PDA

View Full Version : is the president losing the confidence of the american people?


Pages : [1] 2

jefhatfield
Oct 20, 2002, 12:02 PM
when september 11th came, the president stood up to the job and impressed a whole nation, or at least many of us, including me, a gore supporter

but as time went on, the economy floundered more, there have been corporate scandals, osama is still at large, we may attack iraq on not so solid terms, and now there is this crisis in the making with north korea

i have to ask george w bush, what he heck happened?

thoughts?

job
Oct 20, 2002, 12:23 PM
I just have a counter-question...

Why are we so quick to judge these days?

The economy, as discussed in another thread is not entirely the president's fault. In fact, it is far from it.

Notice also when the Democrats took control of the Senate, how everything seemed to stop. No more legislation was passed, etc.. ;) :p

I also don't see the Korea thing as a "crisis." It could be a lot worse. All North Korea has done is merely confirm what the United States has suspected for years.

Taft
Oct 20, 2002, 12:51 PM
In response to hitman...

I'm not quick to judge. You're right that a lot of what has happenned has been out of the president's control. But I've never liked Bush. Not after Sept. 11th, not ever.

I think he and his administration have made some serious mistakes in the handling of affairs (both domestic and abroad) before and after 9/11. I don't like their stance on Iraq. I don't like the way they have handled the N Korean situation from the start of the administration. From the get-go Bush was against the nuclear agreement with N Korea--the only potentially effective agreement we've practically EVER had with N Korea.

And now we see a critical rift in policy between the administration's handling of Iraq and North Korea. Acknowledging the fact that the situations are much different, there is still a great amount of inconsistancy between the handling of the two.

I feel that George W greatly ignored world politics and diplomacy before 9/11. And now I feel he is handling the situations we are presented with very poorly. We have an opportunity right now to garner support from our international allies and the world at large by joining the world community, acting in a way that benefits the world (not just our own interests) and addressing the situations in this world that present REAL and PRESSING threats to ourselves and other countries. This administration doesn't seem to want to take advantage of these opportunities and instead is acting in ways that have been drawing the ire of the international community for decades.

Anyone else getting scared by the fact that a large population of the earth HATES us?? I am. Maybe we should do something about that. Prevent the creation of more Bin Laden types. (We are currently training and will probably arm some of the native people in mid east to fight against Iraq if necessary. Does this sound familiar to anyone??? I'll give a shiny nickel to the first person who can identify the historical similarity.) And start living with the international community, not in spite of it.

Taft

edesignuk
Oct 20, 2002, 01:24 PM
IMO Bush seems to think that because he is the President of the only Super Power left, he is now in charge of the world, and has the authority to tell other nations what to do, what not to do, and what they are allowed to do. This is not the case. I think he needs to learn that the world does not bow at his feet and that his way is not the only way by a long shot.
Anyone else getting scared by the fact that a large population of the earth HATES us?? I am.
This is another thing, I don't want to start a flame war here, but, it seems that many of the American people were ignorant of how the rest of the world felt about the US, not everyone loves them and wants to follow in their footsteps all the time. It seems to have come as some what of a shock that anyone would dare to attack the US like they did, and that there were those that so did not agree with their ways that they would go to such an extreme to make their point.

Edited for typo.

Durandal7
Oct 20, 2002, 01:25 PM
I wouldn't say he's losing our confidence. I think that things are just returning to normal. He couldn't coast with a 75% approval rating forever. Now that it's been a while since 9/11 people are just more likely to make comments on party lines again.

job
Oct 20, 2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Does this sound familiar to anyone??? I'll give a shiny nickel to the first person who can identify the historical similarity.)

It is reminiscent of Vietnam.

The training of the local resistance movements is one of the true missions of the Special Forces. To be honest, I see nothing wrong with that.

I highly doubt we will bog ourselves down in another limited conflict. Knowing our President, it's all or nothing...

HATES us??

Perhaps they hate what we stand for. Some of the people who "hate us" would take our freedoms and our rights away in a heartbeat.

"We fight to protect the right to protest the fighting."

It's a bit of a paradox.

job
Oct 20, 2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
IMO Bush seems to think that because he is the President of the only Super Power left

I'm not so sure about being the only super power left...

There is still China...

edesignuk
Oct 20, 2002, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by hitman


I'm not so sure about being the only super power left...

There is still China...
Maybe, but for financial and military supremesy I'd say the US has it.

job
Oct 20, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
financial

Well with the way our economy is going...who the hell knows.. ;) :p


military supremesy

I'd have to agree overall; however, in that specific region (i.e. the South Pacific,) China still has an extremely strong influence.

Taft
Oct 20, 2002, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by hitman


It is reminiscent of Vietnam.

The training of the local resistance movements is one of the true missions of the Special Forces. To be honest, I see nothing wrong with that.

I highly doubt we will bog ourselves down in another limited conflict. Knowing our President, it's all or nothing...


I was actually referring to Bin Laden. We trained and armed him against the Russians during the cold war. And I do see something wrong with this. Its a matter of advancing your own agenda through a third party. Then, once OUR goals have been acheived we back out of the region, leaving those we once supported hanging in the wind.

We similarly aided Saddam against the Iranians (when Saddam did those horrible things to the Kurds). We have quite a history of backing some not-so-nice people to advance our own agenda. That doesn't seem right to me.

Taft

Taft
Oct 20, 2002, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by hitman


Perhaps they hate what we stand for. Some of the people who "hate us" would take our freedoms and our rights away in a heartbeat.

"We fight to protect the right to protest the fighting."

It's a bit of a paradox.

Some of them, many of them hate both us and eveything we stand for. And about the people who would take away our freedom and rights in a heartbeat, many of them have never known freedom or rights such as we have had all of our life.

And, from my standpoint, protecting our freedom and our rights has very little to do with the upcoming Iraq conflict. If I really thought that Iraq was a serious and immenant threat to us, I would have less of a problem with military intervention. Now North Korea, on tthe other hand....

Taft

job
Oct 20, 2002, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Taft
And I do see something wrong with this. Its a matter of advancing your own agenda through a third party.


It is also a case of utilizing the support you have in the country in which you are fighting. To recall the Afganistan scenario, we supported the Mujaden until the Soviets were defeated, much like the Soviets who supported the NVA and VC in Vietnam. In those cases, both the United States and the Soviet Union followed through on their financial and military support. Once the goals were met, we pulled out of the region, yes; however our purpose in Afganistan was not to "empire build." We merely wanted to keep the Soviets out; therefore our mission in the region was complete. What the Afgans did with their own country was no longer any of our concern. What they did with that support was up to them. Therefore, I fail to see how we "left them hanging in the wind." Had we done more, we would have been accused of "empire building;" accusations already being leveled at the war in Afganistan.


We similarly aided Saddam against the Iranians (when Saddam did those horrible things to the Kurds). We have quite a history of backing some not so nice people to advance our own agenda. That doesn't seem right to me.


You do have a vaild point. Many times over, America has either been blind to the evils or has chosen not to recognize them in order to advance our own agenda. We were short-sighted and refused to recognize the possible threat Saddam would later pose both to us and the region. However, the Iranians did recieve weapons from us as well, in the form of 10 F-14 aircraft.

Vector
Oct 20, 2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by hitman


I'm not so sure about being the only super power left...

There is still China...

They are a substantial power, but are not technically considered a super power. According to several politics and government classes i have taken a country must have a large standing army with modern arms (nukes) and have a strong industrial based economy. China has the military aspect, but the majority of its economy and workforce is based on agriculture. So technically they are not a super power; however, in a military sense they should be considered as such.

job
Oct 20, 2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Taft
And about the people who would take away our freedom and rights in a heartbeat, many of them have never known freedom or rights such as we have had all of our life.

But would you hold that against them, or use it to justify their actions? Are they jealous, or do they wish that we would suffer as much as they do under such repressive regimes?


And, from my standpoint, protecting our freedom and our rights has very little to do with the upcoming Iraq conflict. If I really thought that Iraq was a serious and immenant threat to us, I would have less of a problem with military intervention. Now North Korea, on tthe other hand....

I agree, I fail to see how any conflict with Iraq has to do with protecting our rights and freedom. They do not pose a major threat to us; however they are a serious danger to the region, including Israel.

The only possible action that I could see happening in Korea, is a last ditch attack by the North. Their economy has been failing for years and famine has become common-place. In contrast, the South has one of the strongest economies in Asia. Apart from the economic divide, I do not see any reason why the North would attack the South, or any country for that matter...

Unless of course they are just plain nuts and have nothing left to lose... ;)

job
Oct 20, 2002, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Vector
So technically they are not a super power; however, in a military sense they should be considered as such.

That too is another issue...

Can China maintain it's military might on an agrarian based economy?

Taft
Oct 20, 2002, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by hitman


But would you hold that against them, or use it to justify their actions? Are they jealous, or do they wish that we would suffer as much as they do under such repressive regimes?


To explain their actions. I could never justify those actions, but I think I can make a reasonable examination of the events leading up to the action, giving that action a "reason" or cause.

I don't think that people hate us out of jealousy or by comparing their miserable way of life to ours. I think they view us as evil because of the overwhelming effect we have on their countries and our interferance in their lives, countries and economies. They see us as an evil empire. That is my perception of why people hate us.

Taft

Vector
Oct 20, 2002, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by hitman


That too is another issue...

Can China maintain it's military might on an agrarian based economy?

They have been able to so far, but i do not know whether they can do this indefinitly. I think they are trying to industrialize more, but right now around 40% of there population are farmers (i cannot remember the exact figure but i think it is close to that if not more).

Taft
Oct 20, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by hitman

It is also a case of utilizing the support you have in the country in which you are fighting. To recall the Afganistan scenario, we supported the Mujaden until the Soviets were defeated, much like the Soviets who supported the NVA and VC in Vietnam. In those cases, both the United States and the Soviet Union followed through on their financial and military support. Once the goals were met, we pulled out of the region, yes; however our purpose in Afganistan was not to "empire build." We merely wanted to keep the Soviets out; therefore our mission in the region was complete. What the Afgans did with their own country was no longer any of our concern. What they did with that support was up to them. Therefore, I fail to see how we "left them hanging in the wind." Had we done more, we would have been accused of "empire building;" accusations already being leveled at the war in Afganistan.


While on the surface, I'd agree with your analysis, I think it goes deeper. I think many of those who were used to fight against the Soviets, felt exactly that way: used. I think we really used them in a situation that was much bigger than their concerns, to do our dirty work. Rather than make a human resource commitment to the conflict, we used the locals, who may not have had a good reason to participate in the Soviet vs US conflict in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, the Soviets were as much at fault in this. But I think both powers were simply using the local population. We were using them to play our game of world domination. Communism vs. capatalism.

Taft

job
Oct 20, 2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Taft
I think many of those who were used to fight against the Soviets, felt exactly that way: used. I think we really used them in a situation that was much bigger than their concerns, to do our dirty work. We were using them to play our game of world domination. Communism vs. capatalism.

I agree to an extent.

It is true that the people we supported in Afganistan had little concern in the overriding capitalism vs communism conflict. They were merely concerned with their own immediate issues with the Soviets. So yes, in that sense we used the opposition to the Soviets in Afganistan.

But one must also consider that they opposed the Soviets as much as we did, just for different reasons. They wanted to be free; we wanted to stop Soviet expansionism.

AssassinOfGates
Oct 20, 2002, 08:06 PM
Bush didn't lose my support, he never had it! Honestly, hes being given unconsitutional power by the new resouyltion on Iraq, and probably just wants their oil to "Ensure the security of the nation". :rolleyes: Plus the fact he's all for big buisness.

/me spits

sturm375
Oct 21, 2002, 02:33 PM
I believe that the reason there is a lot of anger toward the US out there is this: We, as a nation, do not practice what we preach. Here in the US, our Police can't do a lot of things, because we have these pesky rights. Outside the US, our military does things to other people(s) without regard to human rights. If we are truly to believe that our way is the best way to run a nation, why don't we advocate it in our actions. Anybody remember the "Golden Rule?"

As for Bush Jr. himself, well I never really liked him. Always thought he was a "Silver Spoon" type of a person. I'll bet he's never put in a "real" day's work before. I will also bet he has never been in a Paycheck to paycheck situation either.

Things I don't like about Bush's administration:

1) Signed the Steel Tarrifs (Horrible for the economy)

2) Signed the 180% increase in the Farm Subsidies (which primarly goes to big corporate farmers like dupont, del monte, and such)

3) Signed the un-Constitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill.

4) Pro-Death Peanelty (as a Christian I cannot accept this)

5) Hired John A$$Crap for Attny. Gen. Who has done nothing but infringe on the rights of American Citizens, and anyone who complaines is treasonous.

This is all I can think of off the top of my head.

jefhatfield
Oct 21, 2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


4) Pro-Death Peanelty (as a Christian I cannot accept this)

5) Hired John A$$Crap for Attny. Gen. Who has done nothing but infringe on the rights of American Citizens, and anyone who complaines is treasonous.



4) i am a christian and i agree with you 100 percent

5) at first i didn't like the idea of a man whose religion/denomination is against dancing...my employee, a very holy man and interested in good deeds, belongs to a similar cult, and has strange beliefs like john ashcroft is allegedly a believer in

but my employee, a highly intelligent and very well spoken individual would be able to hold the same type of job as ashcroft and not let his cultist beliefs get in the way of running a officially secular country where church is separated from state

john ashcroft has done a good job as running the president's moderate platform and has not infringed any of his cultic beliefs to his job...what john ashcroft does on his own time is his own business, frankly

overall, i say, in a nutshell, the gop is better at foreign policy and the democrats are better at domestic policy

if there ever is a party that comes into the oval office with a solid skill for both, they will become the dominant party in the united states

formerly strong parties like the progressives, the whigs, and the federalists no longer exist on the political landscape today

jelloshotsrule
Oct 21, 2002, 04:32 PM
as for the pro death penalty issue:

gore is also pro-death penalty.

i think bush is kind of a bafoon. but he's funny to listen to.

but i don't think that the fact that he is from a wealthy family and whatnot can be held against him. you don't choose who your family is. you can't control it.. now of course, his lack of concern for the lower classes is a problem, but that can not 100% be "blamed" on him being from a rich family. plenty of rich people are concerned about the lower classes.

also, i wouldn't really have much more respect for gore. we need some truly good people running the country for once....

jefhatfield
Oct 21, 2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
as for the pro death penalty issue:

gore is also pro-death penalty.

i think bush is kind of a bafoon. but he's funny to listen to.

but i don't think that the fact that he is from a wealthy family and whatnot can be held against him. you don't choose who your family is. you can't control it.. now of course, his lack of concern for the lower classes is a problem, but that can not 100% be "blamed" on him being from a rich family. plenty of rich people are concerned about the lower classes.

also, i wouldn't really have much more respect for gore. we need some truly good people running the country for once....

yes, i know gore is death penaly, too as well as clinton, george hw bush, and ronald reagan (though he didn't talk much about it)

but that does not make the death penalty right in my mind...why are african americans far more likely (percentage wise) to get on death row when most of the killers are white? if the ratio of murderers, convictions, and executions were numercially fair, then we would have a different issue

also, gore did not come from your average middle class family and he went to an ivy league school so i don't see how he would understand the average gardener, construction worker, file clerk, or mcdonald's worker any better than bush

it's just that the democratic platform which is just left of center is a little more in touch with the pulse of the average working american than the just right of center republicans

overall, i am happy that a republican or democrat has held the office opposed to an american independent or a marxist

but being a free country with freedom of speech (thank god (or higher power) and thank our founding fathers), we have the possiblity to have a republican, democrat, marxist, or american independent in the white house

we can all agree that it is a good thing that we do not have a one party dictatorship like marcos, the shah of iran, manuel noriega, or sadaam hussein

god bless america

and god bless the voters of america that we have the choice to go down a good path or bad path but still have it be our choice towards our recovery or our destruction

freedom rules!

rant over...

not yet,

mac rules!

...ok, rant over ;) :D

jelloshotsrule
Oct 21, 2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
1. but that does not make the death penalty right in my mind...

2. it's just that the democratic platform which is just left of center is a little more in touch with the pulse of the average working american than the just right of center republicans

3. but being a free country with freedom of speech (thank god (or higher power) and thank our founding fathers), we have the possiblity to have a republican, democrat, marxist, or american independent in the white house

4. we can all agree that it is a good thing that we do not have a one party dictatorship like marcos, the shah of iran, manuel noriega, or sadaam hussein


1. not sure where you got that i was saying that gore being pro death penalty makes it right. i am anti-death penalty.

2. i don't think it's like "become a democrat, become more concerned with common workers". it's more like if you are more concerned with the common worker, then you are a democrat (in theory)... though they are owned by the same corporations as the republicans...

3. as for the possibility to have a marxist or independent in the white house (in this era). that's actually the problem. that isn't possible. they wouldn't be able to afford the campaigning... at least not enough to compete with the big 2.

4. yeah, i'll agree we have it better than the one party dictatorships by all means.... but we have only 2 parties in the big elections basically. sure, there are some independents, and a few greens elected to some smaller offices... but we still don't have an equal election system...

beer.

jefhatfield
Oct 21, 2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


2. i don't think it's like "become a democrat, become more concerned with common workers". it's more like if you are more concerned with the common worker, then you are a democrat (in theory)... though they are owned by the same corporations as the republicans...

3. as for the possibility to have a marxist or independent in the white house (in this era). that's actually the problem. that isn't possible. they wouldn't be able to afford the campaigning... at least not enough to compete with the big 2.

4. yeah, i'll agree we have it better than the one party dictatorships by all means.... but we have only 2 parties in the big elections basically. sure, there are some independents, and a few greens elected to some smaller offices... but we still don't have an equal election system...

beer.

fortune 500 corps have made huge inroads into dems, i think, since clinton (thus these new biz dems are called the blue-dogs)

the big two do have the money, but it is not a law written in stone that the big two will always stay that way

i think to make things more fair, give more of the extra money to smaller parties, more people in presidential debate, and make it a popular vote (which most americans on both sides agree upon)

beer is great, but i like a great aged cabernet sauvignon/bordeaux...i know, not your average working man's drink:p

Ovi
Oct 22, 2002, 01:05 AM
22

jelloshotsrule
Oct 22, 2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
the big two do have the money, but it is not a law written in stone that the big two will always stay that way

i think to make things more fair, give more of the extra money to smaller parties, more people in presidential debate, and make it a popular vote (which most americans on both sides agree upon)

beer is great, but i like a great aged cabernet sauvignon/bordeaux...i know, not your average working man's drink:p

true, there's no law... but at this point, it's nearly impossible to break the 2 party system. unless it's broken up from within with campaign finance reform and all that jive...

and in theory, there's probably not a law written in stone in many countries saying "only one party exists" or something... it's just where the power is at the time... and how that power is being used to make sure it stays that way for as long as possible....

give me a jigger of everclear any day.

Taft
Oct 22, 2002, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
For those who love to bring up history of how we supported and created bin ladin and iraq in the past you left out a few other groups and countries. We were enemies with England, Germany and France after supporting them initially. The same could be said about Japan and China to a lesser degree. We really goofed in supporting Russia during WWII. How dare we become allies with that monster Stalin. We would have been better off under Hitler. You guys all make me laugh.

When were we "enemies" with England and France?? Prior to 1850, no doubt. I think that the political landscape has changed just a friggin' tad since the Revolutionary War.

And becoming allies with a country is quite different than funding, arming and supporting a small group of fighters. And without any of our alliances with Russia during WWII, the Russians were still dragged into the war. It was Germany's doing and was inevitable.

Compare this to a situation where we use a native people to fight against another group of native people who are being supported by the Soviets. Its a little different. We aren't talking world war here. We are talking about a conflict where two world powers were using natives as their pawns. In the process we ended up supporting and arming (and I would argue, helping to create in the process) one of the biggest terrorists of the 21st century.

And with Saddam and the Iraq/Iran conflict, I think we knew what we were getting ourselves into. We supported Saddam before during and after his attacks on the Kurds. And, in an astounding conflict of interest that no-one was ever really held accountable for, we sold arms to Iraq's enemy in the war: Iran. Something doesn't smell right there.

There are ennumerable differences in the situations I have talked about and those that you listed in America's prehistory and early history. You have to be one of the most frustrating posters on this site. I hope you found this very amusing. Blah.

Taft

Ovi
Oct 22, 2002, 01:30 PM
11

brendaem
Oct 24, 2002, 02:47 PM
With all respect due to the office of the President of the United States, I am sorry, but don't think he has done a good job.

Whether we like to admit it or not, I think a big part of the Office of the Presidency is to talk to the American People. We are a nation of individuals, though perhaps it can be beneficial to hear a unifying voice. When soldiers from another land attacked the World Trade Center, what were his helpful words?

When American Citizens who looked like they were from the Middle-East were harmed, what words did he use to ask people not to harm them? Have we as a nation learned anything since World War II?

He seems to stand against the wishes of the United Nations, a group of people much wiser than I. If he cannot convince win their trust, he cannot win mine.

If every friend I have in the world asked me not to do something, should I listen?

Terrorists are just soldiers in plain clothes. Their weapons are the same, their methods use fear.

Fear is Hate. How can we preemptivly attack a nation out of fear to win the war against fear. I think it is we that must be patient, it is they who must fear.

For the last few years, we seem to be a nation the begins sentences with “The War Against...” We seem to be against everything, do we want to be a nation of hatred?

I am tired of our nation being hated by others. I want a political victory. I don't think that he can give us that.

He seems so consumed with external politics, and the only thing he seems to do internally is work toward taking away the rights of American Citizins, to impeed internally.

I feel that; from this I have come to know him as a person.

I have never worried so much for The U.S. Contitution for which he has promised to protect.

I have never worried for America so much.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone,
BrendaEM

Ovi
Oct 24, 2002, 03:21 PM
11

springscansing
Oct 24, 2002, 03:25 PM
Losing confidence? He never had mine, hehe.

Ovi
Oct 24, 2002, 03:28 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 24, 2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
You need to read some history on this. The same laws were past during WWII. As long as you don't aid the enemy you have nothing to worry about. [/B][/QUOTE]

It depends on your definition of "aiding the enemy." If I speak out against the policies of Bush43 in respect to the "war on terrorism," John @ssCrap says I am aiding the enemy. Therefore anyone who disagrees with US policy is subject to POW treatment. This is what scares me, and many others.

Also, I looked it up, in the Oath of Office for the President of the United States of America, they sware to Protect, and Uphold the Constitution. Not just the laws enacted by Congress. If a law enacted by Congress, is used by the President, then is later found to be in direct violation of the Constitution, shouldn't they be Impeached?

mcrain
Oct 24, 2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
If a law enacted by Congress, is used by the President, then is later found to be in direct violation of the Constitution, shouldn't they be Impeached?

No, Republicans save impeachment for real crimes like getting a bl*w j*b.

Ovi
Oct 24, 2002, 05:04 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 25, 2002, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
In refrence to speaking out, please give me some evidence that we are prosecuting people for this. Right!! I didn't think so.

However I should express my views on the new laws. I don't like some of them only because the problems they are attempting to solve will not make them effective. It does help law inforcement in obtaining quicker search warrents, however keeping someone in jail without a lawyer is not an effective way of fighting terrorism.

We know the countries supporting terrorists, all we need to do is go after them. Now last time I checked we doing just that. Thank God.

www.aclu.org

Check the articles about Gen. Ashcroft (see I can spell it correctly, when I choose to).

I know, all the right-wingers hate the ACLU, however when you look at the core of their mission, to protect civil rights, how can you deny they aren't useful. Just take a look, and use a criticle eye.

jefhatfield
Oct 25, 2002, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
We really goofed in supporting Russia during WWII. How dare we become allies with that monster Stalin. We would have been better off under Hitler. You guys all make me laugh.

stalin was definitely a monster, but going against germany was more of our supporting of england and france than it was our supporting stalin and communism

it just was that we both had a common enemy in world war II...and that was hitler

iran and the united states both have a common enemy in sadaam hussein, but we are not buddies with iran by any means

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 09:33 AM
11

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 09:41 AM
11

wwworry
Oct 25, 2002, 09:51 AM
As for China being an agrarian economy, just go to target/kmart/walmart and read the lable to see who makes the majority of products in those stores. 60% of a billion or so non-farmers is still more than everyone in the USA.

GWB is a confused monkey, backwards in his thinking. Starting with the tax cut (for the wealthy) proposed because we have a budget surplus and now being fought to be made permanent though we now have deficits. Now our foriegn policy that only seems to encourage world-wide terrorism.

Lets say we invade Iraq because they supposedly have Nuclear weapons. The Muslim country of Pakistan will almost certainly vote US friendly Musharraf out of power and the US will lose its bases there (http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/24/top6.htm - Pakistan news in english). So we end up with a (potentially) radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons. Isn't that why we invaded Iraq? Are we now to invade Pakistan? Or do we support a military coup led by Musharraf in Pakistan? What was that we said about democratic values?

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to actively press Isreal for a Palestinian state? How is it not in our interest to support Palastine? While I do not agree with their methods their desire for statehood is not disimilar to the ideals we hold dear.

Policies of engagement have worked with China and with the former Soviet Union. China is not about to lose all those Target sales to invade Taiwan. Similarly, our mutual interest in oil can work in Iraq. US policies that are friendlier to the Arab peoples can apply a more effective long term pressure in that region than a constant war.

Terrorism is not Bin Laden. It is an idea born out of a lack of hope and a lack of options. If you kill one terrorist two more will pop up in his place. Our aim should be to present them with a carrot along with the stick. So far it's been all stick with a promice of maybe one day maybe a carrot.

Not only that but it is our consumption of oil that has gotten us involved there in the first place. Imagine if we did not need all their oil: we would not have to give Billions to the Egyptians and Billions to the Saudis and Billions to the Isrealis playing them off eachother to squeeze a few more drops of oil for our precious SUVs (which seems to embody our "freedom and way-of-life" - we base our foreign policy on car makers advertisements).

But GWB doen't care about that. His idea of good govt. is govt. of the oil executives, for the oil executives and by the oil executives. Secret policy meetings run by Enron. Enron executives in the cabinet (Thomas White) and an enormous tax shift that will eventually be paid by our middle and lower class children.

But he does not care about our children either - not the deficits that they will have to pay nor about the environment they will have to live in. His response to ever increasing reports of global warming - "Get used to it."

GWB offers no hope. He says we will not live in fear but fear keeps his popularity up. Fear allows him more and more power. What we have to look forward to is constant war, more terror, bigger deficits, ever widening wealth disparity and rising temperatures. Hurrah for that!

sturm375
Oct 25, 2002, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Ovi


I looked at the website. I did not see a case invclving the prosecution of some one who spoke against the war on terror.

This is where I'm coming from: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=9855&c=86

I don't see where they've arrested anyone using this, but if this attitude is not stopped, MacCarthyism is not far away.

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 11:34 AM
11

gandalf55
Oct 25, 2002, 11:36 AM
al gore would have been a bigger disaster, philanthropy and lying not withstanding, than even clinton was.

i thank God everyday that GWB won the election.

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 11:42 AM
11

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 11:50 AM
11

Taft
Oct 25, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Ovi



We had good reason to become allies with Stalin despite his well documented atrocities. Hitler would have ruled Europe if we did not get involved.

During the Iraq/Iran war we saw Iran and still do as the enemy. Supporting Iraq made sense. It is like getting married and than being critized for getting a divorce.

Why would we support Iran when they are part of the problem and has always been. I can give you a million articles which clearly shows that most terrorsim against us and Israel comes from there. The logic is flawed.

See, what do you mean by 'allies'? We were fighting a common enemy. Its not as if we were supplying arms to the Russians. We made certain agreements towards the end of the war, but we were already starting to become enemies. Look at how Germany was divided and how quickly our alliance dissolved into a hostilities (within a few years, anyway). And the other allies always considered Russia a threat. Were weren't friends; we just happened to be fighting the same enemy.

The story with Iraq and Iran or our support of bin Laden and Mujaden is much different than that. I've already gone into why I think our support of Bin Laden was wrong.

And look at our current situation with Iraq, Iran, Turkey and the Kurds. Who knows what kind of support we are going to give these other entities to ensure Saddam gets out of power. Whats going to happen if Turkey or Iran attacks the Kurds? Are we going to lie down with these countries with horrible track records (they have committed crimes against the Kurds nearly as bad as Saddam's gas), just so we can oust Saddam.

How important is the upcoming war? What kind of price are we going to put on ousting Saddam?? Is it going to be worth the human cost in the region?

These are questions that need to be answered. If they aren't answered before hand, we'll see the answers afterwords.

Taft

sturm375
Oct 25, 2002, 12:03 PM
What is the problem with being liberal. Look the word up: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=liberal

I consider myself open to new preposals, not limited by tradition, and such. When did Liberal become a "bad word."

Conservitive: "We can't do it that way, because we've always done it this way."

Liberal: "We could try that, let me think about it."

Until Rush Limbaugh came along, Liberal was a good thing to be.

You call me a Liberal when I complain about the government attempting to take rights away from me, I think you've got that turned around.

My Perception: Whenever a strong Republican(conservitive) administration is in place we have extream secrecy, and much more "morality" laws. Because Daddy Government knows best, and you don't need to know what we are doing. I don't like this. I believe that the US Government was not designed to protect itself, but rather the rights of it's citizens. This should be it's primary goal, with "National Security" always taking a back seat to civil rights. And by the way we do have a need to know what they are doing in D.C. How else can we be informed voters, if we don't know what our "Representatives" are doing. I don't mean specifics, but I do want to know what they are doing.

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 12:38 PM
11

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 12:46 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 25, 2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


Most of my friends are liberals nothing wrong with being one. When it comes to pubilc policy and foreign affairs, liberals use half truths in all their arguments.

I have no problem with that either. I have a serious problem with terrorists who will destroy this country and take away the rights of liberals and conservatists to express themselfs.

It amazes me how we can be attacked and when we fight back, we get accused of taking away the rights we are trying to protect.

No one ever said that this government was easy. As far as law enforcement, it is unconstitutional to arrest someone before they commit a crime. The trick is to catch the criminal in the act, survail the suspect, and such. The Constitution does not allow "pro-active" law enforcement. Only re-active law enforcement.

You ask, why allow the atrocities, when we can just ignore civil rights and arrest those we "think" might commit a crime. What did all those MILLIONS of Americans die for throughout the years, in the military, or militia, defending the Constitution?

It's a fact, you cannot stop a "lone gunman" type of a criminal. The only possible way to do so is to Pre-emptively lock-up anybody who just might have the tendency to do such a thing.

BTW
Just heard on the radio that a Senator, and family died in a plane crash in MN. They were on their way to a funeral. Let's all pray for the surviving family.

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 01:06 PM
11

vixapphire
Oct 25, 2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


i think to make things more fair, give more of the extra money to smaller parties, more people in presidential debate, and make it a popular vote (which most americans on both sides agree upon)


Give more of whose money? Thanks, but I'd rather the money go from the interested to whom they are interested in. That's "fairness", after all. And if you want to see true dysfunction in government, look towards Israel: a democracy like ours, but so many parties vying for power with no one able to garner enough to gain a majority that the result is ineffectual "coalitions" that manage to get little done and often dissolve in infighting, etc. If you look at peoples' values, and different "special interests" - people with children, retired people on fixed incomes, government employees, teachers unions, as well as different industrial trade ass'ns and groups, and who they support among the Democrats and Republicans, it's actually quite clear that those two parties are "coalitions" in themselves as well. It shouldn't be forgotten that Lincoln was a Republican and it was they who were once solidly identified with emancipation, while the Democrats were the party of "Dixie", etc. I think it was as recent as the period of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the parties reversed roles in this regard, reflecting a realignment of various groups in the two "coalitions".

A straightline popular vote, as advocated by Hillary Clinton & company when politically expedient (and likewise backed away from by same when not) would be a problem in America because it would lead to a "tyranny of the minority" (of geography - ie. the coastal big cities plus chicago) over the people throughout the rest of the country's wide expanses. Many big city folk like to arrogate to themselves the idea that theirs is the only way, totally ignoring the equally valid ideas of country folks. Look at guns, for instance: while it is good politics and pretty good policy to impose tight restrictions on gun ownership in metropolitan centers, there are very good arguments in favor of allowing (non-criminal-record-holding) people near-unfettered rights of gun ownership in rural areas. how does that rural person defend himself against hostile man or beast if necessary, for instance, when the nearest law enforcement might not be able to reach them for 45 minutes or more?

The issue of "pure" democracy versus republican democracy (and in that term is an interesting spin on what the 2 parties' philosophies represent in a "meta" sense) is much more complex and worthy of greater consideration than it gets, with the too-frequent tendency to say, "well, Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, thus we need to get rid of the electoral college." Of course, what is not stated in that argument is that, if Gore had managed to win his own home state, of which he was a Senator for several years (as was his dad before him - Albert Gore Sr., no less (take that, 'W'!)) there would never have been an election controversy of the sort witnessed in 2000 in the first place (query whether Gore would have sued in Florida if he had already won the electoral college without FL?).

Fun stuff to think about, this politics...

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 02:40 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 25, 2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by vixapphire


Give more of whose money? Thanks, but I'd rather the money go from the interested to whom they are interested in. That's "fairness", after all. And if you want to see true dysfunction in government, look towards Israel: a democracy like ours, but so many parties vying for power with no one able to garner enough to gain a majority that the result is ineffectual "coalitions" that manage to get little done and often dissolve in infighting, etc. If you look at peoples' values, and different "special interests" - people with children, retired people on fixed incomes, government employees, teachers unions, as well as different industrial trade ass'ns and groups, and who they support among the Democrats and Republicans, it's actually quite clear that those two parties are "coalitions" in themselves as well. It shouldn't be forgotten that Lincoln was a Republican and it was they who were once solidly identified with emancipation, while the Democrats were the party of "Dixie", etc. I think it was as recent as the period of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the parties reversed roles in this regard, reflecting a realignment of various groups in the two "coalitions".

A straightline popular vote, as advocated by Hillary Clinton & company when politically expedient (and likewise backed away from by same when not) would be a problem in America because it would lead to a "tyranny of the minority" (of geography - ie. the coastal big cities plus chicago) over the people throughout the rest of the country's wide expanses. Many big city folk like to arrogate to themselves the idea that theirs is the only way, totally ignoring the equally valid ideas of country folks. Look at guns, for instance: while it is good politics and pretty good policy to impose tight restrictions on gun ownership in metropolitan centers, there are very good arguments in favor of allowing (non-criminal-record-holding) people near-unfettered rights of gun ownership in rural areas. how does that rural person defend himself against hostile man or beast if necessary, for instance, when the nearest law enforcement might not be able to reach them for 45 minutes or more?

The issue of "pure" democracy versus republican democracy (and in that term is an interesting spin on what the 2 parties' philosophies represent in a "meta" sense) is much more complex and worthy of greater consideration than it gets, with the too-frequent tendency to say, "well, Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, thus we need to get rid of the electoral college." Of course, what is not stated in that argument is that, if Gore had managed to win his own home state, of which he was a Senator for several years (as was his dad before him - Albert Gore Sr., no less (take that, 'W'!)) there would never have been an election controversy of the sort witnessed in 2000 in the first place (query whether Gore would have sued in Florida if he had already won the electoral college without FL?).

Fun stuff to think about, this politics...

On the other hand, what gives Farmer John a more powerful vote than Metropolis Jane. It's 1 person, 1 Vote, not 1 Acre 1 vote.

Republicans love to pull out the "Blue & Red" map of the country. You know the one with each county colered Red for Democrat, and Blue for Republican. Then they can show how X% of the country voted Republican, while y% voted democratic. At first glance this seems unfair, and Republicans ought to slaughter Democrates in federal elections. Remember 1 Thing: Land Doesn't Vote, People Do.

Solution: Don't blame "them" for this, and drag out stupid maps, take the valid arguments to the people. Farmer John goes to the city with a bullhorn. Farmer John invites Metropolis Jane out to the farm. And vice versa. Just because people don't live in the rual areas, doesn't mean that they might be able to see your problems.

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 03:37 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 25, 2002, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
sturm

You are missing the point. The arguments used were well written. Electoral college is the best way to ensure that democracy works efficiently. Take a look at what happens when majority rules in Algeria.

I agree, the Electoral college is the best so far. That doesn't mean we can't attempt to find better ways. Maybe someday, something better will arrive (that's the liberal in me). Until then we can continue to explore possibilities, and basically complain. Back to the 2000 Election, I wanted to vote for John McCain, but even before the primaries got to Illinois, John had already given-up. I still think he would have been better than Bush43.

True democracy would only work if when people placed their votes, they would think not of themselvs, but would vote for what is best for the nation. This is what I try to do at the voting booth.

wdlove
Oct 25, 2002, 08:23 PM
JFK believed in smaller government, strong military, & lower taxes. Teddy etal believe in big government, weak military, & higher taxes. If you believe you are not paying enough in taxes vote Democrat! If you believe you ar paying too much in taxes vote Republican! The Liberals want to transfer wealth, take 50% of your wages every Friday & give it to their voters. At the time of the American Revolution only 30% wanted freedom, 30% wanted to continue with King George, & 30% didn't care. This is still true today. :)

Ovi
Oct 25, 2002, 09:58 PM
11

wwworry
Oct 26, 2002, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
I don't know why I take the time, but it fun to poke holes in flawed arguments.




.... typical liberal hog wash.

:D [/B][/QUOTE]

OK Ovi, I'm not sure what hog wash is but maybe we can clarifiy by stating the opposite:

1. Invading Iraq will have no unintended consequenses or let's not worry about what might happen in Pakistan.

2. Diplomacy does not work. The engagement policies of Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush the elder, and Clinton do not work and are liberal.

3. Terrrorists are rich Arab kids educated in the west.

4. Conservation of oil is a bad idea.

5.Having a six week paid vacation is worse than having a good VCR.

wwworry
Oct 26, 2002, 07:55 AM
Now let's talk about your misinformation.

Originally posted by Ovi


Typical liberal lines. All you need is CNN to come up with this stuff. Check your data if you make more than $50,000 you are considered rich. The tax cuts are for those who pay most of the taxes. If you want money to go to the poor than give to your local church or charity not the government to wast on pork projects.



The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has clearly pointed out that 43% of this tax cut goes to people who make over $300,000. No one is arguing the following: the upper 1% of the taxpayers would get between 43% of the tax cut . "In fact, under Bush's plan, the richest one percent get 100 times the benefits of middle income,(a $46,072 annual tax cut for the upper 1% compared to only $453 for middle-income families.) Americans, and 1,000 times the benefits of low-income Americans."

Historically, when most of the US population was considered "middle-class" the very wealthy had much higher taxation rates, up to 90%! Now, income gap between the very rich and the rest of us is greater than at any time since the 1920's.

You might say that "they earn the money so why shouldn't they get to keep it all?". Did Ken Lay earn his money? Is the typical CEO now doing 20 times a better job than he did 25 years ago? How is that the rest of us have seen little or no real income growth in the last 25 years when the upper 1% have seen huge gains? Are they working harder or maybe those tax laws really do have an effect?

and before you cry "socialism is evil, move to Europe" realize that I'm not talking about Europe. I'm just saying that the people who control the money are taking more and more of it themselves. They have lost all sence of civic duty.



Here you make a little more sense. Pakistan is a problem, but we can only deal with one nation at a time on this. If we had inteligence that Pakistan will use its nukes and give them to terrorist than we would be approaching the situation from a different angle . For the time being Musharraf as undemocratic as he is, is doing a decent job of keeping the radicals at bay. True democracy will never work in a muslim country. Read the Quarn and you will understand why.


You can't have a effective foreign policy that only addresses problems "one nation at a time". We do have intelligence (if reading the newspaper is intelligence) that the newly ELECTED government in Pakistan might only give us 30 days to vacate our bases there. What's next?

... and Turkey is a democratic Muslim country.


We have been doing just that. As long as there are terrorist attacks in Israel the Palestinians will never have a state. Therefore I can safely say given how they feel about Israel they will never have a state.


Why is it up to you to determine wether Palestine should have a state? Shouldn't it be up to the Palestinian people?


You don't understand terrorism. Bin Ladin and most of the terrorist were pretty well of and had many good options. Do you have any idea how many rich Arabs send their kids to America to become educated while at the same time fund terrorist as well? The carrot was given, eaten, and spit back at us.


Bin Laden was well off but if you think the majority of terrorists are "rich" then you are crazy. The ones that hit the WTC were well off enough to get to this country but there are millions more living in poverty. Just look at the history of terror and uprising and you'll see what breeds it.


We can easily get oil from the rest of the world, that is if you want to pay $5 a gallon. We will see how big the defecit gets then.



So what are going to do when the oil runs out? Why is conservation bad? Why is it good to be dependant on the middle east for our energy supply. In other words, what are doing to wean ourselves off oil? Nothing, that's what.

AND most of all, you never addressed my main point: What is GWB proposing for our future? Where is the hope?

Ovi
Oct 26, 2002, 10:54 AM
11

wdlove
Oct 26, 2002, 12:16 PM
Thank you Ovi! Our local 96.9 FM Talk station is where I get my information!
Jay Severin's "Exteme Games" fighting against the Liberals of Taxachussets!
Laura Ingraham national show out of DC fighting Liberal Lemings. With 96.9 I feel there is hope for the future of our beloved United States of America with a strong Constitution, to make our founding fathers proud! :)

Ovi
Oct 26, 2002, 03:56 PM
11

wwworry
Oct 27, 2002, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
Democrats complain a great deal but have no plans except to let the UN make the decisions for us.

I give up. Ignorance wins.

peterjhill
Oct 27, 2002, 07:20 AM
I am coming into this late, so will post mainly on the thread topic...

GWB is a terrible leader. He is more like a bully with his own army. He can talk about domestic affairs when his numbers dip, but I feel that he is the tool of the military-industry who misses all the money that they were making under Reagan and Bush and want to see more. Nothing like a few wars to make some money.
I don't trust him one bit, actually I don't trust his handlers, the ones that tell him what to do or say. Probably not directly telling him, but leading him, so he thinks that their ideas were really his.

I am sure that over 50% of macrumors members disagree with me. I definitely could be wrong, but these are my feelings. Have yours, enjoy them. Don't bother trying to change mine, because, just as I probably won't change those who support Bush, there is no way you will change mine.

jefhatfield
Oct 27, 2002, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Ovi



We had good reason to become allies with Stalin despite his well documented atrocities. Hitler would have ruled Europe if we did not get involved.

During the Iraq/Iran war we saw Iran and still do as the enemy. Supporting Iraq made sense. It is like getting married and than being critized for getting a divorce.



no argument there

sometimes i think we should stop being the policeman of the world and when we are the policeman, we are hated

when we stay out of a fight, then the world calls on us to intervene

the situation with iraq is very tricky since ignoring the situation could lead to another offensive on the part of sadaam hussein

but if we act too swiftly and don't give iraq a chance to back off under the current pressure, then we are criticized for being trigger happy

i may be wrong, but i see this as a similar situation to world war II

sadaam hussein is a mad man with a huge military at his disposal...or at least enough to cause some damage

he knows that there are only two countries that will wipe him out if he goes too far...us and israel...but he also knows they will be slow to act with force

so, just like a bully on the block who knows exactly what he can get away with before the parents come out to stop his follies, sadaam hussein will take and take and take

as a liberal, i love world peace like anybody else, but sadaam hussein needs to be stopped or at least watched very carefully

i don't really see this as a liberal vs. conservatiive issue, but more of a careful observation of a terrorist dictator in iraq who will act on his own and does not have the support of his own people who are held in his bondage

i voted for gore and i don't think bush is a strong president on domestic ecomonic issues...and i will probably not vote for him in 2004, but he is correct in being adamant about hussein and threatening force since it may be the only thing sadaam hussein really understands or respects

bin laden is really small beans in comparison to hussein or arafat, and as long as terrorists can hide behind a rather large conventional army under hussein, world terrorism cannot be stopped

Ovi
Oct 27, 2002, 10:11 AM
11

Ovi
Oct 27, 2002, 10:14 AM
11

jefhatfield
Oct 27, 2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Ovi



you made some excellent points. gore however would not have increased military spending, cut taxes, or go into Iraq. Therefore nothing would chance.

thank you, ovi ;)

i like the gop when it comes to foreign policy and the democrats when it comes to domestic policy

the reason our country runs relatively well is because we have at least two major parties running this country

if it was all dems or all republicans, corruption would rule the day...as it stands, corruption is kept down to....let's say...most of the time as opposed to...all of the time;) :p

like them or not, a couple of the most effetive, yet vilified speakers have been tip o'neil and newt gingrich...they have a corrupt way of running a corrupt system to actually get things done for the common citizen

many don't know this, but as individuals, they wield more day to day power than the president and some say the 90s were as much a part of gingrich...good and bad...as much as clinton

as much as i disagreed with newt, i realized how much he helped run the show...and i also give credit...good and bad...to senator bob dole

it takes all types on both sides of the spectrum to run this country efficiently and though many, many people think gore and bush are dishonest people, one has to realize that politics is not an honest person's game

if one wants to be honest, be a pastor or rabbi;) :D

peterjhill
Oct 27, 2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield

if it was all dems or all republicans, corruption would rule the day...as it stands, corruption is kept down to....let's say...most of the time as opposed to...all of the time;) :p


You got that right. I am pretty much a democrat, but in Pittsburgh, the city is almost completely democratic, and is super corrupt, IMHO. There is nothing stopping them from ruining the city

wdlove
Oct 27, 2002, 04:55 PM
That is correct Gore & his party dispise the military. They think that only government can solve problems. Protection of US citizens ex war & building roads is the only thing that govenment has ever done correctly! All important discoveries have been by individuals! :)

Ovi
Oct 27, 2002, 05:46 PM
11

wdlove
Oct 27, 2002, 07:28 PM
We have November 5th to correct the problem. per Jay Severin, 96.9 "Vote for the Republican, never again vote for a Democrat/Communist/Socialist. The Democratic party of today is not that of JFK" :)

wwworry
Oct 27, 2002, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
That is correct Gore & his party dispise the military

Didn't Gore volunteer for Vietnam while Bush used his grandfathers connections to get into the Texas reserves and was A.W.O.L. for 1 1/2 years of his 2 year stint? Didn't Dick Cheney decide to stay in school rather than risk military service.
What about democratic senator John Kerry of MA and the former senator from Nebraska Bob Kerrey? In fact most of the senators democrat and republican alike who actually saw service, who have seen the inevitable innocent people die are not all that keen on this unnecessary war in Iraq.

You could make the case that Dick Cheney doesn't need to serve if he can make a big profit for increased military expenditures. If you looked at all into how Haliburton subsidaries stand to win.... well you wouldn't look into that would you.

Of course if you're some 20-something (or less) who listens to a lot of AM talk radio you really wouldn't know would you?

Here's a guy (Ovi) making $30,000 whose been brainwashed into thinking people making ten times what he does needs a tax cut. Who would rather his (most likely) middle class children pay for the tax cut of these millionaires. Obviously the multi-millionaires running the media and the government have done a pretty good job brainwashing the stiffs.

vixapphire
Oct 27, 2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
That is correct Gore & his party dispise the military.

Dude, I don't know about Gore, but you're pretty seriously off-beat if you're trying to say that the Dems "dispise" [sic] the military. Last time I checked, the Dems were in power during the 2d world war and VietNam, and there are still some in the party now who are either well decorated veterans (J. Kerry (pardon misspelling)) and/or falling all over themselves to toe a convincingly pro-military line (J. Lieberman, for example).

I'm one of the VRWC without a doubt, but I find it annoying when people misstate or distort things with the idea it'll make their argument stronger; among intelligent sparring partners, just the opposite will often be the result of that sort of thing.

That said, I would say that the Clinton-Gore administration "tolerated" the military, much as they held their noses while rather quickly disposing of (by sweeping under the rug, perhaps) tougher foreign policy problems in favor of the photo-opp foreign policy of Oslo, etc. and that administration's stronger suit, the domestic issues.

Putting aside the question of who's to blame and how much for the disasters of N. Korea, Iraq's newfound resilience and international support, etc., it's actually difficult to blame Clinton & co. for doing what came naturally/pursuing their goals in the domestic arena - that's what they came into office wanting to do, after all. On the other hand, the current administration, like the previous Bush administration, the Reagan administration, and others Democratic and Republican before it, is focussed more on defending American national interests abroad and in the international arena, so that's where they are concentrating more of their energy.

To the extent the balance tips too far and the domestic economy begins to crash out (and no, we're not even close to that scenario yet), Bush and his team will have failed. Otherwise, let the administration use the information and intelligence at its disposal (p.s. I bet it's more than the NYT has), and trust that these people (a) are smart enough to have been hired into their positions (even hardcore Dems have to respect the horsepower of the Bush cabinet here), and (b) want to keep their jobs in 2004, and (c) have a lot of love for this country (why else seek out and take the job? Honestly), for the purpose of ensuring the safety and security of our way of life. That sometimes means getting our hands dirty in places like Afghanistan. Or Iraq.

And for all the "war for oil" ideologues out there, don't you think that if Bush really just wanted the oil, that instead of spending energy gearing up for a war that will cost several billions of dollars and many American and foreign lives, he would just call for lifting the sanctions? Duh. That way, we wouldn't have to be getting more friendly with Russia and the Norwegians and our oil companies wouldn't need to enter into new business relationships with Russian oil co's etc. for the purpose of exploring Arctic oil.

Face it, just as drilling in ANWR is dead, American oil companies, whose record of technological development and refinement for minimalizing ecological impact, and record of success in exploration, is unparalleled, have found a workaround by partnering with industry-hungry Russia to accomplish the same goals. This is a win for American oilco's and for those who favor developing the Russian economy to provide for higher standards of living there. On the other hand, since American "green laws" will not apply, it is likely that Russian oilfield development will not be as environmentally sensitive as ANWR development would have been. The silence of those who fought tooth and nail against drilling in ANWR is telling, to say the least, isn't it?

Oil runs the world economy, not just American SUV's. To the extent that America is the only world power who will actually stand up for principal and back it up with force (witness Kosovo, please), ensuring the free flow of oil is not such a disgraceful aim in and of itself. However, the pending military action in Iraq, if it comes to pass, has far more to do with things other than oil than with American control over Iraqi oil.

Finally, on the subject of President Bush and his purported despicableness with the 'manufacture' of the Iraq issue, etc. Please see the President Clinton speech of 1998, wherein he outlined the exact range of problems that Bush has been hitting on for months now. Funny how then, when Dems had the White House and there was not an election coming up, Senators Daschle & co. had nothing but the strongest support for then-President Clinton's comments, whereas now, it's just another cynical attempt to be political.

Pray that the 2004 election is a decisive victory - for either party - so as to wash away some of the ridiculous and corrosive cynicism from the public's perception of national politics.

Cheers,

vixapphire

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by sturm375

True democracy would only work if when people placed their votes, they would think not of themselvs, but would vote for what is best for the nation.

Back to your idea of what/who votes, isn't this or any other "nation" made up of its people? Thus, the Cherokee nation exists as well as the nations of Israel, the USA, Albania, etc. ad nauseam... People always think of themselves; happily they do. If a significant number of people here were to suddenly stop thinking about what's important to them (which is the essence of freedom - the ability to control one's own life) and put their primary concern in their idea of what's best for the "nation", the fear is that you'd either have Nazi Germany or Communist China, and is either of those preferable to what we've got now, which is mainly determined by a bunch of common folks pulling their levers based on what hits them on the streets of their towns and in their pocketbooks?

Just a thought, although I think I understand what you're trying to say. The thing about highly specialized, complex societies such as ours is that the everyman is not going to be particularly well-versed in policy and legislative issues - according to him/her, that's what he pays his Congressmen and Senators to do. The bummer is that any more, neither the schools nor the media attempt to inculcate in citizens anything much beyond a personality-contest/scandalsheet approach to politics, rather than to attempt an unbiased discussion of issues. Until the latter happens on a regular basis (and I'm not holding my breath), don't expect much from the political class.

And this from a confessed political junkie! It breaks my heart...

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by sturm375


On the other hand, what gives Farmer John a more powerful vote than Metropolis Jane. It's 1 person, 1 Vote, not 1 Acre 1 vote.

Republicans love to pull out the "Blue & Red" map of the country. You know the one with each county colered Red for Democrat, and Blue for Republican. Then they can show how X% of the country voted Republican, while y% voted democratic. At first glance this seems unfair, and Republicans ought to slaughter Democrates in federal elections. Remember 1 Thing: Land Doesn't Vote, People Do.

Solution: Don't blame "them" for this, and drag out stupid maps, take the valid arguments to the people. Farmer John goes to the city with a bullhorn. Farmer John invites Metropolis Jane out to the farm. And vice versa. Just because people don't live in the rual areas, doesn't mean that they might be able to see your problems.

Nice straw man, but the second paragraph of your missive above only demonstrates that people will hear just what they want to hear, regardless of what's actually being said.

My point was not that someone's acrage should determine the weight of their vote - I never said that and, re-reading my earlier comment to which you responded above, I don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time on it, except to say in response to your similar remark about land and voting, "guns don't kill people, people do."

Further, the bit about the red v. blue maps is nonsense, to the extent that anyone who pulls out those maps to make the points you have made as part of your straw man is a complete moron. Back in the day, Republicans with whom I spoke about that map (really, the one that shows voting by county as opposed to state is truly eye-opening) shared my awe at how clearly divided on metropolitan/non-urban lines this country has become politically; surely you'll agree that it's uncanny. Everyone knew then, and they certainly know now, that the election of 2000 was incredibly close, basically netting each man roughly 49.5% or something like that, with a bloc about the size of half the population of Riverside, California, giving the edge to Mr. Gore on the raw vote numbers alone. Hell, who's to know if a few dead people and other folks' cats and dogs didn't vote, it might have gone the other way? If you think the fraud that's been uncovered in the past few months has only been happening as long, please wake up.

But ultimately, you gotta ask, does anyone even talk about that map anymore? When's the last time you heard the name Paul Begala?

On another note, do you think prisoners should have voting rights?

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by wwworry


Didn't Gore volunteer for Vietnam while Bush used his grandfathers connections to get into the Texas reserves and was A.W.O.L. for 1 1/2 years of his 2 year stint? Didn't Dick Cheney decide to stay in school rather than risk military service.


I love these peeing contests, "my side is purer than your side"! So adult...

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by wwworry

Obviously the multi-millionaires running the media and the government have done a pretty good job brainwashing the stiffs.

...so uncorrupted and aloof...

Opinions are like *******s, everybody's got one. You're no different or better, and neither are your opinions, so stop being so arrogant!:rolleyes:

Judo
Oct 28, 2002, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by vixapphire

On another note, do you think prisoners should have voting rights?

How about people who have the same name as convicts???
Because in florida they wern't allowed to vote.

wwworry
Oct 28, 2002, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by vixapphire


...so uncorrupted and aloof...

Opinions are like *******s, everybody's got one. You're no different or better, and neither are your opinions, so stop being so arrogant!:rolleyes:

Well it never seases to amaze me that poeple so in favor of self-interest and self-empowerment think that it's somehow NATURAL that the super-rich in this country become even richer. As if the super-rich do not spend millions lobbying the govt. for tax laws favorable to themselves. As if they do not hire armies of accountants and lawyers sqeezing every last dime out every last loop hole.

So why does the guy making $30,000 vote for the interests of the guy making $3,000,000?

Where 40 years ago his boss was making 41 times his salary, now his boss is making 411 times what he makes (http://www.inequality.org/facts3.html). You yourself said "People always think of themselves; happily they do." but here they do not.

Maybe these stiffs have it in their head that when they start making $3000000/year they are not going to want to pay a lot in taxes, forgetting their current situation and the most likely outcome of their earning potential, like playing the lottery. Maybe their general dislike of taxes is so great that if a few people get out of paying it becomes pleasurable for them.

But my guess is that they have been brainwashed because the only other option is to believe them stupid. Why does the guy making $30,000 vote for the interests of the guy making $3,000,000 and not his own interests? If you're against govt. spending then act for that. If you want to spend even more on the military than the current we-spend-more-than-the-rest-of-the-world-combined then write your congressman and tell your representative "I would like to spend twice what the rest of the world spends."

But don't pretend to be a self-interested capitalist by donating your money to the super-rich. They don't do it for you and you shouldn't do it for them.

jefhatfield
Oct 28, 2002, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by vixapphire


I love these peeing contests, "my side is purer than your side"! So adult...

it was like those "edumacated" pissing contests with mcrain and backtothemac, both guys with multiple college degrees in the topics of law, history, political science, military history, etc...

it came down to the small government conservatives against the domestic policy liberals...but just in more well thought out arguments...but same "contest":p

mcrain
Oct 28, 2002, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
it was like those "edumacated" pissing contests with mcrain and backtothemac, both guys with multiple college degrees in the topics of law, history, political science, military history, etc...

it came down to the small government conservatives against the domestic policy liberals...but just in more well thought out arguments...but same "contest":p

Those weren't pissing contests, those were intelligent discussions regarding issues to which we disagreed.

As for the $30,000/year guy voting for the interests of the $3,000,000/year guy, the answer is simple.
The $30k guy thinks he's voting for his own interests. He got $500 or $600 bucks back from the Republicans! That's real money! In addition, the Republican party has aligned itself with groups that argue for legislated morality, and many $30k/yr people will ignore taxes and helping their neighbor in favor of anti-abortion, prayer in school, etc... Also, don't forget that a lot of $30k and less/yr people live in rural areas and like to hunt. Granted, no one needs an assault rifle to hunt, but they like to think that they might.

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Judo


How about people who have the same name as convicts???
Because in florida they wern't allowed to vote.

how's that? what kind of voter registration set-up do they have in Florida, anyway? I have heard that in fact several convicts were voting. Maybe the people on the outside with the same names had their votes hijacked by their eponymously incarcerated doppelgangers (or is that, "doppelgang-bangers"?)...

back to the point, though, even if the people on the outside were allowed to vote, and no one can seriously argue they were not robbed of their rights if what you said is true, what does that have to do with my question, exactly?

cheers,

vixapphire

jefhatfield
Oct 28, 2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Those weren't pissing contests, those were intelligent discussions regarding issues to which we disagreed.

As for the $30,000/year guy voting for the interests of the $3,000,000/year guy, the answer is simple.
The $30k guy thinks he's voting for his own interests. He got $500 or $600 bucks back from the Republicans! That's real money! In addition, the Republican party has aligned itself with groups that argue for legislated morality, and many $30k/yr people will ignore taxes and helping their neighbor in favor of anti-abortion, prayer in school, etc... Also, don't forget that a lot of $30k and less/yr people live in rural areas and like to hunt. Granted, no one needs an assault rifle to hunt, but they like to think that they might.

he he...just giving you a hard time ;)

those were educated arguments and i wish the majority of the current crop of political thread posters would look to you guys for some guidance

the GOP has been trying to get voters outside the typical rich, country club republican and so far, they have fooled a lot of voters who usually fit the democratic platform who make under 30k or even 50k a year...but that can't last forever

colin powell eloquently tried to make african american voters believe that the GOP was the true party for them even though he used a lot of fallacies in his arguments

when the division between the rich and poor grows larger, the poor who voted for the GOP are going to start going to the democrats like they did in 1992

a lot of people believed in ronald reagan and george bush until the economy and voodoo economics did not start making the money trickle down...people got disenchanted and tossed the republicans out

whether bush stole the election or got more popular votes or not, he still did win in the end and i believe part of it was the GOP's very successful pitch to the working classes that they were going to make a change for them...the tax return was a step in the right direction but since then, it's looked bad for the common working person and the president's numbers have gone down

he did a good job after 9/11 but months later, people started looking at the domestic issues which look bad

it will take a political miracle for bush to retain a second term

for me, he would get my vote if;

1) bin laden were caught or proven to be dead and al qaeda was severely disabled

2) the GOP made some sort of workable plan to get us out of this recession as opposed to favoring the top 1% of the income earners

as i have said before, i think GWB did a good job after 9/11, but i doubt his plan on the domestic, economic front...but i will keep an open mind and as a democrat, i plan to vote for two republicans in california

reardon (R) as a write-in for governor and mcpherson (R) for lt. governor...in most other issues, i will vote more towards the liberal side

as the governor's race seems to be shaping up in california, the incumbent democratic governor has a double digit lead and is likely to win by a landslide...the GOP in california chose the man they thought would have the tiniest of connections to the president to increase their chances...GWB is not exactly a popular person in this state:p

BenderBot1138
Oct 28, 2002, 02:26 PM
Speaking of the President, I wonder what kind of Mac President Gore uses?

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138
Speaking of the President, I wonder what kind of Mac President Gore uses?

You mean the president of the Nashville-area PTA, Tipper?:cool:

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by wwworry


Well it never seases to amaze me that poeple so in favor of self-interest and self-empowerment think that it's somehow NATURAL that the super-rich in this country become even richer. As if the super-rich do not spend millions lobbying the govt. for tax laws favorable to themselves. As if they do not hire armies of accountants and lawyers sqeezing every last dime out every last loop hole.

So why does the guy making $30,000 vote for the interests of the guy making $3,000,000?

Where 40 years ago his boss was making 41 times his salary, now his boss is making 411 times what he makes (http://www.inequality.org/facts3.html). You yourself said "People always think of themselves; happily they do." but here they do not.

Maybe these stiffs have it in their head that when they start making $3000000/year they are not going to want to pay a lot in taxes, forgetting their current situation and the most likely outcome of their earning potential, like playing the lottery. Maybe their general dislike of taxes is so great that if a few people get out of paying it becomes pleasurable for them.

But my guess is that they have been brainwashed because the only other option is to believe them stupid. Why does the guy making $30,000 vote for the interests of the guy making $3,000,000 and not his own interests? If you're against govt. spending then act for that. If you want to spend even more on the military than the current we-spend-more-than-the-rest-of-the-world-combined then write your congressman and tell your representative "I would like to spend twice what the rest of the world spends."

But don't pretend to be a self-interested capitalist by donating your money to the super-rich. They don't do it for you and you shouldn't do it for them.


Dude, breathe. Here's some actual empirical evidence of why your $30k voter nowadays has less interest in following socialist/populist policies than he/she might have in the past, and why the arguments about "tax cuts for the top 1%" etc. are such a lungful of flatus.

These figures are recently published by the Internal Revenue Service, and that's about as good as it gets when it comes to this stuff...

According to just-released figures for 2000, the top 1% of taxpayers, ranked by income, now pay 37.4% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% now pay more than half of such taxes, and the top 10% pay better than two-thirds.

While it is true that these people also report a large share of the income, their tax shares are far higher than their income share. For example, the top 1% reported 20.8% of income, but their tax share was almost twice that. The reason is that they pay very high tax rates. The average tax rate for those in the top 1% is 27.45%. Everyone else (that's the other 99% to you) paid 12.1% on average — less than half what the rich paid.

As a result of the high share of total taxes paid by the rich, the poor and lower middle class pay almost nothing in the aggregate. The bottom 50% pay just 3.9% of all federal income taxes.

The political importance of this is that a large number of Americans have no stake in the outcome of most elections. Since they bear none of the cost of government, they simply don't care who wins. So they stay home on Election Day. This answers the criticism that the "stiffs" are all brainwashed. Not at all; just being rational. On the other hand, by the tone of your ranting, I'm beginning to wonder about you...

As the tax burden rises on the taxpaying class, they have an increasing incentive to vote because they have a big stake in the results. Class warfare messages like yours have little impact anymore, since they resonate mainly with non-voters, while the Republican tax-cut message hits home with taxpayers.

Now, if you want to take issue with the "party of small government" increasing federal spending at 2x the rate of inflation throughout the 1990's, I say go for it. But if you honestly believe that people are trapped in their disadvantage, I disagree. I have met so many people who have the will to achieve something beyond taking handouts and complaining (hint: their actions speak louder than words to that effect), and I am accustomed to encountering positivity and hope and it's more of a surprise than anything to find someone seriously humpin' who's lost faith in the system. Usually, people with that attitude don't/didn't have much heart to begin with. And to think there's even a site called "inequality.org" - talk about working to preserve the status quo: over there it's a matter of job security!

greetings from the rotterdammerung,

vixapphire

mcrain
Oct 28, 2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by vixapphire
Dude, breathe. Here's some actual empirical evidence of why your $30k voter nowadays has less interest in following socialist/populist policies than he/she might have in the past, and why the arguments about "tax cuts for the top 1%" etc. are such a lungful of flatus.

These figures are recently published by the Internal Revenue Service, and that's about as good as it gets when it comes to this stuff...

According to just-released figures for 2000, the top 1% of taxpayers, ranked by income, now pay 37.4% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% now pay more than half of such taxes, and the top 10% pay better than two-thirds.

While it is true that these people also report a large share of the income, their tax shares are far higher than their income share. For example, the top 1% reported 20.8% of income, but their tax share was almost twice that. The reason is that they pay very high tax rates. The average tax rate for those in the top 1% is 27.45%. Everyone else (that's the other 99% to you) paid 12.1% on average — less than half what the rich paid.

As a result of the high share of total taxes paid by the rich, the poor and lower middle class pay almost nothing in the aggregate. The bottom 50% pay just 3.9% of all federal income taxes.

The political importance of this is that a large number of Americans have no stake in the outcome of most elections. Since they bear none of the cost of government, they simply don't care who wins. So they stay home on Election Day. This answers the criticism that the "stiffs" are all brainwashed. Not at all; just being rational. On the other hand, by the tone of your ranting, I'm beginning to wonder about you...

As the tax burden rises on the taxpaying class, they have an increasing incentive to vote because they have a big stake in the results. Class warfare messages like yours have little impact anymore, since they resonate mainly with non-voters, while the Republican tax-cut message hits home with taxpayers.

Now, if you want to take issue with the "party of small government" increasing federal spending at 2x the rate of inflation throughout the 1990's, I say go for it. But if you honestly believe that people are trapped in their disadvantage, I disagree. I have met so many people who have the will to achieve something beyond taking handouts and complaining (hint: their actions speak louder than words to that effect), and I am accustomed to encountering positivity and hope and it's more of a surprise than anything to find someone seriously humpin' who's lost faith in the system. Usually, people with that attitude don't/didn't have much heart to begin with. And to think there's even a site called "inequality.org" - talk about working to preserve the status quo: over there it's a matter of job security!

greetings from the rotterdammerung,

vixapphire

Wow, that sure sounds like a valid argument, however, unfortunately, you, and most republicans, love to talk about only the federal income tax.

My tax law professor, a staunch republican by the way, provided his classes with empirical evidence that, in a nutshell, showed that the u.s. taxes are flat. IF you add up all different taxes and then determine what amount of tax is paid as a percentage of income. Basically, a very poor person who pays zero federal income tax still pays roughly the same percentage of their income in taxes as someone who is very rich.

(edit)
Oh, I almost forgot. Why do republicans only talk about how unfair the federal income tax (a progressive tax system)? Because if you make the federal income tax system flat, or in any way flatten the progressive curve, you end up with a tax system that is regressive overall!

jefhatfield
Oct 28, 2002, 03:15 PM
the GOP is so out of touch with the middle class...without needing to really engage in a super rich vs. super poor discussion and the problems of inequality

those issues alone have their own threads here or could be their own threads ;)

the super rich want to stay that way, and depending on which side of the fence you lie on, that could be a good or bad thing

the best thing the GOP has going for it now is that many of its registered members go out and actually vote...something a lot of dems i know don't do

if people in america were forced to go out and vote, the democrats would win every time but that would quickly mean a very corrupt and out of touch democratic party

some friends of mine who are republicans have mentioned to me that they thought the democrats stopped caring about the foriegn policy issues (like bin laden and terrorism) because they got too involved on the domestic side

i don't know if that is true, but one has to ask, "why didn't we dispose of bin laden when we had the chance" and also, "did the united states intelligence community recently have ample warning before 9/11?"...i am more worried about the former question as opposed to the latter question (which the press has played for a long time now)

i hope for a bi-partisan cooperation in stopping world terrorism, which can be done over a long period of time

i just fear the urgency won't be there in five years like it is now and may not even be an issue by the next election past 2004

Ovi
Oct 28, 2002, 03:58 PM
11

jefhatfield
Oct 28, 2002, 04:04 PM
both parties have their social agendas and their areas of spending or spending cuts

at this point in history, i tend to side with the democrats but i would never want government to take care of everything

and i don't know of any democrats who would wish for that either

now if you want an all powerful central government, look to the communists...i am sure they have ideas in that vein:p

vixapphire
Oct 28, 2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Wow, that sure sounds like a valid argument, however, unfortunately, you, and most republicans, love to talk about only the federal income tax.

My tax law professor, a staunch republican by the way, provided his classes with empirical evidence that, in a nutshell, showed that the u.s. taxes are flat. IF you add up all different taxes and then determine what amount of tax is paid as a percentage of income. Basically, a very poor person who pays zero federal income tax still pays roughly the same percentage of their income in taxes as someone who is very rich.

(edit)
Oh, I almost forgot. Why do republicans only talk about how unfair the federal income tax (a progressive tax system)? Because if you make the federal income tax system flat, or in any way flatten the progressive curve, you end up with a tax system that is regressive overall!

First, don't change the subject from federal government policy/management by this or any other administration now to a question of state tax policy (which is hardly uniform). And then harrumph as if every other poster on this thread has been off-topic or evading the issue the whole time! Get real, please.

Second, if everyone is in fact paying the same percentage of their income, then what are you and the other folks whining for higher taxes on *other* folks complaining about? Sounds a lot like unfairness masquerading as "concern for fairness". Come to think of it, sounds a lot like Tom Daschle...

Third, uh, as far as I understand it, to the extent this thread is about the President, and therefore his economic policy (or lack thereof), the "Bush Tax Cuts" so vilified by you and others, and so forth, this would naturally be a discussion of federal income taxes. Since this is a republic, how the states choose to tax their citizens is another matter. Moreover, if I live in Nevada, do your professor's arguments still apply? (there is no state income tax in Nevada, btw).

wdlove
Oct 28, 2002, 08:10 PM
The Democratic party of WW II is dead. The new Democrat Party lost in Vietnam because of their distain for the military. Our military is in disarray & servicemen on food stamps thanks to Teddy & his ilk! :(

sturm375
Oct 29, 2002, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by vixapphire

According to just-released figures for 2000, the top 1% of taxpayers, ranked by income, now pay 37.4% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% now pay more than half of such taxes, and the top 10% pay better than two-thirds.

greetings from the rotterdammerung,

vixapphire

What you, and many other leave out, is that the Top 1% earners, also are holding onto a little more that 50% of all the money in the US. Taking this into consideration, I think they ought to be paying 50% of the federal income.

Bottom line is this, at least for me. No one is going to win me over trying to make me pity the rich. I don't give a monkey's red @ss that poor John Doe, who makes $1 million, then gets taxed 50%. That makes $500,000, which is 20 times what I make, before taxes.

The fact that CEOs and other coorporate elite have had pay increases in much larger percentages than the peeons, prooves that "trickle down" economics doesn't work. Try something new already!!!!:mad:

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 09:16 AM
J11

wdlove
Oct 29, 2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
Just to remind everyone of the actual subject, Bush is doing a great job. Tax cuts need to be accelarated and made permenant.

Presently we have the highest home ownership in our history. Despite higher unemployment compared to two years ago, we still have more people working than ever.

Over 70% of the world population would still like to come to America some day. It really is not as bad and gloomy as liberals would like us to believe.

Thank you Ovi, will will know a week from today! Unless the House & Senate remain in Republican control the Bush presidency will be over! The Democrats (Demogogs) will take our freedom, through judicial means when necessary & raise taxes to pay their voters sor governement & their power increases!

DakotaGuy
Oct 29, 2002, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by wdlove


Thank you Ovi, will will know a week from today! Unless the House & Senate remain in Republican control the Bush presidency will be over! The Democrats (Demogogs) will take our freedom, through judicial means when necessary & raise taxes to pay their voters sor governement & their power increases!

You sound like a lot of people where I live. There are a lot of people around here that want the Democratic party to actually die and have the Republicans in total control of all government and push only their agenda with no one to question it or stop it. Do we really want that? I never vote a straight ticket, although this year I am supporting more Democrats, I vote for the best person always.

I have moved to the eastern side of SD which is much more liberal, but where I grew up out west, it is so Republican the Dems do not even run anymore for seats. You only have one choice on the ballot for many local races. I think most Republicans would also like this to be the case on a national level, because they want no one to question anything they do. I have a question for the Republicans on here. Do you ever support a Democratic candidate if he or she is the best person for the job, I do when the Republican is the best person, or are you the types that actually dream of total one party control.

I like the idea of one party running the congress and one party running the white house, you will find many americans like that as well.

jefhatfield
Oct 29, 2002, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by sturm375




Bottom line is this, at least for me. No one is going to win me over trying to make me pity the rich.




oh, my god, the rich, the rich!!!

how they suffer so:p

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 12:37 PM
11

jefhatfield
Oct 29, 2002, 12:41 PM
where was bush when he attacked the taliban when it was basically common knowledge that the real MONEY behind bin laden's terrorism/support$ was in pakistan

pakistan is "the" hotbed for terrorism, right behind arafat, of course

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 01:01 PM
11

mcrain
Oct 29, 2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by vixapphire
First, don't change the subject from federal government policy/management by this or any other administration now to a question of state tax policy (which is hardly uniform). And then harrumph as if every other poster on this thread has been off-topic or evading the issue the whole time! Get real, please.

I didn't change the subject. I was actually just responding to other arguments which were incorrect. It isn't a question of state or federal tax policy, it is a question of tax policy period. I wasn't saying everyone else was off topic or evading the issue, what I was saying was that everyone else may want to reconsider the topic.

Second, if everyone is in fact paying the same percentage of their income, then what are you and the other folks whining for higher taxes on *other* folks complaining about? Sounds a lot like unfairness masquerading as "concern for fairness". Come to think of it, sounds a lot like Tom Daschle...

I'm not whining. You never heard me whining did you? My views on taxes don't sound like anyone elses, yours, Bush's, or Daschle's.

Third, uh, as far as I understand it, to the extent this thread is about the President, and therefore his economic policy (or lack thereof), the "Bush Tax Cuts" so vilified by you and others, and so forth, this would naturally be a discussion of federal income taxes. Since this is a republic, how the states choose to tax their citizens is another matter. Moreover, if I live in Nevada, do your professor's arguments still apply? (there is no state income tax in Nevada, btw).

The Bush Tax Cuts are a discussion about federal tax policy. That is my point exactly. The discussion shouldn't be just about that, it should be a discussion about tax policy in general. Oh, and yes, even in Nevada, the professor's arguments apply. You have to look at state and local income, property, excise, etc.. taxes. (Oh, and don't try to act like you're some sort of expert on state taxation, that's my job).

mcrain
Oct 29, 2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
You just wait until after the Iraq war how things will look even brighter. In two years Bush will have a great record to run on.

Bush will pick up some great momentum after the war. He has learned that waiting to act, like he has with Iraq is not the best path. Things will move much faster. Pakistan is a real issue that needs to be delt with. However the path to Pakistan runs through Iran. Friends fasten your seat belts. The Chinese wiseman once said "May you not live in interesting times"

Good lord, Bush's master plan revealed. First we take over Iraq, then Iran, then Pakistan, then N. Korea, then China!

Wow, Bush really will have a lot to run on in 2 years.

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 02:18 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 29, 2002, 02:37 PM
I am not against "Taking Down Saddam." However it is very suspicious that we've waited until election time to get hot n' heavy. We should have been in there much earlier (ideally 1991). I don't know if this is the case, it's just suspicious, that's all I am saying.

I think what we should have been doing ever since '91, is to insert Special Forces, and CIA into Iraq to support, and advise rebelion leaders within Iraq.

Question: What should we do with Saddam, if we were to capture him alive?


Another solution to the Iraq problem. Solve it the same way we solve the USSR problem. Build a secret base, designed to insite rebellion, and promote captilism: Build a McDonalds in Bagdad.:D

jefhatfield
Oct 29, 2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
mccrain

I am not saying every country will be attacked. Nor am I saying it will transpire in two years. Your interpertation does not suprise me since I have seen how quickly you can change the words and meanings of other posters. It is rather typical liberal fashion to do so. The word is does not mean is.

All the liberals were shockd when Bush started to talk about Iraq. I can give you emails and articles that talked about Iraq a year ago this month. When you rely just on regular media for info, you only get half the story and therefore have a hard time understanding events when they due occur.

Bush himself gave us a pretty good road map back in January.

as a liberal, i side with getting sadaam hussein and there a lot of democrats like me who want to stop terrorism...on a small level like the self styled domestic terrorist in the snipers to the large level bullies like sadaam hussein

secretary of state colin powell set forth a doctrine of engagement in foreign policy which bush seems to be ignoring

if we go into iraq, we need overwhelming military support and overwhelming support in the us as well as overseas...without any one of those elements, we have no business in iraq

i think, and i hope, that the president is talking tough to scare sadaam hussein into disarming, because going in without the proper support would be like another vietnam war

in the end, i don't see the president making any stupid moves without cheney, powell, rice, and rumsfeld in total agreement...this is why he chose those rather confident individuals...not to boss around and ignore, but to help staff his own weaknesses in specialty areas

a good leader should always staff his weaknesses and the GOP has been staffed with competant people in the past like weinberger, kissinger, and many others

wdlove
Oct 29, 2002, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
mccrain

I am not saying every country will be attacked. Nor am I saying it will transpire in two years. Your interpertation does not suprise me since I have seen how quickly you can change the words and meanings of other posters. It is rather typical liberal fashion to do so. The word is does not mean is.

All the liberals were shockd when Bush started to talk about Iraq. I can give you emails and articles that talked about Iraq a year ago this month. When you rely just on regular media for info, you only get half the story and therefore have a hard time understanding events when they due occur.

Bush himself gave us a pretty good road map back in January.

Thank you Ovi. Exposing the Liberal agenda is the only way that we can combat Communism! :)

vniow
Oct 29, 2002, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by wdlove


Thank you Ovi. Exposing the Liberal agenda is the only way that we can combat Communism! :)

http://forums.tactical-ops.to/images/smilies/rofl.gif



Oh wait, I think you were being serious.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gif

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 03:59 PM
11

vixapphire
Oct 29, 2002, 04:02 PM
i agree with your assessment of Bush's staffing of his administration. However, rather than "ignoring" Powell's ideas, it is more likely that Bush is acting on decisions he made (he's the boss, after all) after considering and weighing Powell's ideas in with those of other cabinet members. No one can really tell at this point whether his decisions will be hailed as visionary or derided as a collosal failure.

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 04:10 PM
11

mcrain
Oct 29, 2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
mccrain

I am not saying every country will be attacked. Nor am I saying it will transpire in two years. Your interpertation does not suprise me since I have seen how quickly you can change the words and meanings of other posters. It is rather typical liberal fashion to do so. The word is does not mean is.

All the liberals were shockd when Bush started to talk about Iraq. I can give you emails and articles that talked about Iraq a year ago this month. When you rely just on regular media for info, you only get half the story and therefore have a hard time understanding events when they due occur.

Bush himself gave us a pretty good road map back in January.

Wow, you've got your knickers in a bunch. You act like it would be ok to start war with all those named countries as if it is our right to do so. I only point out the obvious when I wonder aloud whether Bush's master plan really is a state of world war, or whether he is merely going after terrorists.

You keep arguing some sort of liberal bias or that I'm not familiar with news sources other than the "mainstream media." You're making assumptions.

All I have done is question your very pro-Bush arguments. Maybe your arguments and statements have merits, but, maybe they don't. That doesn't mean I don't understand events. Quite to the contrary, I think you'd probably be best advised to steer clear of any intellectual discussions with anyone who pays any attention to current events.

By the way, arguing that you've read something in a conservative newssource, and therefore the other person must not know anything isn't much of an argument. It certainly isn't persuasive.

mcrain
Oct 29, 2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
communism? I don't quite follow.

most liberals are deep down hard core socialists. They would never admit that because they either don't understand what socialism is or know that they would be voted out of office quickly if they announced themselfs as socialists.

So it is ok for you (republicans) to call liberals socialists or communists, but you get all nuts if someone calls republicans imperialists, nazis, or dictators? Doesn't seem very fair.

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 04:39 PM
11

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 04:54 PM
11

wdlove
Oct 29, 2002, 06:45 PM
The Democrat party has to lie to get into office. If they really told the American people their agenda they would never win an election again.

DakotaGuy
Oct 29, 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


This is utterly laughable. Once again you equate socialisim in the same sentance with nazis or dictators. Communism and socialism are being practiced in democracis, however the latter are not.

There is a big difference between nazis and socialists.


I know this can be argued forever.

Well where I used to live the Republicans have done so well at taking over local politics, in most state and local races you only have one choice on the ballot now in those districts.

In fact, the Dems have given up and even though you might think a one party system is better it is not. Case in point, the county commission. It is in total chaos, they are not even accountable to the people that elected them anymore, they get away with padding their pockets and even have been involved in several scandals, but since their name is followed by an "R" they will win, heck one was brought up on drug charges, but still won the election because he was a Republican.

I am glad to now live in a county that elects people on their quality and not just for their party. Our state is one of the big targets by Republicans. You should see all the tax money that is being sent by sending Bush administration staff to this state to try and win the election for a "do nothing" hollywood type John Thune. I think Thune could win because that is the way this state is, but the race is SO UGLY. In fact Thune even tried to say that Johnson was a "friend" of Saddam and Bin Laden...Tim Johnson is the only man in the senate that has a son on active duty with the 101st airborne in Afgan. He supports action in Iraq. I am so sick of this race.

You can say the Republicans are GREAT and the Democrats are ruining everything. I live in a state that the legislature has been Republican controlled for 60 years and our last Democrat governor served in the 1970's. Where are we today....50th in teacher pay not to mention an ever growing poverty rate. There are no real rich people in this state except for a few who try and control everything. Balanced polictics work, one sided solutions do not. I live in a situation like this. Why is it the poorest states with the poorest populations continue to vote Republican? I have no clue. I teach here for $22,750, that is the going starting pay in this state. The only thing I can credit the Republican controlled legislature is that we have no state income tax, that is nice, but my family also owns a cattle and grain farm, and the property taxes are terrible! That is right the Republicans control everything here and guess what, we still have taxes and even if they raise them nobody cares, because they have R behind their name.

One last thing that MAKES ME MAD and makes many south dakota people mad is when people talk **** about our senator Tom Daschle. He has been elected 3 times to the senate in landslides with many Republicans voting for him. He is a good man and has true mid-west values. What I think really makes us mad, is all the hate mail in the news papers comes from out of state, people who do not live here call us stupid for electing this man. Personally I like Tim Johnson more then Daschle, but both are good honest men. I hope all this tax money that is being used by Bush to keep bringing Washington people into our state to try and beat Johnson backfires on them. Bush is more concerned about the make up of the next senate then he is about anything else including Saddam and Bin Laden. Say what you want, but I see what I see and I know it is all political.

Ovi
Oct 29, 2002, 07:24 PM
11

mcrain
Oct 30, 2002, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
This is utterly laughable. Once again you equate socialisim in the same sentance with nazis or dictators. Communism and socialism are being practiced in democracis, however the latter are not.

Actually, it isn't laughable.

If you look at the political spectrum, Communism is on the far left with dictatorship on the far right. Liberals lean left, so Republicans like to say they are thinking like communists or socialists.

Now, Republicans lean right. Dictatorships, imperialism, etc. are on the far right. Applying the same logic used by Republicans when they say Democrats are socialists or communists, shouldn't we be free to call Republicans a bunch of imperialist dictators?

No? Why not?

mcrain
Oct 30, 2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
Remember when you vote for Johnson you are also voting youself into the same perdicament. Bush increased more money for education than any other presesident. Clearly :rolleyes: Democrats want more money for education to pay off the unions not the teacher. You didn't by any chance forget the fact that the union members are teachers? Republicans want local schools to decide where the money goes not the federal gov. Actually, Republicans want to institute a whole series of tests and standards on public schools so they can justify transferring federal tax dollars to private schools.

wwworry
Oct 30, 2002, 09:54 AM
Firstly, my point is not that Democrats are better than republicans. We have seen in the last 200 years how party definitions have shifted and at times reversed, shifting with additional factors such as race, isolationism, temperance (remember that?), suffrage, Southern populism (Huey Long), gun control etc. Even now it appears like the democrats are the party of fiscal discipline arguing against ballooning deficits. However, I would admit that "fiscal discipline" suits them more politically at the moment than as a core belief. Party politics is a game to achieve one's goal.

I am specifically against the Bush tax cut for my own selfish reasons. It transfers more wealth to the super rich. You could, and no one has made the point here, that no one benefits more from the Bush tax cut than Bush/Cheney themselves. Everything from regulatory policies to the estate tax to the emphasis on increased oil production/usage over conservation all seem tailor made to the guy who inherited oil wealth. Also, historically, the president has usually benefited from wartime politics and a long term war on this or that only helps the current administration. Someone here even posted: I don't feel confident we will retake the Senate. However, in light of this the Bush presidency is not over by a long shot. You just wait until after the Iraq war how things will look even brighter. In two years Bush will have a great record to run on. Yes this "war" has domestic politic purposes. So Bush has his own selfish reasons.

In the past 50 years the total tax burden has shifted dramatically on to the middle and lower classes and away from the corporate and upper classes. This has been well documented in innumerable places. It has happened through a variety of means - everything from Reagan's shifting of federal funding to state funding to this latest tax cut. You can argue all you want about what specific tax law is "fair" but the important thing to watch is where the money actually goes. It's going more and more to the people who already have a lot of money. Is that not "class warfare"? When I complain about it I'm not saying to the rich "give me your money". I am saying "Stop taking more and more of MY money." It is purely self-interest.

So it makes me mad when a $30,000/year guy starts defending policies that go against his (and mine, coincidentally) own self-interest. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Say "I support more liberal gun laws." (taken either way). Say "I support more military spending, less domestic spending, abortion moratoriums, Operation Tips, etc." But to support that tax cut is crazy.

The 20 second sound bite media has made any discussion of specific issues into a political game so people end up supporting things that don't make any sense just so they win the game. Billions are spent on campaigns and people know less and less about the candidates. Most people thought Bush and Gore were practically alike before the 2000 election.

Just one more thing as to teacher salaries and school funding. Someone is bound to say that throwing money at the schools does not help. But we are NOT throwing money at the schools.

The price of education has gone way up mainly for two reasons. We have decided to fund education of special needs children which costs a lot more than educating non-special needs children. So while it may look like we are spending the same amount per child as before most children are getting less money than before. [Note: I am in favor of educating special needs children]
and 2:
Before 1970 teachers were mostly a captive labor market. It was not as easy as it is today for women to become a doctor, lawyer or a business professional. You could pay a teacher $20,000 and expect to get a lot more qualified applicants because women, at approximately 50% of the population, with some exceptions, had no other choice.

Teachers today go into the field because they love it. But as we know, we'd probably be better off if people also went into the field because it paid a decent wage. Today's teachers are spending more and more of their own money ($4000 on average) providing supplies for their classrooms. Essentially, school districts can short fund the schools because they know these teachers will pick up the slack.

When was the last time you heard that the CEO of Citibank (who was paid a $970 million in the last 10 years) taking a cut in pay so that we might have lower banking fees?

I think we lower and middle class Americans can agree that we want lower taxes and more funding for public education. It seems to me the moneyed interests have though lobbying and ever greater control of the media have confused and divided us. A private school is but a pittance for them. A $50,000 campaign contribution is nothing. Yet who has the ear of the politicians? Why should their small change give them greater access to legislative power than my small change? While they can afford an army of lawyers, I can only afford one person just out of school.

In these issues of education, representation and justice things are not equal for us Americans. That's what I'm against, or for. You know what I mean...

Bush is one of them. Not us.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 10:33 AM
11

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 10:56 AM
11

wwworry
Oct 30, 2002, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


You could not be more wrong in your analysis. I am amazed how democrats have conditioned you to believe that a tax cut is taking your money and giving it to the rich.

You actually want to pay more taxes. Good for you. You actually ment this when you crtized those who support the tax cut. The rich pay more taxes than the poor. You can argue the numbers are not believable but that has not been disputed here...

Can't you read? I specifically said "we want lower taxes". I include myself in the "we" part.

There is a bill to pay every year to finance the govt. If one income bracket pays less of a percentage of that bill then I have to pay more. Or do you think we will never have to pay off the deficit that happens when spending does not meet revenue?

The facts are that in the last 50 years the total tax burden has shifted for the wealthy to the middle and lower class. It is a fact that that same trend continues in the last tax cut.

You got $300 last year or if you have children and are married the most you could have benifited might be (generously) $2000. The average person in the upper 1% got $46,000! Believe it or not $2000 is a lot less than $46,000! Did spending go down? No. Were there any new sources of revenue? No. Is the budget deficit getting bigger? Yes, by a lot.

You might think "but I pay less this year". It's just like a credit card. It is not free money including interest. Either you or your children are still going to pay. Do the math, the real math not the fuzzy math.

That $300 check you got last year was chicken feed. They may have fooled you but they didn't fool me.

Why do you want to pay more of a percentage of the bill than you did before? The Outstanding Public Debt is: $6,265,365,548,907.49
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
http://www.concordcoalition.org

You are going to have to pay a bigger percentage of that bill than before. The wealthiest are going to pay a smaller portion of that bill. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

jefhatfield
Oct 30, 2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Ovi




Just because I am not rich but support tax cuts does not mean I serve the interests of the rich. [/B][/QUOTE]

that exactly what you are supporting whether you know it or not

you may not morally side with the rich, but they have you under their spell

if you were a gazillionaire, i would understand and respect your arguments, but why do you say what you say if you are not rich?

jefhatfield
Oct 30, 2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Ovi




Just because I am not rich but support tax cuts does not mean I serve the interests of the rich. [/B][/QUOTE][/B]

that exactly what you are supporting whether you know it or not

you may not morally side with the rich, but they have you under their spell

if you were a gazillionaire, i would understand and respect your arguments, but why do you say what you say if you are not rich?

jefhatfield
Oct 30, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Ovi



Just because I am not rich but support tax cuts does not mean I serve the interests of the rich. [/B][/QUOTE]

that is exactly what you are doing

ovi, sorry for the multiple posts

there was a glitch in the network:p

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 01:50 PM
11

mcrain
Oct 30, 2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
You could not be more wrong in your analysis. I am amazed how democrats have conditioned you to believe that a tax cut is taking your money and giving it to the rich.

. The rich pay more taxes than the poor. You can argue the numbers are not believable but that has not been disputed here.

Arguing that republicans are actually creating a class warefare is ridiculous when your arguments clearly show a great envy and bias agaisnt those who make more money than you. You complain that money is going more and more to the rich via tax cuts.

Just because I am not rich but support tax cuts does not mean I serve the interests of the rich. My tax cut is helping me and if the rich get to save more money good for them. I really don't care how much they save. As long as the government takes less of my money and start to be more resposible on how it spends it is what I care about.

Why is it fair for you to have less taxes and the rich to pay much more just because they can afford it? It is too easy to get on the pitty bandwagon about how bad your life is and how great theirs is because they have more money. Don't worry about the rich and worry why the gov. needs so much money in the first place.

Just a couple of things. I make enough money that most of my Republican friends are surprised I'm not one of them. Second, taxation is my profession, so don't even think you know more about it than I do. Third, the Bush tax cut did, in fact, provide a greater benefit to the higher tax brackets than the lower tax brackets, not just in raw dollars, but also because the upper most tax bracket applies to everyone above a certain dollar amount. Finally, any effort to make the federal tax more flat by definition shifts the overall tax burden more to the middle and lower classes.

If you want to debate these issues, I'd be happy to stack my degrees and my experiences up against yours anytime.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 02:03 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 30, 2002, 02:09 PM
Just some intersting figures, at least I found them intersting. These are pages that indicate the number of people who get paid in what income bracket, 2001 Data.

Males: http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/perinc/new11_001.htm

Females: http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/perinc/new11_002.htm

No opinions, just facts, you make your own mind up.

wwworry
Oct 30, 2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Ovi



I could not find the quote that you want less taxes. But I believe you.


Correct regarding the bill. How about cutting back spending rather than increasing taxes, which is what you propose. I don't buy the argument that the rich need to pay more. So basically you want higher taxes.




I said "But to support that tax cut is crazy."
But to support that tax cut is crazy.

Untill spending is cut it's going to be you and me or the super-rich paying the bill. This year, like most of the past 50 years, we (the middle and lower classes) pay more of the bill than the previous year. You keep defending that trend so YOU must think higher taxes are good. So there.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 02:40 PM
11

Judo
Oct 30, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by vixapphire


how's that? what kind of voter registration set-up do they have in Florida, anyway? I have heard that in fact several convicts were voting. Maybe the people on the outside with the same names had their votes hijacked by their eponymously incarcerated doppelgangers (or is that, "doppelgang-bangers"?)...

back to the point, though, even if the people on the outside were allowed to vote, and no one can seriously argue they were not robbed of their rights if what you said is true, what does that have to do with my question, exactly?

cheers,

vixapphire

Wasn't really answering your question sorry Vix, just adding to it.
Ok this may get a bit long sorry, I'm copying it out of a book.

In 1999 Kathrine Harris who was both G.W.B's presidential campaign cochairwomen and the florida secretaty of state in charge of elections, paid $4million to Database Technologies to go through Florida's voter rolls and remove anyone "suspected" of being a former felon. She did so with the blessing of the governer of Florida, Jeb Bush.
The law states that ex-felons cannot vote in Florida, Making it 31 percent of all black men in Florida are prohibited from voting because they have a felony on their record. Black Floridians are overwhelmingly Democrats, with Al Gore receiveing more than 90 percent of the ones who could vote.
Ok here's where it gets really screwed up, Harris's office told Database to cast as wide a net as possible to get rid of these voters. They instructed the company to include even people with similar names to those of the actual felons . They insisted Database check people with the same birth dates as known felons, or similar Social Security numbers; an 80% match of relevant information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list. Marlene Thorogood, the Database project manager, sent an e-mail to Harris's office warning them that "Unfortunately, programming in this fashion may supply you with false positives," , but it was pretty much ignored.
Database did what they were told and 173,000 registered voters in Florida were permanently wiped off the voter rolls. 54 percent of them were Black.
Not only that but another 8000 additional voters were throwen off the voting rolls because Database was also provided with a false list supplied by another state which claimed all the names on the list were former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida.
It turned out that the felons on the list had served their time and had all their voting privileges reinstated. And there were others on the list who had commited only misdemeanors.
Can you guess what state supplies this list??

TEXAS!

Sorry guys, Im so sure you are all sick about hearing of the Florida election.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 03:26 PM
11

Judo
Oct 30, 2002, 03:57 PM
Have you got a link Ovi??

People not being allowed to vote becaues they have a name similar to that of a convict dosn't sound like normal voting problems to me.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 04:26 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 30, 2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


I don't know why I take the time.

Please go back and read the report put together by the Special Commisson on elections. It was chaired by a democrat. It investigated all these so called facts and came to the conclusion that despite normal voting problems, there was no evidence to show that mass numbers of blacks were disfranchised in the Florida Election.

I don't care, black, white or purple, if what this guy said is true: Kathrine Harris asked a database to "cast as wide a net as possible", then that is a huge violation. If I, just one person, was not allowed to vote due to some clerical error, I'd raise such stink, you might mistake me for Jessie Jackson:D But seriously, voting is amost as sacred as you can get in our Constitution. No one, and I mean no one, should ever be denied the right to vote because of a clerical error.:mad:

Also if Kathrine Harris was the presidential campaign cochairwomen for GW, I'd like to think she would have recused herself from the decision making process during the 2000 election.

Don't get me wrong, some of the things Gore did get me just as angry, but I have a right be angry at both don't I?

Thank God Bush signed that bill the other day ensuring more accruate, and perciese election results nation-wide. I just wonder how there going to implement all of it in less than a week:D

mcrain
Oct 30, 2002, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Actually I do support higher taxes. But only for Democrats since they are the ones who want bigger governments and more social programs and complain about how big the deficit is getting.:D

That's funny considering the whole idea of deficit spending and huge national debts came up under republican leadership and didn't start going away until a democrat was elected. Oh, now we have a republican again, and guess what, the deficit is growing again!

Funny how that works.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 05:28 PM
11

etoiles
Oct 30, 2002, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Bush and Iraq are not for domestic gain, but will result ultimately into it. Many fail to see Bush's true character because they have been persuaded by the likes of Clinton to assume Presidents are imoral and only care about themselvs Bush has made it is obession ( good one I believe) to ensure that another 9/11 does not happen again. You can question his motives all you want but at the end of the day he will be considered one of the greatest presidents we ever had.

How exactly is Bush preventing another 9/11 to happen again ? By killing all the terrorists ? By arresting anybody who does not agree with 'America' ? 'You are either with us or against us' is one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard coming from a president. And it is such a simplistic world view it makes me want to p*ke. You cannot win a 'war on terrorism' like you cannot win a 'war on drugs'. You need to fight the cause, not the symptoms. It is easy to support guerilla groups or arm one country against another, but in the long run all you create is more chaos. What has the Bush admin. done to actually build peace and stability in the world ?

How people spend their money is for God to judge not the gov. to legislate.

And who judges how people earn their money ? The fact that one hard working person earns millions while another one just a couple thousands can only be explained by the fact that the former have more power: for example a CEO of a bank has more power than a teacher. But it is not 'elected' or democratic power, so we need the state to apply some regulation to make sure that at least some of the money is distributed more 'democratically'.
When you walk through the streets, you must be glad that there is laws that prevent that big guy from harassing you, even though he is much stronger than you ? And that you can call the police if he does ? Well, it is called state intervention, it protects the little guys against the big guys and makes it possible for us to live together in something called society.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 06:18 PM
11

etoiles
Oct 30, 2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


welcome to our little party.

A lot of questions and crtic but no plans to the contrary. How do you propose we fight the cause of terror? We would have to agree on the cause first. This I doubt we will.




my pleasure, thanks for having me :)

I know, lots of questions indeed. So we won't agree on the cause of terrorism ? Well, there should be no reason for terrorism at all. Not more than there should be a reason for the US to support and train fighters in Afghanistan or throughout the world, or go to war against other countries that did not attack us. It is all about influence and power. People find all sorts of reason to fight other people...that is just the way it is, sad but true. When US planes launch raids in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other countries everybody knows that a lot of civilians are going to be killed, but people still see it as more noble than terrorism.
What countries have to deal with 'terrorism' ? Countries that lead an aggressive foreign policy, mainly. The US is probably the world champion at that, we have given a lot of people a lot of reason to hate us. A reign of terror is just not going to work.
What is your explanation, they see us all happy and they are big party poopers ?



God also judges how we make our money? Unless of course we do it illegally and then the gov. can step in. You are correct that those with money have more power. That still does not explain or excuse your notion that money needs to be distributed 'democratically'. What is amazing is that your same arguments were actually part of the speechs given by communists in Romania and today in China and Cuba. But despite this eutopian dream people are a great deal worse off there than in this democratic USA.

I am not suggesting that everybody should be given the same amount of money, but taxes should be higher for rich people because beyond the right to be rich, there is also the responsability to contribute to society. This is not utopian, just talk to someone who is disabled or cannot work for whatever reason, tell them why you think the social state is bad. There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Don't compare the US to Romania or Cuba. How about Germany ? They have fairly high taxes, obscenely long vacations and still manage to build the best cars in the world :D

Also, the American way of life is quite pleasant, but hardly a model for the rest of the world. The average American consumes twice as much resources as the average European, which is a multiple of the rest of the world already. The US are responsible for 25% of the worldwide CO2 emissions...just another global issue Bush fails to address.

Ovi
Oct 30, 2002, 08:26 PM
11

DakotaGuy
Oct 30, 2002, 09:15 PM
Ovi,

I am not going to argue with you because really it is pointless, you will never see my point of view and I will never see yours, no matter how hard we try to persuade the other. Political beliefs are held much like religious beliefs. People slam me for being Catholic all the time, but I believe in my church. I am assuming that you make a lot more money then I do and that does not bother me. We live in a capitalistic country and we get paid what we are worth. I go everyday to my classroom and I hardly ever think about what I get paid, because there is a lot more to think about then what I make and what other people make.

There are some things that the Republicans believe in that I don't. Maybe in some areas school vouchers are a good thing, but our education system in this state doesn't need a voucher program. We are very rural here and for almost all students except for the few urban areas we have don't really have a choice because of distance where they can go. Right now our school will probably have to consolidate with another town because our budget is so tight.

I think this "No Child Left Behind" is the worse thing that has ever been passed. It is just another federal program that WILL NOT WORK. The standards they have set are a "blanket" standard and all schools have to show a 5% improvement in test scores each year and all students MUST be at or above the pass level by 2012. If you have a terrible school, it might be easy to show a 5% improvement in a year, but my school is 17th in the state right now in test scores. We will not be able to maintain a 5% improvement and we will probably will be in trouble even though we perform so well. We have special needs students that are doing very well and are learning, but as far as getting every child to pass these tests, it just is not going to happen. Bush said he wants to close schools that are not performing, but with his plan he will also end up closing good schools. If you are a good school, how much better does this guy think you can get?

Yes that is right I get $22,750 to teach here and that is about the going rate in my state. How many on these boards would go to work everyday and give 100% to see that the students are learning. I do it, but anymore most people won't. If you want to improve schools, get rid of the stupid federal tests that Bush believes so much in and give the control of our schools back the the local board and district. Our state, which has been Republican controlled for years and years also does not help, they pretty much tell us the same thing, if you don't like what you make teaching here then move. I have thought about moving, but I like the kids here...some of the best students and tomorrow leaders are in the mid-west. There is still a good work ethic here, I like that. We are the only people left in this country that will give everything for nothing.

I never vote a straight ticket. I have supported Republicans before, but I have found in my state the Democrats have done more to help us. It took years and years to get rid of a do-nothing Sen. Pressler and I am not about to see us go back to that again. Nobody understands this "oh so important" race here in South Dakota this year. In this state we refer to our elected leaders on a first name basis, Tom, Tim, and John. Yep that is all we have in Washington, all 3 of them. Daschle is the Majority leader, Johnson has been working his butt off to try and bring some stuff back for us when we get forgotten by everyone else. We know that in the end Tom and Tim have done everything to help our country, but they have always watched out for our state. John Thune is only running because Bush asked him. He is a Hollywood type. He looks good, he sounds good, he does nothing!!!! You don't have to ask me, ask anyone that knows anything about what goes on in Washington.

Yeah Bush has been to our state 3 times this past year, Cheney is here right now, so is Cheney's wife. Bush claims to be spending all of his time working on the situation in Iraq right now, but he IS much more concerned about the election here. Do you think Bush will ever show back up here after the election....NOPE!!! He will just laugh after this election....3 electorial votes in '04...who really cares. I am sorry...you might like Bush, but he is playing us for a fool. Yeah I think this stunt to get Thune in will probably work. It is a sad day for me however, because then we have lost a great senator and replaced by a do nothing showy pin-up boy. Thune may benefit Bush in helping him push through his agenda with nobody around to question it, but it does not benefit everyone.

You asked why I continue to support the same people when my pay is so low. The facts are the people that I support and vote for like Daschle and Johnson have been working and have succeded in helping our state, but our Republican controlled governors office and state legislature do not care.

We only have one congressman, and this time I support Herseth, but I don't think she will win. Let me just say, no matter where you live, you better watch out because Janklow is coming to Washington. His voice will be overheard like you have never heard in your life. He will be telling people off and telling them where to stick it...I don't know why people like that guy, but they do.

etoiles
Oct 30, 2002, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


There is no way you can equate our support for rebels to fight communism with the targeted killing of women and children by terrorist. There have been more civilians killed by terrorists than the US has killed accidently in war. We don't lead an aggressive foreign policy. Last time I checked we give billions to everyone. The US diplomat that was gunned down in Jordan was working to feed the children of that countriy. I don't see his work as aggressive.


well, according to a study by Marc Herold, economics professor at the University of New Hampshire, more than 3500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by US bombs between October 7th and December 6th 2001. That is just one conflict, and a pretty short time period.

America used to be very generous, 15% of every US tax dollar was sent overseas under the Marshall plan. In 2001, American foreign aid represented less than 0.1% of the governments budget...

As for the US not leading an aggressive foreign policy: you got to be kidding...

But you are right, lets vote !

wwworry
Oct 31, 2002, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Ovi


Over 70% of the world poplation still would like to visit the US or live here.


You need to get more facts my friend. The rich pay well over 35% while the poor pay less than 5%.

P.S. I hope you guys all vote next week. Even you liberals.

A few things. Since the early 1980's emigration to the United States from naturalized western Europeans is way down. I asked my Greek neighbor about this and he said "Life is better over there. Long vacation, good food, nice people." Before the 80's he said it was better over here. He know because he goes back and forth. He would move back but his children and grand-children are here.

And that statistic about taxes does not include social security tax and state and local taxes. You have to look at the total tax burden as a percentage of a person's income. Also, if a person only makes $12,700/year (minimum wage) why bother taxing them? Talk about harsh.

To talk solely about federal income tax ignores how funding responsibilities have been shifted onto the states, ignores the tax breaks for buying one's SECOND home, the ability to but one's income into tax-free shelters, and even the benefit to buying a home on Bermuda and declaring one's citizenship there. I'm just pointing out some of the tax advantages available to the upper 1%ers.

The super rich do not use the 1040EZ. That 35% is the most they can pay. The accountants make sure they pay less.

If you are talking about a percentage of the total tax burden then you have to start talking about who has what percentage of the total wealth. We've gone through this before.

What gets me is how the one group of people whose real income has gone way up in the past 20 years keep getting all the new tax breaks.

sturm375
Oct 31, 2002, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
You need to get more facts my friend. The rich pay well over 35% while the poor pay less than 5%. I have no problem with the gov. helping the poor and disabled, however the system has become mismanaged and abused. Actually there is a small difference between socialsim and communism. One uses democracy to promote itself while the other uses sheer abusive power. Socialist and communist all want the same things: equality for the masses delagated by the gov.
Both use the gov. to regulate price caps and attempt to federalize all aspects national industry. And the list goes on.

Those are great number, ones I've heard from Republicans/Conservatives for years. They don't tell the whole story. Just like the Liberal media you hate, you only give the facts that fit your argument. Check Rush Limbaugh's website, near the bottom of the home page is a graph showing how the top 50% of people earning an income, pay 96% of the income tax. What they, and you leave out is how much of the total national income that 50%, or "the rich" take in. If you look at the links I posted before, and do some calculations, in 2001 the top 50% of the people (these numbers also include unemployed), are receiving 86+% of the total personal income.

Lets make this a little more simplistic. Let's take a 2 person population. I make $14, and you make $86. I would expect you to pay 86% of the taxes. I expect no less from the 50% top earners.

Let's look at the extream: The highest income catagory on the links I mentioned earlier makes up 0.5% of the population, and takes in 8.3% of the total income. Again I'd expect this 0.5% of the population to pay at least 8.3% of the income tax.

diorio
Oct 31, 2002, 08:37 AM
So, basically, while most of the rich work to earn their fortune, we should tax the hell out of them because of it? And if I work at Wendy's I shouldn't have to pay as high a percent of taxes? That my friend doesn't seem fair to me.

wwworry
Oct 31, 2002, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by diorio
So, basically, while most of the rich work to earn their fortune, we should tax the hell out of them because of it? And if I work at Wendy's I shouldn't have to pay as high a percent of taxes? That my friend doesn't seem fair to me.

Well if you want to make work a requirement for wealth then you should be against the repeal of the estate tax. One only needs to read a bit of Thomas Paine to see the societial danger of inherited wealth. Did you know that in England about 100 families own 80% of the land? This country was founded with that in mind.
(and keep in mind that the estate tax only kicks in on estates valued over $650,000. It only affects the top one or two percent of estates. Please give me a link to the family farm that was lost because of the estate tax before you start spouting off on that.)

Many people here have pointed out that in many different ways that weath is being taxed less than before. The top "earners" are paying les and less of the bill.

While productivity goes up real income for middle and lower class workers stays flat. The top one percent of "earners" are getting more and more of the money. Just follow the money.

One of the things that has changed in the past 50 years is tax laws. It is fairly simple if you look at income statistics and tax law changes to see the pattern going on here.

Now think about this:
Does it seem "fair" to you that lower and middle income workers are working longer hours and just as hard as before but not getting as big a piece of the national pie?

Does it seem "fair" that the upper 1% are working just as hard as before but are making 121 times what they made before?

Why are you so worried about the multi-millionairs? I just don't get it.

sturm375
Oct 31, 2002, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by diorio
So, basically, while most of the rich work to earn their fortune, we should tax the hell out of them because of it? And if I work at Wendy's I shouldn't have to pay as high a percent of taxes? That my friend doesn't seem fair to me.

Taxation is not based on 1 person-$1, its base on a percentege of that dollar. Let's take a hypothetical situation, the one I mentioned before, and apply a flat 25% tax.

I make $14, and pay $3.50 in taxes.
You make $86, and pay $21.50 in taxes.

Does this seem unfair to you?

Also take into account, an economic law: the Law of Diminishing Utility (I think that's the name of it). This states that for every additional thing you get, each individual thing means less to you. In the case of money and taxes, regardless of how much you make, there is a fairly static cost of living. In other words it costs me the same amout for a loaf of bread as it does for a multi-millionare. The difference is the $1.25 for the loaf in inconsiquential(sp?) to the millionare, while I will look for this week's sale to save $0.10. Anyone taking an introductory High-School economics class will learn this.

It is because of this economic law, that we as a society place a heavier tax burdon on the well to do.(Progressive Tax) It is "unfair" in some ways, if you are wealthly. However it would be "unfair" to switch the burdon onto the poor. There are more poor out there than wealthy. In a democratic(somewhat) government, majority usually rules.

Bringing this back to Bush:
The only really fair thing to do, is to make the government spend less. This means saying "NO" to the un-necessary "Homeland Security Department". Saying "NO" to incentive programs for business to move here or there. Basically, reduce the size of the government all around, then reduce the overall percentage of taxation, for everyone. No "Targeted" tax cuts, just an accross the board reduction of income tax.

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 09:48 AM
11

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
And that statistic about taxes does not include social security tax and state and local taxes. You have to look at the total tax burden as a percentage of a person's income. Also, if a person only makes $12,700/year (minimum wage) why bother taxing them? Talk about harsh.

To talk solely about federal income tax ignores how funding responsibilities have been shifted onto the states, ignores the tax breaks for buying one's SECOND home, the ability to but one's income into tax-free shelters, and even the benefit to buying a home on Bermuda and declaring one's citizenship there. I'm just pointing out some of the tax advantages available to the upper 1%ers.

The super rich do not use the 1040EZ. That 35% is the most they can pay. The accountants make sure they pay less.

If you are talking about a percentage of the total tax burden then you have to start talking about who has what percentage of the total wealth. We've gone through this before.

What gets me is how the one group of people whose real income has gone way up in the past 20 years keep getting all the new tax breaks.

This is fantastic. Someone else who understands that the issue of taxes can not be considered through a microscope. One can not look only at federal income taxes, you have to include all taxes (by the way, don't forget excise taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol that are very disproportionatly levied against the lower tax brackets. Plus, don't forget sales taxes affect the poor, as a percentage of income, far more than the wealthy.)

Nice to hear another person here make a good coherent argument about taxation.

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
You guys need to join the Socialist party. You worry way too much about the rich.
Maybe you should join the Buzi's so you can help plot the takeover of the world and subjdigation(sp?) of the little people.

wwworry
Oct 31, 2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
You guys need to join the Socialist party. You worry way too much about the rich.

The rich are doing quite well for themselves they don't need me or you or diorio to look out for their best interests.

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 10:26 AM
11

wwworry
Oct 31, 2002, 11:05 AM
So now you pull up the communist bogieman :rolleyes:

Advocating one's self-interest in tax laws is totally capitalist and totally American. Arguing that the wealthy have some kind of natural right to more and more of the pie is not at all American. Why don't we just appoint some sort of King? Certainly you seem to be advocating a "natural rights" monetary policy.

Marx was right in pointing out that left unchecked capital tends to accumulate around itself. There is all kinds of evidence to that. Does that make me a communist? No.

I just look at the facts and argue in my own self-interest. As for that $86/$14 business, forget about fair. Show me the country or civilzation that lasted with great disparites of wealth? No one is saying that there should be no disparity. We are just pointing out that societies tend to work better when there are checks and balances to the raw market. I can give you dozens of examples when unchecked market forces leads to civil unrest.

Banking regulations, anti-trust policies and a progressive system of taxation were put into place for a reason and have worked well for the past 60 years. You yourself have pointed out how great an economic power the United States is. Why do you want to unravel a system that has worked? Progressive taxation works and has worked. The balanced and well-regulated market is one that works best.

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
What you are attempting to point out is that it is not fair that the guys makes $86 while the other makes $14. Pure communism.

What the heck? Did you learn English as a second language? How old are you? The point of the example was that the amount of tax paid by someone who makes $86 is by definition going to be more than someone who makes $14. In other words, the example refuted your argument that it is unfair that the rich pay more dollars than the poor in taxes. You're not too bright are you?

You keep referring to communism and socialism in response to any argument that in any way challenges your viewpoints. Has anyone ever told you that you're closed minded? If not, they should.

The point of a discussion is to discuss and evaluate the merits of differing viewpoints, not to call someone who raises issues dealing with economics a communist. (Which is why I counter you with the Buzi reference, to demonstrate the sheer stupidity of countering an argument by branding the person you're arguing with a communist, socialist, or whatever).

Grow up.

sturm375
Oct 31, 2002, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Ovi


What you are attempting to point out is that it is not fair that the guys makes $86 while the other makes $14. Pure communism.



You guys need to use the writing of Carl Marx to back up your arguments.

It will all seem unfaiir if no one can make more money and the rich are keeping the poor down. In this country if you get a college degree you can safely make 30K. Most make much more than that.



No, I am saying that it is fair that the person making $86 pays a higher percentage of the total income tax. I really don't care that they make $86. They shouldn't complain that they are paying 86% of the total income tax.

Originally posted by Ovi



Lets see this would mean that when we buy bread we should tell the clerk how much we make and then be charged appropriately.




No, I that isn't what the economic law is saying. What it says is that the rich person values a single dollar less than the poor man values a single dollar. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be talking about economics, period.



Originally posted by Ovi


This means we need not worry about being attacked again. We have done a decent job with our present system to prevent attacks.



The "Department of Homland Security" is just another "TLA" (Three Letter Acronym), to govern our existing TLAs (FBI, INS, EPA, FAA, FCC, CIA, etc.). This is exactly what we don't need. Yet another layer of adminstration (read buracracy), to get things done. What we really need to do is merge some of these together. For instance, The FBI, DEA, ATF, all inforce laws within the US. Why can't they all be a part of the FBI?


Originally posted by Ovi


If you paid attention in economics you should have learned that if there is no business there is no jobs or money to pay for goods and services. Plenty of third world countries are using this plan and are thriving.



I am all for business, I just don't want the federal, state, or local government creating incentives for this business or another to move to their town, state, nation. These incentives are paid out of my wallet(taxes), without my permission.



Originally posted by Ovi


Taxes are considered targeted for you because the rich need to pay the taxes for the poor. They already do, but you don't want to accept the data from the IRS.

You can't get blood from a stone. In other words, if more taxation is shifted to the poor, then you will be looking at 3rd world type conditions for these people. Basically the rich can afford it, the poor can't, so the government goes where the money is. At the time the Federal Income Tax was created, there was a social mandate to have the wealthy take more resopnsibility(financially) than the poor.

Same thing happens with Auto Insurance. Women are more likely to get into an accident, statistically, however Men are still charged a higher premium. Why? Men, on average, still make more than women, so the insurance companies go where the money is.

Is it just me, or are your argument very thin when facts are applied?

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by sturm375
Is it just me, or are your argument very thin when facts are applied?

His arguments are terrible. They boil down to I'm right, you're a communist. :rolleyes:

Oh well, he's just another Dittohead. (Don't get me wrong, I equally can't stand people on the other side who blindly think that they or their party's leaders are right). What ever happened to the concept of thinking for yourself? It's a lost art I guess.

You've got to think that the easiest job in the world has to be Rush Limbaugh's fact checker.

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 11:36 AM
11

wwworry
Oct 31, 2002, 11:44 AM
Socialists eat baby kittens.

jefhatfield
Oct 31, 2002, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Ovi






You are 100% correct I am very closed minded to socialistic and communistic view points. You fail to understand and admit that your view points are just that.

You took my advise and some of you started to quote Marx. In time as you read more you will turn to his way of thinking even more. This is how it starts, slowly but slowly you will advocate that the gov. should control more and more of the economy to make everything fair in your eyes.

first of all politics aside, happy belated birthday, ovi

secondly, a average liberal in america is so far from a communist

there may be some liberals that are communists, but i have never met any and the only time i have seen communists in america was at cal berkeley...but you can find anything there...especially telegraph avenue

it's funny how you make being a democrat sound like it is a gateway drug/philosopy leading to ultimate communism

a conservative is no more on the path to being a nazi than a liberal is on the path to being a communist

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 12:12 PM
11

wwworry
Oct 31, 2002, 12:28 PM
So you know God likes America more than Sweden? Hmmm....

Happy Birthday!

who said the poor were getting poorer (in the United States)? It's just that the rich are getting richer at a much faster rate and the lower and middle income families are not.

Also you forgot that in most families there are now two income earners so it's easier to buy a house. And, as you put it so well, we as a nation are carrying a lot more debt.

jefhatfield
Oct 31, 2002, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Jef,

Thank you for the birthday greeting. If Mcrain could investigate and count he could have figured out how old I was.

I know and my parents know for a fact that socialist arguments were used while living under communism. We have family all over Europe and they are much happier, however they complain so much abou how expensive things are. Socialism does not work. Otherwise we would see massive emigration to Europe from here.

I don't use that as my evidence, but the fact that capitalistic policies predominate now in the republican party is what has made this country the best in the world. And the fact that it has been blessed by God.

We can argue forever that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer but this is simply not true. We have more home ownership than ever in our short history. We are also more full of debt, but that is not because of gov. policies but because people want all the toys all the time. The bottom line is that here in America we can do anything to make our lives better. We don't need democratic/liberal politicians to improve the lives of the poor and ruin the lives of the rich.

By the way I played golf for my birthday and I probably could have played today but for the time being I have had a blast debating.

debating is a lot of fun and by doing so, i have a lot of views from both sides

i have and will continue to vote for some republicans and democrats alike

but i don't really see liberals really ruining the rich...it would take a lot more than that

two thirds of the millionaires in america are born that way...it stays in the family in the vast majority of situations..."the millionaire next door"

but to reach financial independence, the book and others in the same vein "rich dad, poor dad" show that it first takes working harder than anybody else and in most cases, also being self employed

a person who is working harder and self employed has better tax breaks and could afford better tax accountants and better tax lawyers so they can hang on to their wealth...while a lot of the rich may not like liberal politicians, i don't think they are afraid that they will get ruined anytime soon

and if worst comes to worst for the rich, they can always use their grerat sources of wealth to lobby politicians and fund their campaigns

the rich could send their kids to the elite ivy league and private colleges which have the first meeting with the hr professionals for the best jobs

and the rich can set up many unseen social situations where they control the destiny of who their children marry...at stanford, there is this arranged marriage company that advertises in their magazine...it sickens me to see this in america and i have met many rich who didn't have the choices in their personal life because of the family's need to keep the wealth in the family

jefhatfield
Oct 31, 2002, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
So you know God likes America more than Sweden? Hmmm....

Happy Birthday!

who said the poor were getting poorer (in the United States)? It's just that the rich are getting richer at a much faster rate and the lower and middle income families are not.

Also you forgot that in most families there are now two income earners so it's easier to buy a house. And, as you put it so well, we as a nation are carrying a lot more debt.

i live in a town in northern california that was designed around a military base in their housing prices

basically, the average home in the nicer areas was loosely based on what a sergeant in the us army could afford

now a general can't aford the average house which is now at $629,000, give or take a few doll hairs

did someone say easier to buy a house? well, at least not in northern california:p

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 12:43 PM
11

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 12:46 PM
11

jefhatfield
Oct 31, 2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Jef,

I will be playing Poppy Hills 2x in three weeks . I love Carmel and Monterey Bay. I can hardly wait.

you will definitely like it here

there are two explanations i heard for fort ord in the area closing and having the troops move to fort lewis in washington

1) the first is that it just got too darn expensive on the monterey peninsula and thus a good fort to close down

2) the second is that the republicans got together in a vast conspiracy and wanted to hurt leon panetta (d) so he would lose support...this was an attempt of liberals to target the mean spiritedness of newt gingrich...it was not a shining moment of my dems...i think newt gingrich was his own worst enemy anyway so the local dems should have just kept quiet and not tried to blame newt for fort ord closing...it just happened and that was the breaks

of course it got expensive around here and almost everywhere in this half of the state where the housing costs are the fastest rising in the united states

some people in other states make only slightly less than the average peninsula resident, but i don't think they are facing 6 grand monthly mortgages

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
"Here is where you need to learn how to count. You make the incorrect assumption that those who benefit $2000 make the same as those who benefit $46,000. If they both made 100K than it would be grossly unfair and I would vote democratic in a heart beat. The fact is that the $46,000 tax break is directly appropiate with the tax rates for income brackets. If you think that is unfair than go head and just say that all those in the top 1% should be taxed much more so they are even with those who make less."

I never said it was unfair but quite to the contrary. I have not advocated that the rich pay less, just that they allready pay more which is why they get a bigger benefit from the tax cut. The bigger benefit is what you have a problem with.

Actually, I do advocate that the top 1% should pay a higher percentage of federal income tax. Why? I've told you, as did one other poster (last on the last page I believe). But, since in your approximately 32 years, you haven't learned to read, I'll say it again.

You can not look only at federal income tax. It is not the only tax paid by everyone. People pay federal, state and local income taxes. They also pay state and local sales taxes. They also pay property taxes. They also pay excise taxes. When all of these taxes are applied to people, regardless of income levels, the overall percentage of income paid in taxes is almost equal. What? Let me say it simpler. Regardless of income, the total amount paid in taxes is almost flat. What that means is if you do anything to change the federal income tax (i.e. make it flatter), you've shifted the overall tax burden more onto the poor and middle classes.

I'm not advocating any spending, any socialist programs, any communist programs, or anything like that, I'm merely pointing out that you don't know sh** about taxes.

(edit)

And, you talk about fair, what's fairer than everyone paying almost the same amount in taxes? What you advocate is making it so that the wealthy pay less in taxes than the poor! Maybe not in dollars per person, but in percentage of income.

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 01:17 PM
11

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
By the way the argument that the rich can afford bread is not valid if they have to pay 6 grand for a mortgage.

Wrong.

jamesbhai
Oct 31, 2002, 01:19 PM
back to the original statement: osama is at large, perhaps due to the fact he's in pakistan. can't do much about that. or he's dead. he did release his will, for whatever that is worth.

iraq is an issue that would have come up regardless of who won the election (who was the FIRST senator to say we should take out saddam? yep, lieberman, and he's jewish, so the arab backlash would be worse, if you can imagine that). after 9/11 it is a natural consequence.

corporate scandals...uh, happened mostly in the 1990s, BEFORE bush was president. head to harlem for answers to that one.

approval rating is still high, so the answer is no. the problems are endimic of the system, not bush.

my two cents.

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 01:27 PM
11

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
I am talking to a wall. We never debated anything but the tax cut which delt only with federal taxes. We never mentioned making it flatter or any of the other taxes.

You keep sticking to your point that we should all pay the same taxes. You keep getting frustrated however you still don't make sense. If I make a million I will pay much more sales tax when I buy my boat or pay for my property tax because I would be buy a real boat not a toy and my house might be in Santa Cruz.

The top 1% is paying more taxes. The poor are paying almost nothing of the federal budget. This is OK>

A couple of things. Yes, the second I got involved, I brought up the fact that you can't debate the federal income tax without considering other taxes.

Second, yes, wealthy people pay more in sales, property and excise taxes, but not more as a percentage of income. Think of it this way, there are only so many boats, tv's, houses, etc. that one can buy. Furthermore, there are only so many cigarettes and booze one can consume. As such, as a percentage of income, the wealthy pay far less in property, sales and excise taxes than the poor.

You keep referring to the federal budget, but you also vote republican. Don't they like to push things off to the states? Of course they do, that way they can justify reducing federal taxes. You can't talk about taxation abstractly without considering the entire tax burden. To do so solves nothing.

By the way, I do NOT advocate the wealthy paying more in taxes. In fact, I stand for a fair and flat overall tax rate. Why, because that's fair. To get there, the easiest thing to do is eliminate all sales, property, state, local, gas, cigarette, booze, estate, capital gain, social security, etc. taxes. Then, tax everyone on every source of income at a set and flat rate.

sturm375
Oct 31, 2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
The base closing politics went both ways. Both parties suffered as a result. It was needed never the less.

By the way the argument that the rich can afford bread is not valid if they have to pay 6 grand for a mortgage.

If you pay $6k/mo in a mortgage, that is your choice, you could live elsewhere, and pay less. I do not control these decisions of yours. We all have to eat. We all have to have water. We all have to have air. We all need a place to live. These are out of anyone's control, unless you advocate killing people who can't afford food. If you choose to burdon yourself with a $6k mortgage, I can't stop you. Many people don't have the option of choosing a $6k mortgage.

And no, I am not advocating socialistic housing. Having a goal of being able to afford a better house is a good thing. To some, having better stuff is more important than saving money, or living within your means. I am not pointing fingers at anyone here.

I'll restate the Economic Law of Diminishing Utility again. To a person making $40k/yr, $1 mean2 more, than to someone making $400k/yr. The use of bread was sort of a metaphore.

P.S. Better late than never I guess: Happy Birthday Ovi.:)

sturm375
Oct 31, 2002, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


I am talking to a wall. We never debated anything but the tax cut which delt only with federal taxes. We never mentioned making it flatter or any of the other taxes.

You keep sticking to your point that we should all pay the same taxes. You keep getting frustrated however you still don't make sense. If I make a million I will pay much more sales tax when I buy my boat or pay for my property tax because I would be buy a real boat not a toy and my house might be in Santa Cruz.

The top 1% is paying more taxes. The poor are paying almost nothing of the federal budget. This is OK>

Yes, but say you, the Millionaire buy a $1k top of the line DVD player. While the rest of the 99.5% (Millionaires are in the top 0.5%) all buy less expensive $150 DVD players. Which group is paying more sales tax?

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 01:58 PM
11

wdlove
Oct 31, 2002, 02:26 PM
I would also like to see other taxes ended & a lower flat tax rate on all income. A national sales tax would have to exempt essentials like food & clothing! :)

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
I would also like to see other taxes ended & a lower flat tax rate on all income. A national sales tax would have to exempt essentials like food & clothing! :)

Why? I don't think you should exempt anything. I don't think you should exempt any income, any purchases, any anything. Tax everything at all times, and the rates will be low, and there would be no special interest groups paying Bush/Clinton whoever huge amounts of money for special tax breaks.

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 02:48 PM
11

jamesbhai
Oct 31, 2002, 03:00 PM
he got you there mcrain. if you advocate flat taxes, then you are steve forbesian, even farther to the right than GW. if everyone pays the same percentage, that's not liberal, to be sure. heck, it's no even mainstream republican. to see you make a 180 there is pretty amazing.

i do not advocate such a rightist measure as mcrain does, but the more you penalize those who are making more, employing more, creating more and taking more risk as entrepreneurs, the more you harm the foundation of our economy. without the rich, there'd merely be more poor. in socialist countries that have failed, it is because there is equality...of poverty.

we need to deal with the poverty here in terms of education and training, not targeting the rich.

people complain about walmart, yet they employ many, many people and provide goods to the 'poor' people cheaper than other companies. it's the same way with all entrepreneurs. you need them, even if you hate that.

"Deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall."
--JN

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 03:13 PM
11

sturm375
Oct 31, 2002, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by jamesbhai
he got you there mcrain. if you advocate flat taxes, then you are steve forbesian, even farther to the right than GW. if everyone pays the same percentage, that's not liberal, to be sure. heck, it's no even mainstream republican. to see you make a 180 there is pretty amazing.

i do not advocate such a rightist measure as mcrain does, but the more you penalize those who are making more, employing more, creating more and taking more risk as entrepreneurs, the more you harm the foundation of our economy. without the rich, there'd merely be more poor. in socialist countries that have failed, it is because there is equality...of poverty.

we need to deal with the poverty here in terms of education and training, not targeting the rich.

people complain about walmart, yet they employ many, many people and provide goods to the 'poor' people cheaper than other companies. it's the same way with all entrepreneurs. you need them, even if you hate that.

"Deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall."
--JN

I don't think he is talking about a flat tax, I think he's talking about doing away with income tax, and using a national sales tax instead. The only people I've ever heard talking about this have been Independents.

jefhatfield
Oct 31, 2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


Yes, but say you, the Millionaire buy a $1k top of the line DVD player. While the rest of the 99.5% (Millionaires are in the top 0.5%) all buy less expensive $150 DVD players. Which group is paying more sales tax?

actually, after taxes, and only counting real, spedable money that is solvent, there are fewer than a million millionaires in the usa today so it would be more like .3 percent

either way, we are talking about a considerably smaller number than one percent which would be 2.7 million people

at the height of the dot.com, there were four million millionaires in the usa (before the bust) (before federal taxes) (before state taxes) (etc)

it is not easy to get rich, even in america, and the rich, more than anyone know this

they also know that it is also hard to hang on to wealth from generation to generation, so it is in their best interest to help create a system where there are loopholes to hang onto their wealth

every now and then, you hear about a millionare, or richer, who gets nailed for tax evasion...an extreme case was leona helmsley, who paid no taxes and was a billionaire

i wonder how many like her did not get caught

it's like a tennis game, but where the rich always have the advantage

DakotaGuy
Oct 31, 2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Ovi



It will all seem unfaiir if no one can make more money and the rich are keeping the poor down. In this country if you get a college degree you can safely make 30K. Most make much more than that.



I have a college degree and don't make $30,000, of course it is my fault because I choose teaching and teachers are not very valued in society, but I am happy and that matters the most.

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
You do relize that the flat tax is being advocated by conservative republicans (not Bush). You might have more in common with republicans and Bush than you think..

I don't debate this because I have not read enough on it.

Actually, neither side really advocates a flat tax with no loopholes or exemptions. The flat tax proposed around the time of the contract with America actually resulted in a tax code roughly twice as thick as the current code. Why you ask? Because of the exemptions, loopholes and special interest tax breaks.

By the way, I never said I didn't have anything in common with Republicans. I definately tend to argue a liberal viewpoint on social policy, but to assume too much from that is a mistake that is easily exploitable.

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by jamesbhai
he got you there mcrain. if you advocate flat taxes, then you are steve forbesian, even farther to the right than GW. if everyone pays the same percentage, that's not liberal, to be sure. heck, it's no even mainstream republican. to see you make a 180 there is pretty amazing.

i do not advocate such a rightist measure as mcrain does, but the more you penalize those who are making more, employing more, creating more and taking more risk as entrepreneurs, the more you harm the foundation of our economy. without the rich, there'd merely be more poor. in socialist countries that have failed, it is because there is equality...of poverty.

we need to deal with the poverty here in terms of education and training, not targeting the rich.

people complain about walmart, yet they employ many, many people and provide goods to the 'poor' people cheaper than other companies. it's the same way with all entrepreneurs. you need them, even if you hate that.

"Deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall."
--JN

Actually, that's not correct. What I advocate is doing away with all the different taxes that we have now (that result in a relatively flat taxation system), and replace them with a system of income/sales/whatever tax that really is flat, simple and fair. No one, not even Forbse or George Jr. has proposed that. It's not something that anyone would propose because it would alienate conservatives, liberals, and every special interest group out there. But from a tax perspective (which is how I look at things) it makes more sense.

As for the idea being conservative or liberal, I'd probably characterize it as fair to a little liberal because it would prevent any special interest groups from getting breaks, would tax corporations fully, and would not allow for reductions in tax rates for the ultra wealthy (such as is allowed now). There would be no way to disguise the effects of a tax cut similar to Jr's.

mcrain
Oct 31, 2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
I don't think he is talking about a flat tax, I think he's talking about doing away with income tax, and using a national sales tax instead. The only people I've ever heard talking about this have been Independents.

I'm not sure about a national sales tax because that puts a greater percentage of the burden on the lower and middle classes. I'd prefer an income tax on all income from whatever source derived, with no exceptions, delays or special benefits.

(Sorry about triple posting, I know that's a faux pas)

Ovi
Oct 31, 2002, 05:04 PM
11

wdlove
Oct 31, 2002, 06:34 PM
For tax policy don't vote Democrat, their only plan is to raise the tax to highest rate possible!

Judo
Oct 31, 2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by jamesbhai


people complain about walmart, yet they employ many, many people and provide goods to the 'poor' people cheaper than other companies. it's the same way with all entrepreneurs. you need them, even if you hate that.

"Deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall."
--JN

I've never walked into a Walmart before (I live in little old New Zealand and we don't have them here) but I'm guessing alot of the cheap and nasty products they sell there are made in export zones in 3rd world countries, where the people that work don't recieve a living wage. Realise that you are not the only country with people in it and it's a small step closer to relief from the animosity your country receives from others.
And NO we don't need them! (walmart that is, but entrepreneurs yes!)

Do you think Walmart employs as many people as did the shops that had to close down because their customers started taking their money to walmart??
Is it better for wealth to be spread out or accumulated into one big pile??
Thinking about it I can't answer these questions.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that Governments aren't gonna save us from much at all, they just keep the show running (or make it look that way).

jefhatfield
Oct 31, 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy



I have a college degree and don't make $30,000, of course it is my fault because I choose teaching and teachers are not very valued in society, but I am happy and that matters the most.

i used to be a human resources professional for the us government (department of defense) so i still know a lot of this stuff

first of all, like i have said a dozen times in the last 2 1/2 years on macrumors.com, i am a democrat and a liberal, and sometimes a conservative or moderate democrat on business issues

ok, here i go:

the idea of a college degree meaning more money is a liberal lie in order to get more "funding" for the democratic education platform...period

i have college training in the form of a bachelor's degree, associate's degree and from the technical side of college education, a microsoft certification as well as other training in and out of the california college system

take my chosen field of IT for instance...michael dell the king of PCs does not have a degree...steve jobs the king of the other platform does not have a degree...bill gates the king of home and business software does not have a degree...larry ellison the king in waiting for software ready to unseat bill gates does not have a degree either...and the king of the future of internet, shawn fanning, does not have a degree...and i will toss this in for you sun fans out there...of the eight founders of the company, several do not have college degrees

and of the people i mentioned, the poorest of the lot are centi-millionaires and most of them are billionaires...some multi billionaires...and they are the corenerstones of the IT industy

also paul allen, co-founder of microsoft and the world's second richest man, sometimes third richest behind larry ellison, does not have a degree...and steve wozniak was a centi-millionaire before he decided to go back to college and receive his bachelor's degree and teaching credential so he could make less than 50k a year

in society, at most, only just less than 25 percent of the working force have a 4 year college degree and only eight percent of the workforce have an advanced degree like a JD, MD, or MBA so the bulk of the workers (75%+) that make this great country tick are non college graduates...and i mean they don't even have an AA/AS degree or an 18 month college certificate from a junior college or trade school

i am also a teacher as well as a technician/engineer and teachers are often the most educated workforce in the nation with a credential past the bachelor's degree and many also have a master's degree which is becoming more and more prevalent

and in some cases, and not necessarily administration types, there are regular K-12 teachers with PhDs as well as years of university teaching experience

hard work and usually being self-employed make one third of the millionaires in the united states...like i mentioned before the other two thirds come from inheritance (read the "millionaire next door")

wdlove
Nov 3, 2002, 07:23 PM
His poll numbers are still around 60%, so I don't think people are losing confidence. Bush is a very popular president. He's trying to use his popularity to help fellow Republians. Wants to move his agenda forward, its what he was elected on in 2000.

job
Nov 3, 2002, 07:41 PM
58% of Americans also support his policy towards Iraq...

Ovi
Nov 3, 2002, 10:24 PM
11

jefhatfield
Nov 4, 2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


Here are my perdictions for what their worth. Democrats will pick up two seats in Senate as a result of winning control of Colorado and Arkansas. If I end up being wrong and we actually win the Senate by one or two seats, the democrats will suffer a major meltdown which will take them more than 8 years to recover. We will of course hold the house and not loose as many governor races.

8 years?

...isn't that a little too far reaching in predicting such a long time for such a volatile subject as politics?

one republican friend of mine was so downtrodden in his view of his party in mid-1992 that he forsaw the next 16 years of white house rule would be clinton for two terms and gore for two terms...well, he was wrong

at best the dems could claim 92 and 96 for clinton, and hopefully 2004 for gore

my guess is that in two years, gore will at least go for the nomination but will have to fight for the top spot on the dems ticket against edwards, h. clinton, boxer, feinstein, daschle, and maybe even mondale (and some others)

so it's no shoe-in for al gore for 2004

if the economy does not pick up fast in the remaining 24 months, and i know this has little to do with bush---ok?, but..., gore will have a good chance to beat him...and in that vein, just about any democrat who is a governor or senator has a chance to get in

americans do not like presidents sitting in a foul us economy and two termers in recent years got their second term while in a strong us economy like clinton in 1996 and reagan back in 1984

Ovi
Nov 4, 2002, 02:34 PM
11

diorio
Nov 4, 2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield




at best the dems could claim 92 and 96 for clinton, and hopefully 2004 for gore

my guess is that in two years, gore will at least go for the nomination but will have to fight for the top spot on the dems ticket against edwards, h. clinton, boxer, feinstein, daschle, and maybe even mondale (and some others)

so it's no shoe-in for al gore for 2004

if the economy does not pick up fast in the remaining 24 months, and i know this has little to do with bush---ok?, but..., gore will have a good chance to beat him...and in that vein, just about any democrat who is a governor or senator has a chance to get in

americans do not like presidents sitting in a foul us economy and two termers in recent years got their second term while in a strong us economy like clinton in 1996 and reagan back in 1984

Gore will never be elected. He probably won't even make it past the primaries due to his action in the last electon. I think even democrats were starting to get pissed off that he dragged it on so long.

Ovi
Nov 4, 2002, 03:25 PM
11

diorio
Nov 4, 2002, 03:27 PM
Do you think Gores vice presidential candidate will be Lieberman again? I think if Lieberman ran for president, he would have a better shot to make it past the primaries than Gore.

Ovi
Nov 4, 2002, 03:50 PM
11

diorio
Nov 4, 2002, 03:52 PM
I think he will run but not with much success. I've already heard things like "Vote Gore in 2004", what a joke.

Ovi
Nov 4, 2002, 03:57 PM
11

wdlove
Nov 4, 2002, 04:05 PM
I think it is very likely Gore will run in 2004, but will loose. There is friction between the Gore's & Clinton's. Hillary wants the Democrat candidate to loose so she will have an open seat in 2008. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary will run in 2008, the nomination is hers for the asking.

My prayer is that Republicans will retain the House, & gain control of the Senate. The Bush Administration will be lame duck otherwise. Our leaders only have the power that they do because God has given it to them, have more to answer for! My prayers worked to 2000, it was Jefford's that turned evil. So many thing hinge on this election! :)

job
Nov 4, 2002, 04:13 PM
I'd love to see Hillary run in 2004 and get stomped by Bush.

mcrain
Nov 4, 2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
My prayer is that Republicans will retain the House, & gain control of the Senate. The Bush Administration will be lame duck otherwise. Our leaders only have the power that they do because God has given it to them, have more to answer for! My prayers worked to 2000, it was Jefford's that turned evil. So many thing hinge on this election! :)

And conservatives wonder why so many people worry about the "prayer in school" slippery slope.

Ovi
Nov 4, 2002, 05:08 PM
11

sturm375
Nov 4, 2002, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Hey this is great. For once we have 4 conservatives and 2 liberals in the forum.
Now I am waiting for the rest of the liberals to join in

Mccrain the power of prayer is incredible. I don't pray for a particular party, but that God's will be done what ever that may be. God will work via democrats or republicans.

I also don't agree with school prayer, but the freedom to pray.

If it is God's will, then can Jeffard's political change also be God's will?

Just something to ponder. I as a Christian, can't fathom God's vision. From everything I've read about Jeffords, his change was anything but evil. He supported the Republican party for many years, and everytime he asked for something, was completely ignored. He, and those he represents, have very similar beliefs. Call them liberal if you will, if I were him I'd take it as a compliment.

It's like if you'd pay a mothly premium to a health insurance company, and as soon as you get sick, the coverage stops. I believe that is how Jeffards felt his relationship with the Republican party was shaping up to be.

Ovi
Nov 4, 2002, 10:52 PM
11

sturm375
Nov 5, 2002, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Ovi


I wonder if you would say the same think about a democrat who became a republican.



Again, I don't give a rat's @ss about party affialiation. I vote for the person, not the elephant/donky. If a democrat became a republican, and they had a good reason to, I would applaud them. You really don't know how wrong your generalizations are.


Originally posted by Ovi


Jeffords was a smart man, (not evil) he knew his legacy in a democratic state was in dire danger of becoming a (nobody). Now he feels like a (somebody) even though he has accomplished nothing as an Independent except to continue to block republicans the way he had for many years. He has voted against republicans over 90% prior to his switch.

I knew it was only a matter of time before we got more liberals too comment.:)

Again, Thank-you. I am liberal (open minded, not tied to traditional ideas) and proud of it.

jefhatfield
Nov 5, 2002, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
I don't think Gore will run. The party has lost faith and his big donors will not assist this time.

i think edwards stands a beter chance if the economy goes sour or stays sour in 2004...a fresh face

but gore may try

richard nixon was VP from 53-61, and didn't gain the white house in two later attempts after that, but came back and won two elections in 68 and 72

nobody was more of a political deadman than nixon was when he lost in the 1960 election to jfk

but nixon came back

Ovi
Nov 6, 2002, 01:58 AM
11

diorio
Nov 6, 2002, 08:29 AM
Well, all the big republicans in my state won. Wayne Allard, Bill Owens, and for those in Colorado listening to the mudslinging, Ed Jones. In the paper this morning I noticed that Republicans dominated most electons. None of our Amendments passed except one about campaign finance restrictions, and thankfully 31, the total English immersion one, failed.

wwworry
Nov 6, 2002, 04:55 PM
I would agree that the answer to the original question is "no" but not resoundingly. 51 to 49 in not really a huge mandate in the senate, but it is a real mandate.

Fear and war do wonders for the party in power. like Castro in Cuba, like Hussain in Iraq, whenever there is the threat of war people tend to rally around the party in power. Later Vietnam being the exception to the rule.

And I am curious to see what happens with one party in control of the legislative and executive branch. Now all Republican dreams can come true, whatever they are.

I ask Ovi and diorio, hitman, wdlove etc.: What is your wishlist? Where do you hope this country goes? Pretend you are in charge and you do not have to debate with those pesky democrats. What would you do?

A dollar coin that does not feel like a quarter, perhaps?

wdlove
Nov 6, 2002, 05:59 PM
1st, Complete WK on 2003 spending resolution. 2nd, Pass Bush's Homeland Security Bill 3rd, would be to get Bush's Judicial nonimations through the Senate. 4th, Make the 2001 tax cut permanment. 5th, Overhall our tax system. 6th Medicare & Social Security reform before its too late. :)

Ovi
Nov 6, 2002, 06:05 PM
11

job
Nov 6, 2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by sturm375

It will all be better next election, with Campaign Finance Reform.


Which, ironically, is unconstitutional.

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2002, 06:11 PM
the only republican i voted for, lt governor, lost

the only green party candidate i voted for, governor, lost

gray davis won again even though many thought the energy crisis was related to him...the republicans put up the guy (bill simon, instead of richard riordan) who was not so close to bush thinking that would help his chances...bill simon got a suprising 42 percent due to the fact that he was not the bush business buddy...richard riordan, bush's good friend, who is a moderate, polled at 20 percent at best since california is liberal these days and does not like bush very much

while gray davis won with 48 percent, the governor's race was a dead heat most of the night and the GOP sent a strong message to liberal california that they are on the rise with their small, but vocal base of support

many issues that were on the liberal side won resoundingly in my district and i was surprised to see the nation go with 51 GOP
senators when many expected it to be 51 democratic senators

california is a strange state and could change on a dime...right now, we have 2 democratic senators and a democratic governor

but this is where reagan and nixon, both 2 term GOP presidents, came from

job
Nov 6, 2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Democrats spend too much time complaining rather than leading.

Could not have said it better myself.

The Democrats had no real focus in this election. Instead of having a plan, all they did was whine and complain about the Bush administration.

I think this helped the Republicans, as voters got fed up with the Bush bashing and realized that the Democrats had little to offer in terms of leadership and policies.

I love the National Review..

Did anyone catch Rush on NBC last night?

job
Nov 6, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
california is a strange state and could change on a dime...right now, we have 2 democratic senators and a democratic governor

but this is where reagan and nixon, both 2 term GOP presidents, came from

Ironically, California used to be a major GOP stronghold...

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by hitman


Could not have said it better myself.

The Democrats had no real focus in this election. Instead of having a plan, all they did was whine and complain about the Bush administration.

I think this helped the Republicans, as voters got fed up with the Bush bashing and realized that the Democrats had little to offer in terms of leadership and policies.

I love the National Review..

Did anyone catch Rush on NBC last night?

even though i am a democrat, i read the national review and i like novak on crossfire...usn&wr also has some good conservative commentary sometimes with george will

but rush is not a political commentator but more of a shock jock like howard stern and dr laura, well i won't comment on that;)

but the good thing about rush and dr laura is that the more they speak, the more stupid they sound and this helps the democrats

when asked about rush and how he felt about him, senator bob dole said, "i don't":p

Ovi
Nov 6, 2002, 06:26 PM
11

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2002, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by hitman


Ironically, California used to be a major GOP stronghold...

this whole country has become ironic

on the county level, a lot of the south, especially texas, voted democratic but the GOP still leads in the south in general

a lot of the counties in the northeast, once democratic, voted republican but the northeast is still mainly democratic

the south, in general used to be solidly democratic and new hampshire used to be solidly republican but there is a strong liberal voice there now

north and south carolina are rebublican but will vote democrat if they detect anyone too conservative

minnesota is solidly democratic but mondale lost

people who make a living watching politics are completely stunned with this interesting midterm election

for the first time since 1902, the GOP has done well in a midterm election with a GOP president so no political watchers who are alive now have ever seen such a republican sweep for a midterm election with a republican in office

strange times indeed

Ovi
Nov 6, 2002, 06:34 PM
11

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
Where were you all the last few days?. Suddendly everyone feels like talking

Jefhafield

Initally I saw Rush the same way, more of an entertainer.

rush is a very quick witted comedian and he is very funny and i give him that much...and i also believe his is a nice person...but

people who use his arguments don't do well against an educated liberal, though

rush has very little understanding of the legal or political system in this country and he has suggested that we go back to a monarchy and that the money should be held by a few select american families (like england where most of its wealth is held by 500 or so families - cnn)

rush does not like domocracy and his lack of understanding of the value of our two party system and democracy explains why he dropped out of school

george f will or senator orrin hatch, even though i don't agree with them, are very intelligent and good voices for the GOP...they back their arguments with actual facts and even if they use what i consider bad logic sometimes, they bring forth their point of view eloquently

what surprises me is that there are a lot of uneducated idiots who like rush and don't even know who george will or orrin hatch is

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


Simon should have won. I blame Bush for this. Had Bush come to California and campaigned more Simon would have won. How you ask?

Look at the map. Simon carried 48 out 51 counties in California. Bush could have energized the base to go out and vote. In Orange County only 22% voted and Simon beat Davis by a landslide in that predominatly republican county.

come on, ovi..he he

look at the population of the counties davis carried!

in 2000, bush carried many mostly empty states and gore had a small handful, except for texas, of populated states and it was a close election

simon did well because he was not connected that closely with bush

if it was bush's friend richard riordan in the GOP slot, davis would have slaughtered him...davis narrowly beat simon at 48-42 when pols thought it would be a twenty point wipeout

Ovi
Nov 6, 2002, 07:43 PM
11

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2002, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Ovi


I could not disagree with you more on this. In Orance Country alone Simon had over 300,000 with only 22% registered voters voting. http://vote2002.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/30.htm

If all you did was double the 22% you could almost make up the 320,000 vote deficit overall. Bush's visit would have added more votes in every county putting Simon over the top by a hair. However I must note it is very easy to play Monday morning quarterback with elections.

Every other candidate who was connected with Bush did well. Simon did not evergize the voters wearas Bush woud have. In fact all those who were connected to Clinton actually lost by double digits.

Boxer watch out because you are next in line in two years.

in all 8 major elections, the dems won for the first time in california history...just found that out fifteen minutes ago from abc news radio...but that was a quote from gray davis and i don't much like him...but that's another thread

have you ever been to california or recently talked to any californians? the GOP move was to distance themselves from bush and that's the reason the GOP did not go with bush's closest friend in california, richard riordan

what worked for the GOP in other states with bush stumping does not work in california

have you even seen any news broadcasts concerning the california race? the amazing thing is that it was 48-42 for davis not 60-40 like everyone thought it would be

simon is not a politician and from almost nowhere, without any real GOP ties, came up with 42 percent of the vote in california...no one has ever done anything like this

GOP people in california knew they would not win this race but getting only 6 percent less than davis makes them know they might be able to capture one of the senate seats next time around

best thing to do is log on to any california based newspaper's website and read the commentary two or three days before the election to see how hated bush is and how strong simon did for a man who was a political unknown

some say that richard riordan had some strange business ties to the bushes in texas concerning oil and something could have been bad that would have been dug up by davis...but no one knows anything now or are not talking

davis had an ad on tv that said that simon was against abortion even if the mother's life was in danger or it was a rape...this is not true and davis smeared simon in an ad saying this...davis pulled the ad because he would have gotten sued

i am a democrat, but the way davis used negative advertising was so shameful and dirty in the worst way:(

wwworry
Nov 7, 2002, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Ovi


If it makes you feel better to justify republican gains on this theory more power to you. Democrats will move to the left and loose by bigger margins next election.

Democrats spend too much time complaining rather than leading.


The thing is in the past twenty years the democrats have been moving to the right. Many analysts have pointed out that the republican party has moved even farther to the right. For instance, whatever happened to the moderate republican - the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party?

And you're right - the democrats complain too much and have not put out many specific alternatives. Losing might be the best thing that has ever happened to them. Maybe they will stop being such namby-pambies and start leading again. Lately it's been all "We're a little less right wing. Vote for us." Ug.

Allow me this:
The benefits of being pro-diplomacy
The economic benefits of environmentalism - a cleaner more efficient America
An economic policy that benefits the little guy - trickle-up not trickle-down
Investing in public education and public schools for a better informed, more educated populace
Hope, not fear.

I guess that's all old news...

sturm375
Nov 7, 2002, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by wwworry


Allow me this:
The benefits of being pro-diplomacy
The economic benefits of environmentalism - a cleaner more efficient America
An economic policy that benefits the little guy - trickle-up not trickle-down
Investing in public education and public schools for a better informed, more educated populace
Hope, not fear.

I guess that's all old news...

Amen Brother.

Who ever promotes these ideas has my vote. Especially the last one.

Ovi
Nov 7, 2002, 08:24 AM
11

diorio
Nov 7, 2002, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Ovi


You are correct this is all old news. It actually reminds me so much of mild manner Daschel which most as a wolf in sheep's skin.

Democrats are getting into a deep hole. Watch the campaign in Lousiana to see this.

Lets see pro-diplomacy. Clinton gave us Sept 11 when he try to talk his way out of going after Bin Ladin. Eleven year of diplomacy with Iraq has put that country a closer step to democracy and a greater friend of the US.

Economic benefits of environmentalism you say. Tell that to the farmers in Oregon who are in danger of loosing their farms to protect a few fish. Tell that to the families of 3 firefighters who died in the fire because helicopters could not take water out of streams in order to protect more fish.

The rich versus poor method has not worked. You go head start to say that we need to tax the rich more, which would mean most making over $50,000 and we will see how many votes the democrats get.

Yes lets pour more money into education but lets not admit that it has not given us better grades.

The Democrats are in big trouble not only with their message, but they are dealing with BUSH who they have underestimated every step of the way. They just don't get it.

I couldn't agree with you more. The democrats blame the economy on Bush, yet it was starting to fall in the later Clinton years. They have gravely underestimated Bush. I've been in political threads where the Democrats call Bush: stupid, ignorant, a liar, unable to speak the human language, a idiot, and basically a big pile of crap. He has led the country very well, and still, even with the economy, a very high approval rating. We need to protect the environment to a point. A few fish honestly aren't worth the farms that would be lost. Democrats must realize that for two years, almost everything Bush proposes will pass, and they will have to realize that there isn't anything they can do about it.

mcrain
Nov 7, 2002, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by diorio
Democrats must realize that for two years, almost everything Bush proposes will pass, and they will have to realize that there isn't anything they can do about it.

They could always invest say 20 million in a congressional investigation and impeach him. Worked for the Republicans.

jefhatfield
Nov 7, 2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Ovi

Clinton gave us Sept 11 when he try to talk his way out of going after Bin Ladin.

bin laden gave us sept 11

and that being said, bush didn't give us sept 11 either and i don't think bush "ignored" the warning signs

bin laden took us all for a loop and when the taliban supported him and harbored him, we yanked the taliban out of power in afganistan and showed the world, we will not tolerate terrorism

this is a hypothtical, but i don't think either major party in the us would let bin laden hide out with the taliban forever...the same troops would have been sent either way to flush them out of the caves we designed and built for them when they were fighting the soviets

wwworry
Nov 7, 2002, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


They could always invest say 20 million in a congressional investigation and impeach him. Worked for the Republicans.

70 million was the final cost. Foster wasn't assasinated! :rolleyes:

Ovi, you are supposed to take a stand against those points I made. I am just wishing some democrat leader or SOMEONE would advocate those points I made.

It's not you or I that are going to be convinced here. That's pretty obvious. My point was that the left or the center (even) should take a real stand and stop trying to be "the less republicans".

If you wish that the democrats are going to give up those principles then what's the use of having more than one party? Or are you arguing for a one-party state? I don't think even you would go that far. I don't care who is the second or third or forth party. One party states lead inevitably to corruption. If the left gives up it's principles then even you on the right will be worse off in the long run. Diversity of ideas is healthy and necessary, though at times frustrating.

We could all be using the Windows 95 for God's sake!

On the other hand I could see a senario where the republicans divide - with the Christian Republicans splitting from the more "libertarian" republicans. Sort of wdlove vs. Ovi kind of thing. Then our current idea of "right vs. left" would be out the window.

wwworry
Nov 7, 2002, 10:15 AM
Maybe I should run for some sort of office. I could even start combing my hair.

sturm375
Nov 7, 2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


They could always invest say 20 million in a congressional investigation and impeach him. Worked for the Republicans.

Double, possibly triple that figure, that's how much the Republicans spent, of our tax dollars on the impeachment. This does not include the 100 or so small business that had to close there doors due to litigation. Congress wanted private records of places like book stores, the owners didn't want to provide this private information. Then were litigated to death (the businesses at least).

Taxing the Rich:
Trickle Down Economics doesn't work. I would venture to guess that given a tax cut to the wealthy, for every 10 jobs they could pay for, they may create/hire for 1, maybe. the rest gets pocketed by CEOs, CFOs, Board Members. Why else has their average pay increased a hell of a lot more (percentage wise) then the national average.

Pro-Diplomacy:
Has given us more than 50 yrs without a nuclear attack. Pro-Diplomacy save our collective arses during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Pro-Diplomacy, is the Christian Way, to state otherwise is to step off the path that Christ has shown us.

Econimic Benifits of Enviromentalism:
If you run a "clean" company, many people will buy your stuff. Look at a company I am very familiar with (My father works for them). Vulcan Materials Company. North America's largest Limestone, Sand & Gravel company. They continualy show increasing profits. They place a very high prioriaty on maintiaining a "clean" mine site. They both make it safe envriomentally, and as a by-product, make their sites look pretty. As a result, they get much more business, and the neighborhoods they mine in are much less likely to cause a legal fuss.

Money to Education:
It's not enough to just thow money at "Education" because that encompusses: Administraters(Don't add anything to the educational experiance), Stupid research grants(Pork for local polititions), and other areas that don't benifite children in the classroom. A "surgical strike" with money specifically dedicated to Teacher's pay, and classroom equipment, would go a long way to providing better education around this country.

Terrorism:
A free country is hard. The founding fathers specifically made it hard for the government to harm people (imprisonment/punishment/infringment). They, and I, don't trust the government, and don't want to give them any more power. In fact I'd like to see many of the new bills recended (Patriot Act, DCMA, Homeland Security). The only thing the government will do with more power, is be more agressive about removing human rights. I don't need a "Father knows best" government, as we have now.

Thousands of people died in the 9/11 terrorist/war acts. And now many people are wanting "tougher" laws. These "tougher" laws infringe on the rights that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died for. Do you want to detract from those sacrifices? How about the number of Signers of the Declearation of Independence that died very brutally (along with some of their families), just because they all agreed that people have human rights. They signed a piece of paper, that they new would anger the King of England enought to order their deaths. Talk about sacrifice, and all so we can enjoy freedom.

Now because we are all scared by the "Axis of Evil," we are willing to ignore these sacrifices, and give the government an ever increasing power over our lives. Not for me sir!:mad:

jefhatfield
Nov 7, 2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by wwworry




On the other hand I could see a senario where the republicans divide - with the Christian Republicans splitting from the more "libertarian" republicans. Sort of wdlove vs. Ovi kind of thing. Then our current idea of "right vs. left" would be out the window.

the GOP is heading for just that since the christian republicans have lost a lot of ground since the reagan/bush era

i know they want to keep political power, so there definitely could be a christian party out there with pat robertson and jerry falwell

the current GOP has no intention of overturnig roe vs wade, but a christian party would go after that in a second...same with prayer in schools and outlawing homosexuality

the problem with the christian right, as mentioned by colin powell in his book, is that god gave us the bible for us, not as a legislative agenda

the christian right has become punch drunk on the money and power they have achieved at different times in the past two decades

but what is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul

the christian right has become the modern day pharisees and saducees relishing in their wealth and self righteousness

sturm375
Nov 7, 2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


the GOP is heading for just that since the christian republicans have lost a lot of ground since the reagan/bush era

i know they want to keep political power, so there definitely could be a christian party out there with pat robertson and jerry falwell

the current GOP has no intention of overturnig roe vs wade, but a christian party would go after that in a second...same with prayer in schools and outlawing homosexuality

the problem with the christian right, as mentioned by colin powell in his book, is that god gave us the bible for us, not as a legislative agenda

the christian right has become punch drunk on the money and power they have achieved at different times in the past two decades

but what is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul

the christian right has become the modern day pharisees and saducees relishing in their wealth and self righteousness

Truer words, were never said.

jefhatfield
Nov 7, 2002, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by sturm375


Truer words, were never said.

thanks

i truly think it is satan's way of making the church into an ineffective group of power hungry politicians

and for those of you who don't believe in god or satan, i will say that it could be human nature, in the actions of the christian right, which are destroying the beautiful teachings of jesus christ

Ovi
Nov 7, 2002, 12:53 PM
11

sturm375
Nov 7, 2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
All right I just got back from playing a great round of golf. It feels good get up at 5 a.m.:(

I am really unsure which one of you liberals I need to respond to, but here it goes.

The democratic party is digging themselvs into a big hole. And the 4 of you are very busy with those shovels. Their message was not taken to heart by the public in this last election not because it was not heard. In fact that is all that I saw and read in the press. Rich vs. poor. Envir. vs. Business, diplomacy vs. justice/security. and the list goes on.


Again, you call me (I'm assuming you are lumping me in the 4 you speak of) liberal. Thank you. I am proud to be open minded, and actually listen to others arguments, and when they are convincing, I don't stick to the traditional.

I am not a Democrat, or Republican. I vote for whom ever most closely matches my values. Sometimes that's a Dem, sometimes that's a Repub, and sometimes it's a 3rd party.

Why does it always have to be an "Either/Or" situation for you. I gave an excellent example of a business, making MORE money by being enviromentally active. It's not Diplomacy vs. Justice/Security. It's Diplomacy vs. War. You can have both diplomacy, and justice/security. In fact, you'll probably get more justice/security from a diplomatic solution, than through war.

As for taxing the rich. Well, we tax everybody, it just so happens that they have more money, so naturally they pay more. Also, refer back to the "Law of Diminishing Utility" as to why the taxation is progressive, at the federal level. If the numbers remain relatively static between 1999 and 2001, the top 50% of the earners pay an extra 10% of the taxes. (They take in 86% of the income, and pay 96% of the taxes). Again refer back to a previous post to see the 2001 income distrobution charts. If you have any numbers to refute this, please post them (or links to them), I'd like to see them.

wwworry
Nov 7, 2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
If they were smart they should have taken the high road embraced Bush rather than fight him like Daschle did in the Senate. It would have been just enough to win a few more seats and slowly they could have recaptured the majority. Then they would have been in a position to fight for their backward and socialistic view of life.

What is a democrat that agrees with everything the republicans propose? A wishy washy loser, that's what. Don't be silly.

Maybe you are proposing the same methods that got bush into the whitehouse - talk bi-partisan but act totally partisan. Sure it works but....

but who cares if you get your way.

diorio
Nov 7, 2002, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


thanks

i truly think it is satan's way of making the church into an ineffective group of power hungry politicians

and for those of you who don't believe in god or satan, i will say that it could be human nature, in the actions of the christian right, which are destroying the beautiful teachings of jesus christ

What are you talking about? This started out being something about Christian republicans. How did it work its way into the teachings of Jesus?

Ovi
Nov 7, 2002, 03:29 PM
77