Elections!

[Sir Toose]

My oh my the GOP is standing tall!

I wonder how the American population can be so distraught with the performance of one GW Bush yet vote more strongly republican than ever.

In my state it wasn't even a contest. My candidate was already 20% ahead of the competition by the time I get there. He didn't need me but I was happy to show up for him at any rate.

So, any left wingers with any explanations?

I don't mean to be incendiary here, I'm just really curious about why those oh so unhappy left wingers didn't show to vote.

[jrs]

I jyust couldn't take the bar scrolling on the bottom of the screen while watching TV.

ANNOYING!!!!

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Toose
I wonder how the American population can be so distraught with the performance of one GW Bush yet vote more strongly republican than ever.
Simple: the American population is NOT do distraught with Dubya's performance. The news media types and commentators are...and even then it's rather divided.

Anyway, this says a hell of a lot about what America wants. It's considered typical for the party in the Oval Office to lose votes in these elections...so to GAIN seats, AND control of Congress (on both levels), well...it's a big friggin' deal. Congrats to all the winners.

I can't wait to see what develops of the next two years...or six, for that matter, as it'd be damned hard for Dubya to screw up badly enough to lose a bid for re-election. This is the Golden Age, my friends. :D

[OptimalDelusion]

It's scary as hell, if you ask me! Dubya just become one of the most powerful people in the history of the world. :eek: :dizzy: :# We need a horrified smiley.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by OptimalDelusion
It's scary as hell, if you ask me! Dubya just become one of the most powerful people in the history of the world. :eek: :dizzy: :# We need a horrified smiley.
I'm asking for trouble with this question, but what the hell: why so scared? Please, please, please don't tell me you're part of the "Dubya's gonna blow up the earth!" crowd. :rolleyes:

[OptimalDelusion]

Two main reasons #1 He's a dummy! That's good enough right there. #2 His social agendas scare me silly! He really does seem to hate the separation of church and state, for one thing.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by OptimalDelusion
#1 He's a dummy! That's good enough right there.
And you base this on...? A bunch of bumbling year-old quotes? I'll take substance over style any day. I don't care if he trips over a word now and then if he gets the job done.

Hey, if it's fair to judge Dubya's worth as a President based on his ability to articulate himself (which, if you'll notice, has been EXCELLENT over the last year or so), then it's sure as hell fair to judge Clinton's worth in the Executive Mansion based on what he does with his "Slick Willy."


Originally posted by OptimalDelusion
He really does seem to hate the separation of church and state, for one thing.
Care to elaborate? :) I don't think I've seen whatever it is that brought you to this conclusion.

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by Yoda

And you base this on...? A bunch of bumbling year-old quotes? I'll take substance over style any day. I don't care if he trips over a word now and then if he gets the job done.

Hey, if it's fair to judge Dubya's worth as a President based on his ability to articulate himself (which, if you'll notice, has been EXCELLENT over the last year or so), then it's sure as hell fair to judge Clinton's worth in the Executive Mansion based on what he does with his "Slick Willy."

I personally think his inability to speak impromptu reflects his ability to think, which is much more important than where he puts his penis! And I don't think he has gotten that much better. He uses certain phrases over and over wheverever he goes so that he can avoid the kind of ridiculous blunders he's had in the past. But when he tries to think of original ideas, he still screws up.



Care to elaborate? :) I don't think I've seen whatever it is that brought you to this conclusion.

His faith based initiatives. Among other things, he sends huge amounts of federal funds directly to churches and other faith-based organizations. I believe that no governmental, faith-based programs should ever exist, and Dumbya has the exact opposite view. If you like him, that's great, but he scares the hell outa me!

[Sexy Celebrity]

I was just reading AOL members comments on GOP winning... I am truly disgusted by how ignorant they all are, to each other and with what they're saying. God, stop the monstrosity!!!

[Sunfrogolin]

What are they saying? I think this is a sad, sad day for America. I was thinking the exact same thing last night when I saw the results Toose! My first instinct was to think it was all fixed somehow. I wouldn't put it past the evil repukelicans. In fact it upset me so much I don't think I slept last night! I even said prayers and asked God how He could let such a thing happen.

Anyhoo, this is what I learned about America yesterday. I was going to post it til I saw this thread so I'll post it here. Sorry if it's slightly off topic.

All the last few weeks I kept seeing ads on tv, you probably did too, about how so & so did this and so & so did that. The ol' smear campaign. Well it made me realize something. Both my local candidates are scum. Rep & Dem, I didn't want to vote for either one, but one did have to win. That means a lowlife was guaranteed to be in office. It always amazes me how creeps can get elected. Don't people know how to vote? But that's how it happens. When both candidates are creeps one has to get in.

Back on topic, wondering who the f*** voted for all those Republicans last night and why was Jeb Bush elected in Florida I realized I hate Florida and came up with a solution to all our recent problems. Just as there is a minimun voting age because kids don't have the smarts to make such an important decision, there should also be a maximun voting age. Cuz let's face facts, old people start losing their wits after a certain age. That's the whole reason telemarketers and con men prey on them. If they don't have the smarts they shouldn't vote either. That's the criteria for kids so why should it be different for old people

[firegod]

I personally don't think it will be as easy for Bush as most people seem to think. Sure, the Republicans have more power now, but the system keeps radical stuff at bay pretty well, even in this kind of situation.

[Herod]

Voting age thing:

I'm not sure about that maximum voting age, I'd certainly prwefer a basic intelligence test for voters to run through.
And the government should encourage people not to vote, I figure that as soon as we can get rid of all these "rock the Vote", or "Dumb MtV 18 year olds vote like sheep" programs we'll start getting some real decisions made. Once the only people voting are those that feel compelled to express their political opinions, this country will be much better offf.

[Yoda]

My first instinct was to think it was all fixed somehow. I wouldn't put it past the evil repukelicans.
Holy Crap man, what are you on? "Evil"?

Therein lies one of the primary differences between the two sides: Republicans see Democrats as misguided or mistaken...Democrats more often see Republicans as evil. That's seriously messed up, Frogman. Apparently it's not enough that you question someone's policies...you have to question their intentions, too?

And I don't think I need to point out that this "think it was all fixed somehow" stuff is just reeking of sour grapes.


That means a lowlife was guaranteed to be in office.
People who run negative ads are inherently "lowlifes"?


Optimal

I personally think his inability to speak impromptu reflects his ability to think, which is much more important than where he puts his penis! And I don't think he has gotten that much better. He uses certain phrases over and over wheverever he goes so that he can avoid the kind of ridiculous blunders he's had in the past. But when he tries to think of original ideas, he still screws up.
That last part is simply not true. When you see him handling questions on the fly, he does just fine. I don't think it IS important (you've never known an intelligent person who wasn't much of a public speaker? I find that hard to believe)...but even if it was, we'd still have to assume that your assertions that he's totally inept are true.

Personally, I don't buy either of them. His performance speaks for itself (and it speaks loudly and clearly to anyone who goes looking for, I might add). That's all that matters.


His faith based initiatives. Among other things, he sends huge amounts of federal funds directly to churches and other faith-based organizations. I believe that no governmental, faith-based programs should ever exist, and Dumbya has the exact opposite view. If you like him, that's great, but he scares the hell outa me!
Governmental programs are about getting the job done. If the place that can get the job done happens to be a Church, so be it. All Presidents fund organizations like this; it's not a violation of the seperation of church and state (a phrase which, by the way, is NOT part of our Constitution). Not by a long shot.


Originally posted by firegod
I personally don't think it will be as easy for Bush as most people seem to think. Sure, the Republicans have more power now, but the system keeps radical stuff at bay pretty well, even in this kind of situation.
Very true. Our system is designed so that no one can rampage through with all their policies. Which is why all this "sky is falling" stuff is utter nonsense. You wouldn't believe the stuff people are saying (Frogman, I'm lookin' in your direction. ;)). If you were to listen to them, you'd conclude that the end of the World was night. :rolleyes:

Both parties have had total control at some point in the past, and you know what? We're still here. So take a chill pill.

As for maximum voting age: totally impractical, and not exactly consistent with freedom. A simple test to make sure people understand the ballots is all we need.

[The Silver Bullet]

A simple test to make sure people understand the ballots is all we need.

Because the Lord knows they're not understanding them at present...

[Yoda]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Because the Lord knows they're not understanding them at present...
Ah, but they are. People all over the country have spoken loud and clear. You may think they're idiots, but seeing as how Republicans now control all three major branches of government, there's no mistaking what they want.

So nyah.

[Sunfrogolin]

I personally don't think it will be as easy for Bush as most people seem to think. Sure, the Republicans have more power now, but the system keeps radical stuff at bay pretty well, even in this kind of situation.

Are you kidding? The Demos might as well go home. Nothing they put out will be passed and everything the Reps put out will. Not only that Bushlite is the worst president in the history of America. He flip flops all over the issues cuz he opens his mouth before he thinks. Later when the situation is explained to him he changes things back. Lots of the things he does either end up being horribly bad or following exactly what Clinton was doing. Not to mention trying to kill Saddam just to please his daddy. Wtf was that?? I haven't seen him do one competent thing.

I'm not sure about that maximum voting age, I'd certainly prwefer a basic intelligence test for voters to run through.
I thought of that. Kind of a nationwide I.Q. test and anyone who fails can't vote. I thought that would be harder to do and be more controversial. I'm thinking the maximum age should be 70. Anythng lower would be hard to get votes for. How do you test to make sure people understand the ballots when it comes to voting for canidates? Like, do you know who Mr M is? Do you know who Mr Y is? It wouldn't work. It would only work for the propositions.

People who run negative ads are inherently "lowlifes"? No, the people IN the ads. Like this person voted to let child molesters free and this other person wants to steal money from schools and stuff like that. After seeing all those ads it was clear neither one of them was someone who should be in office. When both of the candidates have no morals etc etc.. one of them ends up being elected anyway and that's why there are so many creeps in Congress and the Senate.

If you were to listen to them, you'd conclude that the end of the World was nigh

Bushlite is already trying really hard to destroy America and everything it stands for, what do you think will happen when he does? When America rules the world and bombs anyone who doesn't fall in line, what'll be the difference between him and all the evil leaders in history that have tried the same thing?

[Yoda]

Frogman, if you can't back up any of what you say (the rhetoric content of your posts is way above normal, bud), or go more than a post without implying that Bush is actually setting out to destory the human race, I simply can't have this discussion with you.

Your comments on Dems "going home" sound like they're coming from someone who has no idea what they're saying. I'm not historian, but I know enough to know that the Democrats and Republicans have both been in total power before, and we've lived through it.

Your whacked-out, extrememist viewpoints are so ridiculous that they serve as their own counter-arguments. I'm not exaggerating, either. This is conspiracy-theory territory you're treading on. It's just Chicken Little stuff, man, and it's getting damn tiresome.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by firegod
I personally don't think it will be as easy for Bush as most people seem to think. Sure, the Republicans have more power now, but the system keeps radical stuff at bay pretty well, even in this kind of situation.

That's true...

Most things fall somewhere in the middle despite individual passions. Checks and balances was really a brilliant concept.

As for Bush being a dummy, I don't agree.

Also... why is everyone trying to pin the woes of the world on Bush? It's not as if he had a clean (and I mean that in many different ways) office to step into. The above references to checks and balances are very valid today. Bush doesn't have a remote control that he controls the world with. He gets counsel and approval for every step he makes (from both sides). He's become the scapegoat for people who are angry that the Dems didn't win the election (and are still not winning).

I don't like Bill Clinton. Not because he is a Dem. I do not like him for taking the highest office in the world and making a mockery of it. I don't like him because he's a liar. I don't care who slobbed his knob and when but I do care that he used no discretion and then lied about it undr oath. His doorway out was decietful and it insulted the intelligence of the American people. The example it set was that one can commit a high crime (perjury) and get away with it on a technicality.

I DO like Al Gore. I don't agree with his politics but he is a solid man.

[Yoda]

I encourage everyone to read the post above this one at least once...I agree 110%. I think Clinton is a good politican (at least economically). I think Al Gore is a good man. And yes, I think both matter.

[Sunfrogolin]

Well Yod, you know even if I saved all the newspaper clippings and video taped all the news stories and linked you to all the websites it still wouldn't be enough proof for you. I CAN back up everything I say but I'm not gonna spend my life collecting clippings and stuff.

Obviously Bushlite isn't the anti-christ. That's just something I like saying, sorry if you take it litterally. I'm not a religous fanatic, I just like calling him the anti-christ. Evil may not be a good word either because it implies malicious intent. He's just stupid and doesn't know what he's doing. I won't say that anymore cuz I see it freaks you out. :D

What is it that you don't understand about my post? Cuz everything I said was pretty clear. The Reps come up with a plan then they pass it. They have all the power. You say it's happened before. Tell me when, and while your at it look up what all they passed. Was the majority of the stuff what the ruling party wanted? I don't know the answer but I'd bet it was. I can't believe anyone is naive enough to believe that isn't going to happen.

The thing about the maximum voting age, I'm serious about that. that sounds like one of my wacky ideas but I truely think it's a good idea. If you're senile you shouldn't vote. It's kind of insulting but it isn't taking anyone's freedom away. Is it taking your freedom away that you can't vote yet? I don't know if mental patients, like really crazy ones are allowed to vote but if they can't what would be the difference? Diminished mental capacity is just that.

And I have a question, what is it that you all are so happy about? What has Bushlite done that made you love him? Because he attacked Osama? Any president would have done that. Please name your reasons. I'm completely baffled.

[Yoda]

I CAN back up everything I say but I'm not gonna spend my life collecting clippings and stuff.
With all due respect, that's the exact same thing that you'd say if you were trying to back out of your claims. You can't go on calling someone the Anti-Christ with pure rhetoric, man, even if it IS meant as a joke. I'm sure Bush has made some mistakes...my contention is that "worst President in U.S. History" is, to put it bluntly, one of the most ridiculous things I can recall ever hearing in my entire life. Seriously.


I won't say that anymore cuz I see it freaks you out. :D
I don't get "freaked out" over someone's wacky opinion.


What is it that you don't understand about my post?
I don't believe I said I didn't understand it.


You say it's happened before. Tell me when, and while your at it look up what all they passed. Was the majority of the stuff what the ruling party wanted? I don't know the answer but I'd bet it was. I can't believe anyone is naive enough to believe that isn't going to happen.
First off, I never said it means the Republicans won't be able to pass a lot of things. I said that it's happened before the world was not dragged through the Gates of Hell.

Secondly, it happened under Reagan. I believe that was shortly before a massive economic boom in the mid to late 80s, though don't quote me on that just yet. Regardless, the Republicans had total control and (gasp!), Armageddon was nowhere to be found.


Is it taking your freedom away that you can't vote yet?
Uh, I can vote.


I don't know if mental patients, like really crazy ones are allowed to vote but if they can't what would be the difference? Diminished mental capacity is just that.
The difference is that diminished mental capacity and age are not married to each other. Many people can remain quite sharp into their 80s or 90s, whereas many people can go nuts in their 60s or 70s. If they're going to put restrictions up, they shouldn't be on age.


And I have a question, what is it that you all are so happy about? What has Bushlite done that made you love him? Because he attacked Osama? Any president would have done that. Please name your reasons. I'm completely baffled.
A few things:

1 - I'm happy because I think the Republican ideology usually mops the floor with the Democratic ideology.

2 - Dubya has done a few things I'm proud of, and I'd be glad to elaborate, but frankly, if you refuse to tell me why you hate him, why would you expect me to tell you why I "love him"?

3 - I could hate Dubya and still be happy about this victory. The two are not inherently linked.

[LordSlaytan]

I'm not a member of the majority, who is in favor with President Bush for the following reasons:

1. The President has not kept his promise for fundamental reform of the way the federal government assesses and collects taxes. Instead of a serious and empowering reform of a tax system that is manipulative and servile, we got an insignificant adjustment of the rate structure.

2. Instead of the promised attempt to rein in government domination of education, we have an education bill that ramps-up federal funding, increases federal control, and was cooperatively stripped of all elements of support for genuine school choice and local control.

3. For aggressively defending racial preferences before the Supreme Court, the administration has directly betrayed those of its supporters who naively trusted it to pursue the unifying goal of a color blind nation.

4. The, "We can't save the world – it would cost too much." mentality, proven by their withdrawl from the Kyoto Protocol against global warming caused by greenhouse gases.

5. His seeming disregard for the environment by rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions.

6. Although I am all for kicking Saddam's @ss, I have not been happy with the way the President has, at times, chosen to politically deal with the United Nations and its representatives. Spitting in the eye of your allies make poor bedfellows. Worldwide opinion of the United States has decreased with Bush in the chair, not that that's saying much. We were a joke during Clinton's second term, now we're a threat.

As far as the Republicans retaining control? Sae la vie, I'm not a big fan of either major party.

BTW Yoda, the last time the Republicans had this much control was back in 1980, when President Reagan was elected to his first term of office.

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by Sunfrogolin
Obviously Bushlite isn't the anti-christ. That's just something I like saying, sorry if you take it litterally. I'm not a religous fanatic, I just like calling him the anti-christ. Evil may not be a good word either because it implies malicious intent. He's just stupid and doesn't know what he's doing. I won't say that anymore cuz I see it freaks you out. :D :laugh:

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
BTW Yoda, the last time the Republicans had this much control was back in 1980, when President Reagan was elected to his first term of office.

Not entirely true. Not since the time of Eisenhower has the Republicans owned the White House, the Senate AND the House of Representatives at the same time. In other words, it hasn't happened in 50 years.

[Sunfrogolin]

I said that it's happened before the world was not dragged through the Gates of Hell.
Well there you go. Bushlite ain't no Eisenhower that's for sure. The difference between then and now is Bushlite sucks.


The difference is that diminished mental capacity and age are not married to each other. Many people can remain quite sharp into their 80s or 90s, whereas many people can go nuts in their 60s or 70s. If they're going to put restrictions up, they shouldn't be on age. I know lots of teenagers that are sharp, they can't vote either. I could post something funny here but I don't want to change the subject. I like what LordSlaytan said.

Dubya has done a few things I'm proud of, and I'd be glad to elaborate, but frankly, if you refuse to tell me why you hate him, why would you expect me to tell you why I "love him"? Good dodge, nice question avoidance. The fact is he hasn't done anything good. Last night when I was watching the news they said the republicans won so many seats because Bushlite went around campaigning for everyone and since he is a popular wartime President it helped out. I think that's true, but here's what really happened. Bushlite took office, did a bunch of stuff I "can't back up" but is all true. (See paragraph one of the first post on this page) then 9/11 happened. He is popular now because of the Osama war, the republicans get elected and Bushlite goes back to doing stupid things, except the democrats can't talk him out of it anymore. On his "To Do" list is the tax reform LordSlayton talked about in point 1. This is a horrible idea. We have other things we should use that money on. As it is things are already sucking and the tax rebate he gave everyone made things worse. The war is putting us in debt, the national debt is skyrocketing and his new lower tax thing will make sure we can't get out of debt. The balanced budget thing will force us to cut many programs to stay balanced because we won't have money for everything, Lord know we aren't going to cut military spending. That's ok tho because he's going to f up the social security program so we won't need money for that. (see the transcript of last night's ABC News)

More things that tick me off about the lower taxes.
1. An extra $300 a year won't stimulate my economy, the real people who will benefit are the large companies who pay lots of taxes. Freakin' trickle down theory again.

2. After he lowers taxes and f's things up no one will be able to fix it. Who can say vote for me I want to raise taxes again and get elected?

More things that T me off in general.
See LordSlayton's points 4. & 5.

Before you say something nice about Trickle Down, that economic boom was cause by tv. Specifically Miami Vice. That was when kids all had to have exspensive clothes to be cool and why $150 sneakers, cell phones and bottled water are popular today. The materialistic '80 were mainly produced by tv.

[Yoda]

The fact is he hasn't done anything good.
That statement would be just fine...except that you probably mean it literally, in which case I can't do anything but chuckle at it. You're right; Dubya's out to sabotage the country. He's evil. He wants to destory everyone who does not agree with him and beat poor people with a stick. He wants to burn your house to the ground and p*ss on the ashes!

:rolleyes: Now THAT's sarcasm.


Good dodge, nice question avoidance.
That is the most hypocritical thing you could've said. Don't you remember your response when I asked you for the method to your madness? Let me refresh your memory:

"I CAN back up everything I say but I'm not gonna spend my life collecting clippings and stuff."

I suppose you hold yourself to a lower standard, eh? :rolleyes: Pratice what you preach.


Bushlite took office, did a bunch of stuff I "can't back up" but is all true.
Uh, you're asking me to believe something is true when you won't even tell me what it is?

:confused:

If you've got a gripe, spit it out. "He's stupid" and "he did a bunch of stupid stuff" is NOT valid criticism, and you know it.


An extra $300 a year won't stimulate my economy, the real people who will benefit are the large companies who pay lots of taxes. Freakin' trickle down theory again.
You act as there's a switch on the economy marked "Stimulated" or "Unstimulated." Every little bit helps. The more people have control of their own money, the better.


After he lowers taxes and f's things up no one will be able to fix it. Who can say vote for me I want to raise taxes again and get elected?
Maybe there's a reason no one will elect someone who wants to raise taxes: it's usually a bad friggin' idea!

Ya' know, with all the time you've spent talking about how you CAN back up what you say, you could've actually done so. Frankly, your claim that he is the "worst President in U.S. History" is probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard in years.

Let me be blunt: can you even NAME all 43 U.S. Presidents, let alone give assessments of all their administrations? IF not, then you're talking out of the wrong orifice.

[Piddzilla]

Rarely have I seen so much crap piled up in one single topic....

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
If you've got a gripe, spit it out. "He's stupid" and "he did a bunch of stupid stuff" is NOT valid criticism, and you know it.

That reminds me of something that really annoyes me; people who critique movies with the statement of, "...and this movie is full of plot holes...". At the beginning of my stay here at the asylum, the same person said that about Minority Report and Road to Perdition without making any statement of how the directors, writers, etc, had done that. Damn, that really burns me up, and when I called him on it, I never got a reply.

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Rarely have I seen so much crap piled up in one single topic.....

:rolleyes:

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Piddzilla


Not entirely true. Not since the time of Eisenhower has the Republicans owned the White House, the Senate AND the House of Representatives at the same time. In other words, it hasn't happened in 50 years.

82ND CONGRESS
(1951–1953)
Senate Republicans: 47 (gain of 5); Democrats: 49
Republican Minority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry
Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft
Kenneth Wherry dies (November 29, 1951); Styles Bridges elected Minority Leader
Robert Taft loses the Republican presidential nomination to General Dwight Eisenhower
Dwight Eisenhower elected President, Republicans win majorities in Senate and House, 1952

96TH CONGRESS
(1979–1981)
Senate Republicans: 41 (gain of 3); Democrats: 59
Republican Minority Leader: Howard Baker
Republican Policy Committee
Chairman: John Tower
Ronald Reagan elected president,
1980
Republicans win majority in the
Senate; Democrats retain
majority in House, 1980

I guess I should have been more explicit. The last time Rebublicans had remotely this much power was back in 1980.

I'm sorry.;)

[Monkeypunch]

Why did this happen? LOWEST VOTER TURN-OUT IN YEARS. Nobody realizes how actually important the mid term elections are, and they don't vote. So only around 30% of the public actually voted this time, and we all have to put up with their bad choices, or revel in their good choices, depending on your political views...

Me, we all know how much I LOOOOVE Bush: the inferior sequel, so lets just say I am disgusted by the whole thing. My Sociology professor in school pointed out that if you think about it, elections are held on a weekday morning, when a good majority of the Working and Middle Classes are at work, effectively cutting them out of the voting process, especially now, in our crappy economy, when people have to work multiple jobs just to stay above water. So the upper-classes vote in droves and they vote.....Republican! Republicans cut taxes for the top 1%, hand out welfare for big corporations, and keep the defense contractors rolling in the dough by increasing millitary spending. (In all fairness, some Dems do this too. The two parties are so much alike, they might as well move in together...) Let's face it, the G.O.P. and the Dems both don't want the lower classes voting! Imagine what could be accomplished if they DID?!?

Honestly, I'm going to sit back and see what happens. I do not think anything good will come of this, and our economy will go ever further down the crapper as the powers that be focus more on Iraq than their own people, but we'll see. I pray I'm wrong.

[Yoda]

That simply isn't true. The Republicans have become the party of the middle-class. Almost all of Hollywood is filthy rich...and they're almost all Liberal, too.

Not only that, but let's not forget that most people are middle or lower class. Even if every single upper-class citizen voted Republican, it wouldn't be enough to put them in office without a significant number of votes elsewhere.

As for the "tax cut for the wealthy" -- that's as ridiculous as it ever was. The cuts being proposed are almost all percentage-based, if memory serves. And when you cut everyone's takes, the people who PUT IN MORE also GET BACK MORE.

[Henry The Kid]

I don't even see much of a difference between the two parties any more. In my states, the Rpublican candidate was the lesser of two evils. The Republican party taking major control in Washington and around the U.S. is a symptom of a greater problem. While it is true that some Democrats truely are liberal, the majority of them simply are not.

Besides that, I think the age group neglected most in this thread are senior citizens, who hold a great deal of voting power, and almost always tend to lean toward the conservative side.

There are rough times ahead. I have only known good times in my life. I will know bad. But it's life.

I think Clinton did what he could, but by the end of his service even he had started to lose control. Bush took over an already deeply wounded economy, and his refund did nothing.



I will leave you with this...


"Is our children learning?"

[Monkeypunch]

I agree 100% with Mr. the Kid. In two years, when the economy has turned to sh*t, much like it did in Bush seniors term, we will vote our "President" out of office and hopefully make a better choice. The Republicans will do nothing to stop the recession and will pay for it, I hope. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Monkeypunch
I agree 100% with Mr. the Kid. In two years, when the economy has turned to sh*t, much like it did in Bush seniors term, we will vote our "President" out of office and hopefully make a better choice. The Republicans will do nothing to stop the recession and will pay for it, I hope. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
You do know that the GDP has risen, basically, under Dubya, right?

[Monkeypunch]

Back in their heyday, The Japanese didn't consider the economy good unless it was good for all sections of society, not just the top however-many percent. If the economy is so good, then why are so many people out of work?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Monkeypunch
Back in their heyday, The Japanese didn't consider the economy good unless it was good for all sections of society, not just the top however-many percent.
The economy can never be up in all areas. The service industry goes up when the manufacturing industry goes down in comparison. There's no way to avoid that sort of thing. It's technically impossible.


Originally posted by Monkeypunch
If the economy is so good, then why are so many people out of work?
Average unemployment rate over the last 30 years: 6.3 percent.
Current unemployment rate: 5.7 percent.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Monkeypunch
Why did this happen? LOWEST VOTER TURN-OUT IN YEARS. Nobody realizes how actually important the mid term elections are, and they don't vote. So only around 30% of the public actually voted this time, and we all have to put up with their bad choices, or revel in their good choices, depending on your political views...

Me, we all know how much I LOOOOVE Bush: the inferior sequel, so lets just say I am disgusted by the whole thing. My Sociology professor in school pointed out that if you think about it, elections are held on a weekday morning, when a good majority of the Working and Middle Classes are at work, effectively cutting them out of the voting process, especially now, in our crappy economy, when people have to work multiple jobs just to stay above water. So the upper-classes vote in droves and they vote.....Republican! Republicans cut taxes for the top 1%, hand out welfare for big corporations, and keep the defense contractors rolling in the dough by increasing millitary spending. (In all fairness, some Dems do this too. The two parties are so much alike, they might as well move in together...) Let's face it, the G.O.P. and the Dems both don't want the lower classes voting! Imagine what could be accomplished if they DID?!?

Honestly, I'm going to sit back and see what happens. I do not think anything good will come of this, and our economy will go ever further down the crapper as the powers that be focus more on Iraq than their own people, but we'll see. I pray I'm wrong.

The best post in this topic so far! Go, Monkeypunch! :yup:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
The best post in this topic so far! Go, Monkeypunch! :yup:
So, you're agreeing with the ridiculous "tax cut for the wealthy" claim, and the assertion that the economy is "in the crapper" even those the primary measure for economic growth has been going up over Dubya?

:confused:

I already addressed the voter turnout issue...it really holds no weight. Neither side has a monopoly of the upper-class, and even if they did, there's no way in hell that would carry them to victory. Republicans are primarily middle-class these days.

[Sir Toose]

Here are some facts on your great Satan:

Some documentation since you insist.

Education:

President Bush promised to make educating every child his top domestic priority and reform a system that has failed the most needy students in our nation's classrooms. He proposed a comprehensive, bipartisan plan to improve overall student performance and close the achievement gap between rich and poor students in America's more than 89,599 public schools. The President’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was passed with an overwhelming majority.

On January 8, 2002, the President signed into law this landmark legislation that promotes educational excellence for America's public school children.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Ushers in Sweeping Reforms Based Upon the President's Priorities for America's Schools:

· Stronger Accountability for Results.
· Greater Flexibility and Local Control.
· Expanded Options and Choice for Parents.
· Emphasis on Teaching Methods that Work.
· Resources to Support the Reforms.

Economic Security:

Permanent Tax Relief. The tax cuts are critical to our future economic growth and Washington should not take them away. Congress needs to make these cuts permanent. The tax cuts will create 800,000 more jobs this year and help Americans save and invest by:
· Cutting taxes for all taxpayers in all tax rates;
· Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 to help parents with the high costs of raising children;
· Expanding the earned income credit and making the child credit refundable to put money in the hands of millions of low-income families with children;
· Helping Americans save more for their retirement by raising IRA and 401(k) contribution limits;
· Helping families save for their children’s education;
· Repealing the death tax;
· Providing relief from the marriage penalty; and
· Accelerating depreciation so businesses can invest more and hire more.

Taxes in detail, facts and myths:

The economy is stronger as a result of President Bush’s tax cut:
· The tax cut came at just the right time to help a slowing economy. The tax cut helped shorten the duration and impact of the recession.
· The tax cut has put the nation on the path to long-term recovery.
· Economic growth has returned: 6.1% in the first quarter of 2002 compared to 1.2% in 2001.
· Disposable income was at 13.9% for the first quarter, up from -8.1% from the last quarter of 2001.
· Residential investment is growing faster right now than it has in almost six years: the fastest quarterly gain, 14.6% in the 1st quarter.
· Home sales and the real estate market are historically strong.


Some give and take:
SHOTS:
AL GORE:
“The problem is not that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney picked the wrong advisers or misunderstood the technical arguments, but that their economic purpose was and is ideological: to provide $1.6 trillion in tax giveaways for the few while pretending they were for the many, and manipulating the numbers to make it appear that the budget surplus would be preserved.” (Al Gore Op-Ed, “Broken Promises And Political Deception,” The New York Times, August 4, 2002)
Giveaways Mr. Gore? Whose money is it anyways?

Hillary:
: “The Administration has a failed economic policy. Their answer to everything are tax cuts. . . . I don’t see any alternative [other than to repeal or postpone the tax cut].” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” September 15, 2002)

Tom Daschle:
“‘This is going to blow a hole in the fiscal responsibility of this country, the likes of which we haven’t seen in our lifetimes,’ said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.” (Alan Fram, “GOP Pushes Budget Through House,” The Associated Press, May 10, 2001)

ANSWERS:

The President’s Tax Cut Boosted The Economy And Created Jobs. The President proposed and signed tax relief that boosted our economy, created jobs, and put money in people’s pockets when they needed it most. The President also signed an economic stimulus bill giving short-term help to displaced workers and long-term stimulus to create more jobs across America. (“A Record Of Accomplishment For The American People,” The White House, August 3, 2002)

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Believes President Bush’s Tax Cut Would Do “Noticeable Good.” “And should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.” (Alan Greenspan, Testimony Before The Senate Committee On The Budget, January 25, 2001)

The Congressional Budget Office Reported That The Past Economic Recession, Not The Tax Cut, Put The Federal Budget Back In Deficit. The CBO reported on August 13, 2002 that 80% of the change in revenue projections for FY 2002 was not due to the tax cut but economic and technical changes. CBO’s numbers also show that if there never had been a tax cut, the budget would still be in deficit today. (Congressional Budget Office, “Budget And Economic Update,” August 2002)

Council Of Economic Advisers Chairman Glenn Hubbard Argued That Repealing The President’s Tax Cut Would Hurt Future Economic Growth. “If we rescinded the President’s tax cut, we would probably hurt economic growth by about 2/10 of a percentage point over the foreseeable future. That’s $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the country over a decade.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” August 18, 2002)

Why, senator Feinstein... is this support for the tax policies?

Senator Feinstein Supports The President’s Tax Cut. “‘I think it’s good policy to let people keep more of their money.’ And [Senator Diane] Feinstein disputes the notion that the tax cut has had a deleterious effect on the economy. ‘Over $1 trillion of that tax cut has not yet gone into effect,’ she noted. ‘I don’t think it worsens the recession at all.’ As to Daschle’s suggestion, which he would not state directly, that the Bush tax cuts ought to be delayed or reduced, if not repealed altogether, Feinstein strongly disagreed. ‘My view is we ought to stay the course,’ she said. ‘Twenty percent of the Democratic Senate caucus voted for the tax cut.’” (Editorial, “Recession Rhetoric,” Copley News Service, January 7, 2002)

And on and on:
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Credited Republican Tax Relief For Spurring Increases In Household Spending. “Household spending was boosted by ongoing increases in incomes, which in turn were spurred by strong advances in productivity as well as by legislated tax reductions and, in recent months, by extended unemployment insurance benefits.” (Alan Greenspan, Senate Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs Committee Hearing, July 16, 2002)

President Bush’s Tax Cut Provides Relief For Married Couples And Parents Of Young Children. “The tax cut, the largest approved by Congress in two decades, provides for millions of refund checks of up to $600 apiece to be mailed to Americans this summer, and grants reductions in most tax rates, tax relief for married couples and parents of young children. . .” (Glen Kessler and Juliet Eilperin, “Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut,” The Washington Post, May 27, 2001)

The Media Recognized President Bush’s Tax-Relief Package As The Largest In Two Decades. “The truth is that President Bush . . . assembled a bipartisan coalition in Congress during his first four months in office. Passage by both the House and Senate of his landmark $1.3 trillion tax cut, the first major tax relief in two decades, demonstrated Bush’s capacity to forge consensus on both sides of the aisle. This was a historic achievement, considering that Republicans held only a slim majority in the House and had only tenuous control in a Senate split 50-50.” (Editorial, “Senate Must Serve Common Interests,” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], May 28, 2001)

The point of the above is that the tax cuts were not responsible for the current economic woes...if not for them, the economic situation would be exceedingly worse.

All of the above are examples of good things that Bush has done.

The war on Terror and the toppling of Al Queda was a good thing. It removed a threat to world peace.

If war becomes necessary in Iraq I will support it as it's far worse to imagine Saddam with nukes. BTW, would you like for me to list Mr. Hussein's evils? His kill rate of his own people is far greater than a strike against him would likely cause.

I have far, far more support but this is too long already... I'll throw in more later.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

So, you're agreeing with the ridiculous "tax cut for the wealthy" claim, and the assertion that the economy is "in the crapper" even those the primary measure for economic growth has been going up over Dubya?

:confused:

I already addressed the voter turnout issue...it really holds no weight. Neither side has a monopoly of the upper-class, and even if they did, there's no way in hell that would carry them to victory. Republicans are primarily middle-class these days.

Yes, I do agree with him. I also agree with him about the totally weird fact that the voting date was on a week day. That's absurd! Furthermore, I agree with him that there is very little difference between the two available parties. And the fact that only 30% of the voters actually do vote suggests that perhaps a lot of the americans don't feel that there is anyone that really represents them. It doesn't matter who they vote for because it doesn't make a difference in their lives anyway. The absence of a real leftwing alternative is rediculously obvious. I also think it's very odd how the person, not the politics of that person or its party, seems to be the most important thing in american elections. So what if Bush is a lousy speaker and looks like an ape!? So what if Clinton lies on tv about being faithful to his wife!? Focus on the real politics and mind your own #!@¤ing business!!!

I agree on the fact that it's the middle class who's the key to the victory in the elections because that's the biggest group. But I wouldn't be too surprised if the majority of the upper class (it's not only a matter of how much money you have) votes republican. I'm sure there's statistics on that available...

I didn't feel that I wanted to take part in this discussion since I'm not even american. I thought I'd stick to cheering on "my team". But since Yoda "invited" me by addressing me in his post I thought "What the heck!!".... :D

[Sunfrogolin]

Originally posted by Yoda
Average unemployment rate over the last 30 years: 6.3 percent.
Current unemployment rate: 5.7 percent.

Ok, Yodie, go to this site. Surely I didn't make this up.
US Dept of Labor (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LFS21000000&data_tool="EaG")
Lets take a look at that chart. Unemployment is going down, down, down, wheee, until, 2000 when Bushlite takes over. I guess you can't claim Bushy is creating jobs, blah, blah, blah...

Now let's talk about the GDP (In 1999)
Gross domestic product grew at a 6.9 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said, above the revised 6.5 percent increase expected by economists and well ahead of the 5.8 percent pace originally reported a month ago.
The GDP price deflator, a key inflation gauge, rose at a 2 percent annual rate, the same rate initially recorded a month ago and in line with economists' forecasts of a 2 percent gain. For the entire year, the U.S. economy grew at a 4.1 percent pace, while the GDP price deflator advanced 1.6 percent.
Source: CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/2000/02/25/economy/economy/)
And today under Bushie
For one thing, the gross domestic product (GDP) price index, a broad and closely watched measure of inflation, grew just 0.8 percent year-over-year in the third quarter of 2002 -- the lowest rate since the second quarter of 1950, according to Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach.
Source: CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/07/news/economy/deflation/index.htm)

[Sunfrogolin]

Now for Toosy, bring it big boy! ;)
Originally posted by Toose
Here are some facts on your great Satan:

Some documentation since you insist.

Education:
Okay, if he did that that sounds good to me.
Economic Security:
False! See the chart Toosy
I do like this part tho.
· Helping Americans save more for their retirement by raising IRA and 401(k) contribution limits;

Taxes in detail, facts and myths:

Mtyh,
· Residential investment is growing faster right now than it has in almost six years: the fastest quarterly gain, 14.6% in the 1st quarter.

because the Fed has cut rates because the economy is in the crapper. Low interest rates have nothing to do with something SMART Bushy did.

Some give and take:
SHOTS:
AL GORE:
“The problem is not that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney picked the wrong advisers or misunderstood the technical arguments, but that their economic purpose was and is ideological: to provide $1.6 trillion in tax giveaways for the few while pretending they were for the many, and manipulating the numbers to make it appear that the budget surplus would be preserved.” (Al Gore Op-Ed, “Broken Promises And Political Deception,” The New York Times, August 4, 2002)
Darn tootin'!

Hillary:
: “The Administration has a failed economic policy. Their answer to everything are tax cuts. . . . I don’t see any alternative [other than to repeal or postpone the tax cut].” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” September 15, 2002)
Exactly!
Tom Daschle:
“‘This is going to blow a hole in the fiscal responsibility of this country, the likes of which we haven’t seen in our lifetimes,’ said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.” (Alan Fram, “GOP Pushes Budget Through House,” The Associated Press, May 10, 2001)
Yes siree bob!
ANSWERS:

The President’s Tax Cut Boosted The Economy And Created Jobs.
[See chart]

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Believes President Bush’s Tax Cut Would Do “Noticeable Good.” “And should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.” (Alan Greenspan, Testimony Before The Senate Committee On The Budget, January 25, 2001)
What?? I don't get it.

The Congressional Budget Office Reported That The Past Economic Recession,
What past recession?

Council Of Economic Advisers Chairman Glenn Hubbard Argued That Repealing The President’s Tax Cut Would Hurt Future Economic Growth.
He should meet Yoda

Why, senator Feinstein... is this support for the tax policies?
‘Twenty percent of the Democratic Senate caucus voted for the tax cut.’” (
That's cuz 80% are smarter than you Senator Feinstein

And on and on:
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Credited Republican Tax Relief For Spurring Increases In Household Spending.
And what happened when they spent their $300? Nothing, just like I said. It didn't stimulate MY economy.

“Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut,” The Washington Post, May 27, 2001)
And the National Debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) tops 6 Billion!

The war on Terror and the toppling of Al Queda was a good thing. It removed a threat to world peace.

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by Sunfrogolin
Lets take a look at that chart. Unemployment is going down, down, down, wheee, until, 2000 when Bushlite takes over. I guess you can't claim Bushy is creating jobs, blah, blah, blah...


Ooh, burned! :D

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Sunfrogolin
The war on Terror and the toppling of Al Queda was a good thing. It removed a threat to world peace.

Al Qaeda was toppled?!?!?! Damn, go to the bathroom for forty-three minutes and the state of the world changes. I was only brushing my hair damnit!!!! I was only brushing my hair!!!:bawling:

[firegod]

I agree that Yoda got burned a little on that one. However, in all fairness to the president, you have to understand that the current state of the economy is often the result of things that happened years before. Our economy, under Clinton's administration, benifitted from things that Bush Sr.'s administration was partly responsible for. In addition, our current economy is suffering from things that Clinton's administration was partly responsible for. Now, I'm not saying that Clinton didn't do anything at all good for the economy, or that George W. has been absolutely fantastic, but we need to do more than just look at who was in charge at the time of dips and rises to find out who deserves the credit or blame.

[LordSlaytan]

There was a mild recession because of the transition from a wartime (Cold War) economy to a peacetime economy. Clinton enjoyed six or so years of prosperity from Ronald Reagan's and George Bush's victory over the Soviet Union then his administration claimed credit for a strong economy they had no hand in creating. Then we see that the final two years of their administration started showing signs of a coming recession. Is that what you meant FireGod?

[Yoda]

Burned? Yikes; collective reading comprehension is low today. :) Keep reading...


Originally posted by OptimalDelusion
Ooh, burned! :D
You seem to have completely stepped out of the debate at this point, serving only as a cheerleader for people using arguments you did not formulate, yet probably agreed with before they were even brought to light. :p


Originally posted by Sunfrogolin
Unemployment is going down, down, down, wheee, until, 2000 when Bushlite takes over. I guess you can't claim Bushy is creating jobs, blah, blah, blah...
A few things you're clearly not getting: I never said he was creating jobs. Read the post: I said the current level of unemployment is lower than the average rate over the last 30 years. That's 100% true, as indicated by the numbers you linked us to. If you agreeing with what I say means I'm burned, then consider me charred to a crisp. :rolleyes:

Unemployment and employment are not as directly linked as you seem to think. Example: employment is up. Unemployment as a PERCENTAGE is also up...but that depends on what you start measuring. I've attached a chart to demonstrate some of this.

Clinton focused on getting rid of unemployment. He was damn good at it; Bush's failure to live up to that RIDICULOUSLY high standard is not a testament to Bush's shortcomings so much as it's a testament to Clinton's skills in that area.
Originally posted by Sunfroglin
Now let's talk about the GDP (In 1999)
Gladly! Did you know that Clinton left office with a -1.1% GDP? It's now at +3.1%. What do you make of that?

3.1, by the way, is exactly the average over the last 30 years.

Or, put another way: we can go back and forth on whether or not Dubya has done much good, but clearly your claim that he is the "worst President in U.S. history" is totally and utterly the most ridiculous claim you could possibly make. For one, if he were, why is unemployment better than the 30-year average? Why is the GDP currently growing just as well as it has been, on average, over the last 30 years? If he's the worst ever, shouldn't these things be in the sh*tter?

Not only that, but I'd like to repeat my earlier question: can you, honestly, name all 43 Presidents? If not, how can you claim Dubya as the worst, especially in light of this economic evidence?

Your claim sounds like a joke in some ways...but you've stated it in maybe half a dozen seperate posts, never with any smilie or indicator that you weren't serious. So, I'm callin' you out on it.


Originally posted by firegod
However, in all fairness to the president, you have to understand that the current state of the economy is often the result of things that happened years before.
Bingo. No President was, is, or ever will be an island.

[Steve]

Toose: I'd like to ask about the justification for invading Iraq. As it stands, I don't see one - but my dad supports it, my teachers support it, and nearly everyone I know who's not a socialist supports it. Someone explain why the President's course of action should be followed.

[LordSlaytan]

I posted this in another thread, but oh well....

Bush's administration wants Hussein out, and so do I. That man has spit in the face of the U.N. for too long now. Do I want to go to war, no. A person would have to be an idiot to want to go to war. Yet, if they send in inspectors again, and he gives them the same old *****, then the only choice this country has, is to remove him from power.

Bush said that a war over Iraq, which Egypt has said would plunge the region into chaos, was not imminent or unavoidable and pledged to build an international coalition against Iraq if it defied U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Haven't you seen the footage of Iranians dead from Iraqis chemicle weapons? He has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

You want to see the "smoking gun" before you act? What if that gun is pointed at the city you're from, or the military base and its soldiers where your war veteran friend came from? Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

The al Qaeda terrorist network and Hussein have one enemy in common, America. Who's to say they won't become bedfellows.

Originally posted by President Bush
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

[firegod]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
There was a mild recession because of the transition from a wartime (Cold War) economy to a peacetime economy. Clinton enjoyed six or so years of prosperity from Ronald Reagan's and George Bush's victory over the Soviet Union then his administration claimed credit for a strong economy they had no hand in creating. Then we see that the final two years of their administration started showing signs of a coming recession. Is that what you meant FireGod?

I wasn't referring to that specifically; I was simply pointing out that the current president is usually not fully (or even almost fully) responsible for the current economy. Actions from several years earlier usually play a significant part. Obviously, there are also many factors outside of all of the presidents' control.

[Monkeypunch]

Okay, this is more about the elections and why Dems lost so badly. It's a comic that just cracked me up, but also has a great point....

[Steve]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
Bush's administration wants Hussein out, and so do I. That man has spit in the face of the U.N. for too long now. Do I want to go to war, no. A person would have to be an idiot to want to go to war. Yet, if they send in inspectors again, and he gives them the same old *****, then the only choice this country has, is to remove him from power.

The United States has spit in the face of the U.N., too. Remember the Kyoto protocol?


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

2 points that need to be made:

- Not once has an act of terror against the U.S. been linked to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
- The weapons it possesses and produces were given to it by the United States in the 1980s.

Before we actually get into this, I'm not trying to make the case for Saddam Hussein as being a grade-A leader, nor am I making the case for any kind of terrorism or extremist leadership. What I am trying to make a case for is knowing all sides of the issue - the United States has a history of hypocrisy when dealing with foreign affairs, and this hypocrisy is directly linked to our belief that we are superior to the rest of the world, directly linked to selfishness, and directly linked to the almighty dollar. All of these factors are seen by the non-Americans all over the world, and this is where the hatred for the United States breeds and grows.

The case against invading Iraq, for me, is predicated on two things: 1) the idea that when the bully beats up everyone in the neighborhood, eventually they get together and whip his ass, and 2) Saddam Hussein wouldn't use the weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or any of its allies because he knows he would be dead faster than a rabbit on speed.

Haven't you seen the footage of Iranians dead from Iraqis chemicle weapons? He has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Have you seen the footage of Iraqis dead from U.S. bombing raids? The average age of a citizen of Baghdad is 16 - essentially, we're bombing children. Also, did you know that the cancer rates in Baghdad are 3-4 times higher than they were before the Gulf War? Wanna know why? Many of the bombs dropped had tips of depleted uranium, which seeped into the water system. The cancer rate for children is up 400%. Of course, because of the economic sanctions, these children can't get proper medicines and will likely die before the sanctions are lifted. And why are they so hostile toward the U.S.? :rolleyes:

You could offer the same argument against the United States. We have tried to dominate Latin America, invaded and brutally occupied small neighbors (and helped along scores of dictators into power without direct military intervention), struck other nations without warning (Cuba), and we hold an unrelenting hostility toward the poor.

You want to see the "smoking gun" before you act? What if that gun is pointed at the city you're from, or the military base and its soldiers where your war veteran friend came from? Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

Over a million Iraqis have died from U.S. bombings in the past 15 years. the U.S. has ballistic missiles too, ones that reach far enough to strike any place on the planet. The difference between them and us is, we've used them on hostile nations, and Iraq has not. The reason is because Saddam Hussein knows that he would be overthrown if he ever even considered launching a real attack against a country larger than Kuwait.

And it should be pointed out that all of the weapons that Iraq has possessed since the 80s were sold to them by the United States.

The al Qaeda terrorist network and Hussein have one enemy in common, America. Who's to say they won't become bedfellows.

The al Qaeda network hates Iraq - most of the members fought in the Iraq-Iran wars on the side of Iran. And it should be pointed out that if anything happened to the United States, the first place we would look is Iraq, and Saddam's first priority for the tenure of his reign has been self-preservation. After September 11th, he was the first person we looked to. He knows that if he's caught communicating with a member of al Qaeda, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to kill him.



The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

I point to three different U.S.-backed dictators from the 20th century: Mobutu Seeseeseiko in Zaire, Peron in Argentina, and Pinochet in Chile. All were responsible for crimes roughly equivalent to the above. Do you want to know why we didn't invade them?

Business interests! The Pepsi company and the CIA working together to remove the democratically elected Allende in Chile and install Pinochet, who during the first year of his reign killed 3,000 of his own people. Mobutu in Zaire became one of the richest men in the world while 7 million of his people remained in poverty - but he wasn't removed by the U.S. because, well, he allowed Ali and Foreman to fight there. When you think about it, it's imperialism, manifest destiny, whatever you want to call it. This is ours, it makes us money, we're rich, you don't matter, now we own you and your country.

I think that the issue of oil shouldn't be ignored in this situation with Iraq. If history doesn't lie, what's to prevent the U.S. from installing another dictator who will be just as bad as Hussein, but is friendly to U.S. business interests? I point to the Northern Alliance essentially replacing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and encourage you to read about that (or if you get the al-Jazeera network on a public access channel, watch that.) Saudi Arabia harbors al Qaeda members, but we haven't invaded them because they're friendly with their oil. If you want to talk about evil, Saudi Arabia is the most oppressive of the Middle Eastern countries - much worse than Iraq in this respect, as women have been shot for sewing pockets on their burquas. But Hussein controls the most oil-rich area in the world, and he isn't sharing.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Steve
The United States has spit in the face of the U.N., too. Remember the Kyoto protocol?

Yes I do, I mentioned it earlier. I also mentioned how I was not pleased with our President for almost doing it again concerning Iraq.

Originally posted by Steve
- Not once has an act of terror against the U.S. been linked to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

You're right, but just because terrorism isn't always directed towards the United States, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism. Iraq has long offered support for international terrorism. Their motive was not the support of Islam, but the restoration of Arab power in the Middle East. You are aware, I'm sure, of his financial incentives for suicide bombers in Israel.

Originally posted by Steve
- The weapons it possesses and produces were given to it by the United States in the 1980s.

Nobody's concerned with their conventional weapons. We didn't supply them with weapons grade plutonium, which they are actively pursuing.

Originally posted by Steve
the United States has a history of hypocrisy when dealing with foreign affairs, and this hypocrisy is directly linked to our belief that we are superior to the rest of the world, directly linked to selfishness, and directly linked to the almighty dollar. All of these factors are seen by the non-Americans all over the world, and this is where the hatred for the United States breeds and grows.



That is over simplifying the problem. What country in the world isn't concerned for its own welfare? Also, no country in history has been free from guilt, none. We are however, the first country to be called on for assistance when another bully comes along, and then ostrisised for our troubles. Oh well, allies today, enemies tomorrow.

Originally posted by Steve
Saddam Hussein wouldn't use the weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or any of its allies because he knows he would be dead faster than a rabbit on speed.

Is that what he told you? Because he told me something completely different.

Originally posted by Steve
Have you seen the footage of Iraqis dead from U.S. bombing raids?

Yes, and I've also seen his own soldiers starving to death. I've also seen his soldiers murdered by fellow soldiers because they wanted to be free. I've also seen Iraqi villages poisened with nerve gas, poisened by other Iraqi's. I've seen a lot, but I also now if Saddam would follow U.N. regulations, the bombing would stop. But he would rather disobey them, even though his people die. They serve a good purpose as martyrs.

Originally posted by Steve
And why are they so hostile toward the U.S.?

There are many other reasons than that. Propaganda is a powerful tool when the people cannot access news from the outside world.

Originally posted by Steve
You could offer the same argument against the United States. We have tried to dominate Latin America, invaded and brutally occupied small neighbors (and helped along scores of dictators into power without direct military intervention), struck other nations without warning (Cuba), and we hold an unrelenting hostility toward the poor.

We did what to who? Are you talking about the Bay of Pigs? Attacking Cuba at that time was without warning? What is the military supposed to do? Ask them to check their schedules?

Originally posted by Steve
Over a million Iraqis have died from U.S. bombings in the past 15 years. the U.S. has ballistic missiles too, ones that reach far enough to strike any place on the planet. The difference between them and us is, we've used them on hostile nations, and Iraq has not. The reason is because Saddam Hussein knows that he would be overthrown if he ever even considered launching a real attack against a country larger than Kuwait.

The bombings are all up to Saddam, pay attention to U.N. resolutions, don't invade your neighbors, and you could be bomb free.

Are you afraid the United States will decide to conquer Canada or something? I'm not even remotely concerned about the United States firing it's missles, but I am with Iraq.

I am not concerned about Iraq attacking us openly, I am that they will supply other factions that will.

Originally posted by Steve
And it should be pointed out that all of the weapons that Iraq has possessed since the 80s were sold to them by the United States.

And your point is...?

Originally posted by Steve
He knows that if he's caught communicating with a member of al Qaeda, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to kill him.

Sorry, I don't buy it. They both hate us. If there is one thing that can make them side their differences, it would be the downfall of the United States. BTW, his higher level officers have been documented having communications with al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Steve
Business interests! The Pepsi company and the CIA working together to remove the democratically elected Allende in Chile and install Pinochet, who during the first year of his reign killed 3,000 of his own people. Mobutu in Zaire became one of the richest men in the world while 7 million of his people remained in poverty - but he wasn't removed by the U.S. because, well, he allowed Ali and Foreman to fight there. When you think about it, it's imperialism, manifest destiny, whatever you want to call it. This is ours, it makes us money, we're rich, you don't matter, now we own you and your country.

You're talking about ancient history here. Not that it isn't important, mind you, but this is not what's going on now. I also refuse to feel guilty about a government that was in power when I was a child, and before you were born. The year is 2002, and we are threatened. Should we ignore it because of the sins of our Fathers and their Fathers before them? Give me a break! Right here, and right now, we are a target. A great big target, and Iraq is manufacturing darts.

Originally posted by Steve
I point to the Northern Alliance essentially replacing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and encourage you to read about that (or if you get the al-Jazeera network on a public access channel, watch that.) Saudi Arabia harbors al Qaeda members, but we haven't invaded them because they're friendly with their oil.

I keep current with world affairs, thanks. You think that Afghanis lives are worse than before? Also, I'm not about to base my opinions on propaganda news from the middle east. BTW, where did you find proof that Saudi Arabia was horboring terrorists? Oh wait, neither of us know that for sure do we? Maybe you should stop making your guesses sound so positive.

Originally posted by Steve
Saudi Arabia is the most oppressive of the Middle Eastern countries

Life is opressive for women almost everywhere in the middle east, with the exception of Isreal. Saying that Saudi is the worst is naive.



Listen Steve, I respect your opinion, we're all entitled (unlike the country in question). You seem to be quite intelligent and learned in what you believe in. You may or may not realise the situation though. There is no easy answer, this is certainly a situation of being damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm not for war, I'm really not, but I'm also not for closing my eyes and hoping for the best. We're the big kids on the block for a reason, because the world expects us to be.

Now to sound like a redneck ignorant :D ; If you have so much contempt and dislike for America, move. If you don't, then before you burn a flag, better make sure it's not on my block, because I'll kick your ass!

PS: I'M NOT PISSED AT YOU, JUST MAKING A POINT. :yup:

[OptimalDelusion]

I don't know if we should go to war or not, but that was a great message, LS. I wish I knew half of what you 2 know about this stuff! :dizzy:

[Steve]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
You're right, but just because terrorism isn't always directed towards the United States, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism. Iraq has long offered support for international terrorism. Their motive was not the support of Islam, but the restoration of Arab power in the Middle East. You are aware, I'm sure, of his financial incentives for suicide bombers in Israel.

Is the United States not guilty of sponsoring terrorism? We turn a shoulder to the diamond wars in Africa - militias invade villages, select women and children at random, and hack off an arm. The others are forced to work in the mines. DeBeers keeps every diamond these people find. That sounds like a bit of terrorism to me. Or how about the Contras in Nicaragua? Paid for by Ronald Reagan to prevent the Marxists from taking over, they killed entire villages of innocent people.


There are many other reasons than that. Propaganda is a powerful tool when the people cannot access news from the outside world.

That's completely true. You think CNN and FOX news are free of propaganda?


We did what to who?:

Guatemala - overthrew democratically elected leader
Iran - overthrew Mossadegh, installed the Shah. we were afraid Mossadegh would nationalize the oil reserves, something the Shah did anyway.
Afghanistan - paid religious fundamentalists to fight the Soviets; many of these funds were eventually funnelled into al-Qaeda and helped pay for the Taliban government.
Chile - overthrew Allende, installed Pinochet
Nicaragua - secretly sold arms to Iran in the 80s to help pay for the Contras, who wanted to stop the Marxists
Grenada - overthrew Marxist ally to Cuba
Cuba - repeatedly attempted to murder Castro in the 50's. CIA, Mafia, and Baptista all were working together - Castro's revolution stopped the Mafia's control of Cuban business, so the CIA retaliated. Hence Bay of Pigs.
North Korea -self explanatory
Vietnam - self explanatory



Are you afraid the United States will decide to conquer Canada or something? I'm not even remotely concerned about the United States firing it's missles, but I am with Iraq.

Are you saying that you don't have a problem with reducing a city full of teenagers to smoldering radioactive rubble?

Now to sound like a redneck ignorant :D ; If you have so much contempt and dislike for America, move. If you don't, then before you burn a flag, better make sure it's not on my block, because I'll kick your ass!

I don't have any more contempt or dislike for America as I do for any other country in the world. I just think that America holds itself on a pedestal above everyone else, and this is all wrong. We are guilty, too. That's what I've been trying to say. :)

You avoided a few things I pointed out in my last post. Do you think you could address them?

[Steve]

Interestingly enough: Iraq Accepts U.N. Weapon Inspection Resolutions (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20021113/ts_nm/iraq_un_dc_3)

[PigsnieLite]

PLite thinks Steve & Sunfroggy are the coolest.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Steve
Interestingly enough: Iraq Accepts U.N. Weapon Inspection Resolutions (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20021113/ts_nm/iraq_un_dc_3)
I hope they mean it, but I'm skeptical.

Originally posted by PigsnieLite
PLite thinks Steve & Sunfroggy are the coolest.
:rolleyes: Chris thinks PLite is and always has been a virtual yes-man for liberal causes. :p

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Steve
Is the United States not guilty of sponsoring terrorism? We turn a shoulder to the diamond wars in Africa - militias invade villages, select women and children at random, and hack off an arm. The others are forced to work in the mines. DeBeers keeps every diamond these people find. That sounds like a bit of terrorism to me. Or how about the Contras in Nicaragua? Paid for by Ronald Reagan to prevent the Marxists from taking over, they killed entire villages of innocent people.

Guatemala - overthrew democratically elected leader
Iran - overthrew Mossadegh, installed the Shah. we were afraid Mossadegh would nationalize the oil reserves, something the Shah did anyway.
Afghanistan - paid religious fundamentalists to fight the Soviets; many of these funds were eventually funnelled into al-Qaeda and helped pay for the Taliban government.
Chile - overthrew Allende, installed Pinochet
Nicaragua - secretly sold arms to Iran in the 80s to help pay for the Contras, who wanted to stop the Marxists
Grenada - overthrew Marxist ally to Cuba
Cuba - repeatedly attempted to murder Castro in the 50's. CIA, Mafia, and Baptista all were working together - Castro's revolution stopped the Mafia's control of Cuban business, so the CIA retaliated. Hence Bay of Pigs.
North Korea -self explanatory
Vietnam - self explanatory


I already answered to this logic. See?

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
You're talking about ancient history here. Not that it isn't important, mind you, but this is not what's going on now. I also refuse to feel guilty about a government that was in power when I was a child, and before you were born. The year is 2002, and we are threatened. Should we ignore it because of the sins of our Fathers and their Fathers before them? Give me a break! Right here, and right now, we are a target. A great big target, and Iraq is manufacturing darts.

Originally posted by Steve
That's completely true. You think CNN and FOX news are free of propaganda?

Yes I do believe CNN is propoganda free. FOX on the otherhand is an obvious conservative news channel. Any form of propoganda is geared for it's conservative veiwership against the democratic party. Just an opinion. Thay don't paste lies to the American public, like al-Jazeera has been known to do to it's viewers.

Originally posted by Steve
Are you saying that you don't have a problem with reducing a city full of teenagers to smoldering radioactive rubble?

No I don't, can't you tell that I love it when people die? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Steve
You avoided a few things I pointed out in my last post. Do you think you could address them?

I resent that kid, quite a bit. Did you see how long my rebuttle was? Christ, what do you want from me? Your original question was why should we invade Iraq. So I answered with my opinion. But then you changed the question to a frustrated expression of your disatisfaction with the American government, there's no answer to that. Geez Steve, we're all disatisfied, just wait until you're old enough to pay property taxes. ;D. Whatever our government has done in the past is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

[Yoda]

Yes I do believe CNN is propoganda free. FOX on the otherhand is an obvious conservative news channel. Any form of propoganda is geared for it's conservative veiwership against the democratic party. Just an opinion. Thay don't paste lies to the American public, like al-Jazeera has been known to do to it's viewers.
No station is utterly free from bias or propoganda. I think CNN is better than it used to be (a ridiculous liberal slant in the past), but still has a ways to go. Fox is conservative, but I've never known it to let that interfere much with its news. It's quite upfront about what's opinion, and what's not.

There's a reason they're #1. ;D

[LordSlaytan]

It's more with their editorials than their general news. For general news I like FOX quite a bit. It looks very good. :yup:

[Yoda]

That's very true; their editorials are more conservative...and clearly a fair number of their anchors are. Regardless of that, though, I like the brutal honesty you get from them honestly. IE: if they have a slant, they never, ever hide it. If CNN comes to follow suit...by just having it out and making it obvious when they have a liberal view on something, my respect for them will triple. :yup:

[firegod]

Fox is obvious about it, but they don't admit it. They CONSTANTLY go on and on about how fair and balanced they are. I watch them every day, and think that their formats and talent level are better than those of CNN, but I don't know if they are exactly up front about their conservative slant.

I love The O'Reilly Factor. Bill doesn't care who he criticizes, whether it's George Jr., Jesse Jackson or The Pope for crying out loud! I love it!

[Yoda]

I do think they're fair and balanced, though. At least, as much as you can hope to be. All stations have a slant. The anchors can't be expected not to have their own opinions, obviously, and no one can reasonably expect them to never let those opinions come out to a degree.

But, like I said; I think they're always upfront about it. I've never heard Shep try to sneak anything in. I remember him talking about the Texas Seven...he said something akin to "now they're WHINING about the prison system!" I almost laughed out loud at how blatant it was.

Frankly, I prefer that kind of news...I know where these people usually stand on the issues. I prefer that to the androidish, more subtle bias you tend to find elsewhere.

[Steve]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
Yes I do believe CNN is propoganda free. FOX on the otherhand is an obvious conservative news channel. Any form of propoganda is geared for it's conservative veiwership against the democratic party. Just an opinion. Thay don't paste lies to the American public, like al-Jazeera has been known to do to it's viewers.

Every news channel in America has a bias one way or the other, and I never said that al-Jazeera didn't. My point in urging you to watch it was that it helps to see a different point of view - the view of many of the Muslims in the Middle East toward the United States. There are threads of truth and propaganda on every station, it's up to the viewers to distinguish the lies from the facts. And many important points on the issue of invading Iraq are overlooked by the American news channels, namely oil and the President's connection to the companies that sell it here in the states.

To TWT - I prefer news that is up front about its biases too, because that makes it easier to distinguish between different viewpoints. And you won't hear any contest from me concerning either CNN or FOX. I just think it's important to realize that there are different sources of news that are every bit as valuable as the ones we get here in the states. What are your thoughts on (my favorite) the BBC?

I resent that kid, quite a bit. Did you see how long my rebuttle was? Christ, what do you want from me? Your original question was why should we invade Iraq. So I answered with my opinion. But then you changed the question to a frustrated expression of your disatisfaction with the American government, there's no answer to that. Geez Steve, we're all disatisfied, just wait until you're old enough to pay property taxes. ;D. Whatever our government has done in the past is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

First, I didn't mean any disrespect.

Second, I wasn't trying to change any topics - I think that the examples I gave were relevant because the history of our country in dealing with foreign affairs has been pretty terrible, and from what I've read, I don't think that this will help our track record.

Third: "Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I point to the Roman Empire, and rest my case. The Romans conquered the world and it bit them in the ass later. I don't see how the United States will be any different if they keep interfering in nations they deem, for one reason or another, "hostile." People across the world have entirely valid reasons to dislike us, and invading Iraq will just further their feelings. I can't support an invasion of a country that has done no worse than any other in the world, just because they pose a "threat." Believe me, if someone can somehow justify rebombing a city that we've already ruined, murdering teenagers and infecting their children with cancer, I'll turn.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Steve
First, I didn't mean any disrespect.

Second, I wasn't trying to change any topics - I think that the examples I gave were relevant because the history of our country in dealing with foreign affairs has been pretty terrible, and from what I've read, I don't think that this will help our track record.



First, thanks.

Second, I understand that our track record is not perfect, although the U.S. has done a lot of good also. I still say our track record doesn't bely the fact that we are under fire now and days, and need to do something about it.

[Yoda]

I think my reply to Sunfrog on page 4 scared him off. :D

[/arrogance]

Seriously, though; it bothers me when someone makes a completely over-the-top statement like "Bush is the worst President in history!" and completely fails to back it with any solid evidence.

[Steve]

Originally posted by Steve
Believe me, if someone can somehow justify rebombing a city that we've already ruined, murdering teenagers and infecting their children with cancer, I'll turn.

Well, Steve, the al Qaeda network could quite possibly do the same to Washington DC.

I still stand by many of the points I made in this thread. However, the more I read, the more I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to humanity, and so I changed my opinion on an invasion. This has everything to do with the prevention of future bloodshed not only in the West, but in the Middle East as well.

In retrospect, even though I now agree with much of what LordSlaytan was saying all along, I still think him telling me to move to another country was repulsive. It's exactly that type of attitude that catapult people like Saddam Hussein into power.

*sigh* My political allies on this issue are gonna take some getting used to.

[LordSlaytan]

It wasn't repulsive, it was rude. Jeeze, get it right. :rolleyes:

Besides, I never really wanted you to move, I like you too much.