Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: George W. Bush: The right man, at the right time for the tough job!
Thread: George W. Bush: The right man, at the right time for the tough job! This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
maretti
maretti


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted September 27, 2006 11:08 PM

First of all: As long as you can understand what someone is saying why flame him for making a few gramatical errors? We (none  americans) could write better if we spent twice the time but why waste that time looking up words when what we write is perfectly understandeble. Dont think you are wiser or more intelligent just because you spell better.


And now to my point: One could argue that the US has a democratical problem when there are only two parties to vote for. It seems many republicans simply vote for their party as a familytradition. Even if they dislike the candidate they will still vote for him because its totally unthinkeble to vote for the other party. In most european contries we have more than one social party and more than one liberal/conservative party. This way if a guy who recently found jesus shows up u can still vote for a party that wants the rich to get richer and the poor to remain poor without voting for a total moron.

George W Bush is simply a step back like any other leader who is very religious. Religion stops progress, just take a look in the middle (age) east.
____________
Crag rules, Orrin and Ivor suck

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Xarfax111
Xarfax111


Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
The last hero standing
posted September 28, 2006 12:38 AM

Quote:
George W Bush is simply a step back like any other leader who is very religious. Religion stops progress, just take a look in the middle (age) east.


Yes, i think that is precisely to the point.




______

Offtopic: What i dont understand is why he is critizising non-native speakers for spelling faults, lack of vocabulary and incorrect gramma, when the the president he elected "puts food on his family" . Next time he wants to tell us that his "state of the union speech of however you call it" are the best ever made by president. Well "a fool cant get fool me again"
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 28, 2006 12:58 AM

Funny how something that was considered previously to be on topic - the comparison of Iraq fatalities with previous wars or road fatalities - is now ignored, presumably for being off topic.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
muerte
muerte


Adventuring Hero
posted September 28, 2006 01:46 AM
Edited by muerte at 02:31, 28 Sep 2006.

Quote:
I disagree, muerte. History isn't concerned with the policies of leaders, it is concerned with the overall results of their administration; in this case, the Iraq War.


History is still written by normal men and women; not all will be able to seperate their politics from reality ( and maybe moreso about this particular administration; at least for a while anyway ). The overall results of the administration do not hinge upon the Iraq war, certainly not for me, although maybe it will for some others; I admit it will play a large role, but that role hasn't been proven negative yet and so my opinion of that conflict will have to wait a bit. Afghanistan is still looking positive despite some recent violence and is heading towards remaining a positive for Bush. Improved economy here at home, and stronger inter-agency policies also are viewed as positives for Bush, along with increased domestic security; ( although I admit I wish he would do more about the sivs we call borders. )


Quote:
Funny how something that was considered previously to be on topic - the comparison of Iraq fatalities with previous wars or road fatalities - is now ignored, presumably for being off topic.


It's not being ignored, it's simply played out. I said my piece about it, people that disagreed with me said their piece, end of story. I wasn't aware I was under a further burden to try to convince you of my point other my already posted explanation. Is that a rule here?

Is it really expected that I constantly go over and over again every single misunderstood, or purposely misrepresented point of mine? I explained everything I felt I needed to, if it wasn't enough for you tough beans.

I plan on posting more responses ( when I have more time ) to discuss how G.W.B.s administrative policies on economics are revitalizing this country.

And 'vadskye91' seems to want to post something about the administrations privacy policy that I am looking forward to seeing.

@Xarfax: you know perfectly well why I responded to you the way I did and so do several others here that saw your 'now removed' posts. Don't try to play some "I was an innocent non-english speaker and he over-reacted" card. I apologized in a previous post to the community at large for allowing you to push my buttons once, don't press your luck here, you won't find further sympathy

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 28, 2006 03:10 AM
Edited by privatehudson at 03:12, 28 Sep 2006.

I didn't misunderstand or misinterpret your posts, you seem fixated with assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is unable to comprehend your arguments. I merely disagreed with them for the reasons I mentioned, reasons that remain essentially undiscussed, especially in the past war-iraq comparsion.

Its not a rule here no, but someone once suggested debate was defined as:

"It's a situation where someone states their opinion, someone else then offers their counter opinion, and the discussion goes back and forth.".

Who could that possibly have been?

If you want to attract people to debate topic you need to show some interest in following your own definition of it rather than cutting discussions short once you've stated/clarified your opinion. That's not a debate, its a person on a soapbox.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
muerte
muerte


Adventuring Hero
posted September 28, 2006 03:35 AM
Edited by muerte at 04:12, 28 Sep 2006.

Quote:
I didn't misunderstand or misinterpret your posts, you seem fixated with assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is unable to comprehend your arguments.


And here is yet another misunderstanding about some perceived fixation of mine on misunderstandings.  

No doubt you believe that I have some obligation to clear this up? I don't.

Quote:
I merely disagreed with them for the reasons I mentioned, reasons that remain essentially undiscussed, especially in the past war-iraq comparsion.


That's right, you stated your opinion, I stated my opinion. Just because I don't find your point worth commenting on again doesn't mean I didn't respect your position.  And if I left off making anymore comments it's because I saw no need to discuss it further. If you have more to say on your points go ahead..we are all listening now.

Quote:
Its not a rule here no, but someone once suggested debate was defined as:

"It's a situation where someone states their opinion, someone else then offers their counter opinion, and the discussion goes back and forth.".

Who could that possibly have been?


Are you implying that every point made must be constantly debated with no end in sight? I don't recall including that as part of my definition. If the back and forth never has any ending for you, you must still be active in every debate thread you ever participated in! That must be quite tiring.

Quote:
If you want to attract people to debate topic you need to show some interest in following your own definition of it rather than cutting discussions short once you've stated/clarified your opinion. That's not a debate, its a person on a soapbox.


I never cut discussions short, that would imply I'm stopping people from responding, I am incapable of weilding such power here. Not every post people make is worth discussing after a certain point. Don't take it so personally towards me. Others don't seem willing to engage you in debate on some of your points either or else they would have. So maybe you should take that as an indication that it isn't generally perceived as worthy of further discussion. That's not a bad thing, just an end to that debate theme.

Cheer up and have some patience! You've shown no end of despising or otherwise denying the validity of my points of view, so I will soon; no doubt; offer up some tidbit that you can further use as a verbal chew toy!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted September 28, 2006 03:58 AM

DOnt worry about Hudsons privates.
He usually has no respect for people who disagrees with him.
Better yet he likes to point out that his debate is  fact or else.
Not to mention point out how wrong you are to an extent to where it will become arrogant.
Dont trip, hes been doing it for so many yrs that he is a master now.

____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 28, 2006 05:02 AM
Edited by privatehudson at 05:04, 28 Sep 2006.

Quote:
And here is yet another misunderstanding about some perceived fixation of mine on misunderstandings.

No doubt you believe that I have some obligation to clear this up? I don't.


I don't think people are obliged to do anything, this being the internet conduct is largely up to the individual. I do consider certain things polite however, such as not assuming ignorance in others like you have done on a few occasions.

Quote:
That's right, you stated your opinion, I stated my opinion. Just because I don't find your point worth commenting on again doesn't mean I didn't respect your position. And if I left off making anymore comments it's because I saw no need to discuss it further. If you have more to say on your points go ahead..we are all listening now.


Perhaps I was brought up wrong but when someone takes the time to remark on something I said I tend to reply. Whether I agree with the remark or not I rather think it polite to acknowledge it and explain a lack of interest. Now this has been done I can leave you to whatever you do decide should be discussed.

Quote:
Are you implying that every point made must be constantly debated with no end in sight? I don't recall including that as part of my definition. If the back and forth never has any ending for you, you must still be active in every debate thread you ever participated in! That must be quite tiring.
Quote:


I don't believe debates should continue to infiinty and beyond. You showed some intital interest in that debate and then later, before it could even start properly decided it didn't merit your time. I find the style rather bizarre but each to their own. I won't bother you with it again.

Quote:
I never cut discussions short, that would imply I'm stopping people from responding


It could be argued that by remarking about "off topic" posts you suggest that people stop posting on certain subjects.

Quote:
Don't take it so personally towards me. Others don't seem willing to engage you in debate on some of your points either or else they would have. So maybe you should take that as an indication that isn't generally perceived as worthy of further discussion. That's not a bad thing, just an end to that debate theme.


Well I'd naturally expect some response from you since you were the person making the original comparisons and comments. Since you don't want to however I'll find someone who would like to discuss it.

Quote:
Cheer up and have some patience!


I'm quite happy already, but thank you for asking. Since no-one around here is willing to discuss the interesting subject I'll simply go to a forum I know that people will. It doesn't upset, concern or annoy me that people here don't wish to, its a computer game forum after all, not a debating society.

Quote:
You've shown no end of despising or otherwise denying the validity of my points of view, so I will soon; no doubt; offer up some tidbit that you can further use as a verbal chew toy!


I doubt I'll bother, your methods of response so far imply I'd be better employing my time elsewhere.

Thanks for the remarks btw Acuilas but I have pleanty of respect for people who conduct discussions in a polite, ordered and reasonable manner. I've fallen out with numerous people on this forum over various topics but still hold respect for most of them even if I disagreed with them at the time.

Sorry you see that differently.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted September 28, 2006 05:21 AM

Hudsons Privates Quote
I don't believe debates should continue to infiinty and beyond.

That is a load of crap.
If I can find it, I can quote whne you first came on here that Debating is basically the only entertainment you find amusing.

Everyone has thier own style of debating & that you should respect.

I can debate anyone but I tend to make little jokes about it.
Thats my way & they are not wrong, I know whats going on also.
I could debate with you but I agree with most you say so there is no reason too.
I just tend to find this same crap boring now.
How many topics are we going to discuss Bush & his antics.
There are so many opinions on debates with facts were not even sure about.
You can do whatever you want Hudsons Privates but if your going to leave for a better debate, then by all means go.
I like people debating with you dont get me wrong but i am so tired of hearing your arrogance.

By the way, your a pretty boy Hudsons Privates, want to go out sometime ?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 28, 2006 05:34 AM
Edited by privatehudson at 05:47, 28 Sep 2006.

Quote:
That is a load of crap.
If I can find it, I can quote whne you first came on here that Debating is basically the only entertainment you find amusing.


If I did say it I'm sure that was a long time ago Aculias, I don't hold the same view now. I've found many more things to do with my time

I respect people if they're polite and reasonable in their discussion style. If I come across as arrogant to you then sorry but thats my style, I'm not usually impolite, I don't flame people and I don't spam important threads. If you don't like the style I write in there's nothing I can do about that.

And no, I don't want to go out sorry.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted September 28, 2006 08:37 AM

Quote:
The overall results of the administration do not hinge upon the Iraq war, certainly not for me, although maybe it will for some others; I admit it will play a large role
It will play a very large part. Like all persons in a position of power or influence, they are typically known for just one or two things attributed to them. In the case of GWB, the Iraqi war is by far the most prominent event defining his presidency. Anything else he has done is small by comparison.

Quote:
Afghanistan is still looking positive despite some recent violence and is heading towards remaining a positive for Bush.
I agree this could be seen as more positive (or less negative), but it's still small compared to Iraq. Also, Afghanistan is not as controversial as Iraq, but it's still not without controversy.

Quote:
Improved economy here at home
I'd be interested to hear just what Bush did to improve the economy.....that's assuming the economy really has improved, which is debatable. For some reason the president always gets blamed when the economy is bad, or credited when it is good. In reality the president has almost nothing to do with the economy. The president has virtually no power over the economy, nor does anyone else, collectively or individually.

Quote:
stronger inter-agency policies also are viewed as positives for Bush
Viewed as positive by some, true, but viewed as negative by others. I think it's yet to be seen if the changes were positive or negative. I agree with at least some of the theory behind these changes, but I still have a problem with it. Namely it was done quickly in a near state of panic, without proper debate and investigation into all the ramifications. To completely overhaul the structure of several agencies in such a short period of time is just plain risky in my opinion.

Quote:
along with increased domestic security
OK, maybe. But let me ask you what role Bush played in it? Congress and the various involved agencies played a major role. Did Bush actually come up with any of the ideas, or merely rubber stamp what his advisors and others told him was best? I admit I hate Bush and I'm biased. But the truth is I really don't know what role he actually played. Which leads to....

I forget who, but someone else brought up the privacy issue. How do you feel about phone taps and random searches of people without due cause? I don't know the details about the phone taps, so I can't specifically address that except to say it's very questionable. But random searches of people is clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights in my opinion. Do you feel that "national security" is a higher priority than the Bill of Rights? That's an excuse that has been used many times in many nations to justify the violation of civil rights. If another 911 is the cost of securing the Bill of Rights, then so be it....everything has a cost. If we are not willing to pay the price, it's nothing more than a slap in the face of everyone who has died in the past to secure those rights in the first place. Aside from the Iraqi war, this is probably the next worst thing to come out of the Bush administration...mainly because it opens up a floodgate of future violations of our rights justified by "national security".

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
muerte
muerte


Adventuring Hero
posted September 28, 2006 05:41 PM
Edited by muerte at 18:31, 28 Sep 2006.

Beware! A somewhat lengthy post lies ahead. You've been warned!

Quote:
It will play a very large part. Like all persons in a position of power or influence, they are typically known for just one or two things attributed to them. In the case of GWB, the Iraqi war is by far the most prominent event defining his presidency. Anything else he has done is small by comparison.

I agree it is a big part of his presidency, but to be fair, the jury really still is out on whether or not it will be positive or negative. Speculation seems overwhelmingly partisan at the moment. (i.e. people that like G.W.B. see positives in Iraq; people that don’t like him see negatives, at least for the most part).

Quote:
I would be interested to hear just what Bush did to improve the economy.....that's assuming the economy really has improved, which is debatable.


He instituted his tax cuts as soon as the economy showed signs of down turning. As far as it being a debatable improvement I guess that’s true. If you look at the DOW and low unemployment numbers and increasing job creation numbers you can see a strong economy. If all you look at is an increasing ( although actually turning towards the black now ) defecit which is also due to low revenues from tax payers and increased spending because of several devastating hurricanes and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you could balance it out. To me the overall outlook is positive; though. Before people start screaming about “tax cuts are only for the rich” I want to share a story I found funny:
Quote:
How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!






Quote:
For some reason the president always gets blamed when the economy is bad, or credited when it is good. In reality the president has almost nothing to do with the economy. The president has virtually no power over the economy, nor does anyone else, collectively or individually.

Presidents usually don’t have any influence over the economy, but by enacting tax cuts G.W.B. handed over the fuel that drives an economy ( money ) to the engine that drives it ( people! ).


Quote:
stronger inter-agency policies also are viewed as positives for Bush


Quote:
Viewed as positive by some, true, but viewed as negative by others. I think it's yet to be seen if the changes were positive or negative. I agree with at least some of the theory behind these changes, but I still have a problem with it. Namely it was done quickly in a near state of panic, without proper debate and investigation into all the ramifications. To completely overhaul the structure of several agencies in such a short period of time is just plain risky in my opinion.


I agree it was a ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ policy, and it was rushed because the situation required it be rushed. It wasn't perfect, but legislation rarely is.  G.W.B isn’t standing in the way of having the right questions asked or answered. He offers his opinions and lets congress and the senate hammer out the details. That’s just the system at work imo.
Quote:


along with increased domestic security


Quote:
OK, maybe. But let me ask you what role Bush played in it? Congress and the various involved agencies played a major role. Did Bush actually come up with any of the ideas, or merely rubber stamp what his advisors and others told him was best? I admit I hate Bush and I'm biased. But the truth is I really don't know what role he actually played.


It’s the rare leader that makes decisions by himself. The mark of the best leaders include the quality to surround himself with knowledgable advisors to fill the gaps they are incapable of filling themselves. What does it matter who the architect of individual policies were when the reality would be that G.W.B appointed them to do the job and they did so correctly?

Quote:
Which leads to....

I forget who, but someone else brought up the privacy issue. How do you feel about phone taps and random searches of people without due cause? I don't know the details about the phone taps, so I can't specifically address that except to say it's very questionable. But random searches of people is clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights in my opinion. Do you feel that "national security" is a higher priority than the Bill of Rights? That's an excuse that has been used many times in many nations to justify the violation of civil rights. If another 911 is the cost of securing the Bill of Rights, then so be it....everything has a cost. If we are not willing to pay the price, it's nothing more than a slap in the face of everyone who has died in the past to secure those rights in the first place. Aside from the Iraqi war, this is probably the next worst thing to come out of the Bush administration...mainly because it opens up a floodgate of future violations of our rights justified by "national security".


I want to go into more detail later, when I have more time. But suffice it to say for now that I believe some sacrifices are necessary during wartime. To expect that every policy we find constrictive during this period will remain after the war or even lead to worse acts in the future doesn’t really bear out imo. Look at the internment camps of WW2, they were a detestable policy that ended after the war was over. The fact that we used that policy during wartime didn’t make a given that we always inter people during wartime. If it did; people of middle eastern or n. african decent would be currently interred.  Since that’s not the case, it’s ample evidence to me certain actions don’t necessarily beget similar; or worse; actions.

More later..

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vadskye91
Vadskye91


Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
posted September 28, 2006 06:30 PM

Muerte, it is in fact customary to continue to talk about a point beyond the opening arguments.  Dropping things after you both have said what you think is like agreeing to disagree- which is not the point of this thread.  We are here to talk about Bush, and his policies, and wars, and so on.  We aren't here to say "This is that I think, and this is what you think.  Okay, let's go our seperate ways now."  As PH said, that's not debating, that's standing on a soapbox.


Regarding tax cuts- The tax cut theory is one thing when you actually have enough money that you can give out tax cuts, and entirely something else when we don't, as is right now.  Everyone is undergoing major budget cuts and a lack of funding right now, and we have a massive that just isn't going to go away.  If our economy is so stunningly good, as Bush tells us repeatedly, then why isn't the debt going down?  Why aren't people getting funding?


Yes, we are told repeatedly that this lack of privacy is only going to be during the war.  This may be true.

But do you realize how @#$%ing long this war will be?  Even if, by some miracle, Iraq becomes a model democracy, the real war that we're not fighting now will go on- the war against terror.  Naturally, the lack of privacy will continue to go on until the end of that war- if it has an end.
____________
Knowledge is power...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
muerte
muerte


Adventuring Hero
posted September 28, 2006 07:24 PM
Edited by muerte at 20:30, 28 Sep 2006.

Quote:
Muerte, it is in fact customary to continue to talk about a point beyond the opening arguments.  Dropping things after you both have said what you think is like agreeing to disagree- which is not the point of this thread.  We are here to talk about Bush, and his policies, and wars, and so on.  We aren't here to say "This is that I think, and this is what you think.  Okay, let's go our seperate ways now."  As PH said, that's not debating, that's standing on a soapbox.


So count you in for instituting a community-wide "beat a dead horse" style of debate right? I will reiterate that I saw nothing further I felt needed any response from me. If you have a comment on 'privatehudsons' point in question here than please make it already, I don't. Am I being held to a different standard now because of that? Look, I understand the whole, "pounce on the G.W.B. supporter attitude around here, I get it. You don't like my arrogant posting style, I hear you. You and yours are paragons of politeness and virtue and all who don't obey you are verbally flogged, message received! But don't you think you guys are carrying this particular point a bit too far?


Quote:
Regarding tax cuts- The tax cut theory is one thing when you actually have enough money that you can give out tax cuts, and entirely something else when we don't, as is right now.


That particular point is based on the fallacy that the money belongs to the government. It does not. G.W.B. didn't "give" anything, tax cuts are a reduction in government theivery from the public, not a windfall check from some fairy. It was the people's money to begin with, not the governments.

Quote:
Everyone is undergoing major budget cuts and a lack of funding right now, and we have a massive that just isn't going to go away.  If our economy is so stunningly good, as Bush tells us repeatedly, then why isn't the debt going down?


It's starting to go down ( albeit slowly ) now that government spending is begining to be curtailed. Read my post again though for additional clarity ( just so I don't have to repeat myself please ) I did outline the reasons why I feel your position here is tenable, but I also pointed out that multiple factors are included. Defecit reduction isn't the sole indicator of an improving economy.

Quote:
Why aren't people getting funding?


What people? What funding? Why with my money? If some programs aren't being funded list them for us and lets figure out together who should get public money and who should rely on private donations.


Quote:
Yes, we are told repeatedly that this lack of privacy is only going to be during the war.  This may be true.

But do you realize how @#$%ing long this war will be?  Even if, by some miracle, Iraq becomes a model democracy, the real war that we're not fighting now will go on- the war against terror.  Naturally, the lack of privacy will continue to go on until the end of that war- if it has an end.


Hmm, a war without end. Sounds like the Democratic imposed "War on Poverty"  we've had for 40 years now or the Bi-partisan "War on Drugs" for the last few decades. I'll admit the concept of the neverending war isn't new; it also isn't necesarily a given. I submit to you that if Democrats and Republicans could cross the aisle a bit more we  could probably have this wrapped up in a few years or even less than a decade. Sound far fetched? Why? Your "never ending war" idea is much more unlikely, imho.

As for the U.S. having completely halted all attempts at fighting the War on Terror please show us something that supports that claim other than your personal opinion, that would be courteous imo.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vadskye91
Vadskye91


Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
posted September 28, 2006 08:15 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Muerte, it is in fact customary to continue to talk about a point beyond the opening arguments.  Dropping things after you both have said what you think is like agreeing to disagree- which is not the point of this thread.  We are here to talk about Bush, and his policies, and wars, and so on.  We aren't here to say "This is that I think, and this is what you think.  Okay, let's go our seperate ways now."  As PH said, that's not debating, that's standing on a soapbox.


So count you in for instituting a community-wide "beat a dead horse" style of debate right? I will reiterate that I saw nothing further I felt needed any response from me. If you have a comment on 'privatehudsons' point in question here than please make it already, I don't. Am I being held to a different standard now because of that? Look, I understand the whole, "pounce on the G.W.B. supporter attitude around here, I get it. You don't like my arrogant posting style, I hear you. You and yours are paragons of politeness and virtue and all who don't obey you are verbally flogged, message received! But don't you think you guys are carrying this particular point a bit too far?



Okay, I'll lay off.  But it's frustrating to see all our points dropped because that's just the way you do it.  

Quote:

Quote:
Regarding tax cuts- The tax cut theory is one thing when you actually have enough money that you can give out tax cuts, and entirely something else when we don't, as is right now.


That particular point is based on the fallacy that the money belongs to the government. It does not. G.W.B. didn't "give" anything, tax cuts are a reduction in government theivery from the public, not a windfall check from some fairy. It was the people's money to begin with, not the governments.



You think taxes are "government theivery from the public"?  If the people don't want to give money to the government, then they had better find some other way to take care of schools, and roads, and law enforcement, and fire extinguishing, and so on.  Because those things don't happen without government money, and government money doesn't happen without taxes.

Quote:

Quote:
Everyone is undergoing major budget cuts and a lack of funding right now, and we have a massive that just isn't going to go away.  If our economy is so stunningly good, as Bush tells us repeatedly, then why isn't the debt going down?


It's starting to go down ( albeit slowly ) now that government spending is begining to be curtailed. Read my post again though for additional clarity ( just so I don't have to repeat myself please ) I did outline the reasons why I feel your position here is tenable, but I also pointed out that multiple factors are included. Defecit reduction isn't the sole indicator of an improving economy.



But it has to happen at some point.  The deficit is not going to the black- we are still massively in debt.  The reason we have "low revenue from taxpayers" is because of those big tax cuts that Bush implemented.  You're right that everything is partisan, but that doesn't mean you can blind yourself to the other side.  Keep an open mind.

Quote:
Why aren't people getting funding?


What people? What funding? Why with my money? If some programs aren't being funded list them for us and lets figure out together who should get public money and who should rely on private donations.



So, basically, you want to set up a system for who gets public money and who gets private donations?  Guess what- we have one!  It's called a Government!  Just because you can't decide for yourself who gets your money doesn't mean that something is wrong.  That's the way things are supposed to be.

Quote:


Quote:
Yes, we are told repeatedly that this lack of privacy is only going to be during the war.  This may be true.

But do you realize how @#$%ing long this war will be?  Even if, by some miracle, Iraq becomes a model democracy, the real war that we're not fighting now will go on- the war against terror.  Naturally, the lack of privacy will continue to go on until the end of that war- if it has an end.


Hmm, a war without end. Sounds like the Democratic imposed "War on Poverty"  we've had for 60 years now or the Bi-partisan "War on Drugs" for the last few decades. I'll admit the concept of the neverending war isn't new; it also isn't necesarily a given. I submit to you that if Democrats and Republicans could cross the aisle a bit more we  could probably have this wrapped up in a few years or even less than a decade. Sound far fetched? Why? Your "never ending war" idea is much more unlikely, imho.



Your analogy is flawed- those "wars" do not involve people dying or our rights being taken away.  Those are merely names they use to make people pay attention.

Also, I don't think the terrorists will stop fighting just because we're a shining image of teamwork.  Remember the portion of a report that was unclassified recently?  Obviously, we don't have the whole thing, but one thing that stood out was that the war in Iraq was fueling more terrorists and that the war in Iraq had overall increased the threat to national security.  I can't find a link to the contents right now, unfortunately.

Quote:

As for the U.S. having completely halted all attempts at fighting the War on Terror please show us something that supports that claim other than your personal opinion, that would be courteous imo.


We are fighting a war in Iraq.  That war is different from the war on terror.  The war on terror is seperate from the war in Iraq.  In other words, they aren't the same.
____________
Knowledge is power...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
muerte
muerte


Adventuring Hero
posted September 28, 2006 09:08 PM

Quote:
Okay, I'll lay off.  But it's frustrating to see all our points dropped because that's just the way you do it.


There's a fair amount of points made here that I fear I will never get to. It's either based on time constraints or some other factors. If it helps I will try to warn people in the future by stating in my best Forrest Gump voice.."That's all I have to say about that."  


Quote:
You think taxes are "government theivery from the public"?  If the people don't want to give money to the government, then they had better find some other way to take care of schools, and roads, and law enforcement, and fire extinguishing, and so on.  Because those things don't happen without government money, and government money doesn't happen without taxes.
Quote:


Here's something many Americans should look at. It explains my shared alternate view of the tax system.

http://www.fairtax.org/



Quote:
The deficit is not going to the black- we are still massively in debt.  The reason we have "low revenue from taxpayers" is because of those big tax cuts that Bush implemented.  You're right that everything is partisan, but that doesn't mean you can blind yourself to the other side.  Keep an open mind.


Battleships don't turn on a dime. And neither do huge deficits. I have an open mind, time is the real threat to the deficit as long as we reign in government spending more. A point I can't stress enough. I do not like out of control spending, perhaps you and I can agree on that?

Quote:
Why aren't people getting funding?


What people? What funding? Why with my money? If some programs aren't being funded list them for us and lets figure out together who should get public money and who should rely on private donations.



Quote:
So, basically, you want to set up a system for who gets public money and who gets private donations?  Guess what- we have one!  It's called a Government!  Just because you can't decide for yourself who gets your money doesn't mean that something is wrong.  That's the way things are supposed to be.
Quote:


No, I just wanted you to clarify which programs you felt were going unfunded and you and I could discuss here which ones we felt needed public funding and which should be private affairs. It was your point, I'm just seeking more clarification from you.


Quote:
Your analogy is flawed- those "wars" do not involve people dying or our rights being taken away.  Those are merely names they use to make people pay attention.


Hmm, that's odd, if I'm not mistaken there are plenty of people dying explicitly because of poverty, and drugs? That was the whole point of declaring "War" against them, right?

Quote:
Also, I don't think the terrorists will stop fighting just because we're a shining image of teamwork.  Remember the portion of a report that was unclassified recently?  Obviously, we don't have the whole thing, but one thing that stood out was that the war in Iraq was fueling more terrorists and that the war in Iraq had overall increased the threat to national security.  I can't find a link to the contents right now, unfortunately.


I think I know the report your talking about. If I'm not mistaken it actually is a cyoa ( cover your own ass ) report that actually supports both of our points on this issue. Find the link and we will share the knowledge together.

I agree, it isn't in the image of teamwork that the War on Terror finds victory. It's in the practice of halting all the infighting and focusing all our efforts Democrat and Republican into weeding out and hunting down the terrorists. You know the concept "United we stand, divided we fall".




Quote:
We are fighting a war in Iraq.  That war is different from the war on terror.  The war on terror is seperate from the war in Iraq.  In other words, they aren't the same.


Yep, we are fighting a war in Iraq, thanks for the update. But I believe you said we stopped fighting the War on Terror? Please explain where you got that fact from? Our efforts haven't stopped just because of Iraq. You have some proof you want to share?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
friendofgunnar
friendofgunnar


Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
posted September 28, 2006 09:20 PM

Quote:
He instituted his tax cuts as soon as the economy showed signs of down turning.


This is incorrect.  George Bush began his campaign in 99 with the promise to cut taxes while Clinton's golden economy was still singing.

Clinton meanwhile was using the extra revenue from the economy to pay off the debt that Reagan accumulated back in the 80's (you remember the 600 boat navy right Muerte?). Bush declared that the extra revenue should go back to voters, which indicates that he never intended to pay off America's debt.  Here we can clearly see some responsible behaviour by Clinton and the democrats contrasted with irresponsible behaviour by Bush and the republicans.

Today Republicans like to claim that the economy is in good condition however 20 percent of the governments spending still comes from borrowed money.  This assertion is fully logical to Republicans, which is quite frankly, baffling.

Six years of tax cuts and Bush has made no move whatsoever to bring spending into balance with revenues.  It's become apparant that borrowing money has become the Republican ideology, with no intention of ever paying it back.  This is also a good example of something who's "account has not yet come to full reckoning"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted September 28, 2006 09:24 PM

I don't think anyone is claiming the war on terror has "stopped". It's just that the resources and energy being used for the Iraqi war could be better used elseware. I mean Bush declares "war on terror". So what happened? I guess he changed his mind about the war on terror and decided to attack Iraq instead.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
friendofgunnar
friendofgunnar


Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
posted September 28, 2006 09:30 PM

Jiminy Christmas could everyone please stop nesting quotes, it makes this thread a complete headache to follow.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted September 28, 2006 09:32 PM

Quote:
George Bush began his campaign in 99 with the promise to cut taxes while Clinton's golden economy was still singing.
Clinton's golden economy was still singing????????

As I already said, the president has almost nothing to do with the economy. What did Clinton do to make the economy "sing"? The economy was definately taking a strong downward turn for at least a couple years before Bush took office. I don't give Clinton credit for a good economy, but in fairness, I don't blaim him for the downturn either. I'm just saying the pres. has virtually nothing to do with it.

(I can think of one exception to this, but I won't go into that now)
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1544 seconds