Bush named Time magazine's person of the year...
- Thread starter jmcc
- Start date
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
It's alright, I wasn't thrilled at first but then when I began thinking about it, it's been a slow year in terms of important people. I think their reasoning is good, they're not supporting or attacking his policies, just talking about how he changed things. I don't think he should have got it this year, but then again I don't think anyone else should have either. If the iraq war had begun this year then he should have got it, but that was last year.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
As David85 sorta said, the question would be whether the distinction is supposed to simply go to the most influential person of the year, or whether its supposed to go to the 'good' person of the year. If its the former, then Bin Laden really should have won in 2001...
Actually, regardless of which method its supposed to be, I have difficulty believing that Bush was a good pick. Bush really didn't do much of anything in 2004: he pretty much spent the year quite deliberately NOT doing anything and claiming that everything was perfectly fine. He really couldn't do anything because anything he'd do would be to reverse something he'd done before, thereby revealing that he made mistakes the first time around. Aside from having most of his cabinet flee at first opportunity and making lots of speeches claiming that everything is perfectly OK, what exactly HAS Bush done this year?
I'm not really sure who would be more deserving, though. Michael Moore, for helping fan the flames of hatred that have helped split the country further apart? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for taking slander to a whole new level? John Kerry, for proving that having a deep, realistic understanding of things makes you unelectable? Zell Miller, for showing that even most most psychotic and disturbed of individuals can still find productive employment as a news correspondent? Dick Cheney, for somehow not dying yet? Donald Rumsfeld, for showing that no matter how incompetent or how big of dick you are, there are still jobs where you'll be appreciated?
You know, it really has been a shitty year
Actually, regardless of which method its supposed to be, I have difficulty believing that Bush was a good pick. Bush really didn't do much of anything in 2004: he pretty much spent the year quite deliberately NOT doing anything and claiming that everything was perfectly fine. He really couldn't do anything because anything he'd do would be to reverse something he'd done before, thereby revealing that he made mistakes the first time around. Aside from having most of his cabinet flee at first opportunity and making lots of speeches claiming that everything is perfectly OK, what exactly HAS Bush done this year?
I'm not really sure who would be more deserving, though. Michael Moore, for helping fan the flames of hatred that have helped split the country further apart? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for taking slander to a whole new level? John Kerry, for proving that having a deep, realistic understanding of things makes you unelectable? Zell Miller, for showing that even most most psychotic and disturbed of individuals can still find productive employment as a news correspondent? Dick Cheney, for somehow not dying yet? Donald Rumsfeld, for showing that no matter how incompetent or how big of dick you are, there are still jobs where you'll be appreciated?
You know, it really has been a shitty year
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']Actually, regardless of which method its supposed to be, I have difficulty believing that Bush was a good pick. Bush really didn't do much of anything in 2004: [/quote]
Bush did manage to evenly divide the country like very few others have. Without Dubya we'd have no Iraqi War, Abu Ghraib, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, Farenheit 9/11, National Guard service questions, the hilarious debates, loyalty oaths to attend political speeches, mysterious bulges under suit jackets. And he won his first presidential election. All in all, a banner year for Dubya.
Bush did manage to evenly divide the country like very few others have. Without Dubya we'd have no Iraqi War, Abu Ghraib, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, Farenheit 9/11, National Guard service questions, the hilarious debates, loyalty oaths to attend political speeches, mysterious bulges under suit jackets. And he won his first presidential election. All in all, a banner year for Dubya.
Firebrand
CAGiversary!
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Firebrand']Person of the Year. Can you say farce?[/quote]
Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.[/quote]
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?
Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.[/quote]
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Firebrand'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Firebrand']Person of the Year. Can you say farce?[/quote]
Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.[/quote]
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?[/quote]
I know this is intended as a joke, but you have a point. Putting aside the horrors of those regimes (the first two in particular), they were undeniably great leaders, they just weren't exactly good. Bush is not a great leader, his ideas, beliefs and actions gain him supporters, but few are swayed by bush himself, his charisma, his speaches. It seems to be more of what he stands for, another person with a similar mindset and beliefs could do the same, that is not true for hitler, or the others (though to a lesser extent). Reagan and Clinton were leaders, Bush isn't.
Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.[/quote]
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?[/quote]
I know this is intended as a joke, but you have a point. Putting aside the horrors of those regimes (the first two in particular), they were undeniably great leaders, they just weren't exactly good. Bush is not a great leader, his ideas, beliefs and actions gain him supporters, but few are swayed by bush himself, his charisma, his speaches. It seems to be more of what he stands for, another person with a similar mindset and beliefs could do the same, that is not true for hitler, or the others (though to a lesser extent). Reagan and Clinton were leaders, Bush isn't.
[quote name='Elrod']The other two people in the running for "Person of the Year" were Michael Moore and Mel Gibson. Interesting.
I cant believe that the Red Sox didnt win. I mean... come on![/quote]
I'm not sure if Bush (even though I support him slightly) should have won just because I don't feel like he affected very much. 2001 would have maybe been a better year for him to get it but didn't Giuliani get it instead? I don't feel like the president making a difference should be person of the year worthy because that's kind of their job...
Michael Moore would have equally been a poor choice because in the end (the biggest evidence is the election) he didn't affect anything really. He just managed to get himself plastered all over the media for about 2 months when Farenheit 9/11 released. You didn't even hear much from him around the election.
Mel Gibson , I'm assuming would be for Passion of the Christ. I suppose he could be considered influential but only toward religion really. I mean its not like this is the first bible story movie that's been made...
The Red Sox would be fun because they finally did it. I'm not sure at all though really, who should have gotten it.
I cant believe that the Red Sox didnt win. I mean... come on![/quote]
I'm not sure if Bush (even though I support him slightly) should have won just because I don't feel like he affected very much. 2001 would have maybe been a better year for him to get it but didn't Giuliani get it instead? I don't feel like the president making a difference should be person of the year worthy because that's kind of their job...
Michael Moore would have equally been a poor choice because in the end (the biggest evidence is the election) he didn't affect anything really. He just managed to get himself plastered all over the media for about 2 months when Farenheit 9/11 released. You didn't even hear much from him around the election.
Mel Gibson , I'm assuming would be for Passion of the Christ. I suppose he could be considered influential but only toward religion really. I mean its not like this is the first bible story movie that's been made...
The Red Sox would be fun because they finally did it. I'm not sure at all though really, who should have gotten it.
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Firebrand'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Firebrand']Person of the Year. Can you say farce?[/quote]
Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.[/quote]
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?[/quote]
I know this is intended as a joke, but you have a point. Putting aside the horrors of those regimes (the first two in particular), they were undeniably great leaders, they just weren't exactly good. Bush is not a great leader, his ideas, beliefs and actions gain him supporters, but few are swayed by bush himself, his charisma, his speaches. It seems to be more of what he stands for, another person with a similar mindset and beliefs could do the same, that is not true for hitler, or the others (though to a lesser extent). Reagan and Clinton were leaders, Bush isn't.[/quote]
I'd agree, a truly great leader can get even those who oppose him to gain interest. Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself, but his propaganda manager, Goebles, was brilliant at getting people to follow. Although I suppose you could argue that before he had a propaganda manager he did a good job of getting people to become fanatic followers. Hmmm, I guess I'm just not sure.
Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.[/quote]
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?[/quote]
I know this is intended as a joke, but you have a point. Putting aside the horrors of those regimes (the first two in particular), they were undeniably great leaders, they just weren't exactly good. Bush is not a great leader, his ideas, beliefs and actions gain him supporters, but few are swayed by bush himself, his charisma, his speaches. It seems to be more of what he stands for, another person with a similar mindset and beliefs could do the same, that is not true for hitler, or the others (though to a lesser extent). Reagan and Clinton were leaders, Bush isn't.[/quote]
I'd agree, a truly great leader can get even those who oppose him to gain interest. Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself, but his propaganda manager, Goebles, was brilliant at getting people to follow. Although I suppose you could argue that before he had a propaganda manager he did a good job of getting people to become fanatic followers. Hmmm, I guess I'm just not sure.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RedvsBlue']...Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself..,[/quote]
I take it you've never seen footage of any of his speeches. Despite being in a language I don't know, the power of his public speaking comes through loud and clear. Watching him speak and seeing the crowds respond to what he says, there can be no doubt that Hitler was at the very least one of the best public speakers of the 20th century. He was, alone and by himself, extremely charismatic and very capable of inspiring fanatical devotion in other people. His ideas were generally crap, but usually had little difficulty talking people who knew better into doing things his way.
I take it you've never seen footage of any of his speeches. Despite being in a language I don't know, the power of his public speaking comes through loud and clear. Watching him speak and seeing the crowds respond to what he says, there can be no doubt that Hitler was at the very least one of the best public speakers of the 20th century. He was, alone and by himself, extremely charismatic and very capable of inspiring fanatical devotion in other people. His ideas were generally crap, but usually had little difficulty talking people who knew better into doing things his way.
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='RedvsBlue']...Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself..,[/quote]
I take it you've never seen footage of any of his speeches. Despite being in a language I don't know, the power of his public speaking comes through loud and clear. Watching him speak and seeing the crowds respond to what he says, there can be no doubt that Hitler was at the very least one of the best public speakers of the 20th century. He was, alone and by himself, extremely charismatic and very capable of inspiring fanatical devotion in other people. His ideas were generally crap, but usually had little difficulty talking people who knew better into doing things his way.[/quote]
Actually, had you read my entire post, you would see that after I said that I kind of went back on it and ultimately decided that I am on the fence with regard to the issue.
I take it you've never seen footage of any of his speeches. Despite being in a language I don't know, the power of his public speaking comes through loud and clear. Watching him speak and seeing the crowds respond to what he says, there can be no doubt that Hitler was at the very least one of the best public speakers of the 20th century. He was, alone and by himself, extremely charismatic and very capable of inspiring fanatical devotion in other people. His ideas were generally crap, but usually had little difficulty talking people who knew better into doing things his way.[/quote]
Actually, had you read my entire post, you would see that after I said that I kind of went back on it and ultimately decided that I am on the fence with regard to the issue.
[quote name='Drocket']I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...[/quote]
Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).
Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Drocket']I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...[/quote]
Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).[/quote]
Like when Cartman watches Hitler and dresses up like him for Haloween, without knowing what Hitler's saying or what he stands for. That's just hilarious.
Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).[/quote]
Like when Cartman watches Hitler and dresses up like him for Haloween, without knowing what Hitler's saying or what he stands for. That's just hilarious.
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Drocket']I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...[/quote]
Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).[/quote]
Yeah but you can't discount the fact that he had an amazing PR machine in Goebles. I think that, moreso than him being an amzing speaker, was what elevated him from popular to almost god-like status to the german people of WWII.
Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).[/quote]
Yeah but you can't discount the fact that he had an amazing PR machine in Goebles. I think that, moreso than him being an amzing speaker, was what elevated him from popular to almost god-like status to the german people of WWII.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yeah but you can't discount the fact that he had an amazing PR machine in Goebles..[/quote]
I agree, you can't underestimate Goebles, either, but Goebles did the 'indirect' propoganda. Hitler was the master of public speeches and up-close-and-personal discussions, but it was impossible to make that sort of connection with everyone in a country as large as Germany is/was (at least without modern communication systems.) So Goebles handled the 'indirect' propoganda - pamplets, booklets, and the like - but you can't underestimate Hitler in a face-to-face setting.
I agree, you can't underestimate Goebles, either, but Goebles did the 'indirect' propoganda. Hitler was the master of public speeches and up-close-and-personal discussions, but it was impossible to make that sort of connection with everyone in a country as large as Germany is/was (at least without modern communication systems.) So Goebles handled the 'indirect' propoganda - pamplets, booklets, and the like - but you can't underestimate Hitler in a face-to-face setting.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
It goes by who changed the world the most.
It was a toss up between Osama bin Ladin and George W. Bush, but Time is obviously afraid to name bin Ladin as person of the year because people would think they supported him.
It was a toss up between Osama bin Ladin and George W. Bush, but Time is obviously afraid to name bin Ladin as person of the year because people would think they supported him.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quackzilla']It goes by who changed the world the most.
It was a toss up between Osama bin Ladin and George W. Bush, but Time is obviously afraid to name bin Ladin as person of the year because people would think they supported him.[/quote]
Plus he didn't do shit this year. What are they going to highlight? His awesome ability to cower in various caves and release scary tapes every once in a while?
It was a toss up between Osama bin Ladin and George W. Bush, but Time is obviously afraid to name bin Ladin as person of the year because people would think they supported him.[/quote]
Plus he didn't do shit this year. What are they going to highlight? His awesome ability to cower in various caves and release scary tapes every once in a while?
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
He released a tape saying he was afraid of Bush.
He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.
He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quackzilla']He released a tape saying he was afraid of Bush.
He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.[/quote]
That was misinterpreted, though. He meant he was afraid of the bush, as in the bush at the mouth of his cave. He was afraid his enemies could hide behind it and ambush him when he went for his morning paper.
He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.[/quote]
That was misinterpreted, though. He meant he was afraid of the bush, as in the bush at the mouth of his cave. He was afraid his enemies could hide behind it and ambush him when he went for his morning paper.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
So is that why he burned it?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
David85
Banned
[quote name='Quackzilla']He released a tape saying he was afraid of Bush.
He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.[/quote]
No he didn't he had nothing to do with it.
Bush won because the majority of this country are fools, Ohio even more, and voted for the person that is in love with "God".
He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.[/quote]
No he didn't he had nothing to do with it.
Bush won because the majority of this country are fools, Ohio even more, and voted for the person that is in love with "God".
Good to see that you can respect people with an opinion different from yours.
The title is, in ignorance, sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an honor. There was a massive public backlash in the United States after TIME named Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979. Since then, TIME has often shied away from choosing overly controversial candidates. TIME's Person of the Year 2001 — in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks — was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was a somewhat controversial result; many thought that Giuliani was deserving, but also many thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden. They cited previous choices such as Adolf Hitler demonstrating that Man of the Year did not necessarily mean "Best Human Being of the Year".
According to stories in respected newspapers, TIME's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers). Adding a wrinkle to the equation was the fact that bin Laden had already appeared on its covers on October 1, November 12, and November 26. Many readers expressed dissatisfaction at the idea of seeing his face on the cover again. In the end, Giuliani's selection led some to criticize that TIME had chickened out.
In recent years the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too America-centric, which is a depature from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. The last non-American Person of the Year was Pope John Paul II, in 1994.
Source: wikipedia.com
According to stories in respected newspapers, TIME's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers). Adding a wrinkle to the equation was the fact that bin Laden had already appeared on its covers on October 1, November 12, and November 26. Many readers expressed dissatisfaction at the idea of seeing his face on the cover again. In the end, Giuliani's selection led some to criticize that TIME had chickened out.
In recent years the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too America-centric, which is a depature from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. The last non-American Person of the Year was Pope John Paul II, in 1994.
Source: wikipedia.com
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
I really don't see the big point of this anyhow, people don't pay attention to Time magazine the other 11 months a year, but suddently the man of the year issue comes out and everyone goes nuts.
[quote name='David85']Considering it is a fact and not an opinion.
If Quack said the Earth was flat, or that the moon was made out of cheese, that wouldn't surprise me, but more so it wouldn't me an opinion, it would be wrong.[/quote]
I was referring to political opinions. Its interesting that you dislike the republican party because they are devoted to god but what about the republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?
If Quack said the Earth was flat, or that the moon was made out of cheese, that wouldn't surprise me, but more so it wouldn't me an opinion, it would be wrong.[/quote]
I was referring to political opinions. Its interesting that you dislike the republican party because they are devoted to god but what about the republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?[/quote]
I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?
I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Yes. . . and you've just met another. I love capitalism, hate welfare, both social and corporate, love market driven economy, hate income redistribution, love tech innovation (which only really exists in economically competitive environments), don't believe in god - never have, never will.
There are many of us 25-35 year old so called "South Park" Republicans, and I think it was us that largely won W his re-election.
South Park Republicans
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='RedvsBlue']republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?[/quote]
I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote]
There are many of us 25-35 year old so called "South Park" Republicans, and I think it was us that largely won W his re-election.
South Park Republicans
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='RedvsBlue']republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?[/quote]
I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote]
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
BTW,
You should probably get out more.
[quote name='zionoverfire']I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote]
You should probably get out more.
[quote name='zionoverfire']I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote]
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='The_Continental']Yes. . . and you've just met another. I love capitalism, hate welfare, both social and corporate, love market driven economy, hate income redistribution, love tech innovation (which only really exists in economically competitive environments), don't believe in god - never have, never will.
There are many of us 25-35 year old so called "South Park" Republicans, and I think it was us that largely won W his re-election.
South Park Republicans
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='RedvsBlue']republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?[/quote]
I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote][/quote]
I see, but his stance would seem to be opposite of yours on several key issues: The new perscription drug bill, the ban on stem cell research and the monetary cost of the war in Iraq. If so has he done enough things that are advantagious to you to make up for this?
There are many of us 25-35 year old so called "South Park" Republicans, and I think it was us that largely won W his re-election.
South Park Republicans
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='RedvsBlue']republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?[/quote]
I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote][/quote]
I see, but his stance would seem to be opposite of yours on several key issues: The new perscription drug bill, the ban on stem cell research and the monetary cost of the war in Iraq. If so has he done enough things that are advantagious to you to make up for this?
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='The_Continental']BTW,
You should probably get out more.
[quote name='zionoverfire']I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote][/quote]
I've met people with a similar train of thought but what their religious beliefs are I don't know. Its a location thing, I've gone to college at liberal universities in the middle of largely republicain counties it leads to an odd polarization. The democrats and the more liberal chrisitans tend to clump while at the same time the more fundamental chrisitans and republicans group together. So while I've met people with a similar line of reasoning, letting people know their religous beliefs or lack thereof would make them much more of an outcast then they want to be.
You should probably get out more.
[quote name='zionoverfire']I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?[/quote][/quote]
I've met people with a similar train of thought but what their religious beliefs are I don't know. Its a location thing, I've gone to college at liberal universities in the middle of largely republicain counties it leads to an odd polarization. The democrats and the more liberal chrisitans tend to clump while at the same time the more fundamental chrisitans and republicans group together. So while I've met people with a similar line of reasoning, letting people know their religous beliefs or lack thereof would make them much more of an outcast then they want to be.
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
What you're saying here is pretty much true. This is not a very "traditionally conservative" administration as far as Republican spending goes. A debatable issue that I don't have time to get into at the moment - it'll start a war debate that I'm not interested in right now.
I do have to agree with W on the prescription drug plan, even though I'm about 60 years away from it affecting me. It goes hand in hand with the future of privatizing social security - which would be f uckin' awesome. When it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets. Imagine, I'll be able to control my own money (for once)!
Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.
you said: "continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic" . . .
probably, probably ... I don't vote for "probably"... and your last point, about the next republican leader being better than W. You have no argument from me, the Republican party is changing for the better. Soon, you'll have republican leaders that FINALLY want to abolish health insurance (yipee!), get rid of welfare, and finally think seriously about the fair tax act - but still think it's okay for two dudes to get married.
Fair Tax Act
[quote name='zionoverfire']
I see, it just seems like by re-electing him you guys are getting shafted, he's increased welfare like spending with the new perscription drug plan, spending has also gone up due to the deparment of homeland security and the war and tried to spread the word of God to everything he possibly could. While in return you got a tax cut and a repeal of the estate tax that may or may not affect you in any noticable way, plus a continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic administration minus some tax loopholes.
It just seems to me that if Bush had lost the next republican candidate would have been more tailored to your interests.[/quote]
I do have to agree with W on the prescription drug plan, even though I'm about 60 years away from it affecting me. It goes hand in hand with the future of privatizing social security - which would be f uckin' awesome. When it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets. Imagine, I'll be able to control my own money (for once)!
Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.
you said: "continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic" . . .
probably, probably ... I don't vote for "probably"... and your last point, about the next republican leader being better than W. You have no argument from me, the Republican party is changing for the better. Soon, you'll have republican leaders that FINALLY want to abolish health insurance (yipee!), get rid of welfare, and finally think seriously about the fair tax act - but still think it's okay for two dudes to get married.
Fair Tax Act
[quote name='zionoverfire']
I see, it just seems like by re-electing him you guys are getting shafted, he's increased welfare like spending with the new perscription drug plan, spending has also gone up due to the deparment of homeland security and the war and tried to spread the word of God to everything he possibly could. While in return you got a tax cut and a repeal of the estate tax that may or may not affect you in any noticable way, plus a continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic administration minus some tax loopholes.
It just seems to me that if Bush had lost the next republican candidate would have been more tailored to your interests.[/quote]
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='The_Continental']What you're saying here is pretty much true. This is not a very "traditionally conservative" administration as far as Republican spending goes. A debatable issue that I don't have time to get into at the moment - it'll start a war debate that I'm not interested in right now.
I do have to agree with W on the prescription drug plan, even though I'm about 60 years away from it affecting me. It goes hand in hand with the future of privatizing social security - which would be f uckin' awesome. When it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets. Imagine, I'll be able to control my own money (for once)!
Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.
you said: "continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic" . . .
probably, probably ... I don't vote for "probably"... and your last point, about the next republican leader being better than W. You have no argument from me, the Republican party is changing for the better. Soon, you'll have republican leaders that FINALLY want to abolish health insurance (yipee!), get rid of welfare, and finally think seriously about the fair tax act - but still think it's okay for two dudes to get married.
Fair Tax Act
[quote name='zionoverfire']
I see, it just seems like by re-electing him you guys are getting shafted, he's increased welfare like spending with the new perscription drug plan, spending has also gone up due to the deparment of homeland security and the war and tried to spread the word of God to everything he possibly could. While in return you got a tax cut and a repeal of the estate tax that may or may not affect you in any noticable way, plus a continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic administration minus some tax loopholes.
It just seems to me that if Bush had lost the next republican candidate would have been more tailored to your interests.[/quote][/quote]
And here I went back and editied my comment. :lol:
Well his drug plan seemed in contrast to your concept of ending goverment handouts while at the same time it does nothing to decrease drug costs but rather shifts the burden of who pays for it. My point of his spreading the word of god goes to the fact that I can't watch his speaches anymore because of it, not actual tax money spent, although Ashcroft has spent quite a bit of his time on issues that perhaps should have been left alone.
I would like to see this new better republican leader, I've always thought the Bush administration was a step backward for the republican party but if there is a new wave comming behind him I would most like to see it arrive. I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.
I do have to agree with W on the prescription drug plan, even though I'm about 60 years away from it affecting me. It goes hand in hand with the future of privatizing social security - which would be f uckin' awesome. When it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets. Imagine, I'll be able to control my own money (for once)!
Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.
you said: "continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic" . . .
probably, probably ... I don't vote for "probably"... and your last point, about the next republican leader being better than W. You have no argument from me, the Republican party is changing for the better. Soon, you'll have republican leaders that FINALLY want to abolish health insurance (yipee!), get rid of welfare, and finally think seriously about the fair tax act - but still think it's okay for two dudes to get married.
Fair Tax Act
[quote name='zionoverfire']
I see, it just seems like by re-electing him you guys are getting shafted, he's increased welfare like spending with the new perscription drug plan, spending has also gone up due to the deparment of homeland security and the war and tried to spread the word of God to everything he possibly could. While in return you got a tax cut and a repeal of the estate tax that may or may not affect you in any noticable way, plus a continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic administration minus some tax loopholes.
It just seems to me that if Bush had lost the next republican candidate would have been more tailored to your interests.[/quote][/quote]
And here I went back and editied my comment. :lol:
Well his drug plan seemed in contrast to your concept of ending goverment handouts while at the same time it does nothing to decrease drug costs but rather shifts the burden of who pays for it. My point of his spreading the word of god goes to the fact that I can't watch his speaches anymore because of it, not actual tax money spent, although Ashcroft has spent quite a bit of his time on issues that perhaps should have been left alone.
I would like to see this new better republican leader, I've always thought the Bush administration was a step backward for the republican party but if there is a new wave comming behind him I would most like to see it arrive. I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='The_Continental']Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.[/quote]
Is this good enough for you:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1105/p01s01-uspo.html
And that's from a sympathetic source.
I should also mention his crusade of the light brigade in the mid-east. (Crusade being Bush's word, not mine)
Is this good enough for you:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1105/p01s01-uspo.html
And that's from a sympathetic source.
I should also mention his crusade of the light brigade in the mid-east. (Crusade being Bush's word, not mine)
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
It would be, were it not for the "outside of prison, that is" clause I put in my original request.
And also, the paragraph starts out with a look for a.... That is to say, in the future...
Believe me, I do my best to track where my tax money goes . . . and as yet, I haven't seen that W has actually spent my money on god outside of prison.
Your article claims that he intends to do so. I'll let W's actions speak for him, and not the author of your article.
Thanks.
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.[/quote]
Is this good enough for you:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1105/p01s01-uspo.html
And that's from a sympathetic source.
I should also mention his crusade of the light brigade in the mid-east. (Crusade being Bush's word, not mine)[/quote]
And also, the paragraph starts out with a look for a.... That is to say, in the future...
Believe me, I do my best to track where my tax money goes . . . and as yet, I haven't seen that W has actually spent my money on god outside of prison.
Your article claims that he intends to do so. I'll let W's actions speak for him, and not the author of your article.
Thanks.
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.[/quote]
Is this good enough for you:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1105/p01s01-uspo.html
And that's from a sympathetic source.
I should also mention his crusade of the light brigade in the mid-east. (Crusade being Bush's word, not mine)[/quote]
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Why?
Oh, btw, it's not "my" plan - someone else came up with it - although I wouldn't mind taking the credit.
[quote name='zionoverfire'] I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.[/quote]
Oh, btw, it's not "my" plan - someone else came up with it - although I wouldn't mind taking the credit.
[quote name='zionoverfire'] I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.[/quote]
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Continental, what part of this sentence don't you understand
Return, as in it's already been done, and it's just being expanded.
It wasn't just prisons either, much of Bush's Christian policy wish-list is already implemented and funded, such as abstinence-only sex education and the legislative push to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution (you really think that tacking fundamentalist christian morality on our most sacred document is going to pay for itself?)
So Continental, your thanks for pointing out that you voted for Bush, Gonzales, Mike Powell and the rest of the JC fan club is accepted in full. :lol:
Return, as in it's already been done, and it's just being expanded.
It wasn't just prisons either, much of Bush's Christian policy wish-list is already implemented and funded, such as abstinence-only sex education and the legislative push to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution (you really think that tacking fundamentalist christian morality on our most sacred document is going to pay for itself?)
So Continental, your thanks for pointing out that you voted for Bush, Gonzales, Mike Powell and the rest of the JC fan club is accepted in full. :lol:
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='The_Continental']Why?
Oh, btw, it's not "my" plan - someone else came up with it - although I wouldn't mind taking the credit.
[quote name='zionoverfire'] I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.[/quote][/quote]
Its a collective you being the you who support this plan, bills are rarely written by just the congressmen whose names are attached.
I don't like your tax plan because it would increase the taxes I pay. I'm sure I could spend some time and come up with a compeling argument on why rich people should pay more taxes because of their greater need for the government due to their higher level of investment in the country but its 2:30.
Oh, btw, it's not "my" plan - someone else came up with it - although I wouldn't mind taking the credit.
[quote name='zionoverfire'] I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.[/quote][/quote]
Its a collective you being the you who support this plan, bills are rarely written by just the congressmen whose names are attached.
I don't like your tax plan because it would increase the taxes I pay. I'm sure I could spend some time and come up with a compeling argument on why rich people should pay more taxes because of their greater need for the government due to their higher level of investment in the country but its 2:30.
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Fair enough - the debate as to whether or not the rich should pay a higher percentage is not worth getting into. Suffice it to say that I believe taxes should be flat, you believe they shouldn't be. No big deal.
As a matter of fact, I used to feel the same way about the Fair Tax Act that you do. I remember when it was introduced several years back, I thought it sounded ludicrous. Last year I found out that the Libertarian party espoused the act, so I gave it another look. This is the piece that convinced me:
[quote name='zionoverfire']
I don't like your tax plan because it would increase the taxes I pay. I'm sure I could spend some time and come up with a compeling argument on why rich people should pay more taxes because of their greater need for the government due to their higher level of investment in the country but its 2:30.[/quote]
As a matter of fact, I used to feel the same way about the Fair Tax Act that you do. I remember when it was introduced several years back, I thought it sounded ludicrous. Last year I found out that the Libertarian party espoused the act, so I gave it another look. This is the piece that convinced me:
[quote name='zionoverfire']
I don't like your tax plan because it would increase the taxes I pay. I'm sure I could spend some time and come up with a compeling argument on why rich people should pay more taxes because of their greater need for the government due to their higher level of investment in the country but its 2:30.[/quote]
bread's done