Topic awaiting preservation: What does everyone think of Bush?

I was at a few other forums today and a lot of people were talking about Bush. Some people were saying how they think he is focusing on the small problems too much, and that he really needs to focus on the bigger problems. The small problems being that of what can and can not be shown on television, and about these damn gay marriages. And the bigger problems would be the troops in Iraq, and what he is going to do about unemployment.
I would like to know what you think of our "wonderful" president Mr. Bush.

BiGCaC

One think I don't only think, but I'm like, uh, 99% sure of... he gives more weight to mmaters of troops and jobs than gay marriage and nipples on tv. Don't be silly.

ok first off, I didnt say that I thought he doesnt concentrate on the troops. I was stating what people were saying elsewhere. I never gave my opinion yet as to what I think of Bush. I know he is has concern for our troops. But I tend to think that he is trying to follow in his fathers foot steps, and that he really shouldnt be.

BiGCaC

Well, I think calling him "wonderful" in quotes tipped your hat a bit

How is he following in his father's footsteps? And even if he is, please explain why that shouldn't be. If you don't mind.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Generally with politicians that I disagree with, I'm able to find some area of common ground, not so with Mr. Bush. He was complete irresponsible with his tax cuts. He was irresponsible w/ intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. He was irresponsible with his war in Iraq. He's still being irresponsible in Iraq. Simply put, he was just wrong on the economy. His support of the PATRIOT ACT is mind boggling and his insistence on inferiating every ally we have is annoying. I was reading a magazine article a few weeks ago on his insistence on reducing standards for the disposing of toxic waste so it can be dumped anywhere - I don't even know how to respond to that.

I'm not so much a tree-hugging liberal as I am someone who believes in a small, less intrusive government, less taxes, and responsible government. Mr. Bush isn't that. Fortunately, like his father, unless something drastic is done he's about to be a one term president. Unless capturing Osama bin Laden or another terrorist attack occurs, it's rather unlikely he's going to be re-elected.

Jestah

quote:

---

Unless capturing Osama bin Laden or another terrorist attack occurs, it's rather unlikely he's going to be re-elected.

---

Do people really think that capturing Ousama bin Laden will void the effect of all the things you mentionned before ? In case of another terrorist attack, will the American people ( in general ) consider that G.W. Bush is the solution to counter the terrorism or will they consider that his actions in middle east fuel the terrorism ?

lol, here we go again. I think people who make judgments about Bush are misinformed by dominant liberal media who love to fill people's heads with half truths, conjecture, and opinion. Of course, I am not saying FoxNews or any of the newfangled right-wing medias are any better, but they will present you with the both sides, which CNN and these self serving liberal corporations do not. They know they basically control the outcome of these elections, and they are using this to their advantage.

And Sure, Bush is no saint, but look at the alternative that is being presented. Do people who say they are voting for Kerry REALLY know what he is about or is it just that they have been programmed to hate Bush so much that they would take anyone in his place?

Take a look at the democratic party, who they are and what they stand for. This is not the democratic party of your father and grandfather, they have changed and are pushing us toward something not very democratic.

About the Bush tax cuts. This whole issue is incredulous to me, people bitching for paying lower taxes, un-friggin-believable!?!? Isn't that a good thing??? Do we really want a man like Kerry who stands for MORE taxes being collected by the federal government?? Do me a favor, pull out some of your old tax stubs from before the cuts and compare them to your stubs today. I am lower middle class, and it is amazing that tax cuts which are often proclaimed to be "For the Rich!!" have made such a difference in my pay. The cuts are for everyone, and anybody who disagrees is not opening their eyes.

Sure, there are benefits for the rich in there too, but think about how that effects society. What runs this country? Capitalism. All wealth stems from the rich. Your 401k or other retirement plans, your money for those is invested where? That's right, with the rich. Who dictates how many jobs will be available and who pays for those salaries? That is right, the rich. The better the rich do, the better we all do.

If you ask me, let the rich keep their money, because they can do a hell of a lot more good with it than the damned federal government. If you disagree there, that's just plain stupidity. All this anti-corporate sentiment that the democratic party displays is totally undermining this country's system of free-enterprise. You want to see the economy get really bad, let them have their way. They will play Robin Hood, take money from the rich, give it to the low-motivation culture of the poor, eventually we all end up with about the same, and it starts to sound a little like communism. The harder you work, the more they take. Live under that long enough, and society will turn quite stagnant because nobody will see the point in striving to be the best.

Why should the rich pay a higher percentage than anyone else? You make the rich pay half their money and make the poor pay nothing. Actually in some cases the poor even get back more back than they put in with the earned income credit. I know a person who put in a measly $1300 in federal tax, their return was over $7000, so basically we are rewarding the poor. But for what, being poor? For not striving to be what everyone has a chance to be in this country if they truly apply themselves, aka the American Dream. This is called redistribution of the wealth, and reaks of marxism. Come on now, is that really what we want as Americans??

Bush might not be perfect, but when compared to Kerry or any other idealistic democrat dreamer, I'd take him any day. We need someone with balls in today's world, and he has shown us that he has them. Sure, Europe hates him because he went against the UN. So FUCKING what, since when does the UN dictate the way the world works. It is scary how close to One World Government we are getting. Do you not see that a One World Government, when corruption intervenes (and it always will when humans are involved) is a far worse thing than anything we have today. I know it is only a matter of time regardless, but it would be nice to forstall it for a while.

The democratic party offers nothing but marxism disguised as liberal bullshit and doubletalk, and it is truly sad what I believe will become of this country if one comes into power at this time.

So go ahead, hate Bush, let's let a spineless man like Kerry into power. Sure, peace is a nice thing, but only if all parties involved agree to it mutually. The terrorist organizations will not stop until they cleanse the earth of infidels, so it is either us or them. Ask yourself this question, who would Osama Bin Laden, or any other terrorist for that matter, vote for? Bush?... I think not.

IMO, all politicians are inherently corrupt in one way or another, but I think in this election, people need to focus on taking the lesser of two evils. I think Bush will take it, what I am scared about is 2008 when Hillary "militant lesbian" C1inton runs.

My $.02

Ramasax

quote:

---

Do people really think that capturing Ousama bin Laden will void the effect of all the things you mentionned before?

---

It's not a matter of voiding his atrocious policies as it is lending credibility to them. If Osama bin Laden is found, the Administration can argue they made necessary sacrafices to capture the most notorious terrorist out there and protect lives throughout the world. It also gives people a reason to vote for Mr. Bush. Although his policies are bad, he DID capture Osama bin Laden, etc.


Jestah

In response to Ini:

Violence calling violence Ini?!? So what are you saying, let it go and hope they stop? Basically succumb to their wishes? Should we negotiate with these people? Do you think that will really do any good at all against religious zealots who believe that all non-muslims must die under a commandment from their God??? The views they have of their religion are just as skewed as the Crusaders of the past. Religion in the hands of man can have devastating effects on humanity because of our inherent inclination toward evil, we know this from the past. That is another debate entirely.

Think about that man. I mean, come on. Everyone wants peace but they are missing the point that peace does not come free. Everything has a price. It might not fit into their idealistic world, but that is just how things work.

Amazing how there is an attack in spain, done by terrorists, but people still want to blame somebody else. The blame lies on the terrorists, and the terrorists alone, simple as that. Placing the blame elsewhere is a weak mentality. That is like blaming the Jews for what Hitler did. Or better yet, like blaming the Allies for attacks against their cities by the Axis. Doesn't matter if they were in retaliation or not, the distorted beliefs they held permitted them to commit the crimes they did.

quote:

---

Tensions with France and an anti France tendency, "French fries" called arrogant

---

Anti-French sentiment? I still eat french fries, and as far as I know McDonalds still sells them. I even ate at a french restuarant, on a regular basis I might add, before they were all herded into concentration camps in Utah.

Just remember, the voice of one does not reflect the opinions of everyone. That whole french fry thing started in the mind of one who had the ability to spread it to the world. I have no problems with the French as people, hell I am 1/2 french myself, I just disagree with their politics. And as far as I am concerned, politics does not define a people.

quote:

---

Deaths in Iraq, Iraqis and young Americans.

---

Nothing new there, death that is, has been going on since Saddam took power.

quote:

---

Bah... these were my uncalled for two cents.

---

No, not uncalled for at all. I can actually understand where you are coming from, I used to be right there with you. The times we live in have simply changed me to believe more in logic and what has to be done rather than what I would like to see personally.

Jestah: Thus my second interogation

Ramasax: Actually the UN is rather a Many Countries Governments than a One World Government contrary to the bad taste the Bush administration leaves in my mouth when it decides to go in war ( almost ) alone and illegally / lie to the whole world ( cf the masquerade at the UN security council & the radical changement of speechs about Iraq in 2001 ) / refuse to grant anti-pollution treats ( kyoto ) / violate the internationnal rights ( Guantanamo ) / ...

I won't discuss how much and why I disagree with Bush and his administration. I already did and I'm fed up to say the same things again to people willing to see someone "having the balls" to do this or that whatever the conscequences.

Notice that it is not a personnal attack toward you Ramasax. I've already heard some of your arguments and catch phrases in some other threads/sites and I'm simply bored to death to hear how brilliant is Bush and how bad are the evil communists democrats.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 03-17-2004).]

quote:

---

MO, all politicians are inherently corrupt in one way or another, but I think in this election, people need to focus on taking the lesser of two evils. I think Bush will take it, what I am scared about is 2008 when Hillary "militant lesbian" C1inton runs.

---

I sat at Mrs. C*****n's table last night at the Suffolk County Democrats Spring Gala and shes a terrific women. It's awful that because you disagree with her politically you resort to calling her names. I can't say I'm surprised though, after reading your nonsense you certainly don't hold a candle to her intellectually.

When tax cuts are attached to large spending increases, its always terrible policy. This is just common sense. We didn't get a tax cut, we were given a large loan. Unfortunately, the loan is going to have to be paid back - with interest. And, while you're happy with the difference in your pay, keep in mind all that is going back - with interest. It's just silly and dishonest to pretend this isn't the case.

I want a tax cut as much as anyone else does. The way to that tax cut isn't through borrowing money from a bank. It's paying off the national debt. With that gone, we simpley don't have to pay it anymore. Instant tax cut - forever. Thats the responsible way anyway.



Jestah

So you met a politician and thought she was wonderful? That's great, but her policies and ideas are all I have to go on. And after listening to BS all those years from both her and her husband, I have my own opinions. The C*****ns were involved in many scandals, and I would be wary of a "face" a politician wears when they leave their home. They are professionals at what they do, and I am not surprised you were pulled in by her guile.

As far as my intelligence goes, who the hell are you to say anything about that? Isn't there a rule about personal attacks on this board? Did I attack a member of this board to deserve that? No, I made a joke about a polititian, and you insult my intelligence. I know my opinions are that of the minority here, but I would hardly call what I have to say nonsense. Is this a debate or a boxing match?

You want to pay of the national debt by increasing taxes? How about this instead, how about we pay off the national debt by increasing common sense in Washington? How about we pay off the national debt by letting people in this so-called free country prosper instead of taxing them to the bone? How about we pay off the national debt by cutting the poor off from free everything and making them WORK for a change? Let the people prosper, and the money will flow.

Since 2001, Russians have enjoyed a 13 percent flat tax. That's right. The once-Communist superpower now stands to the right of publisher Steve Forbes on taxes. The former GOP presidential contender staunchly advocates a 17 percent flat tax.

The old Russian system featured three income-tax rates: 12, 20 and 30 percent. The top rate kicked in at the ruble equivalent of $5,000 in taxable income. In contrast, the United States has six tax rates: 10, 15, 27, 30, 35 and 38.6 percent, the last of which takes hold at $307,500 for married couples filing jointly.

In short, the Russian government no longer uses graduated tax brackets to punish those whose incomes improve. Americans should be so lucky.

Funny how we hated communism all these years, now they have a set tax rate and we have an increasing tendency toward their old mentality.

Wake up. We keep going like we are, and this country is destined for a fall. Democrats are spoiling us more and more with promises of government controlled social programs, making us all more dependant on them. This is what they want. dependence = control. We are to the point now that a little independence, a tax cut, is actually criticized. Wake up. This is not how Democracy was supposed to be.

quote:

---

With that gone, we simpley don't have to pay it anymore. Instant tax cut - forever.

---

Don't be naive, you can't really believe this would be the case.

Oh and Poi:

quote:

---

Notice that it is not a personnal attack toward you Ramasax. I've already heard some of your arguments and catch phrases in some other threads/sites and I'm simply bored to death to hear how brilliant is Bush and how bad are the evil communists democrats.

---

Yep, I noticed and I appreciate it. I know a lot of what all of us say is a bit recycled sounding, on both sides. heh, or at least my side and the rest of you. Although I never said Bush was brilliant. I disagree with him on many things, but I will defend the things he does that I believe in. Lesser of two evils.

edit: Due to my low intellect, I made a few typos.


[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-17-2004).]

Aw, dry those tears little guy. I don't know what your wetting the bed over. After reading some of your posts you couldn't possibly feel you're on an intellectual par with a Yale Law graduate, whos currently a sitting Senator of the United States. But, if it gets your thumb out of your mouth, feel free to explain exactly which policy of Mrs. C*****n makes her a militant lesbian. It sounds more like any educated women who isn't barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen is a militant lesbian to you.

As for your intelligence, I'm just an observer.

Theres really no reason to talk about your politics anymore. History has done a very good job of proving you wrong. Feel free to look into the Reagan/H. Bush years. If you'd like a more current read, look into the W. Bush years. Regardless how you slice it, the economy tanks when taxes are cut to the bone and the wealthy are given large breaks.

Jestah

All depends on whose version of history you believe. Are you saying Reaganomics was a bad thing? If so I disagree.

History would also point you to look into communist russia and compare it to the current trends in our society.

quote:

---

As for your intelligence, I'm just an observer.

---

Indeed, and the fact that you disagree with my opinions and politics doesn't give you the right to refer to my posts as nonsense. You discredit by using personal attacks and try to stray from the topic at hand. I apologize for insulting Hillary in a passing and thoughtless joke. That was all it was. Your insults and sarcasm above are uncalled for.

Listen, I am not here to fight with anyone, and if posting my views to this forum is going to cause that, then maybe I will just stop because it is not worth it. It is fairly apparent that my opinions are looked down upon and unwanted here anyways. You guys can simply preach to the choir, ok.

Later,

Ramasax


[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-17-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-17-2004).]

Poi,

quote:

---

refuse to grant anti-pollution treats ( kyoto )

---

You do realize that virtually every country that has any stake in the businesses which will be decimated by the Kyoto accord have refused to sign, right? Only the countries that either already pass, or wont lose business signed on. It was not a personal vendetta by Bush, but a consensus of a majority of all Americans, and all their senators, as well as Canada (the good part at least) and many nations which feel they can pick up some of the business from outsourcing if the first world nations had to close down factories. America is right, the Kyoto accord is wrong.

Bush hasn't at all lived up to my expectations, and I think most Americans feel the same way. Although I expect him to be re-elected (especially after his approval rating shoots up in mid April when Americans file their taxes), I wouldn't care much if he wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, Bush's one and only job was to lower taxes to the point where no government could ever possibly implement a progressive social program at any point for as long as America exists. Instead he comes in with out of control spending, social programs here and there, government health programs, and I think I read something about a war somewhere...

Jestah, it looks like you're the one who needs to brush up on economic history. Reagan isn't considered the greatest American President ever just because he was nice to look at. Unemployment and Deficits arn't always a sign of a bad economy, sometimes it's the people that need to change, not the president. During Reagan?s tenure, the GDP in America increased at an average of 3.2%, an all time high in American history. Employment increased at 2.4%, compared to 2% during Bill C*****ns time in office. The average after tax income of the American people increased dramatically as well. The reason why looking at line graphs can mislead you to believe that the economy was stronger in the mid 90's is mostly inflation. Not to mention, C*****n was handed over a strong economy a good work force, and most importantly, the technology boom - which lead to the strongest markets in American history. He could have invaded Iraq with the same budget Bush used, and wouldn't have been able to slow the economy. It's more of a sign of the times, then good economic policy. His policy had absolutely nothing to do with lowering the debt created in the 80's, and we don't give credit to a president for raising taxes. It's a terrible, terrible, and last resort way to acomplish a goal.
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/taxpol.htm

[breaking_my_boredom_hibernation]

Dan: I understand your point ( in fact it's been exposed many threads/months ago ) about the economical impact of the kyoto treaties, nonetheless I can't help thinking the long term good health of our planet is worth the loss of several billion dollars in the short term. But I'm not running up for the presidency and can't judge what is best : the vote of the industrial lobbies or leaving a less polluted planet. Cruel dilema.

[/breaking_my_boredom_hibernation]

What long-term planetary good health is there, if all the factories are moved to Mexico? Brazil? Africa?
The truth is there is no environmental benefit; all the Kyoto accord proposes is economic ruin.

Something like this can't pass unless it includes international law and regulation. Otherwise countries will just choose to not sign, so that they can gain an economic boost

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

he makes me wet my panties

Well his father wanted a war, but the war never happened. And now that Bush is in office, we are in a war, that shouldn't have happened. I think we had no bussiness to stick our nose in other countries bussiness. To me that makes me feel like he is just a power hungry person, who wants to just make sure everyone knows that America is at the top of their game so to speak.

BiGCaC

I have always respected President Bush, but I must admit that I question some of his choices of late. He does seem to be focusing a little too much on the smaller things. I know that he is concerned about Iraq, but I feel that things seem to be too focused on smaller, less trivial things, like gay marriages. I mean, there are still a lot of problems over there, and I think that they need to be a top priority. It seems to me that he is starting projects but not hurrying to finish them. Of course, this is all my non-educated opinion. (I mean non-educated because I really don't follow a lot of politics.)

Dan, you're not really comparing real numbers here. Your strategy is fine if you're looking to prove to yourself that your beliefs are correct, but its not a real accurate way of looking at things.

Take your statements on the unemployment rates for example. You make it sound as though there were negligible differences between their unemployment rates. Why don't we look at the real numbers? The average unemployment rate during the Reagan administration was 7.54% while under C*****n it was 5.20%. Thats a real big difference Dan! The truth is those in the States enjoyed a 30 year low in unemployment rates during the C*****n Administration.

Also, look at your statements regarding GDP. While you're correct in stating that under Reagan the GDP rose 3.36%, you fail to mention that under C*****n the GDP rose 3.74%! Of course thats not really relevant, is it? What matters is the median family income rates during both administrations. Income rose $3,900 under Reagan. Income rose

Jestah

quote:

---

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage.
--Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

---

Looks as though we are well into the dependancy phase. Keep on depending on "democrats" who promise more "benefits from the public treasury" and it won't be long....

quote:

---

Mohandas K. Gandhi:
To safeguard democracy the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect, and their oneness.

---

Key word we are lacking here, INDEPENDENCE. Do the democrats want to give the american people more independence? By making us pay more and more taxes to finance more and more useless social programs I would think not. By redistibuting the wealth they are doing much harm to our independence.

quote:

---

Thomas Jefferson:
I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.

---

Sorry Tom, your experiment is failing...

quote:

---

Irving Kristol:
Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.

---

Thanks Irving, very wise words.

And the most relevent quote:

quote:

---

Laurence J. Peter:
Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.

---

Welcome to Socialist America, land of the semi-free, home of the spoiled and dependent.

Ramasax

Almost forgot this one:

quote:

---

Nikita Khrushchev:
We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

---

Indeed.

Who Says the Communists Lost? - 45 goals of the communist party. Read them, it's all in there.

Wake up people, before it is too late.

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-25-2004).]

Wow, I didn't knew some people were still stuck in the war between Communism and Capitalism.
What is the most terrific ? the fact they don't know the cold war is over or the fact that they'll vote for the presidential election of the country with the biggest power of destruction in the world ?

I don't think communism ever "existed"
sure there were and still are countries who claim to be communists, but are they really communist?
Is cuba really a communismt nation? dont think so...more like dictatorship.

lets take a look at definition: Theory of political and economic development proposed by Karl Marx and developed and implemented by V. I. Lenin. In Marxist theory, "communism" denotes the final stage of human historical development in which the people rule both politically (compare: democracy) and economically (contrast: capitalism). Since the government, according to Marxist theory, is essentially an instrument of class oppression, and the society which emerges in this final stage is classless, as this final state is approaches government will gradually wither away (compare: anarchism). See: proletarian, bourgeois.

Communism was ment to give people equality. Yet Stalin and Castro turned it into dictatorship...

Now, every time you ask american teenager and many adults if they know anything about communism
the answeare will be something about how evil they are and some other bullshit they have heard on tv.


P.S. I dunno wasup in China, perhaps they are closest to being communist...perhaps not

just my $ 0.02

I would like to hear a valid explanation of what exactly makes Hillary C*****n a "militant lesbian".

I would like to hear how you actually justify that statement (yes, for real).

Poi: I wouldn't expect you too actually read or consider anything I have to say. You are french and already living in socialism after all. Just because the cold war is over does not mean that communism does not exist anymore. If you read the 45 goals of the communist party, collected and put together in 1961 by the head of communications of the FBI, you would see that half of those goals have been / are being accomplished.

Socialism is the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I refuse to be a part of any socialist agenda. I don't want to be a part of a government which will, in the long run, punish you for working hard and being successful. That is a recipe for stagnation. Common sense that you just don't seem to pick up on. You keep on whining about the biggest power of destruction in the world. You don't really see the big picture, do you? We are so evil because we sought out terrorists and an opressive dictator and are trying to bring them down? If that makes us the bad guy, so be it. IMO, That is a skewed view on things. Almost as skewed as InI's view as he stated above about violence calls violence. I guess we should all roll over and succumb to their wishes. Too bad their only wish is to eradicate us, or it might actually be that simple.

Back to socialism, this concept of wealth redistribution that is so prevalent is a nasty thing. But I've made my case for that above. You only hear what you want to and have been programmed to hear anyway.

Ruski: Regardless of whether communism ever really existed is not really the point here. It is the concept and how it is being integrated into American society right under our noses. Communism was meant to give people equality, but what it does in reality is force people into equality, wouldn't you say? Everyone will be the same, regardless of how much they strive to the contrary. I believe in equality of opportunity, not conditions. If you are a lazy person, then equality of conditions might seem like a good thing, but if you are a person who believes their life should be a direct result of what you are willing to put into it, then I don't see how anyone could go for it.

In the end, the socialist mentality already appears to be very strong in most of Europe and it won't be long before the rest of us fall in line. All we need is for a democratic president like Kerry and we will be kneeling before the EU and the UN. I look forward to that day.

On a side note: I know I said I wasn't getting involved in these conversations anymore, but cannot resist. I know we all disagree, but I guess that is what makes it enjoyable.

Ramasax

DL-44: As I said above - I apologize for insulting Hillary in a passing and thoughtless joke. That was all it was.

Do I need to say more besides the fact that I disagree with a large portion of her democratic agenda and her attacks on the republican party, not to mention Ghandi? I explained myself, said it was a mistake, what else do you want, castration?

Ramasax


[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-25-2004).]

Ramasax: I know you were teasing me, but let's remind you that french government is hold by a right wing party since 1995. Everything but socialism. But that's right in France many people appreciate the socialist party in disregard of the liberal reforms or lack of of the actual government.

Social laws and protection are not a bad thing. Obviously they can be abused, but there's some people to control that.

The first thing that comes to my mind is the French social security system. It's funded by the taxes and gives access to health care and medication to everybody at extremely low price. Ok, I'm honest to say that that system have some debts but they are due to the lack of control and information during too many years. For instance some people were given medicine while it was not necessary, or some expensive medecine from famous laboratories while there is some generic ones with exactly the same molecules.

A liberal could say that it's up to individuals to take care of their own health and pay the high price for that. But excuse me to think that the government have the duty to give all its citizen the equality of access to health care. And of course nothing forbids anyone to go to private hospitals and pay the high price.

To take a clear and simple example, I've had a little surgical operation few weeks ago. I've had a general anaesthesia and spent a little more than 24 hours in the hospital. Though the drugs I had, all the people who took care of me before, during and after the operation, and all, I only had to pay 26 ?. And I'm glad to know that the taxes I pay could do the same for someone else.


My only comment about your negation of the law of the Thalion is that you should open your eyes, read newspapers, ...

quote:

---

We are so evil because we sought out terrorists and an opressive dictator and are trying to bring them down?

---

No. Because both the terrorists and the dictator you are talking about were funded and supported by you for decades, when their unscrupulous brutality and their contempt for human life were useful for you to gain control, or deny others control, of foreign countries´ resources. When the situation changed, you decided to go to war against them, for just the same reason.
But don´t worry, your government is already making friends with new brutal dictators (e.g. in Turkmenistan), for, you guessed it, the same old reasons.
And I have absolutely no doubt that the CIA is funding some "freedom fighters" right now, to be renamed "terrorists" as soon as their murderous actions cease to be useful to you.

quote:

---

You don't really see the big picture, do you?

---

quote:

---

You only hear what you want to and have been programmed to hear anyway.

---

pot? kettle? black?

quote:

---

I refuse to be a part of any socialist agenda. I don't want to be a part of a government which will, in the long run, punish you for working hard and being successful. That is a recipe for stagnation.

---

I challenge you to find even one country in which the income difference between the rich and the poor has not continually grown for as long as such numbers have been available, and where this trend has not sped up in the last years, even under what you would call "socialist governments".

Poi: lol, and you really think the newspapers aren't infuencing you in some way? Thing is, can any of us, unless we witness it first hand, really say that anything we hear or read is truth? We are all products of our particular environment and media, and whether we like it or not, all just sponges soaking up information which really cannot be truly verified either way. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, but I think the most likely answer is that we are all wrong. But oh well, we do our best.

I read the local paper, I read many news sites, watch CNN, Fox and local news. What else can we do besides review the "facts" of both sides and decide? I have made a decision based on the information I have reviewed. That decision is that socialism is nice sounding, easy to take hold of the poor with promises of hope and prosperity, but in the end, will only hurt us and cause stagnation.

Stagnation, I like that word. It reminds me of a small pond with no activity which is basically a breeding ground for mosquitos and disease. At least that is the mental picture I have. What I mean when I use it in regards to socialism is much the same.

We work hard to make money so we can live comfortably. We strive hard to provide the nice things that make our lives and the lives of our family easier. Quality of Life, yadda yadda. We take the initiative, get good grades, go to college, decide what we want to be. We WORK to be the best we can be and also to provide the best we can for our families. If everyone is going to be taken care of regardless, why strive to be anything but mediocre? People will always be lazy, especially if they can get something for free rather than work for it, and that is what socialism promotes. And the obvious outcome anywhere I believe would be the same. Stagnation. We all float through life knowing exactly where we are going to end up.

Health care is one thing, but welfare systems basically supporting entire communities on the hard earned money of others is another thing entirely. That is the type of thing I cannot stand. When you try and equal out the playing field; giving the poor more than they have earned and deserve by taking from the people who have actually worked their asses off to be successful, it just is not right. You cannot punish those who are willing to go the extra mile to support those who aren't.

We are all where we are in life because of choices we have made, if we make poor choices, we have to live with them. If you are poor, don't sit around and bitch about how bad life sucks while pulling your welfare check out of the mailbox, do something about it. No jobs you say, or your one job is not meeting your needs? Work harder, get 2 jobs if you have to, spend your money wisely, save up for college, get a degree, and make something more of yourself than a burden on society.

There are jobs in this country, problem is many americans feel they are too damn good to do them. Pride gets in the way of common sense. I worked 3 jobs to put myself through school, and I believe I am a better person for it. Working those shit jobs through school only made me strive harder. It was hard, but who says life is easy? Nothing is easy, and nothing should be easy.

Socialism basically says that people cannot take care of themselves and need big brother to help them out. Well fuck me for not wanting the government involved in every aspect of my life. I guess I am just loony or something.

edit:

And Poi, don't ever think I am doing anything but teasing man. I know my writing style can be quite filled with sarcasm and even stupid statements at times, but hey, I never pretend to be perfect or even say my views are the right views. They are mine, and I enjoy discussing them regardless. The sarcasm, if only you knew my personality and facial expressions which would in a regular conversation be easily readable, you would see that a lot of the time I am just trying to add a little humour into what would be an otherwise frustrating conversation. I don't know if I come across to the contrary, just though I should say that to make sure.

You all make very good points, and I can honestly say that I do consider them and they make me dig deeper to learn more about the issues. I can only hope for the same once in a while, although that seems rather unlikely.

I think I have said my more than my .02 here, time for me to reitre from this thread.

Later,

Ramasax

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-26-2004).]

quote:

---

I would like to hear how you actually justify that statement (yes, for real).

---

For starters, in being active in New York State politics, I've spoken with her several times. It's terrible to reduce oneself to insulting someone because you disagree with their politics. I don't like what you say on this forum half the time but I've never accused you of something stupid like raping your children - maybe I should start.

Jestah

poi, why should doctor who spent 7 years studing medicine get some shitty check from government?

IMO, hey deserve an output equal to what they put into it, we all do!

I prefare medical insurence policies better... =)

Why not Jestah, the democratic candidates did that and still do that on a regular basis? You want to say I rape my children, well, if that makes you feel any better, go right ahead. lol.

I have apologized, 2 times now, either accept it or don't, but let it go man.....just.....let....it....go.

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-26-2004).]

Ruski: The french social security system have a scale of the operations and medicines it partially or fully pay ( or pay back ) depending on the usefulness and efficiency of the thing provided to the patients. For instance many operations of aesthetical surgery are not paid back, many medecines either since they have some generic equivalents or are not considered has of really high importance ( makes me think to the special I had to buy to clean up my heal. It was not paid back because in fact a normal soap could have done the trick though not optimal ). But on the other hand some heavy medications are highly paid back because the patient have an heavy handicap for which only Rockfeller could pay to give a decent life. People must take a private health insurance to get better pay back for the many things not handled by the social security system.

Regarding the salary of the doctors, of course in the public they are not paid like their collegues doing 10 breats implants a day in private hospitals, but I have the strong feeling that many of them simply love what they do ( that is taking care of anybody whatever the size of their wallet ) and are paid enough to not go to private hospitals or foreign countries.

edit: Ramasax: One thing puzzles me in your reasoning. It seems you think jobless people enjoy their situation and do nothing to get a job, but that's wrong for the majority of the persons, and again it's a matter of controlling the system is not abused. Nonetheless, many people get fired because their textile or car factory moves to western europe, asia, south america or noth africa because it did 0.1% profits less than the previous year. Many of these people are in their mid 40s or older and it's extremely hard to find a job at that age though the hundreds of resumes they send. Most of the companies consider they can not learn new techniques and do not recognize their long experience. And, you know once you've paid your rent, health care inssurance, car insurance ... there's not much left to live decently when you're jobless.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 03-26-2004).]

I see =)

Just so that doesn´t get lost, because I think it is very relevant to this discussion:

RAMASAX:

I challenge you to find a single country in which the income difference between the rich and the poor has not continually grown for as long as such numbers have been available, and where this trend has not sped up in the last years, even under what you would call "socialist governments".

I´m waiting.

^

Don't ....

quote:

---

I think I have said my more than my .02 here, time for me to reitre from this thread.

---

from what I understand...he pretty much doesn't care...and most likely will not answear that question.

Just a suggestion...don't wait

MW, shouldn't we be more concerned with the size of the middle class? What are the figures on that? I don't care if the rich are getting richer, good for them! But if the poor are also getting less poor in the process, good for them too! Didn't John F. Kennedy say that a rising tide raises all boats? Or something like that anyways.

And just for the record (as if you all didn't know) I think Bush is doing an infinitely better job than Gore would/could have done. And the prospect of a return to failed foreign policy under 8 years of C*****n with Kerry puts me in a black mood.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-27-2004).]

quote:

---

MW, shouldn't we be more concerned with the size of the middle class? What are the figures on that?

---

AFAIK the middle class has actually been shrinking in most industrial nations for quite some time, while the poor are increasing in numbers; but once again, you´d probably say that´s because of too much socialism, while I think it´s too much neoliberalism... both theories are equally hard, if not impossible to (dis)prove...

quote:

---

I don't care if the rich are getting richer, good for them! But if the poor are also getting less poor in the process, good for them too! Didn't John F. Kennedy say that a rising tide raises all boats? Or something like that anyways.

---

But there is no "rising tide", not in Europe and not in the US - and it seems that in the process of a generally slow economy worldwide (with some exceptions), the rich are still getting richer but the poor are getting both poorer and more numerous, with especially the second being cause for concern.

My comment was also primarily aimed at Ramasax´s claim that "the socialists" punish people for working hard and being succesful. So at some point people won´t bother to do that, because it doesn´t pay off anymore, which would lead to stagnation. This theory sounds compelling.
Until you realize that the opposite is happening: The factor by which a manager earns more than his employees is continually growing, even under so-called "socialist governments" - So actually the reward for working harder than your peers to achieve a better position has continually grown for the last fifty years - so there´s room for a much more socialist policy without risking that the picture of everyone being forced into equality that the right likes so much to paint becomes reality. There are other ponts to consider as well, but this particular, and often-used argument is just wrong, IMO.

quote:

---

And just for the record (as if you all didn't know) I think Bush is doing an infinitely better job than Gore would/could have done. And the prospect of a return to failed foreign policy under 8 years of C*****n with Kerry puts me in a black mood.

---

Hmm, I don´t recall much spectacular (good or bad) about C*****n´s foreign policy, but calling Bush´s foreign policy a success? Well, we can agree to completely disagree here, as so often...

MW, I'm not current enough with the latest economic figures so I can't really argue the stats. I am going on what happened in the decades past and making judgements about economic policies from that.

I didn't call Bush's foreign policy a "success". I think that determination must be made after we see the longer term effects. I believe it is pointed in the right direction even if I don't agree with all of its details. What I do know for certain is that Gore would have taken an entirely different approach to the attacks that occurred on 9/11. I think he would have taken the same stance as the newly elected Spanish government.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

What do I think of Bush?

Well, he's not my president. But as far as I know him, all I can say is that I don't like him at all. If I were to define him in just one word, I'd say he's _false_.
The world was much better before him and will be much better after him, so I hope (fixing his mistakes may take some time, though).

I think too many people hate Bush because he dares to confront evil in this world. It is a curious tendency when people cannot fathom the acts of terrorists and then turn their scorn on those who oppose them. Remember that he was not the one who started the hostilities, he is trying to put an end to them.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugimus, your message reminded me of fairy tales, where there are the Good and the Evil. This simplicity of view hurts.

well...I was thinking today

there are many "evil" dictators nowdays...lost of them..

but why should he go to Iraq, when there are alot more dangerouse problems near home?

Seriously, Fidel Castro is way bigger threat to America than Saddam...

maybe its oil?

Ruski:

quote:

---

Maybe its oil ?

---

Maybe the American government have some doubts regarding Saudi Arabia ( some of the terrorists of the 911 came from there, so does Osama Ben Laden ) and wants a good reserve of oil dedicated to the USA ?

Maybe Bush wants to please daddy.
"Look Dad, I did it, I did it !!!

quote:

---

Seriously, Fidel Castro is way bigger threat to America than Saddam...

---

Seriously, that´s Bullshit.
What is Fidel gonna do? Invade Florida? Give me a break! Cuba is about as dangerous to the US as a fly on your windshield is to your car.

Ohh you already forgot about the missle crisis from the past?

I see..



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 03-28-2004).]

Well, OK, so Russia is the biggest threat to the US, or did you forget about the cold war?

Tell me in what way Cuba is a danger to the US today, if you don´t mind. Again, do you think they are gonna invade florida, or that the Sowiets forgot some nuclear missiles there?

quote:

---

Cuba is about as dangerous to the US as a fly on your windshield is to your car.

---

Don't knock it... insects can be pretty lethal to your car's finish.

Actually Russia was never a threat to USA...Soviet Union was...communists were

yes they almost triggered the WW3, with the help of Fidel...

no they wont invade florida...stop talking like a child.

And dont forget we have north korea...who are communists as well...

Well if you look back just about every Republican that was president has tried/ succeed in creating a war. I mean I just see a bunch of power hungry men.
And speaking of Communists, I tend to sometimes believe America is some what a Communist country. I wrote a college paper about that (It was for my writing major) My teacher jumped down my throat so to speak about it. She thought it was provocative. Why would that be? Some people are just too touchy anymore.

BiGCaC

quote:

---

no they wont invade florida...stop talking like a child.

---

I´ll stop making fun of your claim that Cuba is a threat to the US as soon as you make the effort to write a coherent post explaining why.

BiGCaC, I think if you crack open a history book you will find a healthy mix of both parties in the wars we've fought over the years. Just take Vietnam as an example, Truman sent advisors ni 1950, Eisenhower continued the commitment, Kennedy increased it, Johnson went ape sh*t all over it, and Nixon finally got us out. By my count, that's 3 Dems to 2 Reps with a Dem getting us in and a Rep getting us out.

And I would love to hear more about how America is a communist country. What is that all about?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Well dont go ape sh!t on my post. I am just stating my own opinion. And I have opened many text books. I am not saying there werent any Dem. starting wars, I said most of them were Rep, because in the past what 10 years or so there were Rep, trying to start wars.
And about the Communist thing, well take a look, Ok in almost all Communist Countries there is a monopoly. Do we have a monopoly? Yes. Your local supermarket for example, you go and you find your "generic" brand a peas and your "name brand" peas. What is the difference? Nothing. They are made by the same company, the only difference is that the company making the peas found cans of peas that for some reason were not up to the companys standards, meaning that they may not be the right oz or what not. So your supermarket buys them for a cheap price, puts their label on it, then sells it to you for twice as much as they bought it for. But here is the catch, the company who sold the peas to the supermarket still get profit, meaning they are still in complete control.
Need another example?
How about someone going out to be a cop or run for president? You can't. If you want to be a cop you must first have no crimial record, ok, you must go to the police academy and be qualified, then in most states you must be 21 to apply for a job at your local police department. So you have to go through all that to do one thing forever. The president issue, well, not everyone can run. You must have experience in politics. And how are you to get true, good, qualification if you cant go out and experience it?
I dont expect you to agree with me, my teacher sure didnt, and it dont matter. I am just stating my opinion. You have yours and I have mine.

BiGCaC

I think this thread has evolved from a blame Bush campaign into something infinitely more interesting. That is great. I took some time over the weekend to further explain my position on Socialism, communism, Taxation as slavery and the ultimate outcome of stagnation.

Bug's, we are not a communist country, but we have the capacity of becoming one in a relatively short period of time if the current trends continue. The more the government gains control of us, the closer we become. I quoted this above and will quote it again:

quote:

---

Nikita Khrushchev:
We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

---

Anyways, new thread here.

I know that this may piss some people off but I THINK BUSH is a complete DUMBASS.
Not only is the "war" in Iraq stupid,hypocritical,(Same goes for the war in Afghanistan) but this egotistical cry-baby we call a president has no sense when it comes to strategy (not to mention the fact that he's wasting our money on space exploration). His little Carpet-Bombing idea is a nice little show of power but that's all it is, a showboating of the U.S's ability to pick on a little country that can't hit us back.What he should have done is paradropped a Seal Team (or other elite covert ops team) into Iraq and Afghanistan and kidnapped Hussien and Osama. All the monkey (the name I use for G.W.) is has done in office (along with the help of some previous presidents) is destroyed the environment and turned a country whose goals and oblligations were once moral and just and turned it into the global version of a common playground bully/thug. If you want more of my oppinion on Bush or wish to discuss or DEBATE about politics with me e-mail me or request to do so on the Forums.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

quote:

---

paradropped a Seal Team

---

OK, that was funny.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

I happen to agree completely with Sangreal. Bush has a problem with finishing what he starts. Look at this war, he started it, but all that is going on now is our troops are dying. Why is that? Because he doesnt know when to pull out? Or maybe because he has moved on to a stupid little playground fight with Kerry.

BiGCaC

quote:

---

I happen to agree completely with Sangreal. Bush has a problem with finishing what he starts. Look at this war, he started it, but all that is going on now is our troops are dying. Why is that? Because he doesnt know when to pull out? Or maybe because he has moved on to a stupid little playground fight with Kerry.

---

Why is that? Umm....maybe because it is only a year old. How many years did it take to rebuild Japan? Only an idiot would pull out now. At least try and get a clue as to what you are talking about.

Saddam had it coming. He executed between 300k and 1M of his own people, these numbers are wholly inaccurate though as we are sure to find more graves. Torture, rape, and murder were national policies. During the war with Iran, Saddam killed 1.5M Iranians, even using poison gas with total disregard to the Geneva Convention. He invaded his neighbor Kuwait and siezed their oil fields. Saddam also supported terrorism by paying bounties to families of palestinean suicide bombers, by trying to assasinate former president Bush, and by sheltering known terrorists. He played the entire world for fools for over 12 years. Read more...

Now, a short one year later Saddam has been caught. About 240 hospitals and over 1200 health clinics have opened. More than 22 million vaccinations have been administered to the children of Iraq. Iraq's universities and colleges are now open, as well as most of the primary and secondary schools (this in itself is a very large step), Power generation is around 4500MW, already exceeding the pre-war average and still rising, Most of the court system is functional. Oh, and there is this thing with freeing 26million Iraqis held captive to a madman. Not bad for a years work, especially if you compare the timelines of other wars.

Freedom always comes at a cost, that cost is war. You don't have to like it, but accept it because that is how the world works. You think Bush started the war? Then what, I ask you, did Saddam do? You make it sound like he was a poor little dictator wholly innocent of any crimes.

And don't even pull that blood for oil or WMD crap. If we wanted to conquer nations for their oil, we could simply have kept the oil fields inKuwait back in 1991, and at that same time could have easily overthrown Iraq, whose army was virtually gone. Even better yet we could have simply invaded Mexico or Venezuela for their oil and saved tons of money. Why then did we, and do we, continue to pay market prices for oil?

WMD, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saddam himself WAS the WMD. Even with that asie, do you really think that if Bush was as evil as the left would paint him to be, he wouldn't have had some evidence planted rather than deal with all these whining idiots? There is no dispute that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, the question we should be asking now is where did they go.

I realize freedom comes at a cost, and I do think that Saddam is a very bad person. Also I agree with Ramasax that we should not pull out of Iraq I just think that Bush could be doing a lot better job at things than he's doing and as far as Kerry and all the other monkey's that want to compete for chief monkey they should all either quit their smear campaigns or go home because they're just going to make a fool out themselves by doing just as bad a job as the Chief Monkey and not keep any of the promises that they make not that you can't expect that from a monkey.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

And as far as anti-french feelings: Being biased against the French or any other country just because it disagrees with you is completely moronic. THEY ARE FRENCH FRIES NOT FREEDOM FRIES OR FRIED POTATO STICKS GET OVER IT!

Also if Bush wants to keep up with these military campaigns he needs to make sure that they're being trained better since most of the casualities have been from friendly fire and screw ups.

You also need to realize a very simple fact. Bush is not the be all and end of of the US government. He has less power than a lot of people conclude. Those in congress & intelligence are just as much responsible as he is, (responsible for what is a matter of opinion, but one at a time ). Bush is not the liar, he was going on the inteligence provided him. Just as congress was. They voted on the intelligence provided. When things go bad of course... No politician is a total innocent, far from it in many cases (can you say Ted Kennedy, murderer), but I think the Liberals give far too much credit to Mr. Bush.

BTW, don't know if I mentioned before, but welcome to the Asylum Sangreal.

MW thereare a bunch of articles on the net...

just google it and you will find em...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0731-09.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/5/163348.shtml

Ruski, didn't anyone tell you? News articles from right-wing media are disallowed in debates. You may only post links to liberal media sites. NewsMax is a definate no no because they are part of the right-wing conspiracy to take over the world.

Carry on.

Ramasax

Bad evil naughty nasty right wingers! tsk tsk tsk


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I know that Bush doesn't have as much power as most people think and that it's not all his fault I mainly just the chief monkey's name for most of the people of the government because in my oppinion he is the main 'face/figure head' for the government. He is doing an okay job and I probably couldn't do any better but i still think that he might not have been the best choice for president just the better out of two candidates that weren't good choices.