Why not support Bush? [Archive] - eBaum's World Forum

droogsteve

08-14-2004, 04:32 PM

Democrats care more about the government than the country, at least that's what their actions show. They put on a humanitarian show by buying the votes of the poor and the sick and the elderly, but that's precisesly what they're doing. BUYING VOTES. Whoring themselves out.
And what do you think the Republicans do with tax cuts? You think they care about people any more than democrats do?

And no, I don't believe they're all evil. I believe they're all either badly misinformed, blind to the truth, or have their own selfish motivations (welfare, etc). I never said anything about them being evil, but thanks for sticking words in my mouth.

Here are your words:
A president who actually has morals makes them uncomfortable with their own vile life.

Oh, forgive me. You used the word vile instead of evil

And you bring up Nazi Germany? Why is it that everytime somebody wants to win an argument, they group their opponent with the Nazis. That's pathetic and futile. I am not demonizing anyone, I'm stating that there's a right and wrong.

I don't need to bring up Nazi Germany to beat you in an argument. As a matter of fact, I don't need 90% of my brain to do that. But the fact remains, you refuse to look at your opponents as good human beings who may disagree with you. You must place yourself above them morally and accuse them of having secret sinister motives. It is also a tactic popular with cults. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I'll call you a brainwashed cultist instead of a Nazi next time.

Again, I said nothing about evil. You just conjured that up. Nice.I conjured nothing.

Again:A president who actually has morals makes them uncomfortable with their own vile life.

Vile (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=vile):

Main Entry: vile
Pronunciation: 'vI(&)l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): vil·er /'vI-l&r/; vil·est /-l&st/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French vil, from Latin vilis
1 a : morally despicable or abhorrent

Evil: (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=evil)

Main Entry: evil
Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often and US also 'E-(")vil
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
1 a : morally reprehensible

Hmmm, backpedaling and word games. Isn't that what democrats do? :rolleyes:

droogsteve

08-14-2004, 05:02 PM

(1.) (Controlled by the media) Feeble minded, unable to think for themselves. Not evil.

You mean like the NeoCons that quote Foxnews, Limbaugh and O'Reilly like they were the holy trinity?

(2.) (Controlled by habit/parents) Their sheep, and possibly ignorant. Very similar to group one. Not evil.

Another reason why I believe that you're no older than 14. What adult lets their parents influence their decisions?

(3.) (Dependant on Welfare) Selfish people, and possibly lazy. You have the rare paraplegic who can't help himself, but I don't think it's much of a venture to say that most people stay on Welfare, simply because they have no motivation. I don't think I'd call a lack of motivation evil, either.
You are aware that Clinton's welfare reform act in 1996 required heathy able bodied people to work for their benefits for the first time, aren't you? Why would a democrat risk pissing off all of the welfare people,
if they make up much of the democrat base as you claim. Why would the welfare recipients vote for someone who took away their free money?

(4.) (Untolerant of morals) Immoral, and untolerant of people better than themselves. Better than themselves??!! You sound like a ghetto girl :"Yall's just jealous!! Why you gotta be a hater??!"

I know plenty of democrats. I also know a few communists. They all believe that their ideology can best serve mankind. They're wrong of course. But for the most part their hearts are in the right place.

If any of these groups can be considered evil, this would be the closest, but that's still a stretch.

Then why did you say it in the first place? Oh, I forgot, you called them vile, not evil. :D

This has been fun, but it's beer and BBQ time.

Is it immoral to drink Guinness and eat ribs? :p

Mr. Ram

08-14-2004, 05:21 PM

I dont support bush because he is a warmonger and a jackass but i dont support kerry either because he is a asshole so i guess bush is lucky i cant vote against him the two candiates are pretty pathetic.

BJ and UT5

08-14-2004, 07:48 PM

1.) They have been brainwashed by the media.

There is obvious political bias in the media from both sides, but I don't think its nearly as prevalent as anyone here makes it out to be. News Channels are in the entertainment business just as much as they are in the news business. And if the case is that the media is just presenting lies then how are you so informed outside of this phenomenon? How could it be that 50% of the country watches/reads the new and obtains lies, and the other 50% watches/reads the same news and gets the real story.

(2.) Their parents always voted Democratic, so they should too.

Again this is just a complete failure to look at the issue from two sides. Given that this crock is actually true and people vote one way just because they're parents do, why is it that this is just a Democrat thing. I don't see what in the Democratic philosophy is conducive to voting the same way your parents did, and why the Republican philosophy would cause a person to shy away from that

(3.) They like their welfare check and want every penny they can get out of people who actually work for a living.

This is just a gross generalization. Not everyone who is on welfare is lazy, or a paraplegic, you forget people who are injured and have family, people who get laid off, people who are forced into early retirement, the list goes on. Believe it or not welfare programs were not created to appease lazy people. Furthermore I think its ridiculous to say that lazy people on welfare constitute anything that could be considered a significant portion of the Democratic party.

(4.) Or: A president who actually has morals makes them uncomfortable with their own vile life.

Disregarding the fact that morals vary from person to person, you've really made a good point here. Bush is the shining epitome of a moral person, his shady record with cocaine and DUI, his considerable charity to the upper echelons of our tax brackets at the expense of funding for the middle and lower class, not to forget being the prime motivator for a war of choice founded on lies and/or misinformation. And then theres his close friends with Kenneth Lay, who i like to call Jesus 2, and the Al Saud family. The reality of the situation is that neither side of the political spectrum has the authority on morals.

daveo the great

08-14-2004, 08:51 PM

Mainly the dishonesty. if the bush administration told the truth about everything.... i would not be so angry. of course if they told the truth... they would get less that 1% of the vote...

1. they lied in the tax cuts. bush said The "Vast Majority" of his tax cuts would go to the poorest people.... however the bottom 60% got 14.7 % source (www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm)
notice how the top 1% got 37.6% of the tax cut? what did the bottom 20% get? 0.9%.

2. he lied about 9/11. clinton had a great anti-terrorism administration... the best there ever was. and richard clarke had developed a plan to wipe out al-qaeda... completed about 1 year before 9/11. they could have captured EVERY al-qaeda leader before 9/11. (for those who have been brainwashed by fox: al-qaeda was behind 9/11, NOT iraq.) however.... the bush administration did not use this.... instead they redirected anti-terrorism money towards a missle defence program. AND they lied about richard clarke talking to them about the al-qaeda threat.

in bush's eight months leading up to 9/11, he got back so much money from the CIA and FBI counter-terrorism agencies. then after 9/11, he said it was because clinton had de-emphasised the military. which was another lie.

if you want sources... see my sig. it has several chapters and dozens of sources on this. i want ppl to read that book so u can go source this info first.

3. bush said he went to iraq on bad information.... when in fact he asked the people "what do we have on iraq" he hounded the ppl until they made up some info for him. (not him personally...) go talk to clarke on this.... he told the public what happened and the white house quickly tried to discredit him.

4: not lies.... but he has done so much damage to the environment... he has reversed so manny epa things... its astounding...

theres more but i want to keep this short. these are major things... there are hundred of "little things" about him and his policies that really really suck.

Jay-Z

08-14-2004, 09:53 PM

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 10:48 PM

Why would/should anyone NOT support Bush in the upcoming election... :)

938 Killed US soldiers, 6276 wounded US soldiers (over 2,000 of the catastrophically), over $168 BILLION, well over 15,000 civilians killed... all for a an unjustified war of choice, which this administration lied with cherry-picked "inteligence" and false claims.. to Congress, the UN and to the public to gain support for it.

Largest deficit (again) in our nations history, with next years looking to break this years record deficit and approaching $600 billion a year deficit in 2005, with no end of deficit spending in sight

First administration since Hoover (the Great Depression) to have a net loss of jobs

Administration that crafted and pushed (and got passed) laws that allow Americans to be put in prison, never charged with a crime, never allowed to see a lawyer, and never even required to inform the public of such imprisonment.

An administration that sought to cut combat pay for our troops while they are in war.

An administration that sought to cut vets benefits.

First administration that wants to write explicit discrimination into our Constitution (for the first time ever)

Just a few reasons.. there are many more.

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 10:53 PM

You forgot 5.

Kerry tells everyone Bush is a bad man, and they read in their liberal newspapers and "fox news" about the "evil" things Bush does, like creating jobs! DAMN HIM! :eek:

Actually Kerry has never said he is a bad man, just a bad president (which Bush is). The media is not liberal... and Bush has not created jobs but is in fact the first administration since Hoover to have a net LOSSS of jobs during his administration.

He has not created a single job during his administration. Regaining one job for the economy for every 3 lost during his "leadership" is not "creating" jobs.

So yes... damn him.

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 10:58 PM

There's a place for people like you. It's called FRANCE. Good cheese, but really annoying whine.

Wow.. those evil French, without whom there would never have been a United States of AMerica. Guess we should cut up the Statue of Liberty and give back 2/3rds of the lower 48 states huh?

The above ignorance and hatred towards a traditional ally because they rightly disagree with not supporting an unjustified war of aggression and greed (Iraq) is beneath contempt and is exactly the sort of jingoistic bigoted bloviating that makes our nation less respected, less trusted, and ultimately less safe.

BlueMind

08-14-2004, 11:09 PM

Well, for one thing, if Bush gets elected, we'll have a draft.

I was reading an article in the Dallas news today. "These sailors are in the Army now." I tried to find a link but it was forcing me to register to view the article.

Anyway, these Navy logistic and support reserves are now being deployed to Iraq to work with the army as ground soldiers because the Army is streched thin. These sailors are being educated in hand to hand combat and marksmenship because Navy training doesn't focus on it as much as the Army and Marines. Most of them have never served on land.

They're running out of soldiers.

mrredrocker

08-14-2004, 11:12 PM

clinton had a great anti-terrorism administration... the best there ever was. and richard clarke had developed a plan to wipe out al-qaeda... completed about 1 year before 9/11. they could have captured EVERY al-qaeda leader before 9/11. (for those who have been brainwashed by fox: al-qaeda was behind 9/11, NOT iraq.)

Oh YEAH! I remember that plan! The plan: have some dude stuff confidential (and potentially embarrasing papers related to terrorist issues) down his pants, and accidentally forget to remove them before he came home.

It was sheer brilliance. But then they caught the guy. Of course that will never get back to Clinton. Damn.

pat99872

08-14-2004, 11:12 PM

Well, for one thing, if Bush gets elected, we'll have a draft.

I was reading an article in the Dallas news today. "These sailors are in the Army now." I tried to find a link but it was forcing me to register to view the article.

Anyway, these Navy logistic and support reserves are now being deployed to Iraq to work with the army as soldiers because the Army is streched thin. These sailors are being educated in hand to hand combat and marksmenship because Navy training doesn't focus on it as much as the Army and Marines. Most of them have never served on land.

They're running out of soldiers.

heres the thing. I was thinking about joining the navy in november. if bush gets elected im gona ditch my idea and go with cars or computers. its not worth risking my life for bush

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:24 PM

A president who actually has morals makes them uncomfortable with their own vile life.

My life is far from "vile"... but just curious stating a war against a nation that never attacked us, never threatened to attack us, could not attack us... and in the process blowing the arms off small children... that sort of "morality" is something I should revere...?

Barrett

08-14-2004, 11:25 PM

heres the thing. I was thinking about joining the navy in november. if bush gets elected im gona ditch my idea and go with cars or computers. its not worth risking my life for bush

Now see here, the thing is. You would have a much better chance of living if Bush were elected than kerry. Kerry wants to cut almost half the funds to the military (Last time i checked) Which include some of the better planes that the navy uses. he also wants to cut the use of flak helmets and jackets which save lives 40% of the time. And how exactly would you die on a navy ship? How many of our cruisers, battleships, or aircraft carriers have been sunken lately? Here's the best chances of dieing in the navy.

1) If Kerry gets elected

2) You fall off the boat and drown

3) If bush gets elected.

I could understand why you would not join if it were to be the Army or marines, because their death rates are substancialy higher than the navy's. But more of our soldiers in Iraq have died from things like car wrecks, fires, falling of buildings, drowning, etc.. then they have in actual battle. But if you can consider saving millions of lives and ending an evil dictators reign on a country and restoring peace to a destroyed country, "Dieing for bush" then i guess it is dieing for bush.

pat99872

08-14-2004, 11:28 PM

Now see here, the thing is. You would have a much better chance of living if Bush were elected than kerry. Kerry wants to cut almost half the funds to the military (Last time i checked) Which include some of the better planes that the navy uses. he also wants to cut the use of flak helmets and jackets which save lives 40% of the time. And how exactly would you die on a navy ship? How many of our cruisers, battleships, or aircraft carriers have been sunken lately? Here's the best chances of dieing in the navy.

1) If Kerry gets elected

2) You fall off the boat and drown

3) If bush gets elected.

I could understand why you would not join if it were to be the Army or marines, because their death rates are substancialy higher than the navy's. But more of our soldiers in Iraq have died from things like car wrecks, fires, falling of buildings, drowning, etc.. then they have in actual battle. But if you can consider saving millions of lives and ending an evil dictators reign on a country and restoring peace to a destroyed country, "Dieing for bush" then i guess it is dieing for bush.
in other words.. in both ways i'm screwed? :(

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:29 PM

Democrats care more about the government than the country, at least that's what their actions show.

What a crock.

First, the government is not some evil "other", but made up of Americans and is part of our country. "We" the people are the government (though under Bush, it is hard to tell if "the people" he answers to are not the Saudi Royal family and the vested oil interests of his family and cronies).

However, that you label it as separate from our country is about the most ignorant thing imaginable to say.

Second, Democrats have shed lives, blood and tears building and defending this nation from its inception.

Third, questioning the patriotism of Democrats because you disagree with the polices that built our nation by and large is beneath contempt, but a clear indication exactly what an anti-American and vile view of others you espouse.

Fourth, the Federal Government was made the smallest since 1960 (which btw the population was not even 2/3rds then compared to what it is now, and prior to Medicare, Medicaid) by Bill Clinton and Al Gore by implementation of the "reinventing Government program" which slashed thousands of useless and outdates programs and streamlined many agencies. Ironically the Federal Gov. has grown substantially under George W. Bush, while ballooning the deficit, increasing our debt and STILL cutting funding to needed programs.

They put on a humanitarian show by buying the votes of the poor and the sick and the elderly, but that's precisesly what they're doing. BUYING VOTES. Whoring themselves out.

"Buying the votes".. you mean by working to help the poor and the elderly and sick AMERICANS...?

Damn them.

Curious, do you think that the GOP "buy" the votes of the upper classes and corporations...?

(BTW, I was a registered GOP for 20 years until the 1998 election cycle)

And no, I don't believe they're all evil.

No, we just don't love our country right? (smirk)

I believe they're all either badly misinformed

How so?

Considering you seem to have someone very grossly misinformed notions as shown in this post I doubt the veracity of this statement and the others you make.

or have their own selfish motivations (welfare, etc).

LOL yeah, the majority of Americans (Democrats) are all selfish welfare queens. (smirk)
I never said anything about them being evil, but thanks for sticking words in my mouth.

And you bring up Nazi Germany?

Yes droogsteve did, and explained exactly why.

Why is it that everytime somebody wants to win an argument, they group their opponent with the Nazis.

Well your assertion is wrong. But it does pose the question why do you make hyperbolic, untrue, sweeping generalizations...?

I am not demonizing anyone, I'm stating that there's a right and wrong.

ROFL, do you even grasp the irony of your own words in contradiction to each other in that very sentence?

And you certainly fooled me by questioning the patriotism of Democrats by saying we don't love our country and saying that people who think the President should be able to speak without embarrassingly butchering his native tongue when he speaks should "move to France" then launching into a tirade about how vile the French are, certainly fooled me.

Again, I said nothing about evil. You just conjured that up. Nice.

No, just said that the majority of Americans don't love their country and that if they think Bush is inarticulate and can't speak coherently in public, they should leave and move to France and moronically reduce the issues into "right" and "wrong"

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:31 PM

Barrett

08-14-2004, 11:33 PM

in other words.. in both ways i'm screwed? :(

Nah, i think you'd be pretty safe in the navy though, what do you plan to do in the navy? If pilot, wait another 4 years either way, if seabee or any of the other jobs like that then go for it.

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:36 PM

Got a Source?

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:

-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism study group under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

BlueMind

08-14-2004, 11:38 PM

Nah, i think you'd be pretty safe in the navy though

Not really.

If you read my post, you'll see that sailors are being deployed as ground troops.

If you really want to be safe, join the Air Force. Most airmen never leave the base.

Or, you could pull a Bush and join the National Guard.

Barrett

08-14-2004, 11:41 PM

Not really.

If you read my post, you'll see that sailors are being deployed as ground troops.

Well you said those were the reservists, this all depends on what exactly he is doing in the Navy. If he is joining on his own to make a career, short or long term they will most likely keep him Navy. But any draftees or reservists can be moved about more willingly.

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:43 PM

Oh YEAH! I remember that plan! The plan: have some dude stuff confidential (and potentially embarrasing papers related to terrorist issues) down his pants, and accidentally forget to remove them before he came home.

Fiction.

Nobody in the Clinton administration did any such thing. And please... TRY to push the fiction that Sandy Berger stuffed anything down his pants. Considering he was cleared of ANY wrong doing by the ASHCROFT justice department investigation into this which took place a YEAR ago, but was made into a fictional "scandal" to highjack the news-cycle just after Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate, I would love for you to try and push this bunch of malarky.

But I see you have nothing factual or substantive to post, how droll.

Lestatdelc

08-14-2004, 11:50 PM

Now see here, the thing is. You would have a much better chance of living if Bush were elected than kerry.

Hardly.

Kerry wants to cut almost half the funds to the military (Last time i checked)

Where in the hell are you "checking" for this crap...?

This is 100% fiction. In fact Kerry proposes INCREASING the number of combat ready divisions in our armed forces, not decrease them. Kerry is the one who wants to increase vets benefits, and increase troop pay. Of course Kerry wants to actually pay for this instead of ballooning the deficit by charging it on your kids and grand kids dime. This can be done by moving the upper tax bracket to what they were under the Clinton administration, when we had the most robust, longest expansion of our economy in our history so we can once again balance the budget, grow the economy and adequately defend ourselves.

Your assertion is 100% fiction.

Barrett

08-15-2004, 12:02 AM

Hardly.

Where in the hell are you "checking" for this crap...?

This is 100% fiction. In fact Kerry proposes INCREASING the number of combat ready divisions in our armed forces, not decrease them. Kerry is the one who wants to increase vets benefits, and increase troop pay. Of course Kerry wants to actually pay for this instead of ballooning the deficit by charging it on your kids and grand kids dime. This can be done by moving the upper tax bracket to what they were under the Clinton administration, when we had the most robust, longest expansion of our economy in our history so we can once again balance the budget, grow the economy and adequately defend ourselves.
Your assertion is 100% fiction.
oh really I'm sorry, the last time i read an article, he was cutting funds from the military, i guess not anymore because he changes his mind so damn much. And this taxing is not 'moving' it is 'raising' Clinton Raised the taxes to a much too high level and Bush just lowered them back to what they should be. and i don't want to have to pay extra tax dollars just because the president wants to make a new budget.

shade

08-15-2004, 12:55 AM

they lied in the tax cuts. Daveo. This is the exact kind of flawed logic where democrats are "factually wrong" or are looking at one "fact" and deriving a totally unrelated statement or belief.

You will notice in my signature the "Raw Income Data" link. It is this: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

Go there, and look up the total effective tax rates, and share of federal tax burden. I will quote them here, but if you need to verify, there is the official link.

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate in 2000 by quintile (20% increments)
1: 5.3% (poorest 20%)
2: 12.8%
3: 16.7%
4: 20.0%
5: 27.4% (richest 20%)

Lets disect a little more shall we? The following numbers are in 1997 dollars and this is in year 2000.

Average income by quintile before taxes
1: $11,400 (poorest 20%)
2: $28,600
3: $45,100
4: $65,600
5: $167,500 (richest 20%)

Lets combine these two numbers and see how much is being paid in taxes by the quintiles.
1: $60.42
2: $3,660.80
3: $7,531.70
4: $13,000
5: $45,895

Now that you see these numbers, do you really think that it is unfair for someone in the top bracket to get back $1,000 from their $45,895 that they are paying already while the person paying $60.42 gets back $20 or has their taxes eliminated, effectively giving them $60?

What is the least amount of money that someone can pay in taxes? Simple. 0. The fact is, the less your income is, you have a much larger head start to 0, and as such, you dont get as much from a tax cut.

Another interesting set of numbers is the share of tax burden. These numbers are very closely applicable to your bold print. This is how much of the total taxes are paid for by quintile.
1: 0.9%
2: 5.2%
3: 10.4% (60% of quintiles has been reached)
4: 18.1%
5: 65.4%

This means that the bottom 20% pay 0.9% of the total taxes, and the top 20% pay 65.4% of total taxes.

Lets total up the bottom 60%'s tax burden.
0.9 + 5.2 + 10.4 = 16.5%

These are based on the income statistics for year 2000, before the other bush tax cuts. Every single tax cut Bush made shifted the overall burden up, which means that the top number is more like 70% right now, and the lower you go is shifted downward accordingly.

So this basically means that you have been manipulated unfortunately. You state that "the bottom 60% got 14.7 %." Well, their tax burden (in 2000) was 16.5% of all taxes. We wont have the official numbers since the Bush tax cuts for probably another year or two unfortunately. But, based on IRS reports, the burden has shifted upward as stated earlier.

Thusly, if the bottom 60% pays about 15% or less of the tax burden, and they received 14.7% of the tax cut, that looks exactly fair, assuming that you believe a progressive tax is fair.

I personally believe that you should not pay tax if you are in "poverty." Poverty has two definitions in the US. One is that you are in poverty if you spend 1/3 of your money on food. The other is if you are in the bottom 20% of income. Conveniently, that means that 58,600,000 are currently in poverty based on our population of 293,000,000 that always grows, and is always a number that is cited during a republican administration. When you hear about 30 million children in poverty, thats where that number comes from, the bottom 20%. But that is a discussion for later.

Basically, I believe that anyone in poverty based on the 1/3 of money spent on food according to consumer price index should not be taxed, and that every dollar past that should be taxed at a flat rate of about 17%. I would take the $ amount that is the official "poverty" line and not tax that. Lets say it is $20,000 per year for examples sake. You still have plenty of redistribution with a flat tax. Someone making $30,000 would only pay $1,700 in taxes, and someone making $120,000 would pay $17,000. They both drive on the same roads and are protected by the same military, the same courts, and the same unemployment insurance, etc. But, this is also a discussion for later.

****
"Bush Recession"

and Bush has not created jobs but is in fact the first administration since Hoover to have a net LOSSS of jobs during his administration. Fact: The recession and market correction started in 2000 before Bush entered office. Go look up any market index fund.

Here are a few:
NASDAQ (https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/quotechart?etstyle=5y&size=m&sym=QQQ&prod=QQQ:AMEX:EQ) Where most tech companies are listed, and the tech bubble is most easily seen.

Dow Jones (https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/quotechart?etstyle=5y&size=m&sym=DJIND&prod=DJIND:CINC:INDX) Large cap firms, ripple effect of tech bubble combined with 9/11 very easy to see.

S&P 500 (https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/quotechart?etstyle=5y&size=m&sym=ETSPX&prod=ETSPX:BETA:MF) Stock in 500 large companies in the US from all exchanges and very diverse (no particular industry concentration). Great gauge for overall stock market performance.

So basically. Drop the "Bush Recession" bullshit. I put this to rest a long time ago, so I guess its not your fault that you dont know its false other than that you are willing to take anything you hear as truth as long as it means bush is bad.

Although, I would like to point out to my fellow conservatives/republicans that the recent 1.5 million jobs are not new jobs. They are in fact recovered jobs. That in no way devalues the Bush administration's economic policies. It just accurately shows that their economic policies have effectively made this one of the shortest recessions in history. There have been recessions in the past that have lasted decades. Fortunately, this one was rather shallow and short. Its sort of like taking a painful shot of penicilin instead of pills for a couple weeks.

Edit: Typos, and moved economic stuff from thread below up here.

shade

08-15-2004, 01:23 AM

Non-economic stuff.

938 Killed US soldiers, 6276 wounded US soldiers (over 2,000 of the catastrophically), over $168 BILLION, well over 15,000 civilians killed... all for a an unjustified war of choice, which this administration lied with cherry-picked "inteligence" and false claims.. to Congress, the UN and to the public to gain support for it John Kerry has publicly stated that he too would have gone to Iraq if he were in Bush's position at the time. If he saw the same reports that Bush did, and if he had George Tenet look him in the eye and tell him that it was a slam dunk, he would have gone to Iraq.

So I guess Iraq is not an issue now. Please cite other reasons that you would support John Kerry over Bush.

Edit: Moved the umm.... economic stuff to the thread above.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 06:32 AM

oh really I'm sorry, the last time i read an article, he was cutting funds from the military, i guess not anymore because he changes his mind so damn much.
Fiction.

Please cite ANY article that says that (though I am sure you might find some fiction that Rush Limbaugh or his Fright-Wing™ brethren pulled out of his butt).

Citations please.

And this taxing is not 'moving' it is 'raising' Clinton Raised the taxes to a much too high level
First I said moving it back to what Clinton had it for only the uppermost bracket, and I find it comical you claim raised taxes too much... he raised it SOOO high we had the largest and longest sustained economic boom in our nations history and got ride of the deficit and began paying down our debt. Really BAD BAD CLinton./.. economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility and Kerry want too (gasP do the same thing that gave us balanced budgets, and a booming economy.

and Bush just lowered them back to what they should be.
And tanked the economy.

Well done George.

"now watch this drive"

and i don't want to have to pay extra tax dollars just because the president wants to make a new budget.
Ah.. you would rather pay extra tax dollars to service the debt and higher interest on financing the debt because of record deficit spending as far as the eye can see, and also pay higher mortgage and credit interest rates because the Gov. has to borrow more and more to pay for tax cuts that have done nothing to improve the economy in any substative sustained way...?

Good thinking.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 07:21 AM

Daveo. This is the exact kind of flawed logic where democrats are "factually wrong" or are looking at one "fact" and deriving a totally unrelated statement or belief....

Ahhh more talking out your butt with statistics.

First, that is only income tax, not payroll taxes, or state and sales taxes, etc.

Also, those stats talk about average, not median, which is a great method of hiding a multitude of sins given that the 5 quintile includes the mega-rich.

Furthermore, your derived numbers are not accurate given the the cbo stats you cite and spin, state directly in the same year (2000) what the average pre and post tax income was:

Pre-tax
1: $9,500
2: $22,900
3 $37,200
4: $55,300
5 $162,400

Post tax
1: $9,000
2: $21,500
3: $33,800
4: $47,300
5: $121,000

So let's do the real math and see what was paid (again not including payroll taxes, or state and local taxes)...

1 $500
2: $1,400
3: $3,400
4: $8,000
5: $41,400

I also have no clue where you are getting your $1,000 back from the $45,895 fiction from. Under Bush's stupid first round of tax cuts which are ballooning the deficit the upper quintile averaged more than that:

Lowest 20%
Less than $15,000
Average Income: $9,300
Average Tax cut: $47

Second 20%
$15,000 - $27,000
Average Income: $20,600
Average Tax cut: $212

Middle 20%
$27,000 - $44,000
Average Income: $34,400
Average Tax cut: $509

Fourth 20%
$44,000 - $72,000
Average Income: $56,400
Average Tax cut: $951

Next 15%
$72,000 - $147,000
Average Income: $97,400
Average Tax cut: $1,523

Next 4%
$147,000 - $373,000
Average Income: $210,000
Average Tax cut: $2,356

Top 1%
$373,000 or more
Average Income: $1,117,000
Average Tax cut: $54,480

Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) Tax Model.

Also, I find it interesting that you think those in the lowest quintile, who btw have a pre-tax income that is already putting them below the official poverty line (which has not been upwardly adjusted for inflation in the past three years) aren't paying enough in taxes since they are literally below the poverty line and paying 5% of their income in Federal taxes (not including payroll, state, sales, etc.) because the highest quantile is paying 25.4% is somehow really sticking it to the poor poor upper bracket income earners.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 07:36 AM

John Kerry has publicly stated that he too would have gone to Iraq if he were in Bush's position at the time.
No he hasn't. He has stated he would have voted the way he did even as we now know there were no WMD, but certainly NOT have gone in as we have. He voted for the IWR to give Bush the "big stick" to get the inspectors back in, which it did, but which was halted to Bush could launch this disastrous war.

I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, because had I been president, I would have wanted that authority, because that was the way to enforce the U.N. resolutions and be tough with the prospect of his development of weapons of mass destruction. … Now, might we have wound up going to war with Saddam Hussein? You bet we might have—after we exhausted those remedies and found that he wasn't complying, and so on and so forth. But not in a way that provides, you know, 90 percent of the casualties are American, and almost all of the cost.

This is the kind of nuance that you are misreading (though I don't fault you for it given the wholly out of context coverage it has gotten). But it doesn't change his position: United Nations, WMD, compliance, process.

edit: fixed typo "contexct" to "context"

PsiRedEye22

08-15-2004, 07:50 AM

90% of the casualties, American? So if we lost 230 people, we killed about 20? That doesn't doesn't seem right now does it? I've seen more videos from helicopters and gunships that show plenty of casualties. And i doubt we got Saddam's entire army to just flat out surrender.....

Let's talk about Clinton's anti-terrorism ploy. I think I'll use a reference from the popular television program "The Simpsons" to display what I mean. I have a rock, it keeps away tigers. You don't see any tigers around me, do you?

Just because you have the world's best "anti-terrorism" unit, doesn't stop a couple of mideastern guys holding up an entire plane with boxcutters. "OH MY GOD, HE'S GOT A BOX CUTTER, HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!" C'mon. Do you honestly think ANYONE though 9/11 was going to go down like that? Do you seriously believe we, or even Clinton, knew who ALL of the terrorists in the country were? Don't be naive, please. You can site reports, facts, whatever. But the fact is 4 plans got held up with tools, not sophisticated weaponry. No one saw it coming. Maybe they got a report that said an attack was going to happen, but what do you want them to do? Have everyone go on the plane naked?

Sorry, but that was bugging me. Carry on.

Lestatdelc

08-15-2004, 08:42 AM

90% of the casualties, American?

Yes, 90% of the "coalition" casualties are American. Though to be 100% accurate 938 out of 1063 killed, or 88.24%.

Let's talk about Clinton's anti-terrorism ploy.

What "ploy" are you referring to...?

Just because you have the world's best "anti-terrorism" unit, doesn't stop a couple of mideastern guys holding up an entire plane with boxcutters. "OH MY GOD, HE'S GOT A BOX CUTTER, HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!" C'mon. Do you honestly think ANYONE though 9/11 was going to go down like that?

Yep. Considering we know there was a terrorist plot back in December 24, 1994, by Algerian Armed Islamic Group an Islamic terrorist group tied to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda which hijacked an AirFrance commercial jet and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. As warnings go, this was a dead giveaway.

The plot had been scheduled for New Year's Eve, but the operatives carrying it out had moved it up to Christmas Eve due to concerns about being caught because of stepped up anti-terrosim efforts by us and our allies. The change of plans ended up putting the flight on a refueling stop before it could hit the tower, and French commandos (whom some around her consider a pejorative for "surrender monkeys") stormed the plane, successfully killing the hijackers.

That said I think the size, and scope of the attack was not expected, nor in particular the catastrophic structural failure of the WTC. We even have confiremd reports that Usam bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leaders who created the plot did not anticipate the towers coming down.

Do you seriously believe we, or even Clinton, knew who ALL of the terrorists in the country were?.

Of course not, but I don't see anyone making such an absurd claim either, other than your straw-man you are setting up that is.

Don't be naive, please. You can site reports, facts, whatever. But the fact is 4 plans got held up with tools, not sophisticated weaponry. No one saw it coming. Maybe they got a report that said an attack was going to happen, but what do you want them to do? Have everyone go on the plane naked?

Of course not, but here is a thought, instead of doing absolutely NOTHING to take out a known threat for 8 months (until they struck), and then sitting in a classroom for a stupid photo-op for 7 minutes AFTER it was beyond all doubt we were under attack using airliners as missiles while two more of the highjacked aircraft were still in the air and headed toward our nations capitol, and only the President could give an order to shoot down the aircraft... I sure as hell want a president that won't sit there like a dear caught in the headlights.

poopchow

08-15-2004, 12:52 PM

938 Killed US soldiers, 6276 wounded US soldiers (over 2,000 of the catastrophically), over $168 BILLION, well over 15,000 civilians killed... all for a an unjustified war of choice, which this administration lied with cherry-picked "inteligence" and false claims.. to Congress, the UN and to the public to gain support for it.

168billion is false. We spent 144billion freeing and building Iraq.

First administration since Hoover (the Great Depression) to have a net loss of jobs

1st Administration to have 3000+ Americans killed on US soil and have 2 of the most important buildings destroyed.
inherited failing economy.

shade

08-15-2004, 01:19 PM

Yay fresh meat.
I find it comical you claim raised taxes too much... he raised it SOOO high we had the largest and longest sustained economic boom in our nations history and got ride of the deficit and began paying down our debt. Really BAD BAD CLinton./.. economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility and Kerry want too (gasP do the same thing that gave us balanced budgets, and a booming economy. I'm sorry, you dont know anything about how the economy works.

The economic boom was because two new industries were created. Affordable technology, and the internet. The only thing that Clinton did to help this boom was cut the Capital Gains tax. Cutting the capital gains tax provided an incentive for people to invest in the equity markets instead of debt (stocks instead of bonds or banks). Capital gains tax is the tax you pay on gains your stocks make within one year if you do not hold them longer than a year.

Was our economic boom 1850 and onward due to the president? No, it was due to the invention of electricity and refined steel making methods. It made our economy grow in leaps and bounds.

Ah.. you would rather pay extra tax dollars to service the debt and higher interest on financing the debt because of record deficit spending as far as the eye can see, and also pay higher mortgage and credit interest rates because the Gov. has to borrow more and more to pay for tax cuts that have done nothing to improve the economy in any substative sustained way...? Buddy, do you have any idea what happens when interest rates are as low as they are now for a sustained period of time? You inflate the economy. You get "record growth" for a while, then the economy has a catastrophic correction through inflation or a crash.

Do you recall what caused the great depression?

First, that is only income tax, not payroll taxes, or state and sales taxes, etc. Actually, that is every federal tax. If you click the link you would know that. That is not local taxes. Your local taxes are your own community's problem, not the problem of the ebaumsworld forum that almost exclusively talks about federal issues.

which is a great method of hiding a multitude of sins given that the 5 quintile includes the mega-rich. If you care to click the link, you will see a further break down of 10% 5% and 1%. I chose not to go in to such detail here because I have already in the past and it was late at night. The quintile set up only "hides" information for the top quintile. The other 4 are perfectly normal. Also, if you chose to click the link, you would see at the bottom where it shows the cut offs for the quintiles.

Furthermore, your derived numbers are not accurate given the the cbo stats you cite and spin, state directly in the same year (2000) what the average pre and post tax income was Furthermore, those do not include deductions or services derived such as medicare, social security, welfare, disability, etc.

Someone may pay $500 in tax, and receive $440 in services such as welfare. I am curious what that makes their effective tax rate. Care to take a gander?

I also have no clue where you are getting your $1,000 back from the $45,895 fiction from. I was talking about tax cuts in general, not a specific one. You will find that I often rise above partisan politics on economic issues. The economy is a mathematical machine. There is in fact a "best" thing to do for it and it doesnt matter who does it. For example, it doesnt matter that Clinton was a democrat; his capital gains tax cut was good for the economy. Raising of income tax was bad, if your goal is simply to maximise the economy.

Under Bush's stupid first round of tax cuts which are ballooning the deficit the upper quintile averaged more than that Ever hear of a guy named Keynes? Do you have any idea how we got out of the great depression?

Your numbers are completely flawed by the way because they do not take in to account the child tax credit, the increase of the margin for the first tax bracket, the dividend tax cut or the capital gains tax cut.

The child tax credit being a fixed dollar amount disproportionately helps the lower 60%.

The lower income margin was increased effectively making it so millions of people no longer pay taxes.

The dividend and capital gains tax cuts significantly help anyone in the top 60%, and probably quite a few in the second quintile if they have low expenses and save their money. It also hugely aids in the middle 40%'s upward mobility to the top 40 or 20% groups. It is what allows middle 60% to retire at a reasonable age not being reliant on social security. It gives retired people the monthly income through dividends to pay for their retirement.

But, you would prefer to reverse this and screw the middle 60% just because the top 20% gets a lot of help from it. That is the epitomy of class warfare, and quite sad.

Also, I find it interesting that you think those in the lowest quintile, who btw have a pre-tax income that is already putting them below the official poverty line (which has not been upwardly adjusted for inflation in the past three years) aren't paying enough in taxes since they are literally below the poverty line and paying 5% of their income in Federal taxes (not including payroll, state, sales, etc.) because the highest quantile is paying 25.4% is somehow really sticking it to the poor poor upper bracket income earners. I also find it interesting that you didnt read my original post.

I guess the common theme is that you should read the source and my entire post before talking shit. But I guess talking shit happens a lot when you have your head up your ass.

Edit: Inflated economy/depression clarification.

Lets look at what happened in 2003 when the stock market made its rebound. We had low interest rates and people refinancing their homes. We cut income tax so people had more money. We cut capital gains and dividend taxes so that made people choose use their new money in the stock market.

Ok, you have a stock that is trading at 20 times earnings. This is pretty typical. Now, you have a bunch of people who refinanced their $150-300,000+, got a tax cut of a few thousand dollars, and want invest in the stock market because interest rates are so low (4% range) and they are certain they can do better than 4% in the stock market. So, they choose to use their borrowed money to invest. There are now more dollars chasing stocks in the market.

Now, the market starts to turn upward. Other people see this, and jump onboard. You now have billions of extra dollars chasing stocks and artificially increasing their prices. This is fine for a while, but if it is continued for too long, and on too wide of a scale, you see that same stock trading at 40 or 50 times earnings and you line yourself up for a big time correction like the one we had in 2000, or even worse, the great depression. This is why alan greenspan increased interest rates a while ago and is probably going to again either very soon or after the election (to not interfere with it).

shade

08-15-2004, 01:36 PM

No he hasn't. He has stated he would have voted the way he did even as we now know there were no WMD, but certainly NOT have gone in as we have. He voted for the IWR to give Bush the "big stick" to get the inspectors back in, which it did, but which was halted to Bush could launch this disastrous war. You accuse me of spinning??

"Kerry also affirmed that he still would have voted in October 2002 to give the President authority to wage war in Iraq, even if he had known then what he knows now about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. He said he would have used the authority differently if he had been president by bringing in more allies before engaging in combat."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/9359766.htm?1c

How he would do the magical last part is an unknown, but the fact is, he would have invaded anyway, so drop it.

This is the kind of nuance that you are misreading (though I don't fault you for it given the wholly out of context coverage it has gotten). But it doesn't change his position: United Nations, WMD, compliance, process. The nuance I am misreading is John Kerry personally saying that he would anyway at rallies.

HeroinBob

08-15-2004, 07:21 PM

theirs lots of resons not to suport bush, warmonger/ stupid / conflicts of intrest. but like Chuck D will tell you it all stems from one problem that underlies them all.

He's the son of a Baaaad man, the son of a bad man!

puppyroach

08-15-2004, 07:47 PM

168billion is false. We spent 144billion freeing and building Iraq.

1st Administration to have 3000+ Americans killed on US soil and have 2 of the most important buildings destroyed.
inherited failing economy.

So, from all the things he mentioned, you reacted to a possible miss in the money department? Not the civilians killed and the wounded soldiers? amazing...

And please, about the 3000 killed(both american and forreign)... so then I suppose you evened the score by killing 3000+ in Afghanistan? link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/1213casualities.htm)

well, I suppose there is a difference between people...

Ajax

08-15-2004, 08:57 PM

(4.) Or: A president who actually has morals makes them uncomfortable with their own vile life.

haha that's the stupidest thing I have heard Bush having morals? I dont think so

shade

08-15-2004, 10:02 PM

And please, about the 3000 killed(both american and forreign)... so then I suppose you evened the score by killing 3000+ in Afghanistan? Wow, your link is based on the research of a solitary person. Sorry, I am going to side with the Pentagon. It is also dated December 10, 2001. No fucking way did we kill 4000 civilians by then.

Lestatdelc

08-16-2004, 11:04 PM

168billion is false. We spent 144billion freeing and building Iraq.

No it isn't.

We have so far (as of May 6, 2004) [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3689365.stm]spent $168 billion in Iraq, and Congress being asked to spend a total of $187 up to that point on Iraq:

US military operations so far: $168bn *
Military operations (projected): $150bn-300bn
Reconstruction so far: $33bn (US $18.7bn) *
Reconstruction (projected): $50bn-100bn
Extra security: $40bn-80bn

Sources: CBO, CSIS, World Bank

* allocated for US fiscal years 2003-05

1st Administration to have 3000+ Americans killed on US soil and have 2 of the most important buildings destroyed.

Too bad this administration did absolutely nothing to prevent that. Hell, Bush never even re-flew the then armed Predator drones in Afghanistan in the summer of 2001... huh?

Or take out the Taliban with the plans that Clinton's administration drew up in Dec. 2000 in response to the Cole bombing which Bush did NOTHING with...?

Guess ignoring Aug. 6th PDB warning of attacks while being on vacation the entire month was more pressing.

Some leader.

inherited failing economy.

The recession didn't begin until March of 2001, and after Bush's #1 patron blew a $40 billion plus hole in the western states economies with rigged and inflated energy costs. While Ken Lay's suggested appointee to the FERC looked the other way.

And Bush's response was the exact opposite of what should have been done to address the faltering economy. Supply-side tax cuts was the opposite of what should have been done given the inventory and capacity glut at the time thanks to the booming Clinton/Gore economy that Bush was handed.

Of course I am sure you will try and blame a stock bubble for Bush's miserable economic record, but guess we should not have had the SEC regulatory roll backs in the late 80s under Bush Sr. huh...?

quazy50

08-17-2004, 02:37 AM

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 02:48 AM

Because they like to see someone who can string two sentences together leading the free world. Bush doesn't qualify.

lol... if you really believe that, you have never even heard bush talk

and people say that I am biased.. ha

the only reason droog does not say that every time you post the I.Q. of the forum drops, is because you and him are fellow bush haters

count how many times bush made a mistake in a speach

ZERO

count how many times bush made a mistake while talking with no papers to read from (basicly, non-speech)

just about 4-5 times, could and probibly am wrong

but not that much

you people are WAAAAAAAAY over inflating the facts, everyone says that I am doing all the name calling and insulting and everyone elss is giving facts

LIES, my facts have been siting in my sig for weeks, you want proof against it go to some other site, theres more pro-bush facts than pro-kerry

hmm.. lets see.. bush so far has
lowered taxes

removed terrorists from a country and turned that country into a democracy

removed an evil tyrant from power who half the world agrees was trying to get WMDs

boosted the economy

created thousands of jobs, with millions more expected to be created (yes, jobs have been moving over seas and in other countries, but it is slowing down, and they are only medium and large businesses real backbone is the small business)

expanded wildlife reserves

things kerry has done..

exaggerated the story of his first purple heart

claims he has all these plans, but fails to talk in detail about them

whine about how "horrible" bush is

party in front of 10k hardcore biased democrats with his ugly wife

not make up his mind about aproving and funding the war in iraq

you want sources? go to those links

you say there propiganda? look up some more stuff, not just anti-bush either

ah, one last thing..

a lot of you say the media cannot be trusted, yet most of your links are CNN.com... which is very pro-democrat

so basicly your saying, fox news, rush limbaugh and sean hannity are the only media who cannot be trusted???

now THAT is biased

ah, also.. if you want a perfect example of the "im always right your always wrong" game, and the whining game, take a look at some micheal moore clips...

yeah clinton had chances to extradite binladin but o wait he chose not to.

ah, exactly, clinton could have done tons of stuff, but failed to do almost ANY anti-terrorism actions

flame away!! smoothy, droog and lestatdelc!!!

socrepLT

08-17-2004, 04:09 AM

count how many times bush made a mistake in a speach

ZERO

count how many times bush made a mistake while talking with no papers to read from (basicly, non-speech)

just about 4-5 times, could and probibly am wrong
Don't make me start pulling out Bush quotes foo' :p

Chewy

08-17-2004, 12:26 PM

168billion is false. We spent 144billion freeing and building Iraq.

I still contest that Iraq is been freed, nor has it been liberated. It is currently occupied by a host of nations. As for the economic investments in “rebuilding” like I have posted before, “you break it you but it.”

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 12:35 PM

count how many times bush made a mistake in a speach

ZERO

You must be off your trolley. I have right next to my keyboard a George W. Bushism calender. For every day of the year it has a new dumbarse mistake Bush has made while making a speech.

Hell I even made a topic about his most recent act of idiocy:

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=26053

You tried to discredit me by saying I had no source. Idiot.

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 01:03 PM

You must be off your trolley. I have right next to my keyboard a George W. Bushism calender. For every day of the year it has a new dumbarse mistake Bush has made while making a speech.

Hell I even made a topic about his most recent act of idiocy:

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=26053

You tried to discredit me by saying I had no source. Idiot.

lol, so basicly you people are avoiding everything elss i said just to jump on that one thing that i said?

alright, maybe zero wasnt the right number, more like 2 or 3, but most of his mistakes are when he is not in speaches

also, if his errors in speaches is the only thing you have against him, please go kill yourself, that is NO way to judge someone, EVERYONE makes mistakes

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 01:09 PM

lol, so basicly you people are avoiding everything elss i said just to jump on that one thing that i said?

Pretty much, yeah. If you say something strange, you have to expect people to challenge it.

alright, maybe zero wasnt the right number, more like 2 or 3, but most of his mistakes are when he is not in speaches

You must be in denial or something. The vast, vast majority of so-called Bushisms are done when he is reading a speech or facing scripted questions. When Bush is called upon to answer questions he isn't prepared for, he is even worse, such as when he was asked about Tribal Sovereignty.

also, if his errors in speaches is the only thing you have against him, please go kill yourself, that is NO way to judge someone, EVERYONE makes mistakes

Well the errors in speech are intricate to my dislike. I'd say they take precedence over misleading a nation to go to war. :rolleyes:

BigMattTheHobo

08-17-2004, 01:10 PM

ah, exactly, clinton could have done tons of stuff, but failed to do almost ANY anti-terrorism actions

flame away!! smoothy, droog and lestatdelc!!!

How 'bout the anti terrorism bill shot down by the right?

shade

08-17-2004, 01:14 PM

No response to my follow up post Les?

Anyone else have anything to say about Bush's economic policy or economic policy in general?

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 01:17 PM

Anyone else have anything to say about Bush's economic policy or economic policy in general?

No, but isn't the number one election issue Iraq, anyway?

Edit: Oh, and by the way Bubba-E, your long message earlier is so full of ill-informed claptrap I don't know if I can be bothered to do a critical analysis. I'll leave it to someone like Droog who can do it properly, and better.

shade

08-17-2004, 01:30 PM

No, but isn't the number one election issue Iraq, anyway? Not for people like me. I graduate from college next May and need a job. That is why it is imperative that John Kerry not be elected. As long as I allow the government to have the tools it needs within reason to prevent terrorism, it is not really an issue to me.

Also, despite John Kerry's "flip flops" I doubt that any president elected from this point on for at least the next 16 years will be "soft on terrorism." They may not overthrow governments friendly to terrorism, but they will probably be willing to say things like "screw their airspace" and send snipers and special forces wherever necessary.

Besides, Kerry says that over the next four years he would try to reduce our presence in Iraq as much as possible. So has Bush. The difference between the two is a product of media/election year hype.

Unlike Iraq, where no one can be persuaded, the economy is based on math and logic for the most part. There are different theories, but on many of the biggest issues, most theories correspond. For example using Keynesian policy to get you out of a recession. Specifically, cutting taxes and defecit spending to pump money in to the economy temporarily sort of like an economic difibulator.

When economics is explained to someone, it becomes quite apparent that there pretty much is a clear "right and wrong" way to approach the economy. Unfortunately partisanship and class warfare can sometimes muddle that fine line. This is why I like the issue, because unlike Iraq, economics can actually persuade.

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 01:35 PM

Shade, I think the greater concern for many people is whether, after Iraq, Bush can be trusted.

shade

08-17-2004, 01:37 PM

Logically, the burden of proof for the US and UK would be much higher in the future. So, again, I find it unlikely moving forward.

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 01:46 PM

Logically, the burden of proof for the US and UK would be much higher in the future. So, again, I find it unlikely moving forward.

Very well. Can America forgive Bush then?

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 01:48 PM

Oh, and by the way Bubba-E, your long message earlier is so full of ill-informed claptrap I don't know if I can be bothered to do a critical analysis. I'll leave it to someone like Droog who can do it properly, and better.

:rolleyes: gotta love it

well, where do YOU get your info? hmm?

once again!!! you people think all republicans are wrong and all democrats are right

the "im always right your always wrong" game!!!!

i could say the exact same thing about every last thing you and everyone elss says about bush!, but no im not going to lower myself down to your incredible imaturity

dont even try to use my grammar to say im imature, maturity has nothing to do with it

i take that back, all of your ARE one tracked minded, you refused to believe ANYTHING i say, any facts i give, ANYTHING

and your just going to come back and say something along the lines of "thats because non of it IS true"

wrong!

think about it!!! dammit it all, you just denouce everything other people say, and always believe everything you say is true

we get our stuff from the same places, internet, news, etc

so of course some of it is going to be wrong, on both sides, but you people are saying EVERYTHING you say is right and EVERYTHING i say is wrong

and you say I am biased?? ROFL

droogsteve

08-17-2004, 01:54 PM

Bubba-E, please read:

Not for people like me. I graduate from college next May and need a job. That is why it is imperative that John Kerry not be elected. As long as I allow the government to have the tools it needs within reason to prevent terrorism, it is not really an issue to me.

Also, despite John Kerry's "flip flops" I doubt that any president elected from this point on for at least the next 16 years will be "soft on terrorism." They may not overthrow governments friendly to terrorism, but they will probably be willing to say things like "screw their airspace" and send snipers and special forces wherever necessary.

Besides, Kerry says that over the next four years he would try to reduce our presence in Iraq as much as possible. So has Bush. The difference between the two is a product of media/election year hype.

Unlike Iraq, where no one can be persuaded, the economy is based on math and logic for the most part. There are different theories, but on many of the biggest issues, most theories correspond. For example using Keynesian policy to get you out of a recession. Specifically, cutting taxes and defecit spending to pump money in to the economy temporarily sort of like an economic difibulator.

When economics is explained to someone, it becomes quite apparent that there pretty much is a clear "right and wrong" way to approach the economy. Unfortunately partisanship and class warfare can sometimes muddle that fine line. This is why I like the issue, because unlike Iraq, economics can actually persuade.

This^^^ is what an intelligent, open minded Republican who looks at both sides of the issues sounds like, Bubba. Perhaps you should take notes. He doesn't claim that Kerry is going to disband the army or go golfing with Bin Laden. Notice the lack of comments about "Kerry's ugly wife" or other such nonsense. He would be the first to admit that Bush mangles the English language on a regular basis because denying it is simply lying. He bases his arguments on facts and I seriously weigh everything he says against my own opinions. He has swayed me to his side in several arguments.

You, on the other hand, are a clown. If you post facts they are meaningless because they are lost among the non stop blind partisen bullshit that you spew. You have already destroyed any credibility that you may have had here, and not a person on this board takes anything you say seriously.

Ok, you can prove me right by calling me a homo or telling me to kill myself now.

shade

08-17-2004, 01:57 PM

Can America forgive Bush then? No, not in 20-30 years. That is the nature of partisan politics.

A child learning in a history class about an accidental war would probably be forgiving. Likewise, if they happen to learn in history class that we did find tons of wmd and kept it classified, they would be forgiving as well.

The only way he would not be historically forgiven is if it is found out that he knowingly lied, along with Blair, and others.

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 03:22 PM

This^^^ is what an intelligent, open minded Republican who looks at both sides of the issues sounds like, Bubba. Perhaps you should take notes. He doesn't claim that Kerry is going to disband the army or go golfing with Bin Laden. Notice the lack of comments about "Kerry's ugly wife" or other such nonsense. He would be the first to admit that Bush mangles the English language on a regular basis because denying it is simply lying. He bases his arguments on facts and I seriously weigh everything he says against my own opinions. He has swayed me to his side in several arguments.

You, on the other hand, are a clown. If you post facts they are meaningless because they are lost among the non stop blind partisen bullshit that you spew. You have already destroyed any credibility that you may have had here, and not a person on this board takes anything you say seriously.

Ok, you can prove me right by calling me a homo or telling me to kill myself now.

did i say kerry was going to bisband the army? no
did i say he would go golfing with bin laden? no

god i love how stupid you are, you look for the slightest reason to ban me, for what? my political views?

my facts are as meaningless as any of yours

as i said before i dont give a shit that my rents are republican!
is your favorit word partisan or something?!?

well sorry that im not going to graduate from college in a year, sorry that i compare democratic and republican facts, sorry that i aprove of bush saving arab lives, sorry that i aprove of bush lowering taxes, sorry that i am 14, SORRY FOR BEING WHO I AM

one more thing im sorry for: for not being able to explain my thoughts as well as shade

i got so many ideas that i think about so deeply, it gives me headaches sometimes, and personaly i dont give a fuck how ugly kerry's wife is, i dont give a fuck that kerry exagerated about his first purple heart

but keep this is mind: people who exagerate, lie, and never make up there mind offten cannot do inportant things, such as lead counties

have you ever even read some of my political posts? i even said bush is not perfect, hell, bush is NO WHERE near perfect

like i said before.......

bush = 6/10
kerry 4/10

thats about what it boils down to in my thoughts, bush is not a whole lot better than kerry, but he is still better in my view

if i cant whine about kerry having an ugly wife, or that he exagerated, or that he lies, why can you whine about bush "lying" to go to war with iraq?? answer me that!

droog, i am very sorry.. call me partisan, and you lower yourself farther than i have ever seen you, by calling me partisan, you are a hypocrite, you know why?

somehow i doubt you do

its because you whine and whine about me telling people to kill themselves, yet bajee says the same thing!! you dont go dissing him, do you? no, because he has the same views as you

you call me unintelligent because i dont bother with making my grammar perfect on this forum, you call me unintelligent because i have a differnt taste in what i think makes a good pres

i got news for you

EVERY PERSON ON THIS PLANET IS DIFFERNT

yet again, you will flame away at me, and i know exactly why

i know i cannot give details about my thoughts, i cant put into typing what i can put into sound

and i cannot put into sound, some of my more deep thoughts about things

this is half misunderstanding, mainly because i just cannot describe my thoughts

"This is what an intelligent, open minded Republican who looks at both sides of the issues sounds like, Bubba."

yet another point of mine: not everyone sounds alike

BigMattTheHobo

08-17-2004, 03:26 PM

Bush is saving Arab lives? Hahahahaha.

I would take time and learn your something bubba, but it wouldn't change a thing. I can debunk every single point you bring up in an argument, but you would still use them and not change a single way of thinking.

Chewy

08-17-2004, 03:33 PM

No, not in 20-30 years. That is the nature of partisan politics.

A child learning in a history class about an accidental war would probably be forgiving. Likewise, if they happen to learn in history class that we did find tons of wmd and kept it classified, they would be forgiving as well.

The only way he would not be historically forgiven is if it is found out that he knowingly lied, along with Blair, and others.
This reminds me of a book I read It was Fidel Castro’s autobiography, called “history will absolve me.”

Bubba-E .... bush is now saving Arab lives??? What is he parting the Red Sea too? Bubba I beginning to think you would learn more reading what is being written in these forums than responding to them.

I’m ok with you wearing the Bush Team Jersey, but don’t credit Bush for goals he didn’t score. And don't count the ones if they were on his own net. Please stop making outrages claims; it only demonstrates the level of learned naivety that you possess.

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 03:52 PM

I'm sorry, you dont know anything about how the economy works.

What condescending nonsense. I know quite well how the economy works thank you.

The economic boom was because two new industries were created.

That was not the entirety of it, much of the freeing of capital was brought about by deficit reduction and the corresponding drop in interest rates because the Gov. was no longer competing for capital.

Affordable technology, and the internet.

Both points you raise are valid, but also worth noting that Al Gore spearheaded and was instrumental in converting the Gov. funded ARPA into the internet.

The only thing that Clinton did to help this boom was cut the Capital Gains tax.

Fiction. The reduction in the deficit, which was brought about by the deficit reduction package which passed without a single GOP vote had far more to do with the boom than reduction in capital gains, though that helped as well.

Cutting the capital gains tax provided an incentive for people to invest in the equity markets instead of debt (stocks instead of bonds or banks).

This is precisely where the deficit reduction which CLinton and the Dems spearheaded and passed without a single GOP vote had a direct impact, and far more than the capital gains reductions. Because the Gov. was reducing demand to service the debt and ongoing deficits interest rates dropped in the bonds market. This had more of a freeing impact on capital for investment in private sector investment than reduction in capital gains.

Was our economic boom 1850 and onward due to the president? No, it was due to the invention of electricity and refined steel making methods. It made our economy grow in leaps and bounds.

Good thing Gore and the Federal Gov. pushed the commercialization of the internet then huh?

Of course the fabricated misquote of Al inventing the internet overshadowed and mocked the reality that the Clinton administration and Al Gore were instrumental in the internet becoming a boom technology.

Buddy,

I am not your "buddy"

do you have any idea what happens when interest rates are as low as they are now for a sustained period of time?

First off they are not staying this low but are being raised because of deficit demand form the Gov.

You inflate the economy.

Not true.

Inflation (particularly what we are seeing) is because of the ripple effect of higher energy (oil) cost which impact the cost of goods and transportation of goods.

You get "record growth" for a while, then the economy has a catastrophic correction through inflation or a crash..

This is simply not true.

Do you recall what caused the great depression?

I know of it but was not alive then, but I have read extensively.

The depression was not caused by low sustained interest rates.

Actually, that is every federal tax. If you click the link you would know that.

I did click on it, and it did not include payroll taxes (FICA)

That is not local taxes.

Which is precisely my point, quoting only Federal tax figures (which don't include payroll taxes) does not tell the whole picture. When State and local taxes have to be raised to make up for cuts in Federal funds and increases of services because of Federal program cuts, unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind for example) and the fact that most low and middle income families actually pay more of their share of their taxes on the State and local level (via sales taxes, etc.) make it disingenuous to present stats and your attempt to portray the poor afflicted overtaxed upper brackets.

Your local taxes are your own community's problem, not the problem of the ebaumsworld forum that almost exclusively talks about federal issues.

Good "don't look behind that curtain" dodge. The cost and services burden shift form the Federal Gov. to the STates IS a relevant topic.

If you care to click the link, you will see a further break down of 10% 5% and 1%. I chose not to go in to such detail here because I have already in the past and it was late at night. The quintile set up only "hides" information for the top quintile.

Which is exactly my point. Most of the "burden" of the higher percentage of total federal tax revenues (excluding FICA which is not included in these stats) are paid by the upper 1% which misleading inflates the upper 20% bracket. In addition, "averages" are always misleading in these sort of breakdowns, which is why Fright-Wingers™ always use them instead of "median" breakdowns.

Furthermore, those do not include deductions or services derived such as medicare, social security, welfare, disability, etc.

Flat out false:

Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance)

So those pre-tax incomes I pointed out explicitly include the things you cite.

Someone may pay $500 in tax, and receive $440 in services such as welfare. I am curious what that makes their effective tax rate. Care to take a gander?

These stats ARE effective rates since the pre-tax numbers include the services and SS disbursements etc. and show what is paid. Did you even read the headers for the various table?

Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households, by Income Quintile

You are wrong.

CONT.

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 03:52 PM

CONT.

I was talking about tax cuts in general, not a specific one.

Then don't pull baseless numbers and add them into a specific quintile figure to make a specific argument about different quintile tax burdens.

For example, it doesnt matter that Clinton was a democrat; his capital gains tax cut was good for the economy.

And the deficit reduction package that his administration pushed was even better.

Raising of income tax was bad, if your goal is simply to maximise the economy.

No it wasn't. It reduced the deficit which had a much more positive effect than the even the capital gains cuts in shifting investment into creating economic activity and jobs in new industries. In addition, raising income taxes does not automatically have a negative impact on the economy. You seem to think that taxes automatically disappear into a black hole. Taxes which in fact are put back into the economy via funding state and local programs go directly back into the economy. Every dollar spent on a teachers salary, a road worker, a healthcare provider, etc. goes right back into our economy, though that money going into the capital markets does not necessarily, since a sizable portion of the debt and deficit spending (via the capital markets) bleeds capital out of the country by servicing our foreign held debt.

Ever hear of a guy named Keynes?

I am very well versed in Keynesian economic theory.

ANd the above is exactly what I am talking about Keynesian economics.

Do you have any idea how we got out of the great depression?

Yep, massive public sector spending which financed job-production.

Your numbers are completely flawed by the way because they do not take in to account the child tax credit, the increase of the margin for the first tax bracket, the dividend tax cut or the capital gains tax cut.

Wrong. I was specifically talking about what the median upper quintile cut being more than your $1000 number you pulled out of thin air. And nobody in the upper brackets are even eligible for the EITC.

The child tax credit being a fixed dollar amount disproportionately helps the lower 60%..

Gee, there is a shock, because people over a $33,692 ($34,692 for married filing jointly) are not eligible for it. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a federal income tax credit for low-income workers who are eligible for and claim the credit. To help families low-income families with children get by.

The lower income margin was increased effectively making it so millions of people no longer pay taxes.

Which was a good thing. Thank you Dems in Congress.

It is the misguided upper bracket reductions which was and is wholly misguided.

The dividend and capital gains tax cuts significantly help anyone in the top 60%, and probably quite a few in the second quintile if they have low expenses and save their money.

Back that up. Most people in the middle and lower quintiles are not helped one with by either. Most people in the middle and lower quintiles do not own stock, and if they do, it is almost always via a mutual fund which is tax deferred so such decreases in either does nothing for them.

It also hugely aids in the middle 40%'s upward mobility to the top 40 or 20% groups.

At the expense of the budget and the negative impact on the economy which results form the fiscal disaster these cuts create, as well as the negative impact on state and local budgets and economies.

It is what allows middle 60% to retire at a reasonable age not being reliant on social security. It gives retired people the monthly income through dividends to pay for their retirement.

Not disagreeing with that, but the fiscal hit the income tax cuts creates on the budget and the negative impact it has on interest rates (because of the return of massive deficit spending, while cutting programs which puts capital back into the economy where it gets spent) is the irresponsible aspect I was referring to.

But, you would prefer to reverse this and screw the middle 60% just because the top 20% gets a lot of help from it.

LOL wrong. I never said roll back capital gains cuts.

But That is the epitomy of class warfare, and quite sad.

Oh give it a rest. Every time the upper brackets are required to pay more (which helps everyone including themselves indirectly) the term "class warfare" comes out of the woodwork. Shifting the tax burden to the lower brackets to increase the wealth in the upper brackets is "class warfare" for real.

I also find it interesting that you didnt read my original post.

I have read every post in this thread.

I guess the common theme is that you should read the source and my entire post before talking shit. But I guess talking shit happens a lot when you have your head up your ass.

Charming. That really advances your arguments... sad that you feel you have to resort to becoming a vulgarian, hurling personal invective.

(scroll)

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 04:10 PM

i got so many ideas that i think about so deeply, it gives me headaches sometimes

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

You're a walking, talking joke.

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 04:11 PM

ROFL!

alright i have finaly got it

you people are the partisans, you refuse to believe one single thing i say

no matter how many facts i bring up, you deny every one

it also shows how little you know of the iraq situation

bush removing saddam, that is how bush saved arab lives

saddam killed by the thousands, i have seen video clips of the mass killing saddam did

and you all say history repeats itself, saddam still had enemies in his land.. so its only common sense that he would still kill more

keep in mind, just because they are arabs, it doesnt me they are not humans

you people (not all of you) are going back to the midieval rivalries, such as france, brittan and spain, all fighting just because they are who they are, there name basicly (yes i know thats not the WHOLE reason why there were fighting)

and hobo, the only way you, and most others, "proove" my facts are not truth is by saying "nope" "not true" "lies"

about 40-50% of the time you give actual facts against it

call me partisan all you want people! doesnt change my way of thinking, bush is no were near perfect, but he is still a better choice

EDIT - very nice viceroy..

as soon as i click on quote you saved changes to what you said

"did i miss something? you going to graduate from collage in a year but your only 14?"

lol thats good proof that you just skim over what i say

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 04:15 PM

EDIT - very nice viceroy..

as soon as i click on quote you saved changes to what you said

"did i miss something? you going to graduate from collage in a year but your only 14?"

lol thats good proof that you just skim over what i say

I misread what you said. At least i bothered to correct it.

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 04:18 PM

I misread what you said. At least i bothered to correct it.

lol, be more careful :rolleyes:

OOOOOOO you must be sooooo horrible!! you made a mistake!!!

see? just because bush makes a few mistakes it doesnt mean he cannot lead

on the other hand, kerry lying, exagerating, and not making up his mind DOES have a effect on his leadership skills

if you cannot make the connection between kerry's faults and leadership, please go sit down and read a book, its good for you

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 04:23 PM

lol, be more careful :rolleyes:

OOOOOOO you must be sooooo horrible!! you made a mistake!!!

see? just because bush makes a few mistakes it doesnt mean he cannot lead

LOL.......oh my God.....stop.

Seriously Bubba, you should do stand up.

on the other hand, kerry lying, exagerating, and not making up his mind DOES have a effect on his leadership skills

if you cannot make the connection between kerry's faults and leadership, please go sit down and read a book, its good for you

Thanks for the advice. I'd rather have someone in the White House who has some credibility, even if it's not much. Bush has none.

Bubba-E

08-17-2004, 04:39 PM

Thanks for the advice. I'd rather have someone in the White House who has some credibility, even if it's not much. Bush has none.

lol?

more like..

I'd rather have someone in the White House who has some credibility, even if it's not much. Kerry has none.

dispite all these facts that are against kerry, you still refuse to budge... wow

and everyone is avoiding every fact that i gave.. hmmm that says something doesn it?

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 04:43 PM

yeah clinton had chances to extradite binladin but o wait he chose not to.

If you are reffering to the Sudanese "offer" it is bunk.

Sudan was under sanctions for several years by 1996, for sponsoring terorism. Sudan wanted to explore ways to get the UN sanctions lifted.

The alleged offer from Sudan came from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman. He approached the U.S. independently and claimed that Sudan, a state sponsor of terror, would arrest Osama in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. In following up the possibilites though, the US said that one of the conditions it would back lifitng sanctions was to expell Usama bin Laden. In response Sudan offered to arrest him and extradite him to Saudi Arabia instead if Suadi Arabia would pardon him. But the Saudis, who stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994, feared having him back in the country, even as a prisoner and refused to do either.

A search to find any country that Sudan would be willing to extradite him to wa sundertaken, and none came forward.

The 9/11 commission said it found no credible evidence to support these claims that Clinton was offered a handover of UBL.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf

Viceroy

08-17-2004, 04:45 PM

lol?

more like..

I'd rather have someone in the White House who has some credibility, even if it's not much. Kerry has none.

No, I like it better my way.

dispite all these facts that are against kerry, you still refuse to budge... wow

and everyone is avoiding every fact that i gave.. hmmm that says something doesn it?

That we're afraid to challenge you? Don't flatter yourself.

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 04:46 PM

No response to my follow up post Les?

I actually just posted a response. Some of us have jobs and family.

;)

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 04:58 PM

I graduate from college next May and need a job. That is why it is imperative that John Kerry not be elected.

Becuase you want to continue to need a job...?

If you want a good job, you need to elect a Democrat into the WHite House and get Democrats back in control of Congress.

Also, despite John Kerry's "flip flops"

Name any substantive flip-flop. I find it odd that you back Bush considering the staggering flip-flops on every major issue there is.

1. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't
solve the problem. You still will have agencies within
the federal government that have to be coordinated. So
the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't
solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer,
3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT#160; OF HOMELAND
SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in
creating a single, permanent department with an
overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland
of America and protecting the American people."
[President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass
destruction. We found biological laboratories#8230;for
those who say we haven't found the banned
manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in
Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to
produce weapons.#160;And when David Kay goes in and
says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's
theories as to where the weapons went. They could have
been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen
could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq.
They could be hidden. They could have been transported
to another country, and we'll find out." [President
Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

3. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that
if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it
will help workers on both sides of this issue."
[President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision
largely driven by his political advisers, President
Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and
imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out
struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia,
two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington
Post, 9/19/03]

4. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And
there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says,
'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama
Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where
he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's
not that important." [President Bush, Press
Conference, 3/13/02]

5. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If
elected], Governor Bush will work to#8230;establish
mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main
pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury
and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan,
9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do
not believe, however, that the government should
impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions
for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under
the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen.
Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

6. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD
INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately
turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for
an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head
off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that
might go beyond reports already being assembled by
congressional committees and the Central Intelligence
Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD
INTELLIGENCE FAILURE #160;"Today, by executive order,
I am creating an independent commission, chaired by
Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence
Silberman, to look at American intelligence
capabilities, especially our intelligence about
weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11
COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes
during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his
opposition to establishing a special commission to
probe how the government dealt with terror warnings
before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11
COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports
establishing an independent commission to investigate
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION...
"President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert
(R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to
an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION
"The White House announced Wednesday its support for a
request from the commission investigating the
September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete
its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO
ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney have placed strict limits on the private
interviews they will grant to the federal commission
investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they
will meet only with the panel's top two officials and
that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of
questioning, commission members said Wednesday."#160;
[NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The
president's going to answer all of the questions they
want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White
House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

10. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state
can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in
this state's issue like you're trying to get me into."
[Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live,
2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY
MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly
pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an
amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting
marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and
wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

Yet you back this fool...?

PLease cite any substantive Kerry flip-flops.

I doubt that any president elected from this point on for at least the next 16 years will be "soft on terrorism."

Agreed, but Kerry is not "soft on terrosim," but would be far better about combating terrorism than Bush.

Besides, Kerry says that over the next four years he would try to reduce our presence in Iraq as much as possible. So has Bush. The difference between the two is a product of media/election year hype.

ROFL you are joking right?

For example using Keynesian policy to get you out of a recession.

Agreed, but that is not what this administration does. They push supply-side ecnominic bullshit.

Specifically, cutting taxes and defecit spending to pump money in to the economy temporarily sort of like an economic difibulator.

Problem is you have to cut the right kinds of taxes which target the problem area of the economy. For example, when you have excess production capacity and back-inventory, cutting capital gains and upper income brackets is the exact WRONG approach. You have to cut some taxes for the lower brackets and increase spending in areas like infrastructure repair, education, etc. the dollars which are spent there increase consumer spending which increases demand, etc.

You seem to have bought demonstratively failed supply-side economic theory which is bunk.

You keep talking "Keynesian" but backing non-Keneysian policy which Bush and company pursue.

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 05:03 PM

open minded Republican who looks at both sides of the issues sounds like

Hmmm... must have missed Shade's "talking shit" and "head up your ass" comment form Shade directed at me?

daveo the great

08-17-2004, 05:04 PM

Hey Bubba! your arguments seem interesting.... and i might be willing to vote for bush based on them.

could you please source them and prove ANY of them? if you do prove your arguments to be true then i will vote for bush.

Edit: also.... partisan sites like "crushkerry.com" do not constitute a good proof.

Lestatdelc

08-17-2004, 05:04 PM

And everyone is avoiding every fact that i gave.. hmmm that says something doesn it?

You seem to avoid facts like the plague, but merely regurgitate Fright-Wing™ propaganda.

droogsteve

08-17-2004, 05:35 PM

did i say kerry was going to bisband the army? no
did i say he would go golfing with bin laden? no

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

god i love how stupid you are, you look for the slightest reason to ban me, for what? my political views?I don't need a reason, I can ban anyone I please. There are plenty of people who I disagree with and you're the only one I've temp banned. It has nothing to do with your politics, it has to do with the fact that you're a idiot.

well sorry that im not going to graduate from college in a yearIf you don't log off the Swiftvets site and pick up an English book, you'll never even get into college. Your posts are damn near incoherent.

sorry that i compare democratic and republican facts, sorry that i aprove of bush saving arab lives, sorry that i aprove of bush lowering taxes, sorry that i am 14, SORRY FOR BEING WHO I AM

one more thing im sorry for: for not being able to explain my thoughts as well as shadeApology accepted. Now go away.

i got so many ideas that i think about so deeply, it gives me headaches sometimesYeah, that sometimes happens when breaking in an unused brain. You wouldn't drive a new car at 100 mph right off the car lot, would you? Start small, perhaps with a "Where's Waldo" book or something.

and personaly i dont give a fuck how ugly kerry's wife is, i dont give a fuck that kerry exagerated about his first purple heartAnd yet you post about it incessantly.

but keep this is mind: people who exagerate, lie, and never make up there mind offten cannot do inportant things, such as lead counties
[insert Bush joke here]

if i cant whine about kerry having an ugly wife, or that he exagerated, or that he lies, why can you whine about bush "lying" to go to war with iraq?? answer me that!Are you joking? Unless that ugly wife killed 1000 US troops and cost $100 billion, the two aren't really comparable, are they?

droog, i am very sorry.. call me partisan, and you lower yourself farther than i have ever seen you, by calling me partisan, you are a hypocrite, you know why?

somehow i doubt you do

its because you whine and whine about me telling people to kill themselves, yet bajee says the same thing!! you dont go dissing him, do you? no, because he has the same views as you

What are you babbling about? Who the fuck is Bajee? There's nobody by that name in this thread.

And by the way, your posts are whining. Mine are mocking.

you call me unintelligent because i dont bother with making my grammar perfect on this forum, you call me unintelligent because i have a differnt taste in what i think makes a good pres

i got news for you

EVERY PERSON ON THIS PLANET IS DIFFERNT

yet again, you will flame away at me, and i know exactly why

i know i cannot give details about my thoughts, i cant put into typing what i can put into sound

and i cannot put into sound, some of my more deep thoughts about things

this is half misunderstanding, mainly because i just cannot describe my thoughtsAnd we're supposed to take your word that you have these deep and intelligent thoughts that you can't express and treat you accordingly? Sorry, Ebaumsworld is a tough world. You are judged only on your posts. And your