|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted February 26, 2004 01:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey check this out. Yet another comparison of Bush to Hitler. This is getting old. You people think that Hitler and Bush are related are the worst kinds of extremists that know of no other way to argue. It's people like you that end up bombing abortion clinics.
So let me get this straight -- saying "Bush = Hitler" is extreme and unfair. Saying "People who say Bush is Hitler = abortion clinic bombers" isn't unfair or extreme? Well in that case, you people who say that Bush isn't Hitler are the worst kinds of extremists that know of no other way to argue. It's people like you that kick puppies and eat babies.
I don't think Bush = Hitler. On the other hand, likening the Bush administration to a Nazi regime seems less offensive to me than likening a teacher's union to a terrorist organization, as the Bush administration did recently.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 26, 2004 06:51 AM |
|
|
Don't Hold Back
Hey Bort, I was wondering. Are you against president Bush being re-elected? Can you feel the sarcasm? It's there.
I was simply trying to get you to atleast give the man respect even though the job had little. I've stated my stand and where my vote will go but I'm not going to try and humiliate one single man for a whole country's worth of problems.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Most of your arguments fall into the evidential orgy category. In other words, when you don't like someone you'll have no qualms about dressing them down to the very point of their shoes being untied. I don't like that at all. Using necessary force for the exact problem is a much better approach. Political overkill simply paints the prosecutor as cold and heartless.
If you'll read the posts, I was disagreeing with his policies. If he makes bad policies and bad decisions, he should be held accountable for these. I'm not going to pretend that the Iraq war was a good decision because I also disagree with him on economic policy as well as environmental policy. If he made "x" wrong decisions, he should be held accountable for "x" wrong decisions, not "x-1" or "x-2" or anything like that.
Quote:
I believe this is Bush's last war. The american people wouldn't allow him to make war with anyone else short of another terrorist attack. Having said that it is his last war, I think it is very likely that the liberation of Iraq is quite possibly the greatest humanitarian project thus far for the new millenium.
I wish I could share your optimism. Bush has self declared "I am a war president." (Meet the Press) That doesn't sound like someone who is finished with his wars. I note that you very specifically limit the time scale for humanitarian projects that the Iraq war can be compared to to a 4 year stretch. I disagree that the Iraq war is or was a humanitarian project. That certainly wasn't the justification given when it was started. However, if you examples of great humanitarian projects of the last 100 years that weren't also wars, I can think of at least two -- the eradication of smallpox by WHO and the Marshall plan. Let's not spout hyperbole regarding the potential humanitarian effects of the Iraq war.
Quote:
I am a middleclass american citizen who owns a house and one car. I have three kids and one wife. Show me one middleclass family that doesn't "borrow and spend". I don't do it because I like to. My wife and I do it because our kids need food, clothing, and other expenses such as toys to play with. I may be a democrat but I don't agree with "tax and spend". In fact I live the "borrow and spend". You can argue with Bush's "borrow and spend" strategy all you want but I don't hear any suggestions on how to make it better. We may not like living like this but what are the alternatives? Get taxed more so the government can have more control of our lives? No thankyou! In fact I'd wager you have no alternative and even if you did I guarantee your alternative wouldn't pull my family out of the "borrow and spend" set of rules laid down by common sense. Just about everyone in america borrows to spend more money.
I'm not entirely clear how this qualifies as a defense, but I'll try to respond anyway. A family budget is not a very good analogy for a government budget. Your "typical" middle class family has a slowly upward trend in their income from about their mid-20s until they retire. However, their expenses start going up dramatically when/if they choose to have children. More housing space is needed, there's doctor bills, more mouths to feed, maybe a bike for the kid, whatever. Expenses outpace income, so yes, debt occurs. The major difference is there is a foreseable point when the expenses go down again -- when the kids move out. At this point, suddenly, the family's income is as high as it's ever been and the expenses are suddenly lower than they've been since they were newlyweds in a studio apartment. That's when the debt gets paid off. See, the difference is that with a middle class family raising kids the debt is being accumulated when there is a realistic point when the spending will go down again. There is a plan in place for the debt to be paid off.
I suppose, there is a plan to pay off Bush's deficit. Let the next generation worry about it. That means those three kids of yours.
As to what my better ideas are. Well, for one, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That's $100,000,000,000 back into budget right there. Second, yes, I wouldn't have had the tax cuts. I'm not going to screw the next generation, including my kids if I choose to have them, so that I can get a $300 check.
Quote:
You said 50%! Give me a break! The president isn't a monarch! His little "tax cut" probably affected more like 25% of the economy not a whopping 50%
That's not what I said. Here is my exact quote:
Quote:
As shocking as this may seem to many of you, I do not directly blame George Bush for the initial stages of economic weakness that the US is currently suffering from. The effects of terrorism and the cyclic nature of economies cannot be fully discounted, so I will refrain here from trying to assign a specific percentage of the blame to him. I'll just say probably less than 50% and leave it at that. What I will focus on is George Bush's rather singleminded response to the problem - tax cuts.
I said that I felt that George Bush is less than 50% responsible for the economic weakness. In other words -- "HE IS NOT PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE." I then said that his tax cut solution was a bad one. The point is, even if he is not entirely responsible for the downturn, he is still responsible for the decisions that he does make and the effect that he does have. You like 25%, fine, let's call it that. If he mishandled his 25%, doesn't that mean he should bear responsibility for his 25%?
Quote:
"He's man as I am. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just as I do."
I don't deny that. Bush really is just a regular guy. That's really part of the problem. Bush should be going for a beer with his buddies after work, not carving up reconstruction contracts with his Halliburton buddies in the oval office. Since when is an average everyday guy the guy we want as president? I know a hell of a lot of average everyday guys. I'm one of them. Doesn't mean I should be president, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for any of my buddies for president.
Finally,
Quote:
Hey Bort, I was wondering. Are you against president Bush being re-elected? Can you feel the sarcasm? It's there.
I was simply trying to get you to atleast give the man respect even though the job had little. I've stated my stand and where my vote will go but I'm not going to try and humiliate one single man for a whole country's worth of problems.
I'm simply wondering why it is okay for you to refer to people who have never bombed anything in their lives as abortion clinic bombers and refer to this thread as a fascist thread, but it is not okay for others to say Bush is like Hitler (For the record, IYY didn't say Bush is like Hitler, but you seem to interpret it that way). I also said I didn't think Bush was Hitler, but you don't seem to notice that.
Also, it's not sarcasm if you tell people it's sarcasm.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 26, 2004 08:40 PM |
|
|
My Vote Says What I Think
Well Bort, my vote says what I think. I actually agree with you on the discussions. I thought I could pick up where other certain Bush advocates are lacking in this community. I don't actually think Bush should remain as president. I mean, it seemed as though your thread was headed for no alternate opinions. I guess I'm one of those people that enjoys the livelihood of a good debate even though I seem to have failed miserably. Ah well, my vote says what I think.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well Bort, my vote says what I think. I actually agree with you on the discussions.......... I guess I'm one of those people that enjoys the livelihood of a good debate even though I seem to have failed miserably. Ah well, my vote says what I think.
It was a good try, but got overruled  It may be possible that in 10 years all we anti-Bush-as-president will take our word back and ask "why the heck was he elected only once?". Frankly I hope it not to be happen but you never know.
By the way, thanks for compliment.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 27, 2004 01:54 AM |
|
|
Here's My Main Focus For His Re-Election
My concern, as always, is jobs and civil liberties. Right now the staggering loss of jobs is frothing to the surface. Later, civil liberties will hit the stage along with this new contraversy over "Gay-marriages". The patriot act and other such nonsensical bills are going to bubble over until the people have finally had enough. I've had enough before it even started. Way back in early december I made this prediction for G.W. Bush. I'll gladly repost it so that the there can be no question as to my opinion on this matter.
I copied this from my old "Who can stop the dean-machine" thread. This is what I think about his re-election. By the way, that thread is pushed back to about page 3 now.
Quote:
G.W. Bush prediction
I predict President Bush will fall prey to the same thing that plagued his father's presidency. Just like his father he has fought and won against the Iraqi factor and just like his father the economy went up during the war and a few days after. Just like his father's presidency it was the economy that cost him his re-election and so too will this economy falter after wading through this false sense of security that the capturing of Saddam has brought. The truth wil rear its ugly head when our market realizes the country cannot be carried by a few sweet deals made with some of the largest and most powerful companies in the u.s. America always has and always will grow on the backs of the hard-working middleclass entrepreneurial spirit. Maybe he thinks that his babysitter(Dick Cheney) knows what he is doing but they haven't got a clue obviously. When the markets drop after realizing the truth then this president will be history. Once again it will be a shame that history will repeat itself but it was clear from the start he wasn't the right man for the job. Whoever can bring the most viable economic solution to the whitehouse will be next president of the united states. I'm personally voting for Wesley Clark.
I have since changed my vote in favor of Kerry because of Clark's inability to connect with my civilian understanding of relationships between people. Clark's little, "I was higher rank than him in Vietnam", statement sent me scurrying for a hiding place. I was very embarassed that my candidate would say such things. As it turned out, He went on to say many other things that he would recant and try to say better. It didn't sit well me. Dean is known for mis-speaking things on occasion as well and I have found that after watching the debates it really started to gnaw at my sense of the infallable type of character that I was looking for in a presidential candidate. As for the issues, I felt most of the democratic nominees were golden in most of the key issues that hit home for me. Well, all except for Carol Mosley Braun. I just don't like her plain and simple.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 02:44 AM |
|
|
I think Bush has opened a nasty little can of worms with this gay marriage thing.
I'm not American, but live in Northern Ireland, but whenever America sneezes, we catch cold in Ireland/Britain...whatever, so I've been paying attention.
If I have the right of what I heard on the radio today, Bush has pledged to amend the US constitution to indefinetly disallow gay marriage/civil union - whatever you wanna call it.
This puts Mr Kerry in a bit of a pickle, as it's not an issue he's come out with a strong opinion about, but he is actually against it too. Now what's he gonna do? Does he do a political 180 and make it a point of contention, or does he agree with the president and moot the point - either way is probably going to lose him votes.
As far as Bush and Iraq goes, Tony Blair included in this - I personally wouldn't have cared if it was just a regime change mission. I agree Iraq is better off without Saddam. And if their new democracy aren't particularly favourable towards other western nations then it's probably our fault anyway for not doing the job right the first time, and then imposing brutal sanctions on a nation of people helpless to change their circumstances. At least it will be THEIR democracy.
It was the lies/exaggeration/incompetence that I can't say I like. We're used to these in some form or other from our politicians, but usually that doesn't lead to war. We all KNOW that a presidents job should be to make 100% informed decisions on ANY issue, and what we have here is a man that didn't do his job. I'm sure he's a nice guy - loves his kids and wife, probably holds doors open for ladies and all that - but he got a lot of soldiers killed, Iraqi civilians killed, harmed his countries international reputation and generally made a mess of the whole thing.
And incase you think I'm just an anti-American foreigner, I'm not. America did quite a lot for my country. We have endless amusement at Irish-American tourist come home to find their 'roots'. Clinton was very influential in clinching an effective peace agreement in N. Ireland and life is more or less normal where I live now. I'm just glad it was Clinton that took an interest and not Dubya Bush. God knows the mess he'd have made of it
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 07:22 AM |
|
|
Be afraid be very afraid if bush is re-elected.
This man a very human and very righteous zealot, will now have nothing to loose if re-elected. He will continue finding his "Holy Wars" and make sure that all the "Evils" of the world are gone.
Yes i know ive made this point before, but a person who is so righteous in his own way was never fit to be in charge of an entire nations let alone twice in a row.
I would like to pose a quest to the Bush supporters..
"What has President Bush done for YOU?"
If your gonna ask what has he done to me my answer is simply this... Mental Trauma ... how a man with such a closed mind be able to lead a nation is beyond me and i do dread it if my mind wonders into politics land.
Next question for Bush supporters and Anti supporters
"What has Bush done to the nation and the world?"
Just some things to chew on ...
Mad for president
First act: Let my people go!
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 09:47 AM |
|
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 10:42 PM |
|
|
Well thought arguments, bort! And I’m still waiting for the Environmental points against Bush.
Though I’m not an economist, I’d like you to explain me why you disapprove Bush “tax cut” policy. You said something about $300 and banks, but I’m not sure I quite understood you.
From simple economy logic (the modest knowledge about economy I have), I think low taxes are good for free-market economies, such as the US. As you said, it stimulates spending, production, boosts the economy. It basically leaves more money running in the economy, rather than the government budget. This way the government control of the economy is lessened, and the economy has a bigger potential to develop further.
I very much support strong government budget, but only when it’s used for social issues, leveling the income disparity etc, but not waging war on other countries.
Quote:
I know a hell of a lot of average everyday guys. I'm one of them. Doesn't mean I should be president, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for any of my buddies for president.
Actually, that’s a wonderful idea! Finally, a smart guy would be American President! Bort for President!!! 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:08 PM |
|
|
I thought you said a smart guy...
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:38 PM |
|
|
about that amendment...
Bush's announcement to back an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment really alarmed me. My dad, who has a much better political sense, made the following comments about that move:
Quote:
And speaking of politics, I assume you heard that Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriages. I'm not too worried about that, either, although it's pretty outrageous the way Bush is playing divisive politics and pandering to the his hard right base. Every incumbent President coming up for re-election pulls some sort of political stunt -they can't seem to help themselves, and the ones who think they may be in trouble are the worst - but they all do it. In any event, there's no way the Democrats will give Bush this one in an election year, and he needs a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to even get it to the states for ratification. Besides, I think Bush et al may have misjudged this one. The Dems can oppose it by taking the high road ("we will not enshrine any sort of discrimination in the Constitution") without offending anyone but the hard righties - who won't vote for them anyway - no loss. Republicans, on the other hand, can't oppose it without angering Bush and the hard right, nor support it without looking like they favor discrimination and offending lots of moderates - they lose either way. Interestingly, both Sen. Frist (Senate Majority Leader) and Rep DeLay (House Majority Leader) almost immediately announced they would go slow on this one (translation: not this year). They know a toxic issue when they see one and ain't getting dragged into it.
So, it's just election politics and not likely to result in anything "real" anytime soon. I feel better now.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 02:19 AM |
|
|
A bit off-topic, perhaps, but I was just wondering how long it will take before mr. President = mr. Schwarzenegger is true...
I simply do not believe your country. Arnold Schwarzenegger (sp?)! SENATOR!!! Yes. Great. An austrian former bodybuilder with nazi sympathies who can't take a piss and chew gum at the same time, who could be better for the job? Jean-Claude van Damme? Dolph Lundgren? Jackie Chan?
And what's the deal with Ralph Nader? Isn't he merely going to cheat Kerry out of a potential victory, "stealing" democrat votes?
Greetings
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 02:30 AM |
|
|
Arnie can never be president because he was not born in the US (a requirment to run for president). Also, he is a governor, not a senator. Not that that's a good thing, but there is a pretty big difference.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 10:19 AM |
|
|
Yesterday I saw on the news that somewhere in Iran on a radio programm was said that osama bin laden has been caught, but that Bush wanted to save the good news till right before the election so he can benefit from it.
Of course there's no evidence to support this ..I just thought it was funny that rumours like that hit the news nowadays
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 12:19 PM |
|
|
A newspaper here also reported that he was surrounded in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region and about to surrender, but that report is now about a week old.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
G.W. Bush prediction
I predict President Bush will fall prey to the same thing that plagued his father's presidency. Just like his father he has fought and won against the Iraqi factor and just like his father the economy went up during the war and a few days after. Just like his father's presidency it was the economy that cost him his re-election and so too will this economy falter after wading through this false sense of security that the capturing of Saddam has brought. The truth wil rear its ugly head when our market realizes the country cannot be carried by a few sweet deals made with some of the largest and most powerful companies in the u.s. America always has and always will grow on the backs of the hard-working middleclass entrepreneurial spirit. Maybe he thinks that his babysitter(Dick Cheney) knows what he is doing but they haven't got a clue obviously. When the markets drop after realizing the truth then this president will be history. Once again it will be a shame that history will repeat itself but it was clear from the start he wasn't the right man for the job. Whoever can bring the most viable economic solution to the whitehouse will be next president of the united states. I'm personally voting for Wesley Clark.
I think that you are forgetting one MAJOR difference in what George Bush Senior did and what George W. Bush has done. George W. Bush has cut taxes. Bush Sr. raised taxes. Raising taxes is bad for the economy. Lowering taxes is good for the economy.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 07, 2004 11:25 AM |
|
|
Hmm
RedSoxFan3,
Would you mind being a little more specific? Please tell me why you think cutting taxes is better than raising them. Please try to be very specific such as with which tax brackets for which types of income. Where do you think the tax cuts should belong and so forth. To which programs do you think they should apply to? Should they be attached to any bills or simply in tax cuts of a general nature?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 07, 2004 11:50 PM |
|
|
Bush (G.W.) has a looming issue that he will also need to deal with in the future on this tax situation: He has taken us from a budget surplus to a shortfall of trillions of dollars.
Quote:
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 07 Mar 2004 at 10:56:40 PM GMT is:
7,106,402,027,243.59.
The estimated population of the United States is 293,478,800
so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,214.35.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.03 billion per day since September 30, 2003...
(I got this data by googling "national debt" and this was the first site that popped up. it's called "the National Debt Clock" or something to that effect.)
Let me translate this for you since it took several minutes for me to do it for myself:That's seven trillion, one hundred six billion,, four hundred two million,twenty seven thousand, two hundred forty three dollars and fifty nine cents. Since I am soon to become one of the many legions of the nation's new unemployed under this illustrious administration, I might be able to cover the fifty nine cents, but that's about it, friends.)
Can somebody explain this in terms a laywoman can understand? How can this man possibly be re-elected, which he almost certainly will be, on a partial platform of tax reform when he has basically ruined the federal budget?
A long time ago a distant relative of mine once said, "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time..."
Bush has basically tried to please all of the people all of the time. In so doing he has achieved nothing except a soaring national debt. He has failed to cut the budget in ways that spending reductions would account for his tax "cuts" (What cuts? my family pays out over 30% of our income for taxes last year and we get back $600.00? That's just a JOKE, my friends. I urge anybody in this forum to explain to me how much their taxes have been cut under Bush...)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 08, 2004 01:41 AM |
|
|
None. I live in ireland
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
