started laying off long term employees left/right and center. Not because they had no choice, but because it represented an unacceptable dig into the owner's personal profit margin. I.e. they don't give a rats about the annoying little peasants that they grudgingly need to have around from time-to-time.
Sure Bush is not completely responsible for how every company runs...but he oozes the slimey residue of someone in bed with the worst of the worst tax-dodging-loopholing-Enron thieves.
His tax cuts surely will benefit the rich...I'm sure they're all scrambling at restructuring their reward schemes to take advantage of the dividends.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You just proved my point. They laid off when they lost money ergo losing less money means less layoffs. Furthermore if the economy is going up the company will expand and hire more people.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Nov 13 2003, 02:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Nov 13 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You just proved my point. They laid off when they lost money ergo losing less money means less layoffs. Furthermore if the economy is going up the company will expand and hire more people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well companies don't always lay off when they start losing money. Most lay off prior to their bottom line ever reaching that point. The company I work for is a perfect example. We are expected to grow year upon year in both sales and profit. There are certain percentage points we have to meet in order to keep the stockholders "happy." We have laid off over 25 people in IT alone the last two years, which is close to 30% of our workforce. Many more have been laid off or weaned through attrition in other departments. Many friends of mine have been let go and are still unemployed.
Note that we haven't lost a dime the last two years... we've made our numbers and then some. We're still growing, and are more profitable than ever. But that profit doesn't translate into happy employees, more jobs, and an expansion. It translates into better stock returns. The president, the CEO, the VPs, the directors, and the managers own the bulk of the shares. These same people are the ones responsible for cutting employees. They reap the rewards of firing people and putting them through hardships. They don't make their money through salary... that is such a small piece of the pie to them. They bask in their bonus plans, their increased profitablity, their millions of shares, and their new SUVs and sports cars. Meanwhile a woman they fired who was pregnant with twins struggles to find ways to pay for her COBRA insurance to the tune of some $800 a month. The company is still making its money, hand over fist. So are the VIPs. The little guys do not matter in this game.
There is a compassionate and altruistic approach to the problem they could have used. Instead of picking an unrealistic earnings forecast, they should have realized that perhaps a change to their outlook was required. They should have realized that in a struggling economic environment you can't expect to keep growing. But they didn't, because Wall Street would have pounded the stock. Greed takes over. Those million shares the CEO owns at $25 a piece can't be allowed to fall to $20 or $15 or $10. You're talking about one guy losing tens of millions of dollars. They knew if they pushed out a realistic, albeit not aggressive, earnings forecast, they would have gotten slammed... personally via their pocketbooks. The bottom of the food chain is far too easy a target when you're talking about the CEO risking 10 million dollars. Fire a bunch of people so they can maintain their numbers and the CEO can get his yacht. What's 200 people when you can envision yourself cruising through the Bahamas on your 30-footer?
The company I work for is not alone. I guarantee you this same thing happens all across this country. Maybe someone else will chime in with their own experiences. This really is capitalism and greed at its worst. If you don't work for corporate America, it is hard for me to explain it to you. Until it has affected you personally or someone you know personally, you can't understand just how deplorable some people can be when money enters the equation.
The rich do not suffer in an economic downturn. The poor and middle class do. Remember that if you're able to vote next November.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 13 2003, 02:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 13 2003, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now if you'd like to talk about the difference between Clinton's environmental policy, where he set aside more land for national preserves than any other president in history <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Environmental policy, well important is hardly a major issue at the moment, what we need now is a tough president with smart people around him. I don't know why anyone would call Bush a moron, look at the people he has working for him. Bush knows his shortcomings, I have heard him joke about them in some of his speeches, and a man who can joke about himself, and recognize his short comings is a good man, in many respects. The main reason people (Democrats) are so mad at him is because they expected him to be a one term do nothing president and he’s becoming a major figure in history, and as of now has that 2nd term in the bag. God look at the bunch of "morons" running against him, ever watch the daily show, they call the Democratic campaign "Race from the White House" which suits it fine. I would take Bush and his team over these bumbling fools anyday. The economy is on its way back up, and now all the Democrats have to harp about is "he’s not smart" and "this war is bad".
so...? vote for the fall guy with the hidden puppeteers is what your suggesting?
What about this Dean im hearing about? surely theres no possible way he can be technically worse than Bush?
God anything but Bush, do it for the world at large.
doesnt it worry you that hes so blatantly motivated by business connections to the major [i wount say big oil to save myself a lynching from the 'its not oil' parrots] corporations.
I mean, gah, have some freaking pride in what America could be, what the world could be. have some ideals for gods sake.
how can anyone be content with a proven lying tool as leader. *dispare*
I will vote for whomever has the best chance to beat Bush. That's what I did in 2000. You could put up Ron Jeremy and I'd vote for him before Bush. I'm not voting against the human being with the name George W Bush, I'm voting against the administration and regime that installed him in 2000. I personally hope General Wes Clark gets the nod. Graduated first in class from West Point, Master's in Politics and Economics, Rhodes Scholar, fought and wounded in Vietnam, 4-star Army General, NATO Supreme Commander... this is someone we can be proud of and someone who understands the importance of his role. Bush's resume is a disaster in comparison.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> don't know why anyone would call Bush a moron, look at the people he has working for him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't understand. They don't work for Bush. Bush works for them. It's a political party... he doesn't make the laws, he only signs the dotted line or vetos them. He is far too busy making photo ops and public appearances to be concerned about actually running the country. He might be asked for an important opinion every now and then, like "cream or sugar?" or "you want salt on your pretzel?", however the big issues are left to people with brains. Look at his administration, and look at his father's administration, when Bush I was both Vice President and then President. See any similarities? It's not Bush surrounding himself with smart people. It's smart people picking Bush to be their candidate and public figure. There's a reason Cheney gets shuttled underground all the time and we don't hear from him for weeks on end.
You only need to look at his statements... not his speaking skills as an orator, but the words he says... to know Bush is a moron. "They want to control Social Security like it's some kind of federal program!" This guy is almost as dumb as Dan Quayle, and that's saying a lot. He is given lines to say and memorize and yet he fails even at that. Clinton might be a liar and a sex offender, but at least he was a Rhodes Scholar and understood how to operate his VCR. I think even Bush I was at least somewhat intelligent.
I never said Bush was perfect, but with the points listed, I can correct some things, and the rest, I'm not too informed on, however, I would gamble to say they may be true, but they're not malicious at all, I would gamble to say that rarely Presidents are ever purposely malicious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. His environmental policies are abhorrent. Slashed the budget for preserving natural resources and the environment and increased the budget for mineral and energy exploitation. He favors reducing restrictions on businesses to emit fewer greenhouse gases. This will make his friends, such as those in the oil refinery sector and fossil-fuel power plants, more profitable. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to reduce greenhouse emissions. They have deleted any reference to global warming in EPA reports on air pollution trends. They sued CA to overturn its law that 10% of cars sold between '03 and '08 be either hybrid or electric vehicles. Fought long and hard to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Censored and suppressed reports dealing with industrial abuses of the environmental laws enacted over the last few decades. Ad nauseum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not as bad as you make it seem. Define slash, cutting the budget a bit to a die hard liberal will have him scream that it was astronomically cut down so little that they can't even buy a Diet Pepsi.
Also, if you would understand conservative policies, which I don't think you do, he's not <i>outlawing</i> these things, so he's rather neutral either way, but he's leaving it up to the <b>states</b> to make their own decisions about many environmental decisions, he can all be for protecting the environment, but at the <i>same time</i> believe that states should be responsible for that area, like I think they should be, not the federal government.
As to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, he has the public going mad over dependence on foreign oil, gas prices going up, being getting angry, but they think that oil just falls into people's hands ? If you don't want to see it opened up, chances are it wouldn't be needed if people would stop driving their high consumption vehicles all over the place, Liberals and Conservatives alike, you can't get things both ways, and the problem is that people <b>need</b> transportation, hands down. Sometimes you need to sacrifice what you would like for what you need. But surely, if you dislike Bush, you would probably not bother to acknowledge that.
Also, if you're familiar with CHPS, which I don't think you are. It's familiar to the USGBC, who created the LEED System, if you're familar with architecture or engineering. Bush supported further finding research in the positive benefits of the CHPS design, which includes a <b>mandatory</b> set of rules concerning preservation of materials, requiring that certain materials contain a certain amount of recycled goods. Also, it includes such things as acoustic control in school classrooms, proficient daylighting, high energy conservation, renewable resources, and high IAQ in addition to the use of low VOC paints/sealants. That's about as environmental as you can get and buildings are the number one waster of the environment, in terms of resources, space, air quality and energy consumption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The Patriot Act. Quietly passed through Congress with zero debate and signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, this act eviscerates the very freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, and what our soldiers today are dying for. Acts of terrorism should never require raping our constitution. I quote Benjamin Franklin for the best response to this horrific act: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." This is never more fitting than today. Anyone who supports giving up their rights in exchange for supposed security does not deserve their freedoms or their security. Not in this nation. Go to China if you want to live under a repressive regime. "Give me liberty or give me death." The second amendment is the only security I need. I can defend myself against some crazy terrorist cell living in my townhome complex. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe it <i>rapes</i> the constitution.
Let's go over what the Patriot Act is...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Relaxed restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officers about suspected terrorists. -- Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court orders to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. The provision was needed, advocates said, with the advent of cellular and disposable phones. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is debatable, but this is not even explicit in the consitution, right to privacy is viewed as a penumbra under the constitution, an implicit right, according the Griswold v. Connecticut. But how is this "raping" the constitution if it's not even explicit in it ? And simply just a Supreme Court decision, and even that decision didn't provide anything against terrorism, but if you look at the Schenck case, you would have clear and present danger, and therefore this is maybe questionable, but hardly unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Allowing the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really like this one, but it's not unconstitutional, since it applies to non-US citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Allowing law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not unconstitutional, especially with the Schenck case in mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Tripling the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and providing $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, not unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Expanding measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, still constitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Eliminating the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts, but maintaining the statute of limitation on most crimes at five to eight years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not unconstitutional.
And <b>congress</b> passed this, Bush couldn't have done this alone. So tell me... how is he raping the constitution, everything that I found about the Patriot Act of CNN.com is constitutional when I look at it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. No Child Left Behind Act. Poorly designed and poorly implemented, this act is doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. The act is a direct violation of the fundamental tenet of separation of church and state. This act provides additional resources to faith-based eductional facilities and organizations. The act removes a state's ability to determine on its own how it should spend its federal funds. This is centralization, the exact opposite of "smaller government, less bureaucracy." The act forces teachers to standardize on their educational approach, something that has never withstood the test of time. The act allows students to move from one school to another, but the funding for those schools does not change. This leads to an imbalance on both sides, reducing one school's ability to cope with the added burden while promoting waste and encouraging poor performance on the other school. Rewarding a school for poor performance by reducing head count but maintaining funding is not a good way to ensure the success of our education system. As a result, states are at their worst financial point since WW2. Many are close to bankruptcy. Many schools have to cut their extra curricular activities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not only is this not a poor act, it's perfectly fine against your arguments.
Violation of church and state ? Sorry, that's not anywhere in the constitution. Sure, the government can't establish a religion, but I don't think they're doing this. Have you ever heard of the Lemon test ? I don't think you have, it's perfectly fine if it passes the Lemon guidelines.
The notion of making states spend a certain amount on education, like I said, people complain that they don't have enough funding, this is about as nice as the federal government can get when making a state follow legislation on their funding. I don't see the problem, he's compromising some conservative ideals to get something done, we call this bipartisan, not being contradictory.
"The act allows students to move from one school to another, but the funding for those schools does not change. This leads to an imbalance on both sides, reducing one school's ability to cope with the added burden while promoting waste and encouraging poor performance on the other school. Rewarding a school for poor performance by reducing head count but maintaining funding is not a good way to ensure the success of our education system. "
This boggles me a bit, I think you're most likely confused. The point is vouchers, which allocates each child money to go to the school of their choice, therefore, students get the best education they can get because they get to choose the school they want, and the good schools get the appropriate amount of funding because it is based on their students, because they are given money from the vouchers. Now, schools who aren't spending their money on non-wasteful things find themselves in trouble because students are not going to their school because it's not providing a good education. It may be debatable this is bad for some schools, but this is the best for students.
I haven't heard of the other things you've stated, although I'm cynical of their maliciousness, I don't doubt that he may have lied, but I'm not going to assume that he was being hateful, that's just how things are in politics, you may want to do something, but you can't. Same thing happens to Democrats, same things happen to Republicans, it's a shame, but both sides need to do it at a certain point and time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I despise Bush for what he and the administration have done to rape our constitution, rape our public schools, rape our environment, rape our veterans, and rape the social programs that have benefitted so many under-priveledged people. They do not care about the poor and working class. They care only about the rich, the powerful, the elite. That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you're wrong about the constitution, everything I've seen is constitutional.
Wrong about the public schools, it allows students to not be stuck in a dead end school run by terrible administration who poorly uses their funds.
Not entirely correct about the environment, he hasn't taken every measure possible, but is doing what is needed in some cases, and has made efforts to remedy some problems. Although he could do much better, there's no question. But he's far from "raping" the environment, despite what the media and the liberal party would like you to think.
Raping the Veterans ? I don't know the full story. You may be right, but once again, I think it is absolutely foolish to believe he's being malicious, I doubt any politician is purposely malicious regardless of affiliation. It's sad that they're losing their healthcare, but so far you've only presented one or two cases I believe, that's not enough to earn the title of "raping" the veterans. Although, I will not debate that I disagree at first glance about them losing their healthcare, once again, I've hardly heard about that, and don't know the whole story, I will make my decision then.
Raping the poor and under-priveledged ? He simply believes it's the best if the states take care of social programs, or even the community and churches. There's absolutely <i>nothing</i> wrong with that, he doesn't think that people don't need help, quite the opposite, but he believes that <i><b>other people</i></b> are much better at doing it rather than the federal government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bias. Partisan. Party Politics.
That's all I have to say about that, as soon as you draw your conclusions and your opinions along <b>party</b> lines you <b>need</b> to rethink your position. Right now you're just buying into whatever you've been told. It's not that I am intellectually superior, I simply presented the other side to your arguments, the side that you <b>don't hear</b>. That's why party politics are bad, both sides are trying to dupe you into assuming something by presenting <b>half</b> of the story.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Nov 13 2003, 03:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Nov 13 2003, 03:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You just proved my point. They laid off when they lost money ergo losing less money means less layoffs. Furthermore if the economy is going up the company will expand and hire more people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, so the heart of the matter is the economy going up. The best you can conclude from my experience is that maybe some layoffs could have been avoided. However, this is not exactly job <b>creation.</b>
The middle class is the engine of the economy. Look after them and the rich will naturally continually to get richer as the money bubbles up from below. At least this way you're distributing the wealth a little, as opposed to letting it mostly fall in the hands of the elite.
What's wrong with getting out of the Kyoto Protocol? It was not something that was good for the US. It would have hurt US business ( something we do not need at this time ). While at the same time, allowing 3rd world countries to pollute all they want. Why not have them start off right? Aside from that... Some models show it would have had little impact. But time for the real kicker...
Global Warming? Please. It is not proven yet. It is still a theory with MANY holes in it. Want to know facts? The earth goes through periods where it does cool off or warm up. The information used to say that we are experiencing global warming is not complete enough or go far enough back to make that assumption. Not only that, but you have to question WHERE the data came from. Did it come from well populated and more urban areas... Or did it come from rural areas? Did it come from both? Why is this important? Because it is well known that urban areas can affect the temperature. All that asphalt and concrete and cars and smog... They help to heat the area up. But that does not make it a Global problem. Some say that this is the warmest the earth has been in 1,000 years. So here's a question... 1,000 years ago, why was the earth so hot? I have even read reports that tell of satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s that actually indicate slight cooling to no change. Sure... Some areas will heat up. But that does not mean it is a global problem.
Does this mean there is no hole over Antartica? No... It just means we're over reacting to something that could just be in our heads. Heck... In the late 70s and early 80s there were some very severe winters... Guess what? There was a good bit of debate in scientific circles whether or not a new ice age was approaching.
Other than that... I suggest you read Sirus's post again. Once done... Read it again. And again.
Sirus, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act is 100% unconstitutional. Not the first 10 amendments in some cases but you would be amazed at some of the stuff it lets the government do. Before it existed, the police/FBI/CIA required some sort of warrant, which meant evidence, if they wanted to tap your phone line or anything like that. Now they can do it without a single bit of proof. Just by going to a mosque they could tap your phone.
As for the anyone but Bush 2004 - General Wes Clark is one of my two candidate choices. He may be career military but the man is a freaking Rhodes Scholar, and a General. A General! This means he has to have some experience with bureaucracy and dealing with politicians. My other candidate of choice is Fmr. Vermont Gov. Dr. Howard Dean. I have lived in Vermont since I was 6-7. In all of my time here, I have seen more social welfare programs that allow those "down and out" on their luck to live normal lives. the Dr. Dynasaur program basically let those who could not afford Health insurance for their younger children (under 18) to have signifigicantly reduced health care costs. My health insurance used to cost my mother (before I switched to College insurance) about 150-200$...a month. That's because i'm still in the "Prime to be hurt" category. When I was on Dr. Dynasaur, it cost her about 30-50$ a month, despite the fact I was in the one of the "High Risk" categories.
Smokenova, First of all I just gave proof that it isn't 100% unconstitutional, if at all.
It was passed in... 2001 ? It's been 2 years, do you really think our Supreme Court would let it slip by ? Look at the judge who today just got fired for having the Ten Commandments monument at the court, it was taken out and he lost his job. Now tell me, this...rapage of the constitution manages to just go unnoticed ?
Also.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Before it existed, the police/FBI/CIA required some sort of warrant, which meant evidence, if they wanted to tap your phone line or anything like that. Now they can do it without a single bit of proof. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's plenty of probable cause, and there's no case of search and seizure. Technically, the constitution didn't even apply itself to tapping phones because there was no technology at the time. The only real thing you could use would be the right to privacy, which itself is just implicit not explicit, and once again, I bring up the Schenck case, clear and present danger.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 13 2003, 06:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 13 2003, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You only need to look at his statements... not his speaking skills as an orator, but the words he says... to know Bush is a moron. "They want to control Social Security like it's some kind of federal program!" This guy is almost as dumb as Dan Quayle, and that's saying a lot. He is given lines to say and memorize and yet he fails even at that. Clinton might be a liar and a sex offender, but at least he was a Rhodes Scholar and understood how to operate his VCR. I think even Bush I was at least somewhat intelligent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would like to see you get up in public in front of sometimes millions people, all of them hanging on your every word and read a speech off perfectly. I highly doubt you could even do half as good as Bush. You fail to see the human aspect. Not to mention your statements are entirely one sided, I don't love Bush, I disagree with some of the things he does, like his little landing the jet photo op, that was just asking for trouble. You only present one side of the argument, and not a very good one, I have learned that a good 80% of what "Bush bashers" say is complete nonsense, twisted facts, or crap like your little VCR joke. People who think Bush is an idiot have nothing to prove it except his quotes, many of which are mangled on the internet to sound worse then they are. Like I said, you try and do what he does without messing up. Think off all the stupid things you have said before, I know theirs a few <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[ZAPR]The Thing+Nov 11 2003, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([ZAPR]The Thing @ Nov 11 2003, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I thought George W. Bush was a decent President until he started the whole Iraq conflict. His stupidity just makes me sick now, he is losing America some big bucks and with him around i dont think America is gonna go anywhere. Well that's for the ugly and bad part.
Just list what you think about George Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What bland, over said statements.
Bush may not be the greatest, but I still don't think he is too bad. Personally, I would like to see a good libetarian become president, but that will never happen with the way the system is set up.
Talesin, Puhhhhhleeeez. Involved in the Enron stuff? Too bad the whole scandals started under Clinton. Don't even try to place this blame on republicans, Enron did just as much stuff for the democratic party in terms of support as they did republican.
And yes Spidermonkey, we are just all dumb Americans. Gosh I hate to bring this up, but did you forget our country will always be in the best shape of any in the world? Keep hating us, I'm sick of trying to be nice to people who just hold all this anti-american bullcrap.
Commie, you over-do it a little there. There is no "big brother" but things may go there. Once again, I believe we need a libetarian to pull govermental control and govermental programs back.
Dread, it doesn't matter what you say right now, you REALLY had your foot in your mouth with your comment there. I suggest you edit and delete that. I DO take offense to that. I could go off on how I think your left wing stuff with bring this nation to its knees to any country with two rifles and a soda can filled with gasoline, but I don't go that extreme on my comments.
Uranium. You really think he would have? Yea, lets launch 75 tomahawks like Clinton did and hit a toothpaste factory! Yay! How do you honestly think he would have handled it better?
I'll do more later, going out for a nice bowl of haze right now.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 13 2003, 12:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 13 2003, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped?
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reality check time:
1) The 9/11 terrorists had not just flown in from the Middle East. They had been living in America for quite some time. If there were more lurking in the wings ready to die for their cause, bombing their homeland would not have done anything more than steel their resolve.
2) They weren't from Afghanistan, by and large. Most of them were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan only got involved because the Taliban didn't want to turn Osama over on our say-so.
3) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. According to all our intelligence, Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that bombing Afghanistan or "liberating" Iraq had any sort of causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped?
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reality check time:
1) The 9/11 terrorists had not just flown in from the Middle East. They had been living in America for quite some time. If there were more lurking in the wings ready to die for their cause, bombing their homeland would not have done anything more than steel their resolve.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're saying the attacks wouldn't have stopped? Isn't that what I was saying?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) They weren't from Afghanistan, by and large. Most of them were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan only got involved because the Taliban didn't want to turn Osama over on our say-so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say they were from Afghanistan. Terrorists are all over. There isn't a terrorist country, you realize. No target would have been "okay" for bush to attack according to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. According to all our intelligence, Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've already found evidence to justify why we went into Iraq. We may not have found nukes, but we sure as hell found many things they claimed they didn't have and SHOULDN'T have had. And supposing Saddam had donated money to terrorism (not Al-Qaeda, but you know there is more than one organization), do you think he would have kept the evidence around for us to see?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that bombing Afghanistan or "liberating" Iraq had any sort of causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We obliterated their terrorist network. Maybe you will agree with me and maybe you won't (probably won't), but assuming that's true, how can you say stopping terrorists won't have any causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks? You must think we didn't do anything to their network. I'll give you a link for that later if you wish.
I love people who think "leaving terrorists alone" would be the best solution. It's like having an infection, and then saying "leave it alone!" instead of putting iodide on it, killing the bacteria, and starting the healing process. Terrorists are a disease. If they had their way, they would kill all of mankind. Is this what you want? Hopefully not, but if you do, I'm sure they are always recruiting. Otherwise, like a virus, they will grow until they cannot be stopped. I'd rather not be in the situation to say "I told you so" to those that thought leaving terrorists alone was a splendid idea.
<!--QuoteBegin--criminal+Nov 12 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (criminal @ Nov 12 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, Bush did NOT venture all avenues before war.
Basically, the Iraqis were offering any offer before war. They even offered to have US and UN inspected free elections and to destroy whatever biological weapons they had. Bush told him to not pursue any peace deal whatsoever.
So much for him wanting peace :\. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats bullcrap. Every time they wanted to inspect a place, the Iraqi's would delay them. Read Hans Blix reports on their behavior.
By the way, I agree with Othell, keep conspirarcy theories out of here Melatoin, especially ones as absurd as that
And to Eviscator
"If not directly responsible for the negligence, Bush is indirectly responsible purely because the FBI and the CIA ultimately are under his control."
No. Clinton is the one who cut the damned CIA so much that it made them incompenent. Even though Bush wanted to re-fund the CIA (his dad used to be the director afterall) it had to go through all the beaucracy of congress first even before it could have reached his desk, and even then, it would takes months to rehire people of compenent levels.
BY the way, for what Boasian said "So you're basically assuming that it's some kind of corporate conspiracy just because those contract didn't go to companies of countries that didn't participate. But that doesn't really matter because no matter what Bush does people like you will put a negative spin on it."
Comments
Bush gives a 10% flat tax cut.
Rich people pay 50 k a year.
Average pay 10 k
Poor pay 5 k
(These are just random numbers )
Rich save 5 k
Average save 1 k
Poor save .5 k
See how the rich benefit more ? But how does it make it "favoring the rich", he's just cutting it down for everyone, and the rich pay the most taxes ?
What does that have anything to do with rewards ? Or favoring people ? They simply pay more, therefore when there's a taxcut, they get more back because they spend more.
Can't we leave it at the lefts say "Bush is a complete moron" and the right says "Bush is doing a good job?"
Really, what will arguing it over the internet do? Not much, unless someone is copying and pasting this thread into an email which is sent to their local senator.
...In fact...
Why don't we all write to our senators about the grievences or kudos we have with them? It will achieve ever so much more than bickering about it here.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol. His tax cuts benefit many poor as well. It just so happens that taxes were not cut in any one area. Multiple types of taxes were cut. And of course the rich would get more back in taxes... They pay more. Its simple math there.
As to the rich not liking to part with their money... I just want to give a big DUH! to that. I'm a poor college student and I despise parting with my money. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rich have different <b>kinds of assets</b>... is it really that hard to understand ? It is not a question of whether my 10% is worth less than a rich persons 10%. That much is sadly all too apparent.
The issue is that the tax on <b>work</b> i.e. me is higher than the tax on things such as dividends (not me)
In other words they have assets(income) that are not taxed whereas I possess no such thing. Therefore I am effectively taxed on all income that I get whereas they are taxed on part of what they get. I really can't make it any more clear than that.
The point about the rich not liking to part with their money is to show a problem with the bush tax idea that suddenly rich people are going to share their money i.e. trickle down economics.
Bush gives a 10% flat tax cut.
Rich people pay 50 k a year.
Average pay 10 k
Poor pay 5 k
(These are just random numbers )
Rich save 5 k
Average save 1 k
Poor save .5 k
See how the rich benefit more ? But how does it make it "favoring the rich", he's just cutting it down for everyone, and the rich pay the most taxes ?
What does that have anything to do with rewards ? Or favoring people ? They simply pay more, therefore when there's a taxcut, they get more back because they spend more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again... as above, this is not a question of a flat 10% cut. It is a question of the kinds of assets that rich people possess that are _not_ taxed.
I understand very well that my 10% is not their 10% and therefore they will get back proportionately more. I'm fine with that. It's when they find nice loopholes and such to avoid paying taxes. That is the issue.
So what is the big deal ?
By the way, the rich pay almost 1.75-2.5x more than then the average person. They're paying about 40% of their income in income taxes alone. And even more if you're married I believe.
It doesn't take much to convince me. Bush tries very hard to make sure I'm loaded with ammunition for these kinds of discussions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand what you mean about the values of our country, you could be insinuating that his economic policies are causing the decay of America morally, I'm not quite sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Economic policy is the one issue, his policies towards all kinds of things, including those that relate to moral values, is another set. That is what I meant. I basically was pre-empting the conversation about the slew of problems he has caused, not just economically but socially as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure, he had to increase some bureaucracy based on the whole national security incident, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you like to rephrase your original statement about liking Bush because he's really in it for a smaller and more efficient government? You obviously still like him, so this newfound bureaucracy at home must be acceptable to you now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Big myth eh ? Bush was running on a platform he planned to commit to, unless you can prove me wrong, we had an incident you see, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I guess all of his pre-election lies can just be wiped clean. Gets him off the hook easily enough. I just wonder about all of those lies that should have nothing to do with the war on terror or 9/11. Let's stick to those and avoid all of the military talk.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not going to blame Clinton because he couldn't control it either !<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clinton was the first president in decades to have a budget surplus. That quickly turned 180 degrees the opposite way shortly after Bush came into office. Economics do not lag behind. Economics anticipate what is going to come. This is how the stock market works. They anticipate everything you can possibly imagine. The only time things start to go bad (or really good) is when things do not go as anticipated. Companies get sued if they don't meet what was expected of them, and what they claimed they were going to earn. No one is sitting around wondering what is going to happen. They know, by and large, what the consensus is going to be. The stock market is driven by this anticipation; without it you don't have a stock market at all. The only thing that lags is consumers. They are the weakest link in all of this. So if by economics you mean "average Joe Shmoe consensus" and what he's willing to cough up, then yes... that lags behind. It's because the weakest link really is too ignorant to understand how the economy operates. Since we are consumer-driven, everything you hear revolves around them.
So your economic scenario is actually in reverse; it's not a result of Clinton's actions that caused the recession. Wall Street and everyone else with a buck to make knew that there was a high likelihood that a Republican was going to win the office in 2000. Everyone could tell the election was going to be really close. Everyone understands what a Republican in office is going to mean to the economy. They anticipated this happening, and they accounted for it. In fact they took measures to soften the blow. You do this to hedge your bets. This wasn't something Clinton enacted to cause the recession, it is purely anticipation of what Bush was going to start doing. Tax cuts, military spending, war, yadda yadda. The exact same thing happened when Bush I was in office. Everyone knew that Bush was out the door, so they were anticipating what a Democratic president was going to bring to the table. The economic expansion therefore took place before Clinton took office. It had nothing to do with Bush I doing anything at all; why would a Republican do anything to help the Democrats? Save whatever magic bullet you've got for after November 1992.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perot got...maybe 2% of the popular vote ? You really can't use a candidate with 2% of the vote to push that all it takes is money. If these "evil republican spinmeisters" were running this "puppet" it really wouldn't make sense to run the candidate that you think is a "stupid moron who can't do anything right". I'm sure that this major political party could do better than that, assuming Bush really is stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Check your sources again. Perot got 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. He got close to 20 million votes, including one from me. Bushy got 29 million, and Clinton got 44 million. Perot got more than half as many votes as Bush did. Not bad for a complete outsider, don't you think? Need I say he was a billionaire? The most successful independent candidate ever. It surely wasn't his good looks or his political resume that got him that far.
What you need in a candidate is someone who can deliver a pre-made speech without sounding (too much) like an idiot. Sadly, even Dubya fails at that sometimes. A candidate must be likable, he must have a full head of hair, he must be vibrant and energetic, he must be Christian, he must be a white male, he must be married and preferably with children, he must do as his handlers tell him, and he must have something that his handlers can pull on in case he needs to be yanked. Those are the basic criteria for a party candidate.
I actually don't blame Bush 100%. He is a puppet, and therefore like any messenger he really isn't making the major decisions that are affecting this country. He doesn't write the speeches, he didn't draft the Patriot Act, and he didn't fake the WMD "evidence." I do blame him for his outright lies and his inability to speak coherently without a teleprompter. If you'd like me to start in on the mountain of lies this pathological liar has spun, you'll have to give me a lot of time because it's going to take a while to document them all.
You think the rich pay too much tax? Hah, with the amount of tax-evasion and corporate loop holes they use, you'd be surprised how little they pay.
I never said it was alright for tax evasion, if they're criminals, treat them like criminals, but don't act like all the rich are that way, and we should raise taxes because the federal government doesn't pursue criminals.
That's some pretty faulty reasoning.
Evis, <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you like to rephrase your original statement about liking Bush because he's really in it for a smaller and more efficient government? You obviously still like him, so this newfound bureaucracy at home must be acceptable to you now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said I liked Bush, I never said I disliked Bush. Sure I agree with him more than Gore, and I like him <i>more</i> than Gore. I was disappointed in how he handled some things, but I'm not foolish enough to be duped by the media and slander from people who just want to hammer him. I don't buy into partisan.
The rationale is that Homeland security and all that good stuff is a product of the 9/11 incident, they were created over foreign policies. It wasn't that Bush decided to make some more bureaucracy in order to take care of social things, like welfare and the like.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Economic policy is the one issue, his policies towards all kinds of things, including those that relate to moral values, is another set. That is what I meant. I basically was pre-empting the conversation about the slew of problems he has caused, not just economically but socially as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to hear about this "slew" of things. Although, I'll pre-empt the conversation that I don't believe that the President is responsible for every event that occurs in American legislation. Or social aspects for that matter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton was the first president in decades to have a budget surplus. That quickly turned 180 degrees the opposite way shortly after Bush came into office. Economics do not lag behind. Economics anticipate what is going to come. This is how the stock market works. They anticipate everything you can possibly imagine. The only time things start to go bad (or really good) is when things do not go as anticipated. Companies get sued if they don't meet what was expected of them, and what they claimed they were going to earn. No one is sitting around wondering what is going to happen. They know, by and large, what the consensus is going to be. The stock market is driven by this anticipation; without it you don't have a stock market at all. The only thing that lags is consumers. They are the weakest link in all of this. So if by economics you mean "average Joe Shmoe consensus" and what he's willing to cough up, then yes... that lags behind. It's because the weakest link really is too ignorant to understand how the economy operates. Since we are consumer-driven, everything you hear revolves around them.
So your economic scenario is actually in reverse; it's not a result of Clinton's actions that caused the recession. Wall Street and everyone else with a buck to make knew that there was a high likelihood that a Republican was going to win the office in 2000. Everyone could tell the election was going to be really close. Everyone understands what a Republican in office is going to mean to the economy. They anticipated this happening, and they accounted for it. In fact they took measures to soften the blow. You do this to hedge your bets. This wasn't something Clinton enacted to cause the recession, it is purely anticipation of what Bush was going to start doing. Tax cuts, military spending, war, yadda yadda. The exact same thing happened when Bush I was in office. Everyone knew that Bush was out the door, so they were anticipating what a Democratic president was going to bring to the table. The economic expansion therefore took place before Clinton took office. It had nothing to do with Bush I doing anything at all; why would a Republican do anything to help the Democrats? Save whatever magic bullet you've got for after November 1992.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, until not to long ago Liberals were just going after Bush pretty badly about how we were in a recession, and that he caused it with his policies and so on. Well, my point is that it was the result of the contraction of the economy because of the business cycle, and now, were expanding once again after the recession, then we will peak and then recede. This occurs on a normal basis, regardless of the president. Certain policies can help speed things up or slow them down, but it's not possible to stop them, at least, not in economic history.
So you can talk all you want about the stock market, because as I was skimming through the above quote, I was hardly reading it, because I knew you missed the point. And actually, you point out to me that "it's not a result of Clinton's actions that caused the recession", because I'm glad your so emphatic about what I said earlier that "I'm not going to blame Clinton because he couldn't control it either !". You can't control business cycles, you can push along, or pull them back they will occur. You understand what I mean ? My point is that the recession had nothing to do with policies or the stock market, it's just an avoidable constant that happens in the world of economics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay, I guess all of his pre-election lies can just be wiped clean. Gets him off the hook easily enough. I just wonder about all of those lies that should have nothing to do with the war on terror or 9/11. Let's stick to those and avoid all of the military talk.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, good point...instead of answering my question, requesting proof, you call him a liar. See why party politics are faulty ? You dislike him because he's Republican, or whatever reason you hate him, and that's that. You will be utterly convinced that he's a liar, and if he ever does anything you would probably say that it was a result of Congress or some anomaly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you need in a candidate is someone who can deliver a pre-made speech without sounding (too much) like an idiot. Sadly, even Dubya fails at that sometimes. A candidate must be likable, he must have a full head of hair, he must be vibrant and energetic, he must be Christian, he must be a white male, he must be married and preferably with children, he must do as his handlers tell him, and he must have something that his handlers can pull on in case he needs to be yanked. Those are the basic criteria for a party candidate.
I actually don't blame Bush 100%. He is a puppet, and therefore like any messenger he really isn't making the major decisions that are affecting this country. He doesn't write the speeches, he didn't draft the Patriot Act, and he didn't fake the WMD "evidence." I do blame him for his outright lies and his inability to speak coherently without a teleprompter. If you'd like me to start in on the mountain of lies this pathological liar has spun, you'll have to give me a lot of time because it's going to take a while to document them all<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that you're convinced that all politicians are evil, like they're a certain special breed of people. I don't know, it's just really hard to talk to someone who in my opinion, is a "puppet" to media sources, people with their own agendas, you're more willing to readily listen to what people tell you then search for your own facts. I can tell because you're spouting the same things that every anti-Bush website says, the same thing that radical liberals say. You once again, use his poor ability to speak in front of millions of people against him, as if it's criminal that someone may be nervous, or just be bad when speaking in front of people. Surely, you wouldn't commit such an evil deed.
The truth is that you can never readily believe what you're told, everything is being "spun" from the Liberals and the Conservatives. They both stay in power by convincing you that they're right and the other side is wrong. Can you really believe someone who's only goal is to get your vote ? I'm not saying they're all bad, I believe all of them would like to help America in their own way, and for more than less honest reasons. I mean, that's like easily trusting whatever a used car salesmen says, believing it whole-heartedly, you can't trust everything you hear, look at the car, see how it runs then make your decision.
By the way, I really admire that Clinton tried to reduce the debt, It's important that we try and get the interest lower, because right now we need to trim down spending. Although I may disagree with some things he may have done, he still did good things for this country. I think that Bush and future presidents should start paying off the debt to foreign countries, even though it's only 18% of the debt, it's good to be economically untied to a country.
So what is the big deal ?
By the way, the rich pay almost 1.75-2.5x more than then the average person. They're paying about 40% of their income in income taxes alone. And even more if you're married I believe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The big deal is that alot of rich people know how to play the system.
E.g. Want a new SUV ?...hey cool, it's a tax write-off for my business...I mean it is for my business and not for me *wink wink* <a href='http://www.insightman.com/data1/suv_tax.htm' target='_blank'>tax_loop</a>
Hey...lets pay ourselves in dividends..the tax is all but gone *wink wink*
...
Loopholes...loopholes...loopholes. If they're there chances are a rich person has exploited them.
I.E. they pay far less than what they should. I'm not saying all rich people are like this...but it is usually the case.
There is also no tax on capital gains, where most of the money is used, selling property/shares etc. Also, you can use spend business revenue on 'business things' before you are taxed. All quite legal too.
Well, australia is attempting tax reform to avoid evasion, they introduced capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax etc. But, apparently they want to stop govt spending into pensions, instead it will be compulsary to have superannuation, tax will be cut majorly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, here's why I despise him (and his administration,) in no particular order:
1. His environmental policies are abhorrent. Slashed the budget for preserving natural resources and the environment and increased the budget for mineral and energy exploitation. He favors reducing restrictions on businesses to emit fewer greenhouse gases. This will make his friends, such as those in the oil refinery sector and fossil-fuel power plants, more profitable. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to reduce greenhouse emissions. They have deleted any reference to global warming in EPA reports on air pollution trends. They sued CA to overturn its law that 10% of cars sold between '03 and '08 be either hybrid or electric vehicles. Fought long and hard to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Censored and suppressed reports dealing with industrial abuses of the environmental laws enacted over the last few decades. Ad nauseum.
2. The Patriot Act. Quietly passed through Congress with zero debate and signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, this act eviscerates the very freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, and what our soldiers today are dying for. Acts of terrorism should never require raping our constitution. I quote Benjamin Franklin for the best response to this horrific act: <i>"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."</i> This is never more fitting than today. Anyone who supports giving up their rights in exchange for supposed security does not deserve their freedoms or their security. Not in this nation. Go to China if you want to live under a repressive regime. <i>"Give me liberty or give me death."</i> The second amendment is the only security I need. I can defend myself against some crazy terrorist cell living in my townhome complex.
3. No Child Left Behind Act. Poorly designed and poorly implemented, this act is doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. The act is a direct violation of the fundamental tenet of separation of church and state. This act provides additional resources to faith-based eductional facilities and organizations. The act removes a state's ability to determine on its own how it should spend its federal funds. This is centralization, the exact opposite of "smaller government, less bureaucracy." The act forces teachers to standardize on their educational approach, something that has never withstood the test of time. The act allows students to move from one school to another, but the funding for those schools does not change. This leads to an imbalance on both sides, reducing one school's ability to cope with the added burden while promoting waste and encouraging poor performance on the other school. Rewarding a school for poor performance by reducing head count but maintaining funding is not a good way to ensure the success of our education system. As a result, states are at their worst financial point since WW2. Many are close to bankruptcy. Many schools have to cut their extra curricular activities.
4. Bush lies about funding health care. In one breath he walks through a children's hospital and says that his job is to make sure the health care systems are funded. Then he proceeds to cut the very budget of the hospital he visited by 15% and proposes to cut an additional 30% out of grants to children's hospitals in 2004.
5. Bush stands in front of workers at an ethanol plant and tells them he supports ethanol. Ethanol is an alternative fuel to gasoline. Gasoline is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels, aka oil. Ethanol is derived from renewable agricultural sources such as corn, grain, and sugar cane. The problem to an oil man like Bush is that ethanol is the competition. So he tells these people that he supports ethanol, that it's important to the ag sector, the economy, the environment, and removing our dependence on foreign oil. Then he proceeds to propose the complete elimination of funding for the bioenergy program that funds the very plant he visited. Say one thing to the people dependent on that funding, then turn around and cut them off completely. Two-faced liar.
6. Bush walks through a new house in Atlanta that was made possible by funds from the HUD Hope VI program. A nice photo op, he talks about how great home ownership is. Thanks the people for their hospitality, and claims it helps Americans to be more secure. Then he proposes in his 2004 budget to phase the Hope VI program out completely. Two-faced liar.
7. Bush walks through Walter Reed Army Hospital and says how comforted he is knowing that the troops who put their lives in harm's way deserve the best care. The very same day the administration announced that it is cutting off access for 164,000 veterans to its health care system. Two-faced liar.
8. Bush visits a Boys and Girls club and claims how wonderfully diverse and loving these people are. He thanks the volunteers for their work and claims what a nice, safe haven it is. Then in his 2002 budget, he proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. When that failed, he tried again in the 2003 budget by proposing to cut their funding by 15%. Two-faced liar.
There's a start. I'd keep going but it's lunch time and I'm hungry. I despise Bush for what he and the administration have done to rape our constitution, rape our public schools, rape our environment, rape our veterans, and rape the social programs that have benefitted so many under-priveledged people. They do not care about the poor and working class. They care only about the rich, the powerful, the elite. That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that.
<a href='http://www.dancesafe.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Politics&Number=118756&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1' target='_blank'>Info is here</a> [appologies for a link to a forum]
now thats wide open (read designed) to be exploited.
one step closer to keeping the masses uneducated and harmless.
When did I claim anyone else was any different, and how do I act like he's the only one? This topic is about George W Bush... not Clinton, not Bush I, not Reagan, and not "all presidents in our history." I merely offered my opinion as to why I hate the man and his administration. Now if you'd like to talk about the difference between Clinton's environmental policy, where he set aside more land for national preserves than any other president in history, then I'd be happy to discuss that... in another thread that you start relating to "Bush vs Clinton" or "which president is the best?" In the meantime, stick to the topic of this thread and its focus on Dubya, and stop using classic deflection moves to avoid discussing Bush's shortcomings. You cannot argue Bush is acceptable because other presidents did the same kinds of things. Bush is not Abraham Lincoln. Bush is not Teddy Roosevelt. Bush is not Dwight Eisenhower.
One can only hope and pray for a president that doesn't do these things. I look forward to nothing else. Worry would not be an emotion I would feel.
Sure the companies create the jobs... in India... China ... God knows where else.
Business ethics = oxymoron.
My former company at the first sign of trouble started laying off long term employees left/right and center. Not because they had no choice, but because it represented an unacceptable dig into the owner's personal profit margin. I.e. they don't give a rats about the annoying little peasants that they grudgingly need to have around from time-to-time.
Sure Bush is not completely responsible for how every company runs...but he oozes the slimey residue of someone in bed with the worst of the worst tax-dodging-loopholing-Enron thieves.
His tax cuts surely will benefit the rich...I'm sure they're all scrambling at restructuring their reward schemes to take advantage of the dividends.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just proved my point. They laid off when they lost money ergo losing less money means less layoffs. Furthermore if the economy is going up the company will expand and hire more people.
Well companies don't always lay off when they start losing money. Most lay off prior to their bottom line ever reaching that point. The company I work for is a perfect example. We are expected to grow year upon year in both sales and profit. There are certain percentage points we have to meet in order to keep the stockholders "happy." We have laid off over 25 people in IT alone the last two years, which is close to 30% of our workforce. Many more have been laid off or weaned through attrition in other departments. Many friends of mine have been let go and are still unemployed.
Note that we haven't lost a dime the last two years... we've made our numbers and then some. We're still growing, and are more profitable than ever. But that profit doesn't translate into happy employees, more jobs, and an expansion. It translates into better stock returns. The president, the CEO, the VPs, the directors, and the managers own the bulk of the shares. These same people are the ones responsible for cutting employees. They reap the rewards of firing people and putting them through hardships. They don't make their money through salary... that is such a small piece of the pie to them. They bask in their bonus plans, their increased profitablity, their millions of shares, and their new SUVs and sports cars. Meanwhile a woman they fired who was pregnant with twins struggles to find ways to pay for her COBRA insurance to the tune of some $800 a month. The company is still making its money, hand over fist. So are the VIPs. The little guys do not matter in this game.
There is a compassionate and altruistic approach to the problem they could have used. Instead of picking an unrealistic earnings forecast, they should have realized that perhaps a change to their outlook was required. They should have realized that in a struggling economic environment you can't expect to keep growing. But they didn't, because Wall Street would have pounded the stock. Greed takes over. Those million shares the CEO owns at $25 a piece can't be allowed to fall to $20 or $15 or $10. You're talking about one guy losing tens of millions of dollars. They knew if they pushed out a realistic, albeit not aggressive, earnings forecast, they would have gotten slammed... personally via their pocketbooks. The bottom of the food chain is far too easy a target when you're talking about the CEO risking 10 million dollars. Fire a bunch of people so they can maintain their numbers and the CEO can get his yacht. What's 200 people when you can envision yourself cruising through the Bahamas on your 30-footer?
The company I work for is not alone. I guarantee you this same thing happens all across this country. Maybe someone else will chime in with their own experiences. This really is capitalism and greed at its worst. If you don't work for corporate America, it is hard for me to explain it to you. Until it has affected you personally or someone you know personally, you can't understand just how deplorable some people can be when money enters the equation.
The rich do not suffer in an economic downturn. The poor and middle class do. Remember that if you're able to vote next November.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Environmental policy, well important is hardly a major issue at the moment, what we need now is a tough president with smart people around him. I don't know why anyone would call Bush a moron, look at the people he has working for him. Bush knows his shortcomings, I have heard him joke about them in some of his speeches, and a man who can joke about himself, and recognize his short comings is a good man, in many respects. The main reason people (Democrats) are so mad at him is because they expected him to be a one term do nothing president and he’s becoming a major figure in history, and as of now has that 2nd term in the bag. God look at the bunch of "morons" running against him, ever watch the daily show, they call the Democratic campaign "Race from the White House" which suits it fine. I would take Bush and his team over these bumbling fools anyday. The economy is on its way back up, and now all the Democrats have to harp about is "he’s not smart" and "this war is bad".
What about this Dean im hearing about? surely theres no possible way he can be technically worse than Bush?
God anything but Bush, do it for the world at large.
doesnt it worry you that hes so blatantly motivated by business connections to the major [i wount say big oil to save myself a lynching from the 'its not oil' parrots] corporations.
I mean, gah, have some freaking pride in what America could be, what the world could be. have some ideals for gods sake.
how can anyone be content with a proven lying tool as leader.
*dispare*
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> don't know why anyone would call Bush a moron, look at the people he has working for him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't understand. They don't work for Bush. Bush works for them. It's a political party... he doesn't make the laws, he only signs the dotted line or vetos them. He is far too busy making photo ops and public appearances to be concerned about actually running the country. He might be asked for an important opinion every now and then, like "cream or sugar?" or "you want salt on your pretzel?", however the big issues are left to people with brains. Look at his administration, and look at his father's administration, when Bush I was both Vice President and then President. See any similarities? It's not Bush surrounding himself with smart people. It's smart people picking Bush to be their candidate and public figure. There's a reason Cheney gets shuttled underground all the time and we don't hear from him for weeks on end.
You only need to look at his statements... not his speaking skills as an orator, but the words he says... to know Bush is a moron. "They want to control Social Security like it's some kind of federal program!" This guy is almost as dumb as Dan Quayle, and that's saying a lot. He is given lines to say and memorize and yet he fails even at that. Clinton might be a liar and a sex offender, but at least he was a Rhodes Scholar and understood how to operate his VCR. I think even Bush I was at least somewhat intelligent.
Well, idiot is a pretty good word for NOT PLANNING for post war Iraq.
He has no chance of re-election.
But it's Cheney and his neo-con pals that really scare me...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. His environmental policies are abhorrent. Slashed the budget for preserving natural resources and the environment and increased the budget for mineral and energy exploitation. He favors reducing restrictions on businesses to emit fewer greenhouse gases. This will make his friends, such as those in the oil refinery sector and fossil-fuel power plants, more profitable. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to reduce greenhouse emissions. They have deleted any reference to global warming in EPA reports on air pollution trends. They sued CA to overturn its law that 10% of cars sold between '03 and '08 be either hybrid or electric vehicles. Fought long and hard to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Censored and suppressed reports dealing with industrial abuses of the environmental laws enacted over the last few decades. Ad nauseum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not as bad as you make it seem. Define slash, cutting the budget a bit to a die hard liberal will have him scream that it was astronomically cut down so little that they can't even buy a Diet Pepsi.
Also, if you would understand conservative policies, which I don't think you do, he's not <i>outlawing</i> these things, so he's rather neutral either way, but he's leaving it up to the <b>states</b> to make their own decisions about many environmental decisions, he can all be for protecting the environment, but at the <i>same time</i> believe that states should be responsible for that area, like I think they should be, not the federal government.
As to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, he has the public going mad over dependence on foreign oil, gas prices going up, being getting angry, but they think that oil just falls into people's hands ? If you don't want to see it opened up, chances are it wouldn't be needed if people would stop driving their high consumption vehicles all over the place, Liberals and Conservatives alike, you can't get things both ways, and the problem is that people <b>need</b> transportation, hands down. Sometimes you need to sacrifice what you would like for what you need. But surely, if you dislike Bush, you would probably not bother to acknowledge that.
Also, if you're familiar with CHPS, which I don't think you are. It's familiar to the USGBC, who created the LEED System, if you're familar with architecture or engineering. Bush supported further finding research in the positive benefits of the CHPS design, which includes a <b>mandatory</b> set of rules concerning preservation of materials, requiring that certain materials contain a certain amount of recycled goods. Also, it includes such things as acoustic control in school classrooms, proficient daylighting, high energy conservation, renewable resources, and high IAQ in addition to the use of low VOC paints/sealants. That's about as environmental as you can get and buildings are the number one waster of the environment, in terms of resources, space, air quality and energy consumption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The Patriot Act. Quietly passed through Congress with zero debate and signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, this act eviscerates the very freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, and what our soldiers today are dying for. Acts of terrorism should never require raping our constitution. I quote Benjamin Franklin for the best response to this horrific act: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." This is never more fitting than today. Anyone who supports giving up their rights in exchange for supposed security does not deserve their freedoms or their security. Not in this nation. Go to China if you want to live under a repressive regime. "Give me liberty or give me death." The second amendment is the only security I need. I can defend myself against some crazy terrorist cell living in my townhome complex.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe it <i>rapes</i> the constitution.
Let's go over what the Patriot Act is...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Relaxed restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officers about suspected terrorists. -- Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court orders to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. The provision was needed, advocates said, with the advent of cellular and disposable phones.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is debatable, but this is not even explicit in the consitution, right to privacy is viewed as a penumbra under the constitution, an implicit right, according the Griswold v. Connecticut.
But how is this "raping" the constitution if it's not even explicit in it ? And simply just a Supreme Court decision, and even that decision didn't provide anything against terrorism, but if you look at the Schenck case, you would have clear and present danger, and therefore this is maybe questionable, but hardly unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Allowing the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really like this one, but it's not unconstitutional, since it applies to non-US citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Allowing law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not unconstitutional, especially with the Schenck case in mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Tripling the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and providing $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, not unconstitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Expanding measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, still constitutional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-- Eliminating the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts, but maintaining the statute of limitation on most crimes at five to eight years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not unconstitutional.
And <b>congress</b> passed this, Bush couldn't have done this alone. So tell me... how is he raping the constitution, everything that I found about the Patriot Act of CNN.com is constitutional when I look at it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. No Child Left Behind Act. Poorly designed and poorly implemented, this act is doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. The act is a direct violation of the fundamental tenet of separation of church and state. This act provides additional resources to faith-based eductional facilities and organizations. The act removes a state's ability to determine on its own how it should spend its federal funds. This is centralization, the exact opposite of "smaller government, less bureaucracy." The act forces teachers to standardize on their educational approach, something that has never withstood the test of time. The act allows students to move from one school to another, but the funding for those schools does not change. This leads to an imbalance on both sides, reducing one school's ability to cope with the added burden while promoting waste and encouraging poor performance on the other school. Rewarding a school for poor performance by reducing head count but maintaining funding is not a good way to ensure the success of our education system. As a result, states are at their worst financial point since WW2. Many are close to bankruptcy. Many schools have to cut their extra curricular activities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not only is this not a poor act, it's perfectly fine against your arguments.
Violation of church and state ? Sorry, that's not anywhere in the constitution. Sure, the government can't establish a religion, but I don't think they're doing this. Have you ever heard of the Lemon test ? I don't think you have, it's perfectly fine if it passes the Lemon guidelines.
The notion of making states spend a certain amount on education, like I said, people complain that they don't have enough funding, this is about as nice as the federal government can get when making a state follow legislation on their funding. I don't see the problem, he's compromising some conservative ideals to get something done, we call this bipartisan, not being contradictory.
"The act allows students to move from one school to another, but the funding for those schools does not change. This leads to an imbalance on both sides, reducing one school's ability to cope with the added burden while promoting waste and encouraging poor performance on the other school. Rewarding a school for poor performance by reducing head count but maintaining funding is not a good way to ensure the success of our education system. "
This boggles me a bit, I think you're most likely confused. The point is vouchers, which allocates each child money to go to the school of their choice, therefore, students get the best education they can get because they get to choose the school they want, and the good schools get the appropriate amount of funding because it is based on their students, because they are given money from the vouchers. Now, schools who aren't spending their money on non-wasteful things find themselves in trouble because students are not going to their school because it's not providing a good education. It may be debatable this is bad for some schools, but this is the best for students.
I haven't heard of the other things you've stated, although I'm cynical of their maliciousness, I don't doubt that he may have lied, but I'm not going to assume that he was being hateful, that's just how things are in politics, you may want to do something, but you can't. Same thing happens to Democrats, same things happen to Republicans, it's a shame, but both sides need to do it at a certain point and time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I despise Bush for what he and the administration have done to rape our constitution, rape our public schools, rape our environment, rape our veterans, and rape the social programs that have benefitted so many under-priveledged people. They do not care about the poor and working class. They care only about the rich, the powerful, the elite. That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you're wrong about the constitution, everything I've seen is constitutional.
Wrong about the public schools, it allows students to not be stuck in a dead end school run by terrible administration who poorly uses their funds.
Not entirely correct about the environment, he hasn't taken every measure possible, but is doing what is needed in some cases, and has made efforts to remedy some problems. Although he could do much better, there's no question. But he's far from "raping" the environment, despite what the media and the liberal party would like you to think.
Raping the Veterans ? I don't know the full story. You may be right, but once again, I think it is absolutely foolish to believe he's being malicious, I doubt any politician is purposely malicious regardless of affiliation. It's sad that they're losing their healthcare, but so far you've only presented one or two cases I believe, that's not enough to earn the title of "raping" the veterans. Although, I will not debate that I disagree at first glance about them losing their healthcare, once again, I've hardly heard about that, and don't know the whole story, I will make my decision then.
Raping the poor and under-priveledged ? He simply believes it's the best if the states take care of social programs, or even the community and churches. There's absolutely <i>nothing</i> wrong with that, he doesn't think that people don't need help, quite the opposite, but he believes that <i><b>other people</i></b> are much better at doing it rather than the federal government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bias. Partisan. Party Politics.
That's all I have to say about that, as soon as you draw your conclusions and your opinions along <b>party</b> lines you <b>need</b> to rethink your position. Right now you're just buying into whatever you've been told. It's not that I am intellectually superior, I simply presented the other side to your arguments, the side that you <b>don't hear</b>. That's why party politics are bad, both sides are trying to dupe you into assuming something by presenting <b>half</b> of the story.
You just proved my point. They laid off when they lost money ergo losing less money means less layoffs. Furthermore if the economy is going up the company will expand and hire more people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, so the heart of the matter is the economy going up. The best you can conclude from my experience is that maybe some layoffs could have been avoided. However, this is not exactly job <b>creation.</b>
The middle class is the engine of the economy. Look after them and the rich will naturally continually to get richer as the money bubbles up from below. At least this way you're distributing the wealth a little, as opposed to letting it mostly fall in the hands of the elite.
Global Warming? Please. It is not proven yet. It is still a theory with MANY holes in it. Want to know facts? The earth goes through periods where it does cool off or warm up. The information used to say that we are experiencing global warming is not complete enough or go far enough back to make that assumption. Not only that, but you have to question WHERE the data came from. Did it come from well populated and more urban areas... Or did it come from rural areas? Did it come from both? Why is this important? Because it is well known that urban areas can affect the temperature. All that asphalt and concrete and cars and smog... They help to heat the area up. But that does not make it a Global problem. Some say that this is the warmest the earth has been in 1,000 years. So here's a question... 1,000 years ago, why was the earth so hot? I have even read reports that tell of satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s that actually indicate slight cooling to no change. Sure... Some areas will heat up. But that does not mean it is a global problem.
Does this mean there is no hole over Antartica? No... It just means we're over reacting to something that could just be in our heads. Heck... In the late 70s and early 80s there were some very severe winters... Guess what? There was a good bit of debate in scientific circles whether or not a new ice age was approaching.
Other than that... I suggest you read Sirus's post again. Once done... Read it again. And again.
I just read through everything.
Sirus, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act is 100% unconstitutional. Not the first 10 amendments in some cases but you would be amazed at some of the stuff it lets the government do. Before it existed, the police/FBI/CIA required some sort of warrant, which meant evidence, if they wanted to tap your phone line or anything like that. Now they can do it without a single bit of proof. Just by going to a mosque they could tap your phone.
As for the anyone but Bush 2004 - General Wes Clark is one of my two candidate choices. He may be career military but the man is a freaking Rhodes Scholar, and a General. A General! This means he has to have some experience with bureaucracy and dealing with politicians. My other candidate of choice is Fmr. Vermont Gov. Dr. Howard Dean. I have lived in Vermont since I was 6-7. In all of my time here, I have seen more social welfare programs that allow those "down and out" on their luck to live normal lives. the Dr. Dynasaur program basically let those who could not afford Health insurance for their younger children (under 18) to have signifigicantly reduced health care costs. My health insurance used to cost my mother (before I switched to College insurance) about 150-200$...a month. That's because i'm still in the "Prime to be hurt" category. When I was on Dr. Dynasaur, it cost her about 30-50$ a month, despite the fact I was in the one of the "High Risk" categories.
It was passed in... 2001 ? It's been 2 years, do you really think our Supreme Court would let it slip by ? Look at the judge who today just got fired for having the Ten Commandments monument at the court, it was taken out and he lost his job. Now tell me, this...rapage of the constitution manages to just go unnoticed ?
Also.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Before it existed, the police/FBI/CIA required some sort of warrant, which meant evidence, if they wanted to tap your phone line or anything like that. Now they can do it without a single bit of proof. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's plenty of probable cause, and there's no case of search and seizure. Technically, the constitution didn't even apply itself to tapping phones because there was no technology at the time. The only real thing you could use would be the right to privacy, which itself is just implicit not explicit, and once again, I bring up the Schenck case, clear and present danger.
I would like to see you get up in public in front of sometimes millions people, all of them hanging on your every word and read a speech off perfectly. I highly doubt you could even do half as good as Bush. You fail to see the human aspect. Not to mention your statements are entirely one sided, I don't love Bush, I disagree with some of the things he does, like his little landing the jet photo op, that was just asking for trouble. You only present one side of the argument, and not a very good one, I have learned that a good 80% of what "Bush bashers" say is complete nonsense, twisted facts, or crap like your little VCR joke. People who think Bush is an idiot have nothing to prove it except his quotes, many of which are mangled on the internet to sound worse then they are. Like I said, you try and do what he does without messing up. Think off all the stupid things you have said before, I know theirs a few <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just list what you think about George Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What bland, over said statements.
Bush may not be the greatest, but I still don't think he is too bad. Personally, I would like to see a good libetarian become president, but that will never happen with the way the system is set up.
Talesin, Puhhhhhleeeez. Involved in the Enron stuff? Too bad the whole scandals started under Clinton. Don't even try to place this blame on republicans, Enron did just as much stuff for the democratic party in terms of support as they did republican.
And yes Spidermonkey, we are just all dumb Americans. Gosh I hate to bring this up, but did you forget our country will always be in the best shape of any in the world? Keep hating us, I'm sick of trying to be nice to people who just hold all this anti-american bullcrap.
Commie, you over-do it a little there. There is no "big brother" but things may go there. Once again, I believe we need a libetarian to pull govermental control and govermental programs back.
Dread, it doesn't matter what you say right now, you REALLY had your foot in your mouth with your comment there. I suggest you edit and delete that. I DO take offense to that. I could go off on how I think your left wing stuff with bring this nation to its knees to any country with two rifles and a soda can filled with gasoline, but I don't go that extreme on my comments.
Uranium. You really think he would have? Yea, lets launch 75 tomahawks like Clinton did and hit a toothpaste factory! Yay! How do you honestly think he would have handled it better?
I'll do more later, going out for a nice bowl of haze right now.
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reality check time:
1) The 9/11 terrorists had not just flown in from the Middle East. They had been living in America for quite some time. If there were more lurking in the wings ready to die for their cause, bombing their homeland would not have done anything more than steel their resolve.
2) They weren't from Afghanistan, by and large. Most of them were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan only got involved because the Taliban didn't want to turn Osama over on our say-so.
3) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. According to all our intelligence, Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that bombing Afghanistan or "liberating" Iraq had any sort of causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped?
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reality check time:
1) The 9/11 terrorists had not just flown in from the Middle East. They had been living in America for quite some time. If there were more lurking in the wings ready to die for their cause, bombing their homeland would not have done anything more than steel their resolve.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're saying the attacks wouldn't have stopped? Isn't that what I was saying?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) They weren't from Afghanistan, by and large. Most of them were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan only got involved because the Taliban didn't want to turn Osama over on our say-so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say they were from Afghanistan. Terrorists are all over. There isn't a terrorist country, you realize. No target would have been "okay" for bush to attack according to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. According to all our intelligence, Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've already found evidence to justify why we went into Iraq. We may not have found nukes, but we sure as hell found many things they claimed they didn't have and SHOULDN'T have had. And supposing Saddam had donated money to terrorism (not Al-Qaeda, but you know there is more than one organization), do you think he would have kept the evidence around for us to see?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that bombing Afghanistan or "liberating" Iraq had any sort of causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We obliterated their terrorist network. Maybe you will agree with me and maybe you won't (probably won't), but assuming that's true, how can you say stopping terrorists won't have any causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks? You must think we didn't do anything to their network. I'll give you a link for that later if you wish.
I love people who think "leaving terrorists alone" would be the best solution. It's like having an infection, and then saying "leave it alone!" instead of putting iodide on it, killing the bacteria, and starting the healing process. Terrorists are a disease. If they had their way, they would kill all of mankind. Is this what you want? Hopefully not, but if you do, I'm sure they are always recruiting. Otherwise, like a virus, they will grow until they cannot be stopped. I'd rather not be in the situation to say "I told you so" to those that thought leaving terrorists alone was a splendid idea.
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/...ge031105-1.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/...ge031105-1.html</a>
Basically, the Iraqis were offering any offer before war. They even offered to have US and UN inspected free elections and to destroy whatever biological weapons they had. Bush told him to not pursue any peace deal whatsoever.
So much for him wanting peace :\. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats bullcrap. Every time they wanted to inspect a place, the Iraqi's would delay them. Read Hans Blix reports on their behavior.
By the way, I agree with Othell, keep conspirarcy theories out of here Melatoin, especially ones as absurd as that
And to Eviscator
"If not directly responsible for the negligence, Bush is indirectly responsible purely because the FBI and the CIA ultimately are under his control."
No. Clinton is the one who cut the damned CIA so much that it made them incompenent. Even though Bush wanted to re-fund the CIA (his dad used to be the director afterall) it had to go through all the beaucracy of congress first even before it could have reached his desk, and even then, it would takes months to rehire people of compenent levels.
BY the way, for what Boasian said
"So you're basically assuming that it's some kind of corporate conspiracy just because those contract didn't go to companies of countries that didn't participate. But that doesn't really matter because no matter what Bush does people like you will put a negative spin on it."
Agreed.