Dems vs. Reps (I am SICK of it)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kuyu, Nov 15, 2003.

  1. kuyu macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #1
    First, I am the smallest of small minorities politically. I proudly voted for Gore, but I don't hate Bush, at all. I think he's doing a pretty good job of running the country. I still have a job, I sleep well at night, and I have plenty of extra money to buy stuff like mac's with.

    However, every democrat friend I have tells me I'm crazy, because they all believe that Bush is somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I guaruntee that if we are attacked again, all my democrat friends will tell me that it only happened because Bush was in office. That is total BS. This jihad is about religion, not politics. The terrorists hate all of us. Terrorism doesn't just happen to republicans. After all, bin laden <spits> declared jihad on the U.S. in 1996.

    Isn't a little strange that Saddam Hussein (perhaps the most evil man alive) is portrayed by our media as innocent until proven guilty, while Bush (the leader of our country!!!) is guilty until proven innocent. What is wrong with this picture? Also, why is it that it took the U.S. almost a decade of debate to ratify a constitution, but Iraq is expected to do it in 6 months?

    Most of all, I'm pissed that the reps are running in 2004 on issues like national defense, the economy, the environment, social security, health care, etc., while the dems are running on the "I'm not Bush" platform. Unless I see some substantial issue based campaigning that's not totally anti-Bush (like every dem issue so far) I won't be voting for the dems again this time around.

    *** Please remember that we are all friends here, and just because we disagree on one issue doesn't mean that we can't get along. Thus is the true beauty of this country.***
     
  2. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    Re: Dems vs. Reps (I am SICK of it)

    Consider yourself lucky. I lost my manufacturing job a year ago. What exact political "minority" are you?

    Now you make me think you're just a Republican. I rarely hear independent voters swipe at Democratic friends by using that snide Republican insult of calling them the "Democrat" party or some such thing. No respect...

    No, it is about politics, not religion. It's about the US sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and getting stung.

    I wonder where he got the resources and training to organise a terrorist jihad against us?

    What the hell news are you watching/reading? Bush has been given a free pass for anything he does while his lies about Saddam are unchallenged.

    Maybe because the US

    1) wasn't invaded and occupied by an external superpower with overwhelming military force

    2) had the Articles of Confederation and an adequate system of government in place during the time it took to create the Constitution

    Well, maybe that's because the Democrats are running on the issue that Bush has made us more likely targets for attack, ruined the economy, spoiled the environment, gutted Social Security and ignored health care problems.

    If you're against all that, then I guess you could see how simply being against another Bush presidency is not so bad.

    What kind of BS statement is that? You just add a disclaimer that we're all friends and expect no one will challenge your nonsense?
     
  4. kuyu thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #4
    Mr. Brit, I figured it would take at least five posts for someone to take every word I wrote and bash on it. Two points for a quick response. I'm not a republican, in fact, I don't really like republicans either.

    Jihad means "just war". It is a word from the koran (a religious text), not a political text. They hate infidels, which is any group that does not directly incorporate islam into the ruling system.

    I meant no disrespect by using the term "democrat" instead of the P.C. "person of democratic tendancy", but your stereotype made me chuckle a bit.

    I meant minority in the sense that I am the only person I know that didn't vote for Bush and doesn't want him ousted.

    You are right about the means for jihad. We gave bin laden 3 billion dollars to fight the USSR when they invaded his country. Hindsight vision is 20/20.

    By the innocent/guilty thing, I was refering to your attitude that it was all a lie cooked up by Bush because he thought that invading a country would be an old fashioned good time. We have surveilance satellite imagery of his WMD's from 1996 when saddam's nephew and son-in-law defected and told us all of saddam's dirty little secrets. The fact that they are gone now is worse than if we had found them. I bet some yahoo terrorist will have a blast killing more innocent american's with them.

    Bush has done plenty of things to piss people off, and it's no wonder that a LOT of people want to see him go.

    Also, Robert McTeer, Alan Greenspan and the rest of the FED runs the economy. Contrary to popular belief, the president does not have "magic economy levers" in his office that he can pull at whim to make or break the economy. These are the same guys that ran the economy during every other presidency of the last 20 years. Also, considering the DOW is up 35% in the last 18 months, I'd hardly say the economy sux.

    You are dead on with the social issues. Republican's are ignorant when it comes to this kind of stuff.

    Good debate!!!
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    My 2 Cents-I am Sick of the Democrat vs Republican crap, i voted for bush but now wish i had gone gore, the problem is none of the guys running from demo's impress me though lieberman i like sometimes, Dean sucks and is way to liberal and i dont trust him, wish Gore would throw in the hat he is still the best candidate they have in my humble yahoo rednecken mountainclimbing beerdrinking lawnmower riding humble opinion. do you really think any of these guys running can beat bush?I dont and would most likely vote again for george.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    when discussing bin laden, i don't think it makes sense to separate the religious from the political. he is using religion to achieve a political goal -- the formation of one or more pure islamic states.
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    sometimes i think they're all hoping bush will beat himself.

    though they are doing a good bit of bush bashing, the democratic candidates are still at the stage where they're running against each other. once the party makes its nomination, then we'll have a clearer picture of how his/her campaign against bush will actually be run.

    i hope it's more than "i'm not bush".
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    No, just because bin Laden is using a religious text to achieve his political ends does not mean he is doing it for religious reasons. Do you think the fanatics who kill OB/Gyns and their secretaries are really doing it for Christian religious reasons?

    I bet they're gone. And this whole war was a lie that was cooked up by PNAC and the neocons to gain imperial control of the Middle East. Not by Bush, but he was instrumental in selling it. By proxy it becomes his fault.

    So you admit Bush lied when he said that his tax cuts could turn the economy around? According to you, that's not possible, but Bush swore it would work.

    Up 35% after being down how far? How about unemployment? Manufacturing?

    Not ignorant, apathetic: "Someone else's problem. I got mine."
     
  9. jywv8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    I keep wondering why people say that Dean is too liberal. Seriously, what is so liberal about the guy? He's an opponent of gun control, for balancing the budget, and, during his tenure as governor of Vermont, his staunch resistance to increased government spending launched a more than decade-long battle with legislative Democrats.

    Sound like a fairly moderate if not conservative democrat to me.
     
  10. kuyu thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #10
    During primary races, all of the hopeful candidates generally start farther right or left than they actually are. In the democratic primary, Dean is pretty far left, but just as Clinton entered office a liberal and left a moderate, so will the democratic candidate if he wins. Republicans do the same thing, just they start far right and move to center.

    Monetary policy and fiscal policy are two totally different things. The president is in charge of deciding how his administration will spend the money that the house and senate have appropriated for him. The FED controls the prime interest rate, which in turn takes care of the money supply and the inflation rate. They achieve this change by selling and buying back the T-bill. When the Fed sells a bunch of these things the money supply decreases, and interest rates go up, because money is more rare. To lower interest rates they buy them back, thereby increasing the money supply and raising the prime rate.

    Thus, if the country runs a deficit, that is the presidents fault. If our economy crashes, it is not because the president didn't spend his money correctly. Remember, we have checks and balances to control these things.

    FYI: The democratic candidates will promise you two things you should be weary of.

    1) "we are running the biggest budget deficit in history"
    Actually, our debt is 2% of GDP, hardly a real problem. In prospective, we have a $1000 and owe $20. Big deal.

    2) "We will create 8 million new jobs if elected president"
    Clinton promised this too, and delivered. Perhaps it was easy to do so, based on the fact that since 1940's we have average 1.8 million new jobs a year. Porky pig could be elected president and deliver 8 million new jobs. The president has zero control over this. An example of how genius of a politician Clinton was.
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    Bush hasn't budged. But then again, he didn't win either.

    But the economy can be pushed and prodded in certain directions with bully pulpit tax cuts and other measures. Also, the economic health of the government's fiscal situation reflects on Wall Street's confidence, which can help or hurt the economy. A bad budget makes them nervous and lowers the stock market.

    I don't see the "promise" there, but to use your analogy properly, we "made" $1000 and "spent" $1020.

    Better yet, let's talk about the national debt:

    Then you can say we made $1000, spent $1020 and are in debt for $690. How is that healthy?

    Then Bush should be replaced with a Loony Toon who's more effective. You don't think Clinton's middle/lower class tax cuts helped spur 6 years of economic boom?
     
  12. kuyu thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #12
    Your right about the Bush didn't win part. I was sooo pissed when that all happened.

    Your right about the presidents economic policy and its effect on wall streets confidence, but so many other things factor into financial decisions. I am a finance major, and never really consider the presidents budgetary actions in my investment decisions. I pay attention to the FED, GDP predictors, unemployment, gas prices***, and how crowded the local mall is. Also, the most important thing for investors is a companies balance sheet, income statements, quarterly and annual reports to shareholders, accounting methods (FIFO vs. LIFO, kaizen costing, etc.).

    On the cartoon character, you are EXACTLY right. The president has FAR less power than most people assume. He is our spokesman. When Apple screws up, we don't call for Jeff Goldblum's head on a plate.

    I don't know who you mean by "they" in regards to the market falling and rising. There are no evil trolls on wall street that go into a frenzied rush when ever bush sneezes funny. WE are THEY. You and I have as much control over the economy as bush, clinton, bush1, reagan, etc.

    *** Gas Prices. Now there's the reason for war. Keep the petrol pumpin and the people spending. Makes me feel a bit like a sheep!
     
  13. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #13
    about the debt
    I think you are saying that this years deficit is 2% of one years GDP and are completely forgetting about the accumulated debt over many years of deficits.

    The debt is more like 69% of one years GDP. Yoiks!!! Just keep adding 2% a year and soon you'll know why it matters.

    Besides I am not sure if I really want to go into debt to pay for tax cuts to the oil industry and the super wealthy. Yea sure they pay taxes blah blah but my interest rates are going to go up, my children will be paying off debt so these jokers get a big tax break. No thanks.

    If you think the dems are running on a "I'm Not Bush" platform then you need to look harder at what their platforms are. No one is going to spoon feed you this information. What you are perceiving is the messy primary fights and not the underlying policies where they all agree. (as follows)

    1. Tax policies that favor the middle and lower classes.

    2. Real actual monetary investments in education. (as opposed to testing with no investment)

    3. Sane environmental policies that have been proven to work over the past 30 years. Our air is cleaner. Our water is cleaner. The economic benefits of clean air and water have been proven. Bush is pushing policies that slow down progress towards cleaner healthier environments (and mislabeling is policies as well).

    4. Moderate judicial appointees.

    5. A willingness to work with the world community to solve international problems. The UN was moving to confront Hussein just not as fast as Bush wanted. Think of how much better Iraq would haqve been if the rest of the world was involved and if proper post-war planning had not been disregarded by the pentagon. It is a fact that a year of post-war state department planning was thrown out by the pentagon. What if looting had been prevented. What if security had been in place? It was possible and it would have made soldiers lives easier.

    6. Not so many lies. So many lies with the current administration.

    It wouldn't be so bad would it?
     
  14. kuyu thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #14
    wwworry, that was very informative. It's a shame not everyone is as logical and level-headed. I know what you mean about post-war Iraq. The U.S. is trying to bar other nations from speaking directly with Iraq's governing council. That's why no one will help us. It's about time that Bush made a real effort to gain world support by allowing other nations to help.

    Imagine a summit where the representatives of ALL types of nations are present, and via calm discussion many types of governments are explained to Iraq's intellectuals. Then Iraq could choose the best system for them, without fear of losing long-term alliances with the world. This type of new world summit (not the UN, too bureaucratic) could do a great deal to insure long-term alliances between cooperating nations as well.
     
  15. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #15
    To those who have read my posts on these forums it may be hard to believe but I was fairly apolitical for a long time. I didn't know the difference between a Republican and Democrat, didn't really care. I started to pay attention a little bit under Bush the first, when he supported Gorbachev and keeping the Soviet Union together instead of supporting the occupied countries drive to achieve free democratic indepentent self rule like they had before they were taken over by the Russians at the end of WWII.
    I voted for Clinton both times. The economy was good, some things he did poorly, others he did very well. Overall I felt that I could trust that his decisions were being made with the best interest of most citizens in mind.
    Along came Bush the "compassionate conservative" claiming to be a "uniter not a divider". Since I didn't really like his father (who I've actually run into a few times in Kenebunkport), W was going to have to be pretty impressive to get me to not vote for Gore. So what did Bush offer? A DUI conviction in a town that at the time generally let that slide, he had his dad pull strings to get him into the Texas Air Guard to avoid VietNam and then went AWOL, failed businesses, a few shady business deals, he wants to be leader of the free world yet he's never left the USA, a disturbing love of the death penalty (he openly mocked a woman about to be executed), all this and the best he could offer was a tax cut that favored the wealthy?
    After the election fiasco in florida I got pissed. After Bush started repealling environmental regulations I got more pissed. After the economy tanked and the company that was paying me a good wage downsized me I got even more pissed. On 9/11 I was pissed at Bin Laden, but after reading about how Bush ignored the FBI/CIA plan to get BinLaden and AL Queda all through 2001 because he was too busy vacationing I was still plenty pissed at Bin Laden, but also a little more pissed at Bush. After seeing the far right Neo Conservatives he got to run the government and played chearleader for their war I got even more pissed.
    Bush has messed up so much that the only way to fix any of this is to vote someone else in 2004. Bush and his cronies have burned all the bridges. There is no way that Bush can fix Iraq. He'll cut and run and leave them to fight a civil war before the elections or stick around with the same half assed plan and our soldiers will pay for his folly with their lives.
     
  16. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #16
    Okay sorry about the rant. Just a couple things though...
    There has been a net loss of between 2.5 and 3 million jobs under Bush, the only president since Hoover to preside under any loss of jobs.
    Where is Bin Laden?
    Where is Saddam?
    Why won't Bush cooperate with the commision to investigate 9/11?
    What has Bush done that has really helped anyone other than the wealthy or the corporations?
     
  17. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #17
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46460-2003Nov15.html
    The nephew/son in law (I forget which too) that defected and was debriefed was refuted by another defector and the reports didn't match. Both said the other was either lying or misinformed. When Bush and the Neo Conservatives were pushing for the war they chose which pieces of intel they were going to use...the ones that backed up their claims of Saddam being an iminent threat holding WMD's.
    Also if you recall Clinton launched a series of air and cruise missile attacks that were intended to wipe out Saddam's ability to produce any more WMD's. The republicans dismissed the strikes as a political stunt...guess it worked huh?
     

Share This Page