How could anyone vote for George W. Bush?

[quote name='Missingdata']You sound like my gov. teacher...

Gov teacher, "IF you don't vote, you don't have a voice"[/quote]

if a person doesn't want bush in office, that person better vote, otherwise they have absolutely no right to whine about it if he wins.
 
[quote name='BigNick']Trust me Casey, bringing gambling in isn't all its cracked up to be. Just look at CT.[/quote]

well considering states like GA use funds from their lottery to pay for students who have above a B average to go to college I have no major problems with gambling.

but I can see how people do, but it is just money that floods into LA that TX loses out on
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']
His policy about no child left behind is a joke. In order to improve test scores, only children that have normal and above intelligence are tested (its amazing that about 5 out of 25 were usually pulled from my classes and not required to take the test)
[/quote]

Casey,

I've spent days researching this very issue, and can find no evidence that Bush, or the right wing is resposible for who does, and doesn't show up for tests. Unless secret service guys are waiting outside the classroom, I'm not sure how they could keep these kids out.

If you are aware of any resources, please post.
 
He ruined Texas's economy through a series of tax cuts. He cut taxes by several hundred million dollars. To make up for the loss in education funds cities had to raise taxes dramatically in order to continue to fund their schools at an acceptable level.
Click to expand...

how exactly did the tax cuts ruin the economy? More tax cuts, more money in the peoples pockets, which leads to more spending. Also if the cities ended up raising taxes, after have the tax cuts, wouldnt the tax cuts and the raised taxes pretty much so cancel each other out and make it the same as it would have been if nothing had changed in the taxes? I'm not seeing how this "ruined Texas's economy"

He also did not bring gambling to Texas.
Click to expand...

...one of your reasons.. honestly?.... that you arent voting for him.. is because he didnt bring gambling to Texas...? ....you're not even from TX
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='BigNick']Trust me Casey, bringing gambling in isn't all its cracked up to be. Just look at CT.[/quote]

well considering states like GA use funds from their lottery to pay for students who have above a B average to go to college I have no major problems with gambling.

but I can see how people do, but it is just money that floods into LA that TX loses out on[/quote]

Thats good that GA does that. I know that CT gets over 100 mil, and no one seems to know where it went! It could be good to TX if laws were in place that quarenteed where the money went. Hell CA has so many casinos and look at them!
 
[quote name='BigNick']Preach on ave1. I am with you %100. All these anti bush people are just like Kerry. They change their opinion on everything! Look at Clinton, where was he during Vietnam. Canada! Now you all criticise Bush for his National Guard servive! Atleast Bush says what he is going to do, unlike Kerry who just tells you what you want to hear. We should start an abortion thread. That should be illegal as well. Except for rape and incest cases. If you are not willing to have a child, dont have sex.[/quote]

I always knew Big Nick was a cool guy.

Bush gets my vote this year as well.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']

well considering states like GA use funds from their lottery to pay for students who have above a B average to go to college I have no major problems with gambling.[/quote]

Hold on a second, you think you deserve to have the government pay for your college education!? with a freakin' B average!?

College is a service dude, it's something you have to pay for. If you have the chops to earn an academic scholarship, you get my respect. But if you expect me to spend my tax dollars for you to go to College, you've got another thing comin'.
 
Some evidence of GW's daddy and the Reagan admin giving are favorite Iraqi dictator some presents

"According to a Senate Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not
earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological
materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers
pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department
of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow
and agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs,
brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major
organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria
causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human
and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped
to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out:
"These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and
were capable of reproduction."
"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these
microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to
those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the
Iraqi biological warfare program."
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite
the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical
warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds,
and Shiites since the early 80s.
During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave
military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping
that each would inflict severe damage on the other. (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/usvsiraq.htm)

here's another lil didy "He gives a first-hand description of official and unofficial American involvement in the enormous buildup of arms to Saddam Hussein. Much of this buildup occurred after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. He gives chilling accounts of the cozy relationship among high past and present U.S. Government officials who permitted, and in some cases, actually assisted his sales of many of the lethal weapons Saddam Hussein is now using to bring death to American military personnel and civilians throughout the Middle East region" (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html"
 
When you make tax cuts when a state is hurting it loses more funding. You know how tax cuts dont hurt the poor and middle class, if the rich are taxed. But are genius pres gives tax cuts that by percentage gives the rich more money. Thats why tax cuts are a bad thing. Tax the heck out of the rich, they can afford it, the trickle down system does not work.
 
quiz.gif


Another repost? ...yeah, it's that good!
 
[quote name='punqsux']i think he has to realize that the world is more important than the u.s. and that going against the un was a major mistake, maybe it wasnt being proactive enough, but then y not just withdraw from the UN since he clearly dosent respect them??

humans before americans[/quote]

There is a reason America is the greatest nation on Earth. Because we are BETTER than other nations. We have a lot of natural resources, yes, but what makes this a better place to live is that we do not think like other nations. According to you, perhaps we should have been more "respectful" of the Soviet empire and given their Communism thing a go?

The beauty of morality is that it isn't determined by what others say. Right is right whether everyone agrees with you or not.

Also, please, educate yourself on "the rest of the world" before you make statements about our relations with them. "The rest of the world" includes more than just Germany and France.
 
Some evidence of GW's daddy and the Reagan admin giving are favorite Iraqi dictator some presents

"According to a Senate Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not
earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological
materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers
pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department
of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow
and agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs,
brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major
organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria
causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human
and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped
to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out:
"These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and
were capable of reproduction."
"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these
microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to
those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the
Iraqi biological warfare program."
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite
the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical
warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds,
and Shiites since the early 80s.
During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave
military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping
that each would inflict severe damage on the other. (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/usvsiraq.htm)

here's another lil didy "He gives a first-hand description of official and unofficial American involvement in the enormous buildup of arms to Saddam Hussein. Much of this buildup occurred after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. He gives chilling accounts of the cozy relationship among high past and present U.S. Government officials who permitted, and in some cases, actually assisted his sales of many of the lethal weapons Saddam Hussein is now using to bring death to American military personnel and civilians throughout the Middle East
Click to expand...

so after reading this, you came up with the conclusion that the Republicans and Bush's dad sent these things to Saddam?
 
I used to be a conservative. Hardcore. I used to vote in every major and minor election since I was 18. I voted for Bush in '00, however, I will not be voting for him in '04.

Tax cuts my ass. I sure haven't see it. I may pay a smaller portion to federal, but that just means the burden has shifted to the states, counties, and cities. School taxes up. Property taxes up. Sales tax up. State tax up. Utilities up. Up up up.

I have decent technical job. In January my management told me my department was being offshored to Brazil. And other friends in other departments heard the same. High paying technical jobs are leaving this country, and Bush doesn't give a damn. In fact, companies get tax credits for dealing with under-developed nations. All the more incentive for the corporate big-wigs to ax the US worker, watch the stock go up a couple bucks, and cash in on those incentives.

Will Kerry be any better? No. He's so ass-backwards upside-down wishy-washy on every issue. Kerry's just trying to tell everyone what they want to hear to get their vote.

They're all crooks. I prefer not to vote for the lesser of two evils. Until a candidate can earn my vote, and give me a reason to get back to the polls, I'm exercising my right to sit on my ass on November 2.
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='CaseyRyback']

well considering states like GA use funds from their lottery to pay for students who have above a B average to go to college I have no major problems with gambling.[/quote]

Hold on a second, you think you deserve to have the government pay for your college education!? with a freakin' B average!?

College is a service dude, it's something you have to pay for. If you have the chops to earn an academic scholarship, you get my respect. But if you expect me to spend my tax dollars for you to go to College, you've got another thing comin'.[/quote]

Lotteries are usually used for education. Using state funds from the lottery to pay for the education of citizens is something that should be done. It provides incentive for people who could not afford to go to school, and makes those in public education take things more seriously
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Ikohn4ever,

You posted a story by freakin' William Blum. Are you serious?!

This is the guy that deserted the CIA in '69, and then promptly published the names and addresses of 200 CIA employees.

http://www.zmag.org/ForeignPol/aboutblum.htm

Good idea, by the way, overtax hard working, productive people, and let part-time slackers like yourself off scott-free.[/quote]

Hey The_Continental, thats not what I am saying. First off just cause to dont make big bucks, does not mean you are a slacker. What always happens is even though the rich pay more in taxes they pay at a much less percentage of their total income then poor. The poor dont pay much but their meager money is better kept for themselves. Let the rich suffer for once
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']
Using state funds from the lottery to pay for the education of citizens is something that should be done. It provides incentive for people who could not afford to go to school, and makes those in public education take things more seriously[/quote]

As I said, if you have the chops to get an academic scholarship, you have my respect. But if you've been cruising through High School with B's hoping for someone else to pay for you college education, the only thing I can say to you is, "I'd like a biggie sized number 2, with no onions and a Sprite."
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Why I choose to vote aganist Bush:

He ruined Texas's economy through a series of tax cuts. He cut taxes by several hundred million dollars. To make up for the loss in education funds cities had to raise taxes dramatically in order to continue to fund their schools at an acceptable level.

He also did not bring gambling to Texas. Not that I am for it, but the amount of money that goes to Schreveport is astronomical (Ann Richards was going to introduce gambling if I remember correctly)

His policy about no child left behind is a joke. In order to improve test scores, only children that have normal and above intelligence are tested (its amazing that about 5 out of 25 were usually pulled from my classes and not required to take the test)

personally I do not like Kerry either, and will probably not vote for him unless Edwards is his VP[/quote]

This statement is moronic. I was born and raised in Texas. This is the problem with "left-thinking" people. They make statements with no proof and make no effort to check the facts.

Point 1: Texas has a beautiful economy, and illegal immigration causes a LARGE part of the problems that do exist. Until you have visited a hospital in South Texas filled with illegal immigrants who are giving birth or getting emergency care - at TAXPAYER EXPENSE - then taking their illegal incomes back to Mexico with them, you have no idea what you are talking about. I grew up in Texas, and our economy is incredibly strong.

Point 2: HAVE YOU BEEN TO SHREVEPORT? Thank God Bush kept gambling out of Texas. You people with your bleeding hearts feel so bad for the poor who can't seem to make it on their own, and then you complain about the lack of an institution that deepens their problem? You should research the effects of a casino on a community (the WHOLE community)

Point 3: The education policy I do not know about. Do you like that? There is an issue out there that I don't know about so I freely admit that and don't just mindlessly throw out accusations/defensive statements that I heard on DNN (Democratic News Network)...Oh, sorry, I meant CNN.
 
I admit that I did vote for Bush back in 2000, but I also admit that he was not my first choice. I would have rather much McCain as president. I believe he could have handled the job very well, and I can't really see as to why he didn't make it past the primaries. This time, Republicans don't really have a choice besides electing Bush again. It would be nice to have options.

On a side note, I wish people would get off Bush a bit claiming he's done everything wrong as president. If you want to blame him for our social problems, blame the senate and congress as well, because they are responsible for letting his policies go through. He does come up with policies, but I believe many can't be approved until they go through senate for voting.

I know I'm going to get my ass chewed out for that statement, but that's what I think. It's more than the president who makes the decisions in this country, yet it's the easiest person to blame.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
What always happens is even though the rich pay more in taxes they pay at a much less percentage of their total income then poor. The poor dont pay much but their meager money is better kept for themselves. Let the rich suffer for once[/quote]

Obviously you do not understand the Federal income tax system within the United States of America. As your annual income increases, so does the percentage of your income that gets taxed.

This time last year, I lost 18 percent of each bi-weekly paycheck. Since then, I've gotten a significant raise, but now I lose 25 percent of my paycheck. Yes, I get more money, but I lose more money too. I feel as though I must post the following... read it if you wish:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for dinner. The bill for all 10 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.

The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"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 10 only cost $80. 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 each 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, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

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 $1 out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man and exclaimed, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved $1, too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 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 10th and beat him up.

The next night the 10th man 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 something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='CaseyRyback']
Using state funds from the lottery to pay for the education of citizens is something that should be done. It provides incentive for people who could not afford to go to school, and makes those in public education take things more seriously[/quote]

As I said, if you have the chops to get an academic scholarship, you have my respect. But if you've been cruising through High School with B's hoping for someone else to pay for you college education, the only thing I can say to you is, "I'd like a biggie sized number 2, with no onions and a Sprite."[/quote]

considering the fact that most people can not get acedemic scolarships, means that some would not be able to go to school. Just because someone is born into poverty does not mean they should not get an opportunity to succeed in life due to the situtation they were born in.

It also proabably makes schools have a much fairer acceptance policy. anyone who has applied to college knows that race plays a large factor in getting accepted.

Also I do not see how people just coast with B's. I know that most classes I got a B in I did not coast in.
 
chosen1s let me guess who you watch Fox News aka I hate democrats aka The home of the spin zone. I bet you like O'Reilly too. You cold hearted right-wingers are so typical. Ohh yeah didnt dubbya just allow all sorts of illegals to stay here to work. Maybe they are building his rocketship to Mars and beyond
 
[quote name='"CaseyRyback"'][quote name='The_Continental']
Lotteries are usually used for education. Using state funds from the lottery to pay for the education of citizens is something that should be done. It provides incentive for people who could not afford to go to school, and makes those in public education take things more seriously[/quote]

No, lotteries are sold to the public as "for education". Generally, the money mysteriously disappears when it hits the government's hands. There have been a number of studies done and in most states, the money goes to education through the following argument - "Gee, we were going to have to pull funding from schools to pay for this social plan we just started. Thanks to the lottery/casino money, we can give the "gambling money" to the schools to make up for the money we take from them.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']

considering the fact that most people can not get acedemic scolarships, means that some would not be able to go to school. Just because someone is born into poverty does not mean they should not get an opportunity to succeed in life due to the situtation they were born in.

It also proabably makes schools have a much fairer acceptance policy. anyone who has applied to college knows that race plays a large factor in getting accepted.
[/quote]

I only have one response to this. The earlier you learn that the world is not a fair place, the better off you'll be. The longer you live with the flowery notion that the government exists to create "fairness for and between all individuals," the longer your life will remain stagnant and resentful.

Did you happen to get a B in English?
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='CaseyRyback']

considering the fact that most people can not get acedemic scolarships, means that some would not be able to go to school. Just because someone is born into poverty does not mean they should not get an opportunity to succeed in life due to the situtation they were born in.

It also proabably makes schools have a much fairer acceptance policy. anyone who has applied to college knows that race plays a large factor in getting accepted.
[/quote]

I only have one response to this. The earlier you learn that the world is not a fair place, the better off you'll be. The longer you live with the flowery notion that the Government exists to create "fairness for and between all individuals," the longer your life will remain stagnant and resentful.

Did you happen to get a B in English?[/quote]

no, I am in the midst of writing a paper and have been prepping for finals for the past two weeks so my typing is proabbly not what it should be

and yes I know that money for the lottery goes into a general collection fund similar to that of social security. It still is a viable revunue stream that allows people to benefit from another service the government offers.

most state schools are already heavily financed so its really only about 3200 per student you are making up for (approx. 16 percent of my education I have to pay for I believe)
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']
What always happens is even though the rich pay more in taxes they pay at a much less percentage of their total income then poor. The poor dont pay much but their meager money is better kept for themselves. Let the rich suffer for once[/quote]

Obviously you do not understand the Federal income tax system within the United States of America. As your annual income increases, so does the percentage of your income that gets taxed.

This time last year, I lost 18 percent of each bi-weekly paycheck. Since then, I've gotten a significant raise, but now I lose 25 percent of my paycheck. Yes, I get more money, but I lose more money too. I feel as though I must post the following... read it if you wish:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for dinner. The bill for all 10 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.

The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"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 10 only cost $80. 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 each 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, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

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 $1 out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man and exclaimed, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved $1, too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 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 10th and beat him up.

The next night the 10th man 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 something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.[/quote]

This is the best explanation I have ever seen. Good job on posting it.
 
Thanks BigNick,

I love that explanation. Lefites hate it. It breaks down the system in such an irrefutable manner that no one can really argue with it.
 
What's with this "Kerry flip-flops" BS? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps changing your mind because of life experiences you've had or because circumstances in the world have changed might be a *very good* thing? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps "sticking to your guns no matter what" is just another way of saying that you never admit when you're wrong?
 
CaseyRyback, i wouldnt depend on the lottery to pay for my college tuition... if you are serious about going to college and making something of yourself, but cant afford it, you should look into student loans programs, but the last thing i would do is depend on the lottery.
 
icruise, by Kerry "flip-flopping" we mean that he says one thing and does another. He's a hyprocrit. He votes for one bill, then says he's against it. lol does scrubking need to repost that pic again? lol
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']chosen1s let me guess who you watch Fox News aka I hate democrats aka The home of the spin zone. I bet you like O'Reilly too. You cold hearted right-wingers are so typical. Ohh yeah didnt dubbya just allow all sorts of illegals to stay here to work. Maybe they are building his rocketship to Mars and beyond[/quote]

I don't necessarily like his policy with illegal immigrants, but at least he's acknowledging the problem. I can't really tell from your statement what you're trying to say.

Yes, I watch Fox News, and CNN, and occasionally network news. Yes, Fox leans against Democrats' viewpoints, but I think that is for 2 reasons:
1) A lot of "left" ideas are based on emotion. When you look at them critically and apply logic they just don't stand up. In my mind, I suppose you would say that I "justify" Fox by saying that I think they are more intillectual critical than other news shows (Bill O'Reilly is indeed a favorite because he is brutally rational in his approach. I don't agree with everything he says, but geez - at least he can tell you WHY he feels that way).
2) I never bought the "Liberal" news media concept that my parents and teachers fed me growing up. That is, until I got old enough to understand politics and take an honest look at them with my own two eyes (NOT just what O'Reilly -on the right- or *pick one of my profs* -on the left- said about them). Having given it honest consideration and actually beginning with a mindset AGAINST the prospective the the vast majority of media is slanted against conservative ideas, I have to say that the media is blatantly left-leaning.
Anybody catch 60 Minutes Sunday? Where they interviewed the guy who just came out with a book criticizing President Bush? The interviewer asked several tough questions like "Do you think the President did a bad job?" and "So, in your opinion, the President lied?" Come on, this is the hard-hitting journalistic integrity that brought down Nixon? I don't think so. It was a 15-minute commercial against the President with not even a critical "devil's advocate" question. How do you think Kerry would be doing right now if every time you turned on your TV, some "non-partisan" news anchor was interviewing someone who hates Kerry and treating them as a non-biased source with questions like "So, you think Kerry would be weak in a decision-making role?".
Point 2 would be the love-fest between Barbara Walters and Al Gore a year or so ago. Anybody catch her hard-hitting interview with good ole' Al where she practically BEGGED him to run in 2004? She laughed at all of his joke, and the closest she ever got to a difficult question was when she discussed his posture in the debates. "In the first debate, you seemed rigid". "Then your advisers made some suggestions." Al goes on with his analogy to the 3 bears "The first was too big, the second too soft, but the third was just right." There was her glorious golden moment! Really? Just right? What about in the third debate when you bowed up to Bush like a Junior High bully and he didn't back down? Waht were you thinking? Were you trying to bully him? Were you so angry you couldn't stay on your own side? The whole nation saw it. We all want to know what was going through your crazy head! Barbara, ask the question! ASK THE QUESTION!!! Of course not. She just went on laughing about his 3 bears joke and quickly got away from the issue. The rest of the hour was more Barbara love. I'm amazed she was able to keep her shirt on.

Which brings me to my point. Whiny liberal people love complaining about Fox News as though it's this totally unfair right-wing conspiracy. Fox News is to TV news what any left-wing radio show is to talk radio. Look, we can all admit that talk radio is dominated by the right, and nobody on the right (because we *are* fair and balanced though many have a terrible time admitting it) would ever cry foul because a left-leaning talk show came on the air. You should at least have the common sense to be able to look at TV the same way and see that Fox News, even if it were Republican-funded and blatantly right, would be the island in the ocean of left-wing TV press.
 
[quote name='icruise']What's with this "Kerry flip-flops" BS? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps changing your mind because of life experiences you've had or because circumstances in the world have changed might be a *very good* thing? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps "sticking to your guns no matter what" is just another way of saying that you never admit when you're wrong?[/quote]

He flip-flops on issues that he has not had time to change his opinion on. Either you have to admit that he doesn't think his decisions through clearly the first time or that he changes according to what he thinks will be popular (rather than what's right). Changing your mind on some things and admitting you're wrong is good. Changing your mind on everything is an indication that you don't have a sense of reason behind what you are doing.
 
I hate to burst your bubble BigNick but that is the typical answer that righty's give for tax cuts. You are calculating this like everyone gets paid in checks alone, but many rich people are invested in the stock market and since there has been a decrease in the capital gains tax, they save a lot of money there. Also with the slow demize of the estate tax by 2010. That means all those fat cats can die and not give a penny back, no capital gains at all. Ohh yeah and the republicans say its for all those poor farmers and small businesses.
 
[quote name='Cracka']CaseyRyback, i wouldnt depend on the lottery to pay for my college tuition... if you are serious about going to college and making something of yourself, but cant afford it, you should look into student loans programs, but the last thing i would do is depend on the lottery.[/quote]

yea I know that. I am just bringing up the point that GA pays the difference between the 15 percent most other states make students pay.

something can be said for having to pay your own way as it makes you more responsible, I was just bringing up the point that there are benefits to it. There are also problems as there are with everything (such as they had to cut down on some of their costs)
 
[quote name='chosen1s']
A lot of "left" ideas are based on emotion. When you look at them critically and apply logic they just don't stand up.[/quote]

Very good point!
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I hate to burst your bubble BigNick but that is the typical answer that righty's give for tax cuts. You are calculating this like everyone gets paid in checks alone, but many rich people are invested in the stock market and since there has been a decrease in the capital gains tax, they save a lot of money there. Also with the slow demize of the estate tax by 2010. That means all those fat cats can die and not give a penny back, no capital gains at all. Ohh yeah and the republicans say its for all those poor farmers and small businesses.[/quote]

It will help the poor farmers. Do you have any idea how much farm land is worth? A shit load! Especially land out in California.
 
Ok, I would really like somone who hates Bush to respond to this comment because I do not understand it at all. Please note the following complaints of the "left".

1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".
2) Bush "Rushed to war against Iraq and had no business going in there when they did not attack us."

How do you justify these 2 positions. On the one hand, you're trying to accuse him of inaction when a lurking threat seemed to be coming. On the other hand, when he identified a growing threat and acted on it, you condemn him for rushing in (If you can call 10+ years of asking a dictator to abide by the treaty that allowed him to maintain control of his nation to begin with 'rushing') when he was given good intelligence that there was a growing threat.

Isn't the reality that you don't like Bush and one or the other of these arguments gives you reason to hate him?

Finally, PLEASE don't talk about the WMD's. Clinton and Daschill (Sorry if I misspelled) BOTH made extremely strong statements that Iraq posed an imminent threat and that they were confident that Iraq was building WMD's. It is well documented, but naturally if you only watch CNN or network news it is infrequently reported. If you are going to accuse Bush of lying, at least be intellectually honest and accuse your precoius Clinton and Ted of lying to the public as well.

You know, Bush might be a competitive guy, he might even have a little bit of a mean streak, but if he IS that vindictive why don't you ask yourself how he treats his enemies. It's pretty clear most of his real enemies are in Washington and he is remarkably respectful of them. Do you really, REALLY, think he has some sort of blood-lust that would lead him lie to America so he can go to war with Iraq? Really? REALLY? Seriously, really?

More importantly though, answer my question above. How do you rectify those 2 arguments?
 
[quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='icruise']What's with this "Kerry flip-flops" BS? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps changing your mind because of life experiences you've had or because circumstances in the world have changed might be a *very good* thing? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps "sticking to your guns no matter what" is just another way of saying that you never admit when you're wrong?[/quote]

He flip-flops on issues that he has not had time to change his opinion on. Either you have to admit that he doesn't think his decisions through clearly the first time or that he changes according to what he thinks will be popular (rather than what's right). Changing your mind on some things and admitting you're wrong is good. Changing your mind on everything is an indication that you don't have a sense of reason behind what you are doing.[/quote]

That's how I feel. Kerry seems to take the side that is popular. It's not showing a set plan for his presidency, and the whole double talking thing is a bit ridiculous. He has more sides than KFC, and really can't stick to a single one. I wonder if he has adult ADD.

Here's one thing that really gets me, though. He's claimed many a time over that Bush is "arrogant". Funny, every time I've seen him speak, Kerry seems to have the arrogant tone, as if he can do everything right, and no one else but him is fit for the job.
 
I do agree with you on the Factor though. He does make many good points and I agree with him on several things. I like the fact that he has his own opinions and will not back down. Some things I do disagree with (such as the whole focusing on Ludacris thing with Pepsi, only to have Pepsi turn around and hire the Osbournes)

I personally agree with him on immigration. I think that allowing such an open border is a matter of national security and allowing people to do illegal things and have them ignored is a little dumb.

I also agree with you on Iraq, although I wish he would have not placed all his weight on WMD's instead of th fact that he had chemical weapons and committed atrocities. My only problem was the timing, as he made it a campaign issue and made a mockery of what needed to be done (Afganistan was getting old, and they needed something new to get the people behind)
 
I'm not paticulary following the rules, but I wanted to respond to these.

1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".

Ha! The "9/11" plot went all the way back to the Clinton admininstration. It's funny that the 9/11 comission hasn't questioned him (yet they did question Janet Reno).

2) Bush "Rushed to war against Iraq and had no business going in there when they did not attack us."

We didn't "rush" to war. We had to go back 10 years later to finish the job Bush Sr. was doing. If Clinton would have allowed the Gulf War to go on, we would have had Saddam then. And we do have business going in there. He's been hiding things from the U.N., and he's always had intent to harm the U.S. . Plus, he's a terrorist. Maybe not in the obvious sense, but look at what he's done to the people in his country. Why was it ok to get on China's case when they were harming their people, but we're supposed to ignore what's going on in Iraq. What is going on in that country not only affects our country, but the world. Saddam could have been the next Hitler, and we needed to get him out before he would go on a widespread rampage.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I hate to burst your bubble BigNick but that is the typical answer that righty's give for tax cuts. You are calculating this like everyone gets paid in checks alone, but many rich people are invested in the stock market and since there has been a decrease in the capital gains tax, they save a lot of money there. Also with the slow demize of the estate tax by 2010. That means all those fat cats can die and not give a penny back, no capital gains at all. Ohh yeah and the republicans say its for all those poor farmers and small businesses.[/quote]

I wish I could pay for every voter to take one college-level Econ class. This is the whole point. If you give money to a rich person and they invest it in the stock market, that money supports a company out there. That company takes that money and either HIRES PEOPLE or INVESTS IN MATERIALS to help their business. If they invest in materials, they are giving money to yet another company, who also EMPLOYS people.

Yeah, a fat cat can die and not leave a penny to anyone. Worst case scenario, his money sits in a bank and draws interest. The bank LENDS THAT MONEY out to people who *guess what?* start businesses and HIRE WORKERS with it.

Money taken out of people's pockets and given to the government can either go back into businesses and filter down through the system, creating wealth along the way, or it can go to Government programs which are less efficient (because they have less incentive to utilize the money to its maximum effect).

It's not a crime to be rich, you know. And most people who are rich worked hard to get that way. It's not like it just falls into their hands. Trump, Turner, those guys worked hard and took some MAJOR risks to get where they are. Then we sit on our fat butts and despise them because we think they should pay our way. Maybe if the Lakers win another Championship this season they should all have to give 1/2 of their salaries to all the College basketball players who didn't make it into the NBA. You know, just to make it "fair".
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Ok, I would really like somone who hates Bush to respond to this comment because I do not understand it at all. Please note the following complaints of the "left".

1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".
2) Bush "Rushed to war against Iraq and had no business going in there when they did not attack us."

How do you justify these 2 positions. On the one hand, you're trying to accuse him of inaction when a lurking threat seemed to be coming. On the other hand, when he identified a growing threat and acted on it, you condemn him for rushing in (If you can call 10+ years of asking a dictator to abide by the treaty that allowed him to maintain control of his nation to begin with 'rushing') when he was given good intelligence that there was a growing threat.

Isn't the reality that you don't like Bush and one or the other of these arguments gives you reason to hate him?

Finally, PLEASE don't talk about the WMD's. Clinton and Daschill (Sorry if I misspelled) BOTH made extremely strong statements that Iraq posed an imminent threat and that they were confident that Iraq was building WMD's. It is well documented, but naturally if you only watch CNN or network news it is infrequently reported. If you are going to accuse Bush of lying, at least be intellectually honest and accuse your precoius Clinton and Ted of lying to the public as well.

You know, Bush might be a competitive guy, he might even have a little bit of a mean streak, but if he IS that vindictive why don't you ask yourself how he treats his enemies. It's pretty clear most of his real enemies are in Washington and he is remarkably respectful of them. Do you really, REALLY, think he has some sort of blood-lust that would lead him lie to America so he can go to war with Iraq? Really? REALLY? Seriously, really?

More importantly though, answer my question above. How do you rectify those 2 arguments?[/quote]


I am going to try to answer your question as best as I can.

1. From what I believe and have read they did have an idea that there was some sort of terrorist threat. They never really saw it as a serious one though and that is troubling to me. The book that recently came out by Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" says how there was evidence of a possible attack in the future, but not enough was done. Plus if Gore was in office when that happened the repubs would want his head on a stick.

2. The newest book byBob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" that came out says how Bush had planned to go into Iraq no matter what. Woodward alleging that Saudi Prince Bandar was told by Rumsfeld two months before the invasion of Iraq that it was "going to happen," and he could "take that to the bank". Now it all comes down to who you believe, both have reasons to lie but I feel that Bush wanted an Iraqi conflict to divert from the problems at home. He keeps spending and says it for the war but the problems at home keep adding up and this is an easy way to avoid them.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']


I am going to try to answer your question as best as I can.

1. From what I believe and have read they did have an idea that there was some sort of terrorist threat. They never really saw it as a serious one though and that is troubling to me. The book that recently came out by Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" says how there was evidence of a possible attack in the future, but not enough was done. Plus if Gore was in office when that happened the repubs would want his head on a stick.

2. The newest book byBob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" that came out says how Bush had planned to go into Iraq no matter what. Woodward alleging that Saudi Prince Bandar was told by Rumsfeld two months before the invasion of Iraq that it was "going to happen," and he could "take that to the bank". Now it all comes down to who you believe, both have reasons to lie but I feel that Bush wanted an Iraqi conflict to divert from the problems at home. He keeps spending and says it for the war but the problems at home keep adding up and this is an easy way to avoid them.[/quote]

My follow-up:
1) Many people believe that Clinton did nothing about terror warnings and by the time Bush got in he was way behind where we should have been. I would have blamed Gore moreso not because I'm a Republican, but because he A) Was in the middle of all that for 8 years and let it get that far and B) As President, with all that background, certainly should have been aware of the problem and been all over it. But no, I honestly don't think Republicans would be trying to use 9/11 against a Democrat in the fashion that the Dems are to the Republicans if Gore had responded the way Bush did. Nobody made a big fuss about many of Clinton's military shanannagins (Sp) and they were not all that great.

2) Why would it be wrong for Bush to have planned to go to Iraq since 2000? Clinton himself said that they posed a real threat to our National security. I don't see why what you wrote is negative about Bush. Clinton all but said "Clearly Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with" (right before bombing them) and then continued to say the same thing. Why would Bush not have a plan?
 
Another repost because scrubking is propably all tucked in for the night.

[quote name='Scrubking']
quiz.gif


Another repost? ...yeah, it's that good![/quote]
 
I am sorry but if I know I am making more money and having to pay less I am going to keep it. Thats the problem with all those rich tax cuts. People dont put more money into the economy but into their own pockets. Especially all those Americans who are CEOs of former US companies that now have their headquarters overseas but get to reap the benefts. They enjoy the money and the tax benefits the most. I picture an uncle scrooge rolling around in his money with VP Dick rubbing his back and dubbya getting him a coconut drink with an umbrella in it. All for a big fat check to spread the lies of Bush's democracy.

If you dont believe me check out the smear campaign against McCain during the 2000 primaries. Bush used the underhanded tactic of push-poll calling him a "liar and a cheat," during a telephone call conducted the night before a primary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top