<span style='color:white'>Related post nuked. Keeping point 1) since it successfully avoids Anti-Feds trolling.</span> 1) No one should ever quit an election because someone asks them. We are a democracy and ANYONE can run if they can get on the ballot. No one, especially those espousing beliefs in said democracy should EVER ask/tell someone else to quit... Such acts go against the entire concept of a democracy.
We should really try to define the federal governments role. Education - no Employment - no Health Care - no Happiness - no
So what is the federal governments role? To protect the union (50 states and all its citizens) from outside threats to our freedoms and our existence as defined in our bill of rights and constitution.
The iraqi war falls into this category, and just because you don't believe that, doesn't change the facts about it.
Bush does alot of things I personally disagree with, the steel tariffs where a huge no no for me. The aids funding in africa, maybe if there is some connection there to our safety that I don't know of. But on the surface, NO! Him signing campaign finance reform, NO!.
But Kerry, is a pure democrat. He will use the federal government to dictate more than Bush ever would dream of. And we pay for more in taxes than what we should now, he will raise them. He will also put the UN in charge of our safety, that was supposed to be our federal governments SOLE job! All this talk of getting france and germany to agree with us is nonsense. Kerry couldn't of talked them into going into iraq, because it was against their interest. With Kerry, when it comes time to do something the world doesn't like in our self interest to preseve our country, will fail. And for those of you that think on some worldy scale and think we have too much power as it is and maybe we should differ more to the UN, you may be right. But we elect officials to our government to look out for us don't we?
Hence, Bush = good (not Reagan mind you, but ALOT closer than Kerry)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And we pay for more in taxes than what we should now, he will raise them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Kerry has pledged to maintain the tax cuts for individuals earning 200k per year and couples who earn less than 400k.
Additionally, Bush's tax cuts aren't all they're cracked up to be for certain segments of the population. I certainly paid out a certain orifice this year, and I'm petty and shallow enough to admit that if there was actually a significant financial interest for me in keeping Bush in office, I'd entertain the idea of voting for him for a moment.
Of course, then I'd think better of it, but never in his four years have I had to worry about that sort of internal conflict. Sure, I'd probably pay the same or slightly more under a Democrat, but I wouldn't have to hear them bragging about my piddly/non-existent relief all the time.
Also, tax cuts and defecit spending are a <b>terrible</b> recipe for taxes. You're simultaneously slashing revenue and expanding the national debt. That isn't some abstract concept, either-- a bit over 20% of your federal taxes go to pay <i>interest</i> on the National Debt.
Interest. Not the debt itself; <i>Interest</i>.
Long term tax relief doesn't really go hand in hand with the sort of defecit spending we've seen these days.
<!--QuoteBegin-IceBaron+Jul 30 2004, 09:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (IceBaron @ Jul 30 2004, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We should really try to define the federal governments role. Education - no Employment - no Health Care - no Happiness - no
So what is the federal governments role? To protect the union (50 states and all its citizens) from outside threats to our freedoms and our existence as defined in our bill of rights and constitution.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Disagree on all four points.
I would have brought up a better example, but why beat around the bush (pun not intended). Your statement sounds like a speech in Germany circa 1930-40s.
The government should protect the citizens from INSIDE and outside threats to freedoms and existence.
It is a proven fact that the government does a terrible job in every single thing it sticks its nose into.
American test scores falling? Throw money at it!
Unemployment increasing? Throw money at it while taking more money from companies that are laying off employees!
Medicare is a disaster? LET'S HAVE A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM!
Americans unhappy? It must be related to one of the other three, so THROW MONEY AT IT!
Wait, are we seeing a pattern here? Yep. All of this destructive pattern has to do with the Left's view of American society. The Elites must Help out the Poor Workers by taking away Important Responsibilities from them. Everyone is Equal because Everyone Works for the Government.
I'm not taking this out of the National Review or any other conservative magazine. That's from the mouth of a very liberal girl that I have known for quite a few years. She admitted it to me one day before our mutual high school careers ended, because she knew that I already knew that about her philosophy. No surprises.
Why Bush? Because Bush believes that everyone can handle Personal Responsibility far more than Kerry does, and that the government can't do many things as good or as fairly as its citizen's and their companies can.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Jul 30 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Jul 30 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> bush, because he doesn't do <a href='http://kerry-04.org/war/shipmates.php' target='_blank'>this.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right, because as I recall, only <b>one</b> man seems to remember seeing W during the later part of Bush's 'service'.
You might also want to take into consideration the words of Kerry's immediate superiors-- I'll try to locate the reviews he was given by them, which were all pretty stellar. Or you might want to hear the testimonials from the men who served with him.
But if you only want to listen to a bunch of GOP military mouthpieces in a vacuum, be my guest. But remember, Bush's camp dug up plenty of military people to slime John McCain as well. Do I detect a trend? (Also, to learn more about these swell guys, you can check some of <a href='http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=swift+boat' target='_blank'>these</a> links out, or you can search <a href='http://www.salon.com' target='_blank'>Salon</a> for 'Swift Boat'. Joe Conason has done some research on them as well).
However, if all it takes are the words of some retired military personel to convince you of someone's incompetence, how do you feel about <a href='http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/index.html' target='_blank'>this</a>?
You know, if someone were to bring the sort of scrutiny and criticism and nitpicking on our troops in Iraq that is currently being leveled on Kerry's service while he was in Viet Nam, the right would <i>lose their minds</i>.
Imagine protesting a soldier's medals, and saying that they weren't rightfully earned in the combat theater, while you sit in the comfort of your own home? Sean Hannity's head would <i>absolutely</i> explode-- right after he pointed out that they served in combat, that a few inches made the difference between a flesh wound and a body bag, and that you were an un-American liberal pinko Commie Traitor scumbag . . . ad infinifum.
Support the troops! Unless it's a few decades later, and they have a different political philosophy than you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><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 taking this out of the National Review or any other conservative magazine. That's from the mouth of a very liberal girl that I have known for quite a few years. She admitted it to me one day before our mutual high school careers ended, because she knew that I already knew that about her philosophy. No surprises. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, so you've definitively extrapolated the left's ethos based on a discussion with a 'very liberal' girl who probably wasn't old enough to vote, had yet to graduate high school, and never worked a full time job? <b>Rock solid</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin-NSPlayer5+Jul 31 2004, 12:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSPlayer5 @ Jul 31 2004, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you trust Bush because he cuts taxes and then overspends? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are all terrible wrong about the relationship between tax cuts and tax revenues.
Reagen cut taxes in the 80s and the same cries of decreasing revenues were heralded. And in the shortrun they were right. But then tax revenues started rising, dramatically. Now why is that? Because when you tax rich people they are less inclined to stay in your country. They will emigrate or blow money on economical-black-hole tax shelters to avoid paying the tax. Furthermore you discourage other well off people from coming to the country. When you cut taxes, the opposite occurs. More rich people come to such tax havens, and most importantly, their hard work is rewarded more. The net result is growth in the economy, and higher tax revenues in the long run. The same argument applies to why I am against corporate taxation, particularly since they make up a small part of total tax revenue, and they are essential for providing jobs.
tl, dr. The 67% and 40% numbers seem to be uncomparable because Bush is the president, and is voting for 300 million people, whereas Kerry might only be voting for or against 'more benches in parks.'
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that this "high school girl" has been working campaigns for around 4 years? Oh, and that she was all AP and college prep classes? Sometimes people forget that high schoolers can and sometimes do think for themselves.
You also took an amazing amount of notice to the fact that I'd already pointed out that I knew what she admitted before she even opened her mouth on the subject. If you listen to what the left wing says, you get the very strong hint that they believe that they can help people more than people can help themselves. No one is doubting their intentions here, it is simply that I will, in all honesty, kill myself before I would let someone tell me that they could give me a crutch and make life "easier for me to handle," as though I'm some small minded peasant that needs the government to survive.
Want to see what happens when the left controls a community? Just check out most of the black Americans, who believe that America owes them something besides oppurtunities not given anywhere else. That mindset is from the handouts and apologies from the left. That's just one community. Imagine a nation like that...oh wait, yeah, my generation is becoming that. Sad, isn't it?
Let me break things down:
Bush = personal responsibility, privatization Kerry = government caretaker, nationization
If your parents never taught you how to use the toilet and just kept changing your diaper, you'd expect that for the rest of your life. Imagine, a nation of people wearing diapers. That's the analogy for socialist ideals, which are something core to modern Liberalism. Keep in mind that liberal ideals weren't always like this, but at some point in the 19th century, those two mindsets became infused.
I don't care if Bush was a party animal or not when he was younger. He's on the "personal responsibility" team, which means he gets my vote.
Bush said that peace is unpatriotic - that's disgusting.
(Ironically in Missouri yesterday he said he supports government leaving individual rights alone and being more removed from direct power - this is the same guy that passed a bill called the 'PATRIOT ACT' which allows the government to do, among other things, violate your privacy rights and hold you without reason.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That should be the end of the story right there. If you take that last sentence into account whenever he talks about homosexual marriage, things start to make sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Take into account that similar things were said about allowing blacks into public schools, even allowing blacks to marry WHITES and you find out what a racist bigot he is, and by extension, what racist bigots everyone is who votes for him in support of that issue.
Seperate but equal, anyone?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We should really try to define the federal governments role. Education - no Employment - no Health Care - no Happiness - no
So what is the federal governments role? To protect the union (50 states and all its citizens) from outside threats to our freedoms and our existence as defined in our bill of rights and constitution.
The iraqi war falls into this category, and just because you don't believe that, doesn't change the facts about it.
Bush does alot of things I personally disagree with, the steel tariffs where a huge no no for me. The aids funding in africa, maybe if there is some connection there to our safety that I don't know of. But on the surface, NO! Him signing campaign finance reform, NO!.
But Kerry, is a pure democrat. He will use the federal government to dictate more than Bush ever would dream of. And we pay for more in taxes than what we should now, he will raise them. He will also put the UN in charge of our safety, that was supposed to be our federal governments SOLE job! All this talk of getting france and germany to agree with us is nonsense. Kerry couldn't of talked them into going into iraq, because it was against their interest. With Kerry, when it comes time to do something the world doesn't like in our self interest to preseve our country, will fail. And for those of you that think on some worldy scale and think we have too much power as it is and maybe we should differ more to the UN, you may be right. But we elect officials to our government to look out for us don't we?
Hence, Bush = good (not Reagan mind you, but ALOT closer than Kerry)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that is rediculous when you consider that even UNDER bush:
1) He was in support of his own 'No Child Left Behind' act which was to overcome the problems in NON-FEDERAL education...
1A) Then completely cut funding on it, making it worthless.
2) The vast majority of senior citizens cannot get affordable healthcare and cannot afford their medicine...
2A) So under the Bush Administration, it becomes illegal to buy drugs from out-of-country since it cuts into big-business profits.
3) The US sees the largest job loss in years....
3A) So Bush offers tax cuts to big business, then decides to allow Working Citizenship to illegal immigrants, DIRECTLY AFTER a required minimum-wage for aliens.
What's similar in these 3 cases? All of them had problems completely OUTSIDE the Bush Administration's power - They had nothing to do with it - and in all 3 cases, Bush intervened and was completely and 100% counterproductive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and that she was all AP and college prep classes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So was I, though I don't recall personifying any political movement on that merit alone. Hell, my AP test scores got me out of two first year college courses-- can I be the bastion of the Green party? Or the Constitution party?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sometimes people forget that high schoolers can and sometimes do think for themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure they can, but I wouldn't consider their experience 'wordly'. Until you've fully supported yourself for at least a year, you're bound to be a bit green and idealistic. Not that it's representative-- but when I think back to my high school worldview . . . *shudder*.
High schoolers are high schoolers. Nothing wrong with that, but there is definitely something to be said for <i>real world</i> experience.
However, your friend does not speak for, nor represent the entire left. You're building a straw man argument based on her conception of what the left represents. Again, someone taking AP/College prep courses is somewhat impressive in High school (you know, puts them in the top 20%), but relatively insignificant in a national debate where most of the respected speakers have their doctorates.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Want to see what happens when the left controls a community? Just check out most of the black Americans, who believe that America owes them something besides oppurtunities not given anywhere else. That mindset is from the handouts and apologies from the left. That's just one community. Imagine a nation like that...oh wait, yeah, my generation is becoming that. Sad, isn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, slavery'll do that to you, I guess. I don't necessarily agree with some of the left's policies in this situation, but the right's notion of 'Well, that was a bummer, wasn't it! No harm, no foul?' is equally appalling.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush = personal responsibility, privatization<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><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 care if Bush was a party animal or not when he was younger. He's on the "personal responsibility" team, which means he gets my vote. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny that Bush had failed to take personal responsibility for most of his failures or actions. Always someone to bail his business out; always someone to smooth things over with the authorities on his behalf; always someone to get him out of Viet Nam. ok, the latter only happened once, but it was certainly par for the course.
Remember when Bush used his political connections to claim emminent domain and seize someone else's rightfully purchased land for the parking lot for his ballpark in Arlington? Seems kinda Communist, to me. Kind of like that guy who represents 'personal responsibility' had a hard time respecting 'personal property'.
Lest you think I'm a far leftist, I'm socially liberal but there are a number of conservative ideas (social security privatization, welfare reform, balanced budgets, smaller, less intrusive government, etc.) that I support. The primary candidate I've been most excited about in the last decade-- John McCain-- is someone who knows something about personal responsibility. Bush doesn't know jack about it.
Quite true, most younger people are a bit more idealistic. However, I was not basing my view of the left from her, I was basing it off of my own observations, which were merely confirmed by her statements.
The right's position is not "No harm, no foul;" it's that I am not going to pay for something that half of the USA did 150 years ago and before. Not going to happen. I will not be punished for someone elses wrongs, nor will I take responsibility for them.
That does not mean that blacks should be left to rot either. They need to be helped back onto their collective feet so that they can move forward and progress.
I was at a business conference this past weekend, and a black singer came in for Saturday night. He was fantastic, name was Whitley Fipps (Last name may be spelled incorrectly). Our business' leader, Jody Victor, is the board that supports Whitley's program, where he mentors children in the Houston area that have parents in prison. Most of the children there are black.
Whitley had a conversation with Mr. Bush recently, with one of the children from the program. The conversation went something like this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whitley: You know, many wealthy people don't give as much to organizations that are run by the communities they serve.
Bush: You know, things were like that in Texas as well, before I came in office there. It's not right that Social Entrepeneurs don't get support they need. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind, the wording is not exact, but you get the jist. Well, anyways, Bush told Whitley afterwords that he wants to arrange a meeting between Whitley and some of the wealthy people he was referring to.
Nah, he'd have to redistribute the land for it to be communist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nah, he'd have to redistribute the land for it to be communist .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In idealized Communism, sure. I'm talking about <i>practical</i> Communism <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ohhh, so you mean a Fascist/Socialist hybrid? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jul 31 2004, 01:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 31 2004, 01:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nah, he'd have to redistribute the land for it to be communist .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In idealized Communism, sure. I'm talking about <i>practical</i> Communism <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ! When did you show back up around these parts?
Regardless,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep in mind, the wording is not exact, but you get the jist. Well, anyways, Bush told Whitley afterwords that he wants to arrange a meeting between Whitley and some of the wealthy people he was referring to.
Were you trying to prove a point? I don't get it. What a politician says and what a politician does are two vastly different things. Bush hasn't done really anything he's said. He's NOT made the world safer - In fact, considering he alienated the US from every one of its allies, I'd daresay he made it more dangerous. He has our military spread so thin we would be hardpressed to respond if a REAL threat (not fabricated lies about weapons of mass destruction - Please, they only found two things: ONE artillery shell full of Sarin (which is not very deadly), and several documents from Saddam's weapon program administrator dude that says specifically that he wants NOTHING TO DO WITH WMDS) showed up.
And frankly, I have not seen any benefit in ANY way whatsoever from Bush's 4th Reich.
We've occupied two Middle Eastern countries, and our allies even now are withdrawing from the battle because of terrorism - TERRORISM WHICH HASN'T STOPPED.
We're still fighting a war Bush said was 'finished' long long ago.
We're sinking billions and BILLIONS of dollars to rebuild a nation that not only hates our guts, but is one of the top 10 oil-producing nations. Now I'm sorry but oil is a horrendously valuable commodity - So where the hell is all this oil going? Obviously it's not going to the US. With a $100 billion price tag on Iraq, I can't imagine it's going there. What gives?
Bush has created laws that are designed to remove our freedoms - the very freedoms he claims they were created to protect. At the same time, these so called laws declared it 'Unpatriotic' to disapprove of the President's actions, they made it 'unpatriotic' to claim that the war is bad, and ultimately that means that if you're not a brainless war-monger, you're a 'dissenter'. This sounds an awful lot like anti-Communist feelings during the Cold War...
Bush has not only failed to stimulate the economy with new jobs, but he has utterly crippled it - As a Conservative, only one thing matters to him - Money - And where do you find money? Big Business. He created massive tax breaks for the rich white male business owners. He 100% supports outsourcing of American jobs to foreign contries - The loss of which jobs also lowers revenue from various taxes. In fact, Bush is so desperate to please the rich white male, he's trying to allow foreigners to ENTER the country and work. Why? Simple. Because they can pay said foreigners less, they can fire their higher-paid AMERICAN workers, and retire rich to a life of luxury on Casey Key in Florida. Yeah, he's doing a GREAT JOB!
Bush has decided that senior citizens don't actually need healthcare - His Medicare reform more or less put a perscription drug monopoly in place - If you're not covered by Medicare, you can only get sub-par drugs. The coverage of such drugs even under Medicare is vague and unclear - What's this mean? It means that Medicare can at any time tell you that they don't feel like giving you your drugs. And the kicker? Even under Medicare they only cover up to 22% of a drug's cost.
Bush claims that for his second term he "wants to be a 'Peace President' and not a 'War President''". Did he just figure out now what a complete ****-up he is? No one forced him into the war - I was fine with Afghanistan, that made sense. But Iraq? Iraq which has cost hundreds of lives? And for what? Nothing. NOTHING AT ALL. Hundreds of Americans lost lives. Limbs. Family. The US has lost billions of dollars. Why? So Jafar Al Hamish the Sheepherder can live only a slightly better life at our expense?
A President is supposed to lead the country to a better tomorrow. That's why we elect them. And what has Bush done?
He's made the country better... ONLY for the rich.
He's made life better... for NON-AMERICANS.
He's expanded our foreign relations... by alienaing all our existing allys and forcing an alliance on a country that despises us.
He's stimulated the economy... but only if you're white, you live in Texas, and your yearly paycheck exceeds 6 digits.
He's improved education... for those that can afford it.
He's improved our healthcare... but only if you're a drug manufacturer.
I cannot see any possible way your Lower-Middle class American has benefit from his Reich in any way.
I'm going to catch hell for saying this, but the people at the top are punished by the government for their success by paying higher taxes. Wait, so I work, become "rich," and now I have to pay exponentially more in taxes? I don't think so. My company is moving out of this country, and I'm hiring damn good tax attorneys to make sure I keep my hard earned money. Isn't the economy all about money anyways?
So, Bush gave tax cuts to the people that bear more influence over the economy. Wait, doesn't that make sense? The middle class buy into the k-12 then college ideal which simply gives most of them the ability to find "a good job." But, wait a second, America's not founded on "good jobs." America is founded on ingenuity, entrepeneurship, not the employee, and thus the natural system does not reward those who work but do not progress. Haha, want to guess why businesses outsource? Because so many Americans are lazy and don't deserve their pay? What a concept!
Coming back from the conference last week, my taxi driver and I got to talking about business in the US, etc. He's from Pakistan, taking night classes to become some sort of real professional in a desirable field, and is saving to bring his fiance here, where she's going to becoming a psychologist, as I recall. It's obvious he is living the American Dream more than most Americans do. Doesn't he therefore deserve more than someone who was just lucky enough to be born here?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(not fabricated lies about weapons of mass destruction - Please, they only found two things: ONE artillery shell full of Sarin (which is not very deadly)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait a second, so who's propaganda have you been sucking down again? Have you been watching too many Moore movies? "Fabricated lies" means he must have intent to say something false. You're accusing him of deliberately deceiving the entire world, when the facts are clear that he acted on the best information available, and that that intelligence came from not only American sources, but the best intelligence sources all over the world.
But wait, might that mean *gasp* there could be WMD's still hidden in Iraq, or, even worse, in a neighboring country? Possibly. Iraq not only had, but also USED chemical/biological weapons in previous engagements with other countries, and even against its own people. Those don't just disappear. And why kick the UN Inspectors out? Why go through all this time and effort? It simply doesn't make sense, which means that there's more to this story that will be left unfinished for some time.
Oh yeah, terrorism won't stop until the idea that holds it together is destroyed. It is the ideas and state of that culture that has caused this brand of Islam. Muslims are amongst the absolute poorest and tightest bound peoples in the world, in general. The reigns on their lives are always intense, through religion and government. They have no hope, and can only what someone else lets them see, which means they are bombarded day and night with a constant stream of propaganda that is religious, racist, hate inspired, bitter, and pathetic.
And you can bet that we're going to get oil from Iraq.
And what is with your obsession with the phrase "white male?" Does the fact that whites are still the majority in America, and the fact that, besides Asians, whites are far more likely to become a business owner, executive, or investor? Ohhh wait, I think that you were trying to make some sort of obscure point there, maybe about Bush not only being partial to the "rich" but also to the "white" and "male." So, you're implying that Bush is not only a corporate ****, but also a racist AND a mysoginist?
Well, take a ticket and get in line, because you and a lot of hippy protestors are saying the same things. Funny you mention "fabricated lies" (isn't that redundant? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) because the whole leftist camp has had a field day making up this same stuff.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wait, so I work, become "rich," and now I have to pay exponentially more in taxes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point here is crude yet bears some consideration--
First, the gross amount may be exponential (especially if you look at two people at the extreme income tax poles), but it's a percentage of your overall earnings, and while the <i>percentage</i> is progressive it certainly isn't exponential.
And second, sure, because you have an exponentially vested interest in America remaining soveriegn and solvent.
If you own a house(s), property, securities, etc., then you stand to lose much, much more than someone who rents and lives life paycheck to paycheck without building any equity or capital if this country were to be invaded, or crumble, or devolve into anarchy.
You're obviously against socialization, which is a fine stance to have, but then why should the average American socialize the security of the upper class investments? And yes, it does work the other way, where the rich pay tax money for services that they probably won't need (public housing, public education, etc), but compared to defense and general government spending it's a fairly small percentage, and it could be argued that it's intended to stabilize the very society in which they are enabled to thrive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, you're implying that Bush is not only a corporate ****, but also a racist AND a mysoginist? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, but someone should remind his campaign that it's a bit condescending to demonstrate how 'compassionate' you are by showing that you can have <a href='http://www.georgewbush.com/News/PhotoAlbum.aspx?gallery=29&page=1' target='_blank'>photo ops with black people</a>
I'll admit, it was <i>a lot</i> funnier before they put the pictures of the Pope in there, because the two pages of the photo album dedicated to 'compassion' were <i>exclusively</i> of black people. Which is a <i>bit</i> of a clumsy way to do it.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Aug 1 2004, 12:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 1 2004, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, Bush gave tax cuts to the people that bear more influence over the economy. Wait, doesn't that make sense? The middle class buy into the k-12 then college ideal which simply gives most of them the ability to find "a good job." But, wait a second, America's not founded on "good jobs." America is founded on ingenuity, entrepeneurship, not the employee, and thus the natural system does not reward those who work but do not progress. Haha, want to guess why businesses outsource? Because so many Americans are lazy and don't deserve their pay? What a concept! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would imagine most businesses outsource for one reason only: <b>It increases profit by hiring cheaper labor</b> Plain and simple.
In most cases it has little to do with needing skills that aren't here in the US already. I mean opening up a call centre in India ? C'mon, like nobody here could fill those positions I'm sure.
You seem to be a suscriber to the notion of "voodoo economics" i.e. look after the rich and they'll make the economy grow right ? Trickle down approach.
The problem here is that those cuts were not necessarily only for business owners, and nothing dictates what they have to spend that money on. Toss them free money and hope that they'll feel inclined to hire new employees ? Thats great but how are those jobs going to be supported in the long run without the necessary spending by the true engine of the economy - the good 'ol middle class - buying services/goods from a company near you.
Doesn't it make more sense to throw money at the middle class and let the spending naturally bubble said money up to the business owner ?
Oh and btw, those of wealth generally seek any tax shelter they can find regardless. It's all about the almighty dollar.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 1 2004, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 1 2004, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He's expanded our foreign relations... by alienaing all our existing allys and forcing an alliance on a country that despises us.
I cannot see any possible way your Lower-Middle class American has benefit from his Reich in any way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I dont think he alienated any of your existing allies. Rather - he sorted the sheep from the goats. France and Germany will only ever do what they think is in THEIR best interest. The same can be said for any nation in the world. They are not your friends, unless your interest serves them also. All Bush has done has exposed the various interests of nations you consider allies.
Australia and the US have very similar interests, and as such Australia will always be a much more committed ally then the French. The French have used the US (NATO really) to provide protection against the Soviets, but now that the Soviets are gone, they honestly dont find that much in common with American interests.
Especially when the cosy kick backs you get from helping Saddam rort the oil for food program are under threat by those dirty Americans peddling their democracy in the desert.
I'd vote for Bush simply because I dont want to see the US revert back to that disgusting narcissim and apathy that was epitomised by Clinton, that the last word in any move to combat was "Will Americans die?" I want the Americans interested in the world around them, and I want them active - I just dont see Kerry making a bold move like I can see Bush doing.
And please - enough of this Reich garbage. Every time you say that I have visions of this dirty, unwashed hippy with long hair, no shoes, a ripped marijuana leaf t-shirt screaming, eyes bulging, that Bush is a facist. You're going to have to go a lot further than the patriot act to back up any claims like that, and its down right inflammatory (spelling ugh) anyway.
Religion should have no place in government because people feel theyve been given the moral authority to act which overrides logical reasoning.
Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again.
The Bush policy has failed at everything. Education, Healthcare, the budget, the Economy, even the War (our soldiers won the war, bush's policy is failed).
Im sure a few other soon to be college grads can take interest in the fact that the average income is $1900.00 less. Not as many job opportunities are available.
If we should decide to have a family, healthcare is getting out of hand which is forcing some state governments to turn to OTHER countries to buy prescription drugs, and simply 44 million americans cant even afford it alltogether.
By the way us tax payers havent even begun to see how much the war is going to cost us just yet. But you will.
Education, well, you take a look at it. Not much to say there.
Tuition is getting even steeper so the average family cant even send their kids to college. Bush can wrap himself up in that 9/11 blanket, but it will only work for so long. I hope people can get out there and participate in our future so a president like this doesnt get elected again. This is truly the crossroads of America's future.
Oh guys, and please stop repeating ads that you see on TV..its sad, and misleading. That goes for posting links of partisan website.
Those that bring thought provoking insight and debate. GJ.
<!--QuoteBegin-JohnnyBlaze+Aug 3 2004, 03:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 3 2004, 03:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Religion should have no place in government because people feel theyve been given the moral authority to act which overrides logical reasoning.
Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely disagree with that first statement. Their reasoning works along a different track to yours, but just because you disagree doesnt mean its not logical. Everyone has a set of moral principles and ethics that they follow - religious or not. You just happen to disagree with the religious morals Bush holds to.
I also fail to see the point of the second statement. Are you commenting on the selfishness of human nature - that one is comfortable with the idea of helping others until some personal sacrifice may result?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 2 2004, 10:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 2 2004, 10:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JohnnyBlaze+Aug 3 2004, 03:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JohnnyBlaze @ Aug 3 2004, 03:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Religion should have no place in government because people feel theyve been given the moral authority to act which overrides logical reasoning.
Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely disagree with that first statement. Their reasoning works along a different track to yours, but just because you disagree doesnt mean its not logical. Everyone has a set of moral principles and ethics that they follow - religious or not. You just happen to disagree with the religious morals Bush holds to.
I also fail to see the point of the second statement. Are you commenting on the selfishness of human nature - that one is comfortable with the idea of helping others until some personal sacrifice may result? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The first statement is meant to be generalized and more in specific with our current administration. It can be as extreme as those jihadists in muslim society or as lightly(relatively) as in using religion to guide the American people.
Secondly, is more of a personal perspective. That on the fundamental basis of the Iraq war, was that we were to be attacked and possession of WMDs our reason for waging war. In which i was all for kicking Iraq's **** for the now "alleged" WMDs and "alleged" participation in 9/11. The administration took America for a ride, how gullible we were, we trusted and had faith that what he said was absolute. Now what is it, to liberate people(WTH is that). Cant even admit that we made a mistake. If someone i knew did that to me personally i would be **** the hell off. Cant say much for other people, they wouldnt care one way or the other, or maybe like being taken on rides.
We can blame the hell out of our intelligence agencies and others. However, it should be noted that EXTREME "mistakes" were made in our case for war. Now, i feel that the adminstration and influence has failed those that have fought and died or been maimed. Also those who are still serving and in which their families are living life without their loved ones. I cannot support nor trust this administration to wage war yet again. The personal perspective of this point is that unless you are willing to sacrifice then why should the next person sacrifice. Ultimately, selfishness would soon tear this country apart rather than unite it.
Comments
1) No one should ever quit an election because someone asks them. We are a democracy and ANYONE can run if they can get on the ballot. No one, especially those espousing beliefs in said democracy should EVER ask/tell someone else to quit... Such acts go against the entire concept of a democracy.
Education - no
Employment - no
Health Care - no
Happiness - no
So what is the federal governments role?
To protect the union (50 states and all its citizens) from outside threats to our freedoms and our existence as defined in our bill of rights and constitution.
The iraqi war falls into this category, and just because you don't believe that, doesn't change the facts about it.
Bush does alot of things I personally disagree with, the steel tariffs where a huge no no for me. The aids funding in africa, maybe if there is some connection there to our safety that I don't know of. But on the surface, NO! Him signing campaign finance reform, NO!.
But Kerry, is a pure democrat. He will use the federal government to dictate more than Bush ever would dream of. And we pay for more in taxes than what we should now, he will raise them. He will also put the UN in charge of our safety, that was supposed to be our federal governments SOLE job! All this talk of getting france and germany to agree with us is nonsense. Kerry couldn't of talked them into going into iraq, because it was against their interest. With Kerry, when it comes time to do something the world doesn't like in our self interest to preseve our country, will fail. And for those of you that think on some worldy scale and think we have too much power as it is and maybe we should differ more to the UN, you may be right. But we elect officials to our government to look out for us don't we?
Hence, Bush = good (not Reagan mind you, but ALOT closer than Kerry)
Actually, Kerry has pledged to maintain the tax cuts for individuals earning 200k per year and couples who earn less than 400k.
Additionally, Bush's tax cuts aren't all they're cracked up to be for certain segments of the population. I certainly paid out a certain orifice this year, and I'm petty and shallow enough to admit that if there was actually a significant financial interest for me in keeping Bush in office, I'd entertain the idea of voting for him for a moment.
Of course, then I'd think better of it, but never in his four years have I had to worry about that sort of internal conflict. Sure, I'd probably pay the same or slightly more under a Democrat, but I wouldn't have to hear them bragging about my piddly/non-existent relief all the time.
Also, tax cuts and defecit spending are a <b>terrible</b> recipe for taxes. You're simultaneously slashing revenue and expanding the national debt. That isn't some abstract concept, either-- a bit over 20% of your federal taxes go to pay <i>interest</i> on the National Debt.
Interest. Not the debt itself; <i>Interest</i>.
Long term tax relief doesn't really go hand in hand with the sort of defecit spending we've seen these days.
Education - no
Employment - no
Health Care - no
Happiness - no
So what is the federal governments role?
To protect the union (50 states and all its citizens) from outside threats to our freedoms and our existence as defined in our bill of rights and constitution.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disagree on all four points.
I would have brought up a better example, but why beat around the bush (pun not intended). Your statement sounds like a speech in Germany circa 1930-40s.
The government should protect the citizens from INSIDE and outside threats to freedoms and existence.
American test scores falling? Throw money at it!
Unemployment increasing? Throw money at it while taking more money from companies that are laying off employees!
Medicare is a disaster? LET'S HAVE A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM!
Americans unhappy? It must be related to one of the other three, so THROW MONEY AT IT!
Wait, are we seeing a pattern here? Yep. All of this destructive pattern has to do with the Left's view of American society. The Elites must Help out the Poor Workers by taking away Important Responsibilities from them. Everyone is Equal because Everyone Works for the Government.
I'm not taking this out of the National Review or any other conservative magazine. That's from the mouth of a very liberal girl that I have known for quite a few years. She admitted it to me one day before our mutual high school careers ended, because she knew that I already knew that about her philosophy. No surprises.
Why Bush? Because Bush believes that everyone can handle Personal Responsibility far more than Kerry does, and that the government can't do many things as good or as fairly as its citizen's and their companies can.
You're right, because as I recall, only <b>one</b> man seems to remember seeing W during the later part of Bush's 'service'.
You might also want to take into consideration the words of Kerry's immediate superiors-- I'll try to locate the reviews he was given by them, which were all pretty stellar. Or you might want to hear the testimonials from the men who served with him.
But if you only want to listen to a bunch of GOP military mouthpieces in a vacuum, be my guest. But remember, Bush's camp dug up plenty of military people to slime John McCain as well. Do I detect a trend? (Also, to learn more about these swell guys, you can check some of <a href='http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=swift+boat' target='_blank'>these</a> links out, or you can search <a href='http://www.salon.com' target='_blank'>Salon</a> for 'Swift Boat'. Joe Conason has done some research on them as well).
However, if all it takes are the words of some retired military personel to convince you of someone's incompetence, how do you feel about <a href='http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/index.html' target='_blank'>this</a>?
You know, if someone were to bring the sort of scrutiny and criticism and nitpicking on our troops in Iraq that is currently being leveled on Kerry's service while he was in Viet Nam, the right would <i>lose their minds</i>.
Imagine protesting a soldier's medals, and saying that they weren't rightfully earned in the combat theater, while you sit in the comfort of your own home? Sean Hannity's head would <i>absolutely</i> explode-- right after he pointed out that they served in combat, that a few inches made the difference between a flesh wound and a body bag, and that you were an un-American liberal pinko Commie Traitor scumbag . . . ad infinifum.
Support the troops! Unless it's a few decades later, and they have a different political philosophy than you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><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 taking this out of the National Review or any other conservative magazine. That's from the mouth of a very liberal girl that I have known for quite a few years. She admitted it to me one day before our mutual high school careers ended, because she knew that I already knew that about her philosophy. No surprises. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, so you've definitively extrapolated the left's ethos based on a discussion with a 'very liberal' girl who probably wasn't old enough to vote, had yet to graduate high school, and never worked a full time job? <b>Rock solid</b>.
You are all terrible wrong about the relationship between tax cuts and tax revenues.
Reagen cut taxes in the 80s and the same cries of decreasing revenues were heralded. And in the shortrun they were right. But then tax revenues started rising, dramatically. Now why is that?
Because when you tax rich people they are less inclined to stay in your country. They will emigrate or blow money on economical-black-hole tax shelters to avoid paying the tax. Furthermore you discourage other well off people from coming to the country.
When you cut taxes, the opposite occurs. More rich people come to such tax havens, and most importantly, their hard work is rewarded more. The net result is growth in the economy, and higher tax revenues in the long run.
The same argument applies to why I am against corporate taxation, particularly since they make up a small part of total tax revenue, and they are essential for providing jobs.
You also took an amazing amount of notice to the fact that I'd already pointed out that I knew what she admitted before she even opened her mouth on the subject. If you listen to what the left wing says, you get the very strong hint that they believe that they can help people more than people can help themselves. No one is doubting their intentions here, it is simply that I will, in all honesty, kill myself before I would let someone tell me that they could give me a crutch and make life "easier for me to handle," as though I'm some small minded peasant that needs the government to survive.
Want to see what happens when the left controls a community? Just check out most of the black Americans, who believe that America owes them something besides oppurtunities not given anywhere else. That mindset is from the handouts and apologies from the left. That's just one community. Imagine a nation like that...oh wait, yeah, my generation is becoming that. Sad, isn't it?
Let me break things down:
Bush = personal responsibility, privatization
Kerry = government caretaker, nationization
If your parents never taught you how to use the toilet and just kept changing your diaper, you'd expect that for the rest of your life. Imagine, a nation of people wearing diapers. That's the analogy for socialist ideals, which are something core to modern Liberalism. Keep in mind that liberal ideals weren't always like this, but at some point in the 19th century, those two mindsets became infused.
I don't care if Bush was a party animal or not when he was younger. He's on the "personal responsibility" team, which means he gets my vote.
(Ironically in Missouri yesterday he said he supports government leaving individual rights alone and being more removed from direct power - this is the same guy that passed a bill called the 'PATRIOT ACT' which allows the government to do, among other things, violate your privacy rights and hold you without reason.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That should be the end of the story right there. If you take that last sentence into account whenever he talks about homosexual marriage, things start to make sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take into account that similar things were said about allowing blacks into public schools, even allowing blacks to marry WHITES and you find out what a racist bigot he is, and by extension, what racist bigots everyone is who votes for him in support of that issue.
Seperate but equal, anyone?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We should really try to define the federal governments role.
Education - no
Employment - no
Health Care - no
Happiness - no
So what is the federal governments role?
To protect the union (50 states and all its citizens) from outside threats to our freedoms and our existence as defined in our bill of rights and constitution.
The iraqi war falls into this category, and just because you don't believe that, doesn't change the facts about it.
Bush does alot of things I personally disagree with, the steel tariffs where a huge no no for me. The aids funding in africa, maybe if there is some connection there to our safety that I don't know of. But on the surface, NO! Him signing campaign finance reform, NO!.
But Kerry, is a pure democrat. He will use the federal government to dictate more than Bush ever would dream of. And we pay for more in taxes than what we should now, he will raise them. He will also put the UN in charge of our safety, that was supposed to be our federal governments SOLE job! All this talk of getting france and germany to agree with us is nonsense. Kerry couldn't of talked them into going into iraq, because it was against their interest. With Kerry, when it comes time to do something the world doesn't like in our self interest to preseve our country, will fail. And for those of you that think on some worldy scale and think we have too much power as it is and maybe we should differ more to the UN, you may be right. But we elect officials to our government to look out for us don't we?
Hence, Bush = good (not Reagan mind you, but ALOT closer than Kerry)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that is rediculous when you consider that even UNDER bush:
1) He was in support of his own 'No Child Left Behind' act which was to overcome the problems in NON-FEDERAL education...
1A) Then completely cut funding on it, making it worthless.
2) The vast majority of senior citizens cannot get affordable healthcare and cannot afford their medicine...
2A) So under the Bush Administration, it becomes illegal to buy drugs from out-of-country since it cuts into big-business profits.
3) The US sees the largest job loss in years....
3A) So Bush offers tax cuts to big business, then decides to allow Working Citizenship to illegal immigrants, DIRECTLY AFTER a required minimum-wage for aliens.
What's similar in these 3 cases? All of them had problems completely OUTSIDE the Bush Administration's power - They had nothing to do with it - and in all 3 cases, Bush intervened and was completely and 100% counterproductive.
So was I, though I don't recall personifying any political movement on that merit alone. Hell, my AP test scores got me out of two first year college courses-- can I be the bastion of the Green party? Or the Constitution party?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sometimes people forget that high schoolers can and sometimes do think for themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure they can, but I wouldn't consider their experience 'wordly'. Until you've fully supported yourself for at least a year, you're bound to be a bit green and idealistic. Not that it's representative-- but when I think back to my high school worldview . . . *shudder*.
High schoolers are high schoolers. Nothing wrong with that, but there is definitely something to be said for <i>real world</i> experience.
However, your friend does not speak for, nor represent the entire left. You're building a straw man argument based on her conception of what the left represents. Again, someone taking AP/College prep courses is somewhat impressive in High school (you know, puts them in the top 20%), but relatively insignificant in a national debate where most of the respected speakers have their doctorates.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Want to see what happens when the left controls a community? Just check out most of the black Americans, who believe that America owes them something besides oppurtunities not given anywhere else. That mindset is from the handouts and apologies from the left. That's just one community. Imagine a nation like that...oh wait, yeah, my generation is becoming that. Sad, isn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, slavery'll do that to you, I guess. I don't necessarily agree with some of the left's policies in this situation, but the right's notion of 'Well, that was a bummer, wasn't it! No harm, no foul?' is equally appalling.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Bush = personal responsibility, privatization<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><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 care if Bush was a party animal or not when he was younger. He's on the "personal responsibility" team, which means he gets my vote. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny that Bush had failed to take personal responsibility for most of his failures or actions. Always someone to bail his business out; always someone to smooth things over with the authorities on his behalf; always someone to get him out of Viet Nam. ok, the latter only happened once, but it was certainly par for the course.
Remember when Bush used his political connections to claim emminent domain and seize someone else's rightfully purchased land for the parking lot for his ballpark in Arlington? Seems kinda Communist, to me. Kind of like that guy who represents 'personal responsibility' had a hard time respecting 'personal property'.
Lest you think I'm a far leftist, I'm socially liberal but there are a number of conservative ideas (social security privatization, welfare reform, balanced budgets, smaller, less intrusive government, etc.) that I support. The primary candidate I've been most excited about in the last decade-- John McCain-- is someone who knows something about personal responsibility. Bush doesn't know jack about it.
The right's position is not "No harm, no foul;" it's that I am not going to pay for something that half of the USA did 150 years ago and before. Not going to happen. I will not be punished for someone elses wrongs, nor will I take responsibility for them.
That does not mean that blacks should be left to rot either. They need to be helped back onto their collective feet so that they can move forward and progress.
I was at a business conference this past weekend, and a black singer came in for Saturday night. He was fantastic, name was Whitley Fipps (Last name may be spelled incorrectly). Our business' leader, Jody Victor, is the board that supports Whitley's program, where he mentors children in the Houston area that have parents in prison. Most of the children there are black.
Whitley had a conversation with Mr. Bush recently, with one of the children from the program. The conversation went something like this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whitley: You know, many wealthy people don't give as much to organizations that are run by the communities they serve.
Bush: You know, things were like that in Texas as well, before I came in office there. It's not right that Social Entrepeneurs don't get support they need. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind, the wording is not exact, but you get the jist. Well, anyways, Bush told Whitley afterwords that he wants to arrange a meeting between Whitley and some of the wealthy people he was referring to.
^^ GG, EEK!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seems kinda Communist<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, he'd have to redistribute the land for it to be communist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
In idealized Communism, sure. I'm talking about <i>practical</i> Communism <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
enough said.
In idealized Communism, sure. I'm talking about <i>practical</i> Communism <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
! When did you show back up around these parts?
Regardless,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep in mind, the wording is not exact, but you get the jist. Well, anyways, Bush told Whitley afterwords that he wants to arrange a meeting between Whitley and some of the wealthy people he was referring to.
^^ GG, EEK!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were you trying to prove a point? I don't get it. What a politician says and what a politician does are two vastly different things. Bush hasn't done really anything he's said. He's NOT made the world safer - In fact, considering he alienated the US from every one of its allies, I'd daresay he made it more dangerous. He has our military spread so thin we would be hardpressed to respond if a REAL threat (not fabricated lies about weapons of mass destruction - Please, they only found two things: ONE artillery shell full of Sarin (which is not very deadly), and several documents from Saddam's weapon program administrator dude that says specifically that he wants NOTHING TO DO WITH WMDS) showed up.
And frankly, I have not seen any benefit in ANY way whatsoever from Bush's 4th Reich.
We've occupied two Middle Eastern countries, and our allies even now are withdrawing from the battle because of terrorism - TERRORISM WHICH HASN'T STOPPED.
We're still fighting a war Bush said was 'finished' long long ago.
We're sinking billions and BILLIONS of dollars to rebuild a nation that not only hates our guts, but is one of the top 10 oil-producing nations. Now I'm sorry but oil is a horrendously valuable commodity - So where the hell is all this oil going? Obviously it's not going to the US. With a $100 billion price tag on Iraq, I can't imagine it's going there. What gives?
Bush has created laws that are designed to remove our freedoms - the very freedoms he claims they were created to protect. At the same time, these so called laws declared it 'Unpatriotic' to disapprove of the President's actions, they made it 'unpatriotic' to claim that the war is bad, and ultimately that means that if you're not a brainless war-monger, you're a 'dissenter'. This sounds an awful lot like anti-Communist feelings during the Cold War...
Bush has not only failed to stimulate the economy with new jobs, but he has utterly crippled it - As a Conservative, only one thing matters to him - Money - And where do you find money? Big Business. He created massive tax breaks for the rich white male business owners. He 100% supports outsourcing of American jobs to foreign contries - The loss of which jobs also lowers revenue from various taxes. In fact, Bush is so desperate to please the rich white male, he's trying to allow foreigners to ENTER the country and work. Why? Simple. Because they can pay said foreigners less, they can fire their higher-paid AMERICAN workers, and retire rich to a life of luxury on Casey Key in Florida. Yeah, he's doing a GREAT JOB!
Bush has decided that senior citizens don't actually need healthcare - His Medicare reform more or less put a perscription drug monopoly in place - If you're not covered by Medicare, you can only get sub-par drugs. The coverage of such drugs even under Medicare is vague and unclear - What's this mean? It means that Medicare can at any time tell you that they don't feel like giving you your drugs. And the kicker? Even under Medicare they only cover up to 22% of a drug's cost.
Bush claims that for his second term he "wants to be a 'Peace President' and not a 'War President''". Did he just figure out now what a complete ****-up he is? No one forced him into the war - I was fine with Afghanistan, that made sense. But Iraq? Iraq which has cost hundreds of lives? And for what? Nothing. NOTHING AT ALL. Hundreds of Americans lost lives. Limbs. Family. The US has lost billions of dollars. Why? So Jafar Al Hamish the Sheepherder can live only a slightly better life at our expense?
A President is supposed to lead the country to a better tomorrow. That's why we elect them. And what has Bush done?
He's made the country better... ONLY for the rich.
He's made life better... for NON-AMERICANS.
He's expanded our foreign relations... by alienaing all our existing allys and forcing an alliance on a country that despises us.
He's stimulated the economy... but only if you're white, you live in Texas, and your yearly paycheck exceeds 6 digits.
He's improved education... for those that can afford it.
He's improved our healthcare... but only if you're a drug manufacturer.
I cannot see any possible way your Lower-Middle class American has benefit from his Reich in any way.
So, Bush gave tax cuts to the people that bear more influence over the economy. Wait, doesn't that make sense? The middle class buy into the k-12 then college ideal which simply gives most of them the ability to find "a good job." But, wait a second, America's not founded on "good jobs." America is founded on ingenuity, entrepeneurship, not the employee, and thus the natural system does not reward those who work but do not progress. Haha, want to guess why businesses outsource? Because so many Americans are lazy and don't deserve their pay? What a concept!
Coming back from the conference last week, my taxi driver and I got to talking about business in the US, etc. He's from Pakistan, taking night classes to become some sort of real professional in a desirable field, and is saving to bring his fiance here, where she's going to becoming a psychologist, as I recall. It's obvious he is living the American Dream more than most Americans do. Doesn't he therefore deserve more than someone who was just lucky enough to be born here?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(not fabricated lies about weapons of mass destruction - Please, they only found two things: ONE artillery shell full of Sarin (which is not very deadly)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait a second, so who's propaganda have you been sucking down again? Have you been watching too many Moore movies? "Fabricated lies" means he must have intent to say something false. You're accusing him of deliberately deceiving the entire world, when the facts are clear that he acted on the best information available, and that that intelligence came from not only American sources, but the best intelligence sources all over the world.
But wait, might that mean *gasp* there could be WMD's still hidden in Iraq, or, even worse, in a neighboring country? Possibly. Iraq not only had, but also USED chemical/biological weapons in previous engagements with other countries, and even against its own people. Those don't just disappear. And why kick the UN Inspectors out? Why go through all this time and effort? It simply doesn't make sense, which means that there's more to this story that will be left unfinished for some time.
Oh yeah, terrorism won't stop until the idea that holds it together is destroyed. It is the ideas and state of that culture that has caused this brand of Islam. Muslims are amongst the absolute poorest and tightest bound peoples in the world, in general. The reigns on their lives are always intense, through religion and government. They have no hope, and can only what someone else lets them see, which means they are bombarded day and night with a constant stream of propaganda that is religious, racist, hate inspired, bitter, and pathetic.
And you can bet that we're going to get oil from Iraq.
And what is with your obsession with the phrase "white male?" Does the fact that whites are still the majority in America, and the fact that, besides Asians, whites are far more likely to become a business owner, executive, or investor? Ohhh wait, I think that you were trying to make some sort of obscure point there, maybe about Bush not only being partial to the "rich" but also to the "white" and "male." So, you're implying that Bush is not only a corporate ****, but also a racist AND a mysoginist?
Well, take a ticket and get in line, because you and a lot of hippy protestors are saying the same things. Funny you mention "fabricated lies" (isn't that redundant? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) because the whole leftist camp has had a field day making up this same stuff.
My point here is crude yet bears some consideration--
First, the gross amount may be exponential (especially if you look at two people at the extreme income tax poles), but it's a percentage of your overall earnings, and while the <i>percentage</i> is progressive it certainly isn't exponential.
And second, sure, because you have an exponentially vested interest in America remaining soveriegn and solvent.
If you own a house(s), property, securities, etc., then you stand to lose much, much more than someone who rents and lives life paycheck to paycheck without building any equity or capital if this country were to be invaded, or crumble, or devolve into anarchy.
You're obviously against socialization, which is a fine stance to have, but then why should the average American socialize the security of the upper class investments? And yes, it does work the other way, where the rich pay tax money for services that they probably won't need (public housing, public education, etc), but compared to defense and general government spending it's a fairly small percentage, and it could be argued that it's intended to stabilize the very society in which they are enabled to thrive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, you're implying that Bush is not only a corporate ****, but also a racist AND a mysoginist?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, but someone should remind his campaign that it's a bit condescending to demonstrate how 'compassionate' you are by showing that you can have <a href='http://www.georgewbush.com/News/PhotoAlbum.aspx?gallery=29&page=1' target='_blank'>photo ops with black people</a>
I'll admit, it was <i>a lot</i> funnier before they put the pictures of the Pope in there, because the two pages of the photo album dedicated to 'compassion' were <i>exclusively</i> of black people. Which is a <i>bit</i> of a clumsy way to do it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would imagine most businesses outsource for one reason only:
<b>It increases profit by hiring cheaper labor</b> Plain and simple.
In most cases it has little to do with needing skills that aren't here in the US already. I mean opening up a call centre in India ? C'mon, like nobody here could fill those positions I'm sure.
You seem to be a suscriber to the notion of "voodoo economics" i.e. look after the rich and they'll make the economy grow right ? Trickle down approach.
The problem here is that those cuts were not necessarily only for business owners, and nothing dictates what they have to spend that money on. Toss them free money and hope that they'll feel inclined to hire new employees ? Thats great but how are those jobs going to be supported in the long run without the necessary spending by the true engine of the economy - the good 'ol middle class - buying services/goods from a company near you.
Doesn't it make more sense to throw money at the middle class and let the spending naturally bubble said money up to the business owner ?
Oh and btw, those of wealth generally seek any tax shelter they can find regardless. It's all about the almighty dollar.
I cannot see any possible way your Lower-Middle class American has benefit from his Reich in any way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think he alienated any of your existing allies. Rather - he sorted the sheep from the goats. France and Germany will only ever do what they think is in THEIR best interest. The same can be said for any nation in the world. They are not your friends, unless your interest serves them also. All Bush has done has exposed the various interests of nations you consider allies.
Australia and the US have very similar interests, and as such Australia will always be a much more committed ally then the French. The French have used the US (NATO really) to provide protection against the Soviets, but now that the Soviets are gone, they honestly dont find that much in common with American interests.
Especially when the cosy kick backs you get from helping Saddam rort the oil for food program are under threat by those dirty Americans peddling their democracy in the desert.
I'd vote for Bush simply because I dont want to see the US revert back to that disgusting narcissim and apathy that was epitomised by Clinton, that the last word in any move to combat was "Will Americans die?" I want the Americans interested in the world around them, and I want them active - I just dont see Kerry making a bold move like I can see Bush doing.
And please - enough of this Reich garbage. Every time you say that I have visions of this dirty, unwashed hippy with long hair, no shoes, a ripped marijuana leaf t-shirt screaming, eyes bulging, that Bush is a facist. You're going to have to go a lot further than the patriot act to back up any claims like that, and its down right inflammatory (spelling ugh) anyway.
Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again.
The Bush policy has failed at everything. Education, Healthcare, the budget, the Economy, even the War (our soldiers won the war, bush's policy is failed).
Im sure a few other soon to be college grads can take interest in the fact that the average income is $1900.00 less. Not as many job opportunities are available.
If we should decide to have a family, healthcare is getting out of hand which is forcing some state governments to turn to OTHER countries to buy prescription drugs, and simply 44 million americans cant even afford it alltogether.
By the way us tax payers havent even begun to see how much the war is going to cost us just yet. But you will.
Education, well, you take a look at it. Not much to say there.
Tuition is getting even steeper so the average family cant even send their kids to college. Bush can wrap himself up in that 9/11 blanket, but it will only work for so long. I hope people can get out there and participate in our future so a president like this doesnt get elected again. This is truly the crossroads of America's future.
Oh guys, and please stop repeating ads that you see on TV..its sad, and misleading. That goes for posting links of partisan website.
Those that bring thought provoking insight and debate. GJ.
Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely disagree with that first statement. Their reasoning works along a different track to yours, but just because you disagree doesnt mean its not logical. Everyone has a set of moral principles and ethics that they follow - religious or not. You just happen to disagree with the religious morals Bush holds to.
I also fail to see the point of the second statement. Are you commenting on the selfishness of human nature - that one is comfortable with the idea of helping others until some personal sacrifice may result?
Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely disagree with that first statement. Their reasoning works along a different track to yours, but just because you disagree doesnt mean its not logical. Everyone has a set of moral principles and ethics that they follow - religious or not. You just happen to disagree with the religious morals Bush holds to.
I also fail to see the point of the second statement. Are you commenting on the selfishness of human nature - that one is comfortable with the idea of helping others until some personal sacrifice may result? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The first statement is meant to be generalized and more in specific with our current administration. It can be as extreme as those jihadists in muslim society or as lightly(relatively) as in using religion to guide the American people.
Secondly, is more of a personal perspective. That on the fundamental basis of the Iraq war, was that we were to be attacked and possession of WMDs our reason for waging war. In which i was all for kicking Iraq's **** for the now "alleged" WMDs and "alleged" participation in 9/11. The administration took America for a ride, how gullible we were, we trusted and had faith that what he said was absolute. Now what is it, to liberate people(WTH is that). Cant even admit that we made a mistake. If someone i knew did that to me personally i would be **** the hell off. Cant say much for other people, they wouldnt care one way or the other, or maybe like being taken on rides.
We can blame the hell out of our intelligence agencies and others. However, it should be noted that EXTREME "mistakes" were made in our case for war. Now, i feel that the adminstration and influence has failed those that have fought and died or been maimed. Also those who are still serving and in which their families are living life without their loved ones. I cannot support nor trust this administration to wage war yet again. The personal perspective of this point is that unless you are willing to sacrifice then why should the next person sacrifice. Ultimately, selfishness would soon tear this country apart rather than unite it.