Hate Bush? But Why or why not? [Archive]

Kingyu

03-02-2004, 12:21 AM

Ok what is improving the Economy? If not by Bush's actions then what? The Democrats complain about Homeland Security taking away our freedoms but yet you now say it’s a worthless money waster. WE HAD THE INTEL OF 9/11 MONTHS BEFORE IT HAPPENED! Why the hell didn't we act on it? Why did we let thousands die? Some rightwing agenda? No! It was a result of non-communication between our Intel agencies. Bush creates an organization that pools all of the Intel we collect and that is worthless? Every member of the Intel community in our government says the problem was info sharing between agencies but yet creating an organization that fixes the info problem is pointless.

You complain about Budget deficits, but do you even know how the United States budget works? Every year the amount of money America spends increases no if, ands, or buts. Does John Edwards have a plain to solve this deficit? Raise Taxes and then spend more. His social programs alone will cost America two trillion dollars a year. Were are we going to get this money? Raise taxes. Free higher education for all! Raise taxes. Let the top 2% bear the entire burden for America, hell their rich enough right? Every country that has done what John Edwards wants to do has fallen or is falling apart. The Roman Empire is a great example. The evil rich didn't kill the empire; it was the poor's distain for them. Look at Sweden, 61% income tax, 25% sales tax, and much much more. Their Universal healthcare is a failure, and they are in a massive budget deficit. What does Sweden do to solve this problem RAISE TAXES!

It doesn't work man. The Rich built this nation. We would be nothing without Wal-mart and Microsoft. Punishing them for your own failures in life is just wrong. Although it is the people's job to sustain the government, it is not the government's job to sustain the people. Free Enterprise was created to allow you as Americans decide your place in the world. Look at Warren Buffet, the world's second richest man. He was born in a poverty-stricken family that made less then 5k a year. He didn't complain to Uncle Sam about his hand he was dealt. He got off his ass and made himself billions upon billions of dollars. To discourage such actions by placing high taxes on the rich and providing the poor with anything they want goes against everything this nation was founded upon.

Doombringer64

03-02-2004, 2:05 AM

If you're going to ask for an honest opinion then you really ought to sit down and shut-up.

Is this really adding to the conversation? I think not. -Nuts

MacG

03-02-2004, 2:32 AM

I remember Bush before 9/11, around Augest for being the President with nothing to do, the president who took the most vacations. Hmmm...

Before he was elected, I never supported him, Election day, Flordia, Jeb Bush's state, had to have voting problems. I have no facts against anyone there, and was upset on how our president was elected in to office. It was abnormal. Well, since no one could of predicted 9/11 or could he? Clinton Adminstration did give heads up, how else did Bush instantly blame Bin laden? It wasn't his first time...

Then he makes a go it alone policy that alienates our nation. Why should we make enemies out of friends? Why did we alienate France? I don't recall such hate against the french during Clinton years, is because they are the only ones that had guts to tell us off that we shouldn't be all that and force ourselves in to Iraq?

Tax-Cuts. Granted that even democrat oponents propose tax cuts, but they didn't propose this much. I didn't mind those refund checks. I made 7000 part time and I got 170 back. I was happy to have that money. I didn't give a damn about the government. That's how I felt, and I doubt I would of complain if they didn't give it to me. If they didn't it will go to something else I wouldn't care. But it will ruin the nation with this debt, but don't bother telling me to mail back the check, because if the government is stupid enough to give away their money, then it's their dumb ass fault.

Alakhriveion

03-02-2004, 9:02 PM

Hi, I'm Alakhriveion.

War should be the biggest issue. If anything America needs a peace candidate, like Kucinich, or the late Howard Dean. We can't stand any more tax cuts, I really think the only way to fix the economy is to socialize it.

DaDaimon

03-03-2004, 4:55 PM

Sure you'll fix the economy by socializing it, but I think we both are talking about a different kind of fixing.

Battlecruiser

03-03-2004, 5:13 PM

Alakhriveion

03-03-2004, 5:22 PM

Sure you'll fix the economy by socializing it, but I think we both are talking about a different kind of fixing.
I know. It was wishful thinking. Honestly, the economy can't be "fixed," It has patterns, which we're subject to, not the other way 'round. Remember, it goes up and down in the short term, but in the long term, it just goes sideways.

Kingyu

03-03-2004, 10:02 PM

Hi, I'm Alakhriveion.
I really think the only way to fix the economy is to socialize it.
Then we would be living in the Soviet Union Alakhriveion. You are telling me that the same government that spends millions to figure out why convicts try to escape from prison should be in charge of our economy. Hell you put the government in charge of the economy then you might as well pin a sign on your shirt, "Please rape me in the ass; I like having no control over anything in my life. Tell me what I am allowed to eat and when I can pee because I can't figure it out for myself."

We were created as a free nation that PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM CONTROLLING OUR BUSINESS. Why do you think America rebelled against Great Britain in the first place? England was raping our business and taxing us without any benefit. Now you are asking the American government to do the same thing our founding fathers rebelled against. Stop reading Das Kapital or move out of America. You don't like the idea of your fate in your own hands leave the country and move to France. BTW, if you do go to France just make sure you’re not a Muslim.

Staind

03-06-2004, 9:21 AM

I like Bush's social policies (anti-gay marriage, etc) but I totally hate his pro-military campaign.

Scorch

03-08-2004, 1:07 PM

For my part, I won't offer piles of article and call it proof, or talk forever and call it inteligent argument. I support the president because once again, the world knows the US is the top dog.
I recently heard a speec by one of California's senate candidates.(ya know, the person who's sig is on all our money). The comparison made was the GOP as the 'play it safe' party, and the dems as the 'let's take a chance' party. We took a chance, and we got 9/11. As a New Yorker, I've had my fill of chances. Better to hit them first. If the rest of the world ain't got the balls for it, we WILL do it ourselves. But we won't st around waiting for the next attack. Not anymore.

OboeGuru

03-08-2004, 11:10 PM

My question is: what next attack? I think we've pretty much neutralized any threat, every other nation's probably afraid we'll bomb the crap out of them.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bush's administration is to blame for the intell goof... And I don't see how anyone can rally behind him after his massive budget deficit, he's justmaking things worse for the future generations, our kids. Do you want your kids to inherit a USA that's 8+ trillion dollars in debt?

Scorch

03-11-2004, 2:14 PM

The next attack by our enemies. We do have a few of those. And only a fool would beleive that they would pass up a chance to attack again. Whether your mind can deal with it or not, we have foes who want nothing but our deaths. We must win, or we will die. This is no longer about politics, or oil, as many power hungry democrats would have you beleive. This war is for survival. The terror we face is
legion, every anti-american willing to kill, willing to send men on suicide errands. Now, before you whine how your 'rights' are being trampled, where do you think your rights come from? They came from a war. Whatever your opinion, one thing that must be known is we are fighting cut-thorats.
It's them or us. Keep that in mind next time you protest.

frogger

03-11-2004, 2:57 PM

nationalism. You downplay a certain country, Iraq at the moment, or Germany, or France, we make our own country look better by comparison, we also keep the people from thinking about internal problems. If it works, good job. Short and to the point?

RelinaIonna

03-12-2004, 2:45 PM

This whole frigg'n middle east thing will be known as the Oil Wars in like 100 years from now.

ChaosZon

03-12-2004, 2:46 PM

To suggest that Bush is at fault for September 11th is like suggesting that FDR was at fault for December 7th. In both, the United States was aware of a threat (more aware of Japan and Germany than Al-Qaeda), in both the United States received warnings too late (orders went out on the morning of December 7 to the U.S. military to go to full alert and prepare for imminent conflict with Japan and reached Pearl Harbor an hour after the last Japanese planes left, there were various vague warnings about a terrorist attack on the U.S. in August of 2001), and in both the leaders of the nation in no way shape or form were to blame for what happened. What is to blame for September 11th was the nationwide attitude of apathy that sadly still exists today and was created by the Nineties. Just like the Roaring Twenties, we got 10 years of good times, and then the United States was jerked back into the real world.

There was a bestselling book about Bush after September 11th; its title was "The Right Man." George W. Bush, like him or lump him, was the right man to lead the United States after 9/11.

The best thing Bush did, though, was his tax cuts.

You know who the Democratic party claims to represent? The middle class. The small business owner.

You know how much small business owners make a year? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Commonly, small business owners make more than 200 grand.

You know what tax bracket John F. Kerry wants to repeal the tax cuts for? Those who make more than 200 grand a year.

Currently, the slow economic growth has been spurred by consumer spending and corporate spending. If it is to grow faster, and be sustained, small businesses have to get in. If they don't, we're going to have another recession in the next 5 years, easy. And John Kerry wants to raise taxes on that bracket.

http://www.sba.gov/
http://www.asbconline.com/
http://www.commerce.gov/

Bush has to start hammering Kerry on this.

MacG

03-12-2004, 2:59 PM

Taxes pay for everything, without taxes, you see California: forced to pass bonds.

Quote from Bill Clinton from this recent article.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/clintonkerry.bush/index.html
"The tax cut that I got has been protected against all cost," said Clinton, referring to the $1 trillion income tax cuts that primarily benefited Americans with high incomes such as the former president, who has earned millions for his forthcoming memoirs and for making speeches.

"It's the most important thing in the world to the administration and the majority party in Congress to protect my tax cut," Clinton said.

"So to protect my tax cut in this budget, they are kicking 300,000 poor children out of after-school programs, 23,000 cops off the street.

"They've already removed 83,000 students from the student loan program, depriving 140,000 unemployed workers from job training and removing child care supports to 100,000 working families," Clinton continued.

"Now that's a choice they made. They actually believe the most important thing in the world is to have less government and low taxes.

"They believe that lower taxes are good even if you have to have adverse human consequences. It's a difference of opinion."No taxes = raise in other government fees. Reason why people say Rich benefits from this more?

My tutition fee increased significantly. What I got from Tax Cuts went straight back to the government. I rather have my fee stay the same and have taxes increased then get my tax cuts.

OboeGuru

03-12-2004, 9:43 PM

I'll admit that the boost in consumer spending has been good, but we can't rely on it forever. We need to step back and let the government do some of the work. If Keynesian economics is true for the most part, government spending will do a better job of pulling us out of this economic lull than consumer spending. And that's exactly what Democrats do. The individuals making over 200 grand a year won't miss their money.

Chaos, if you're thinking we're in a recession now, I feel sorry for you. Because that's dead wrong. We are not in a recession. If we start on the track to a recession, it will be the fault of Bush's massive deficit and the inability to effectively counteract it within a short timespan.

ChaosZon

03-13-2004, 11:11 AM

Actually, I said that if small business owners get their tax cuts revoked because they make more than 200 large a year, we're going to see another recession in the next 5 years. It literally is as simple as that.

TheGreatBrain

03-13-2004, 1:33 PM

In all seriousness, I've heard my very liberal family, and my very conservative freinds bitch so much in both directions that I've become almost completely neutral. Well, not neutral. I'm just sick of hearing about him.

Mechsaurian

03-20-2004, 7:28 PM

Bush is a greedy fool. As great of a guy as his TV facade would denote him to be, he cares more about the width of his wallet than anyhting else. Well, the width of his and other rich peoples' wallets. Have a look at where the money in his tax cuts goes.

And by the way, tax cuts aren't such a hot idea anymore. I forget how much we have spent on the war so far (3 bil or something), but unless the government can scrape some cash together, the poor schmucks of our current generation get to pay through taxes for something we're not responsible for. Taxes are an important part of a nation's economy, so Bush seems to be doing exactly what some would assume he wiuld do - enhance the problem rather than fix it.

Speaking of the war, WHAT WAS THE FREAKING POINT??!!!

"Iraq is (was) suspected to have Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq is a dirt poor country. And what have we found so far suggesting the existence of these weapons? Nothing.

"The Iraqi people must be freed!" Wow, that sounds good to liberals who were against the war, doesn't it? However, this little idea is probably the lowest on the priority list. Naming the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was pure propaganda, folks.

As you can see I don't respect Bush much. Although, for a liberal, I'm not much into the possible future presidents my own party coughed up. Dean's alright, but I don't know about some of the other ones.

Visions_of_Khas

03-20-2004, 10:06 PM

Haha, en taro Adun, Mechsaurian!

For one, the man can't conjugate.

For another, if we are out in the world to free people from tyrants, then why are we just sitting around while so many African countries are being ruled over by despots?

Also, why exactly did we go into Iraq? Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, nor were there any terrorist groups in Iraq. (Well there weren't. But since we went in, many terrorist groups have been able to find willing Iraqis due to the anti-American sentiment we ourselves stirred up over there.)

There is also the little matter that he made a deficit worth several billion dollars within days of getting into office.

overdramatic

06-25-2004, 3:29 PM

i don't hate him, i dont even dislike him, and i don't think hes a bad president, because what would you do in his sit. ??? any choice he made would have made the us (the u.s.a ) mad at him, so i guess i don't really have an opinion about him...

singo

06-26-2004, 2:59 PM

"Bush is a greedy fool. As great of a guy as his TV facade would denote him to be, he cares more about the width of his wallet than anyhting else."

isnt that the point of a free market economy?

"Iraq is (was) suspected to have Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq is a dirt poor country. And what have we found so far suggesting the existence of these weapons? Nothing."

erm, he was supposed to have banned weapons, ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE WAR he fired missiles HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE into kuwait, they did not hve N/B/C warheads but they were still not supposed to be in his possesion.

""The Iraqi people must be freed!" Wow, that sounds good to liberals who were against the war, doesn't it? However, this little idea is probably the lowest on the priority list. Naming the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was pure propaganda, folks."

oh, so just because it was not stated as a main objective makes it wrong to dethrone a tyrant? hmm...nice thinking, on a par with "Whats so wrong about genocide?", which incidentally was also commited by saddam.

sorry i'm all for the war, i support removing evil dictators, does that make me a warmongering uncaring bastard? then so be it.

PowderBB3D

06-28-2004, 9:46 PM

It must be a fool moon tonight.

The very best part is this is an argument about politics being conducted by 13-15 year olds who haven't even completed a single quarter of government or even U.S history. And of course, none of you can vote.

Politics are divisive, as is religion. I'm sure many of you wisened jr. high schoolers - in all your many years of geo-political research - have heard phrases like "never talk about politics and religion." Yeah, they're usually that simple.

Anyway, so you don't blast me with "not contributing anything" (even though I just contributed more than any of you can ever imagine in those above paragraphs), here's a proposition:

To prove the irrelevancy of having a partisan debate about a single man's policies, anyone who wants to can bring up a question about Bush's policies. It can be pro-Bush or anti-Bush, it doesn't matter. I will refute it. Seriously. Try to stump me with some "hard" questions like "How is the war on Iraq justified if we didn't find any WMD?"

- P

PhoenixNo13

06-28-2004, 10:06 PM

I HATE HIM. HE IS THE BIGGEST LIER IN THE WORLD.
He don't care about all poor people out there. He drop boom to Iraq. He lie about the thing called "damage from Iraq". He only thing about how to get more money, more oil from Iraq only.
I don't thing he do the right. He must be EVIL or at list he alway have EVIL thing in his head.

singo

06-29-2004, 11:56 AM

Im 17 and british, what do i want with US history?

bear in mind the US has the shortest history of any nation in the world. (not counting israel which was founded in 1947 i believe)

and, just because the debate is irrelevant does not mean its not fun watching people get all worked up about it

and how do you do multiple different quotes?, i can do one but not several :(

EdvardMunch

06-29-2004, 12:08 PM

I'd like to give it a shot Powder. How is Bush justified in defining gay marriage out of existence?

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 3:31 PM

To answer Singo first, if I may:

Multiple quotes is pretty easy. All you have to do is enter {QUOTE=username}text{/QUOTE}, replacing the { and } with [ and ].

To respond to EdvardMunch:

First and foremost, the president's duty is to his people and not his personal desires. Ideally, the president would never function based on personal whims unless he (or she) absolutely had to do so and would instead choose based on what the populace decreed (regardless of his or her approval). If Bush stepped up to a podium tomorrow and announced he was for gay marriage and, in fact, would be doing everything he could to support it he would be contra to this most basic principle. Surveyed in April, Americans (55% to 41% against) told Bush - as they have been doing so ever since someone started asking "for or against gay marriage?" in a poll - that they are against gay marriage. Therefore, Bush is inherently justified in his actions by working to oppose gay marriage in all its forms. Regardless of whether or not you or Bush or anybody else you know agrees with Bush's stance it is a justified one simply because America defines it as such.

See? It was that simple. I bet you were expecting a long-winded approach wherein I would try to attack the legitimacy of gay marriage. But of course, you just asked about justification for his stance. If of course you would require that I directly attack gay marriage then by all means ask it but see that I never said I'd talk about social issues but rather justification in Bush's policy; and no, I won't use poll numbers for everything, just for this first questions to illustrate the futility of fighting fire with fire (ie fighting ideology with more ideology).

And to preempt any questions about "but it is unfair to homosexuals": can I marry my sister, if I really do love her? What about my dog? Or perhaps the pool cleaning device that keeps the leaves out of my filter?

- P

Kopaka

06-29-2004, 4:26 PM

To me, GB has been slouching. The war against terrorists was okay, cause it was revenge, but the war in Iraq is wrong! The reason is that we barged into someone else's country, his home, just because we didn't like the way the country was running. We killed his son, tried to asassinate him while in bed in his capital, destroyed his government, his army, and himm himdelf. Now how would Bush like that to happen? Have his daughters killed, have this nation in shambles, and him become a fugitve?
I would not like it myself.

Ole-The-Murder

06-29-2004, 4:43 PM

I don't hate Bush because clearly he doesn't have the foggiest clue about what the fuck he is doing, so it's not his fault. Besides, his papa Seniour Bush's comrades are controlling Junior Bush, so most importand decisions are made by his cabinet, not him....

Grom_Icecream

06-29-2004, 7:12 PM

Sadly enough, Bush is a bit of a joke in Australia. He is not doing your country any favours people, i mean a multi-trillion budget deficit...??? War aint worth poverty, you go to war to gain something, not lose your future prospects.

Just a quick question for PowderBB3D if hes still around...
-How can Bush justify reduced tax on the highest earners in USA, with the current state of the budget?

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 9:16 PM

Just a quick question for PowderBB3D if hes still around...
-How can Bush justify reduced tax on the highest earners in USA, with the current state of the budget?"if hes still around..."? I know, I know. I had to go to work today but those few hours where I wasn't here seemed to last forever. It sucks when the Master isn't here but you'll have to make do (haha I'm just kidding).

On to the more pertinent topic at hand: "what is the justification for Bush's tax cuts" (excuse me if I paraphrased). A brief and simple answer is this: the lighter people are taxed the more retained earnings they have, meaning the more disposable income at the fingertips of Americans. With this great bank accounts come great expenditures; in theory, the money will be reinvested into the economy in forms ranging from purchasing a few extra CDs to starting up a business. The latter part of the previous sentence is especially important, since a large issue for Bush is economic recovery and job creation. Well, jobs are being created faster than a zergling with adrenal glands can tear through a marine at this point. Wait! I know what you're saying right about now. You're saying "Master Powder, if these things are true, back up your claims with some hard facts and not just pointless analogies from blizzard games!" Patience young zealot, patience.

May, 2004:
Unemployment: 5.6%
GDP increase of 4.4% in Q1

By contrast, during Clinton's first term (Slick Willie or " Satan" for you neo-cons out there; yes the [] is a shot at Hillary, Mr. Slowpoke..sheesh =) unemployment was as high as 7%. From an economist's standpoint, unemployment between 4-6% is deemed healthy. "Stop right there Powder. Wouldn't it be best if everybody had a job? 0% should be our goal!" Well yes and no. Sure, it would be *nice* if everybody had a job (especially one that paid $80,000+ a year) but it would be terrible for the economy and, in the long-run, would cause some terrible problems. You see, if there isn't anybody to hire companies cannot grow. Additionally, if labor is rare then wages must naturally increase - higher wages mean smaller margins for businesses which means businesses will have to jack up their prices (read: inflation) and start laying-off people in the process. The new jobless get sucked up quickly at first but, over time, the economy grinds to a halt and lay-offs begin to overtake hirings. The high prices prevent purchases and companies must drop prices. With lower prices come lower margins again and everyone goes to hell for a second time.

Well that's tangental. Back on subject:

I'll reiterate something I said a while back and which you might have forgotten: tax cuts put money in the pockets of Americans. In the last few months real income (ie retained earnings ie disposable income ie what's left over after Uncle Sam visits your paycheck [after taxes, Mr. Slowpoke]) has continued to increase. In 2003, after the beginnings of tax cuts began to take true effect real income rose about 1.6% and then in the second round of analysis rose an additional 0.9%. That's real mathematical proof right there for you Executor that Americans are now wealthier.

Since more people have money more businesses are founded and more employees are hired. Therefore, more taxable income is created which helps fill in the defecit (or do whatever else the government deems required at the time).

Most of the current defecit was created by Sept. 11 attacks and the so-called "spent boom" during the Clinton years. Bush's tax cuts were designed to be stimulus packages that slowed down the defecit but unfortunately most newscasters portray them as attempts to eliminate the deficit altogether - this is not so. Nobody ever said the defecit would vanish overnight, but it seems that most of the ultra-liberals didn't get that memo and don't realize how much worse it could be without the cuts.

Enough? I can post more if you want and really get into detail. Also somebody give me a Bush-good argument to refute; two Bush-bad's in a row...

[b]Edit: Oh yeah and if anybody tells me an increasing budget is going to spike the hell out of interest rates they need to jump off of a bridge right now or something =)

- P

EdvardMunch

06-29-2004, 10:06 PM

You're right that the president, ideally, serves the interests of the American people, but there's something bigger than opinion in this case, because it's more than unfair to homosexuals, it's discriminating against them. The American people can think whatever they want about gay marriage, but singling out a group and saying "you cannot marry one another" is discrimination.

can I marry my sister, if I really do love her? What about my dog? Or perhaps the pool cleaning device that keeps the leaves out of my filter?

That has nothing to do with gay marriage though. You're talking about inbreeding (well, marrying your sister doesn't necessarily mean the two of you are or will have sex, but it's pretty much implied and is the issue at hand, I believe), bestiality, and... sex toys?

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 10:15 PM

You're right that the president, ideally, serves the interests of the American people, but there's something bigger than opinion in this case, because it's more than unfair to homosexuals, it's discriminating against them. The American people can think whatever they want about gay marriage, but singling out a group and saying "you cannot marry one another" is discrimination.

That has nothing to do with gay marriage though. You're talking about inbreeding (well, marrying your sister doesn't necessarily mean the two of you are or will have sex, but it's pretty much implied and is the issue at hand, I believe), bestiality, and... sex toys?
Why is it okay for men to marry men or women to marry women but not okay for men to marry their sisters?

Who's discriminating now?

- P

EdvardMunch

06-29-2004, 10:18 PM

Eh, I'm a hypocrite. Telling gay people You Cannot Marry is still discrimination, and is still illegal. Are you saying that if discrimination is socially accepted (like a law against inbreeding) it's perfectly okay?

And in this case, socially accepted means more than 50% of people approve.

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 10:26 PM

What I'm saying is Bush is justified in doing so. Like I said before, I'm here to justify Bush's stances (or refute them, depending on what people ask me to do) not talk about personal beliefs on social issues.

Nobody is saying gay people can't love each other and live together and have sex and whatever else. People do say you can't have sex with your sister. Before you start moaning about how bad gay people have it why don't you stand up and fight for the polygamists and other so-called "sexual deviants."

Please, PLEASE no responses calling me either a bigot or a sexual-freak. PLEASE remember I'm just refuting things, and I might not even believe a word I'm saying (or I might stand for it 100%, you never know).

Oh and let me say this: If we're talking about discrimination on the gay subject let's tie it in to the other subject of tax cuts. Before someone tells me "but it helped the rich out more than the poor" apply this argument: progressive taxes are unfair to the rich. Why discriminate against people for being successful? Ohhh burn...

- P

EdvardMunch

06-29-2004, 10:36 PM

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 10:43 PM

Why do I have to fight for the rights of "polygamists and other so-called 'sexual deviants.'"? I don't care about them. I care about gay people. I care about gay people's right to marry.

This is my argument: Bush is not justified in outlawing gay marriage because it is discrimination, and discrimination is illegal. He is not justified, because what he is doing is illegal.
Okay Mr. Legality, get in a train, go down to Massachussettes, and force them to stop letting gay people marry. It is illegal for the courts to make such sweeping judgements and create public policy through use of court rulings. It's oft-talked about as of late (it being the legitimacy of said rulings) but hey nobody wants to step in. Or you can go to San Francisco and run for Mayor because what our friend Gavin is doing is also illegal (his sanctioning of gay marriage is in direct violation with the California state constitution). I'm guessing you won't do that.

- P

bear in mind the US has the shortest history of any nation in the world. (not counting israel which was founded in 1947 i believe)
Yeah except no.

- P

EdvardMunch

06-29-2004, 10:49 PM

I've already owned up to being a hypocrite.

And besides, me stopping judges and mayors who illegally allow gay marriage has nothing to do with Bush. Bush is breaking the law by discriminating against gay people. How are his actions justified if he is breaking the law?

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 10:54 PM

Clearly there's no point arguing with you if you're already a self-proclaimed (and proven) hypocrite.

Bush's justification stems from public approval. If you don't like it, tough, and no I'm not conceeding an argument here. It is not possible to debate with someone who bites arguments from both sides of the issue (mine and yours). I can just say "yup discrimination is A-Okay" because it doesn't matter what you say since you automatically agree that it is. If you say it's not okay then, well, everything you just said is baseless. Just go debate with yourself, you seem to be good at it.

Next topic please! =)

- P

EdvardMunch

06-29-2004, 10:59 PM

PowderBB3D

06-29-2004, 11:03 PM

Tell me why he can't discriminate against people? Give me a direct passage from some source somewhere.

It's nice to know your opinions don't matter... I guess you really want to start getting ignored outright...

This was supposed to be in good fun but it's quickly becoming an exercise in how quickly you get the point (point being "you lose...fatality").

I said next question please.

- P

MinD_CakE

06-30-2004, 12:11 AM

My opinions don't matter. Bush's does. As the president, he is not allowed discriminate. That's that. Doesn't matter what the people want. Are you telling me Bush is allowed to discriminate? Public opinion does not matter. Bush is not allowed to discriminate. It is illegal.

Furthermore, I may think discrimination is okay. How I feel about discrimination is not the issue. Bush is not justified to discriminate because it is against the law. Not because it conflicts with my creed.

You seem to be writing me off because I'm a hypocrite. Fine. Let's say I found someone who did all of those things you want me to do, who is not a hypocrite. And let's say they said "Bush cannot discriminate because it is against the law". How would you respond to them?

You have not at all addressed how Bush is justified to do something which is illegal.

Bush is not allowed to discriminate because "it's against the law!?" Since when do laws apply to anyone anymore? This country was founded by breaking the law.

Also, to say that public opinion does not matter is grossly incorrect. Public opinion can destroy a politician in a matter of minutes.

Anyway, this whole country has gone to hell, ever since this moron cheated his way into office. The Iraq war for example, instead of sending in a special operations team to assassinate Hussein (forguve me if i spelled that wrong, not that it matters), granted it's against the geneva convention, but hell, America does whatever they damn well please, right? Bush was looking for a huge boost in public relations, how did he go about getting it? THE IRAQ WAR!!! Oh yeah, and watch near election time in late October, then you'll see headlines like "The US is getting closer to capturing Bin-Laden" which is a bunch of crap because there is no way that idiot is still alive.

EdvardMunch

06-30-2004, 12:18 AM

:) Saying I'm wrong will only make me work harder.

It's nice to know your opinions don't matter... I guess you really want to start getting ignored outright...

I meant my opinions did not matter in the context of whether or not, in my opinion, Bush is justified in outlawing gay marriage. And they don't matter because I'm arguing from a legal standpoint.

And, according to the 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights, discrimination is illegal:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I am sorry for my attitude during our debate, I'll try to cool off. :cool:

Also, to say that public opinion does not matter is grossly incorrect. Public opinion can destroy a politician in a matter of minutes.

Public opinion does not matter when laws supercede it.

Some laws might be broken, but we must uphold them, because without laws, we have no order, and without order, we are in anarchy.

Grom_Icecream

06-30-2004, 3:21 AM

I said next question please.
Ok.... note, i am not American so may miss some points or not know some things everyone else finds obvious.

Question is: Bush was right to allow Saudi royal family including a number of Osama Bin Laden's direct relatives to fly out of the USA in the days after 9/11.

PowderBB3D

06-30-2004, 4:29 AM

EdvardMunch: I see you've cited the constitution (as I knew you would, hence my question; yes I know, leading questions are kinda underhanded). I'm sure you are aware what an amendment does to the constitution? And what was Bush proposing?

Case closed (seriously; I think it's time to move on, and Grom has the floor now it seems).

Grom_Icecream, your question was more a statement. Do you mean "Was Bush right" or "I think he is right, prove me wrong?"

- P

Ole-The-Murder

06-30-2004, 9:33 AM

Me suggest people let this subject just go. You are probably right, and you're probably wrong, but still I think this speaking topic is overkilled. What happens, happens, and don't speak, deal with it or do something to prevent it. Don't go to a messageboard to just blabber away...Actions is all that matters, really. I think this thread should be locked, and then those eager to continue the discussion... #Warboards at Irc.Enterthegame.com. 'nuff said. But this is by no means a command, just the most viable solution, and then perhaps I am also a hypocrite, haha? Why yes. But I'm neutral, so now I will fuck the fuck off.

PhoenixNo13

07-01-2004, 9:17 PM

Bush is SUCKER.
i will kill him if i meet him. ( just kidding )

Dark_Viper

07-01-2004, 10:41 PM

Bush is SUCKER.
i will kill him if i meet him. ( just kidding )
thats ok... Bush just makes it to easy for us Canadians to make fun of him...

PhoenixNo13

07-01-2004, 11:01 PM

It's ok if u are not in Iraq :D
i will kill him like this>:twak: , like this>:chair: , like this>:laser:

or CUSS only :cuss:

Dark_Viper

07-02-2004, 5:45 AM

It's ok if u are not in Iraq :D
i will kill him like this>:twak: , like this>:chair: , like this>:laser:

or CUSS only :cuss:i would get him like this>http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/contrib/blackeye/AR15firing.gif, like this>http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/edoom/heads_or_tails.gif, like this>http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ed/SniperHeadShot2.gif. or like this>http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/anym/hanged.gif

or just make fun of him...

PowderBB3D

07-02-2004, 4:43 PM

Such morons on this board. I'm sorry but this forum is called "Intellectual Roundtable." You all should be banned from it. What was once a civilized discussion has turned into some idiot kids talking about things which they have no understanding of and talking about killing the president. Such morons.

- P

Kamikazie190

07-02-2004, 5:14 PM

This country was founded by breaking the law. I believe that was Australia. They're all decendents of banished english criminals or something to that nature.

Anyway, I'm not fond of Bush because I really don't think war was neccessary. Operation "Shock and Awe" was a massive bombardment of Iraq and all the places Suddam was expected to be sleeping. If Bush really wanted to assassinate Saddam, thousands of troops wern't neccesary. One man can do that with a sniper rifle. Instead he got in way over his head and now he's calling for a draft to make up for all the soldiers he sent to their deaths.

Ole-The-Murder

07-02-2004, 5:41 PM

What, you mean we could just walk in and snipe Saddam? Not possible. No-one just is like, "tra la la", and then picks off Saddam sleeping in a sealed underground vault in an unknown location guarded by religious armed fanatics.

But on the otherside, I don't think the reason he attacked the whole country and not just Saddam was THE OIL. He whouldn't harm the oil as much, so he just bombed places where Saddam could've been. Or copies of him...

The war, IN A WAY, necessary. Can't have an evil dictator like Saddam around, tho, but it's not like he did something wrong right then, but he deserved it, one way or another. Judgement was way late due! He gassed the Khurds, so why not? But the whole mass bomb pang pang alot of soldiers and Bush, heh, not necessary. He wheren't posing much of a threath, either, but who knows of Nukes before going down there? They did inspect, tho..they didn't find, but where still suspicious...Bush has his reasons, and is...uhmn...well, his father wanted "revenge" on Saddam, but it wasn't his concern before Saddam pressed the attack on Kuwait which had Oil, Saddam had never attacked America but they stopped him from getting the oil, so he probably bought Osama Bin Laden and Al Queida to bomb the towers, and you get the rest.... No-one is innocent anymore...

PhoenixNo13

07-04-2004, 1:34 AM

That's right.

Mattimeo

07-04-2004, 8:59 PM

I thought you all might find this interesting:

Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.)

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in US history.

Let’s clear up one point:President Bush didn’t start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives were lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Keep in mind that before the Democratic primaries the numbers of American soldiers killed in Iraq was far far less than it is now. Up till then we were winning the war, but all the negative rhetoric since then has emboldened the terrorists and convinced them that they are winning. There are a lot of brave American soldiers lying in their graves right now due to the selfish desires of politicians seeking power and fame. how sad!!!!

Our military is GREAT!

~Don't Panic

Ole-The-Murder

07-05-2004, 1:02 PM

Okay, you have convinced me, Bush is a great asset on military fronts, but what about the tax breaks for rich and higher estate taxes for poor in USA? That doesn't justify it!

singo

07-05-2004, 3:04 PM

Anyway, this whole country has gone to hell, ever since this moron cheated his way into office.
its called democracy, he who can convince the public (a fickle bunch at the best of times), is effectively, god

honest men cannot do politics in this day and age, get used to it or overthrow democracy.

your choice.

Mattimeo

07-11-2004, 7:45 PM

Okay, you have convinced me, Bush is a great asset on military fronts, but what about the tax breaks for rich and higher estate taxes for poor in USA? That doesn't justify it!

The Rich pay a disproportionate fraction of our taxes due to the fact that they have more income and pay a higher percent of said income. Thusly, by looking at raw numbers for tax cuts it appears that the rich are paying huge amounts less while the poor only get small tax breaks. But the percentage changes are actually not that bad.

P.S. Estate taxes are only taxed on estates of 1.5 million or more. The estate tax for the poor is 0, has been 0, and will be 0.

~Don't Panic

Ole-The-Murder

07-11-2004, 7:53 PM

EdvardMunch

07-11-2004, 8:00 PM

Is it better for the rich to spend their money on lots of pretty things instead of taxes? I'm not sure, but some taxes do more good for society than they do harm for the rich.

Take, for example, the Estate Tax. The Estate Tax is being repealled and, as the following article from the American Sociological Association illustrates, despite the savings the wealthy will receive, this is not a good thing.

http://www.asanet.org/media/taxes.html

Mattimeo

07-12-2004, 12:03 AM

Hmm, so you're basically saying you believe the industry as a whole will improve because of the highest income classes have less taxes percent to pay, than if someone on the lowest benefit of it instead, so the poor whould have more money to go around and thus more money to spend, and for a nationwide whole, the lowest income class buys the highest income classes shit, so the money comes quicker that way, than them paying a portion lower taxes which means more difference to a poor soul than a rich one, and in the long run it goes backwards and their income halts, slowly..very slowly...towards bankrupt. With no-one to buy their shit, they'll bath in their own feces. BAH! What a shitty economics plan. I hope this is not what you mean?

Obviously this is not what i mean because that would be stupid and if there is one thing Bush isn't it's stupid. (if you can manage to follow that *sigh*) Anyway, everybody gets tax cuts, it's just that the tax cuts for the rich are larger because they pay more. Say a person who makes 500,000 a year has to pay 40 percent in taxes while a person who makes 20,000 a year pays 10 percent in taxes (it's actually much more complicated than this but the concept is there) The rich person pays 200,000 in taxes while the poor person pays 2,000 in taxes. The rich person makes 25 times as much but pays 100 times the amount in taxes. Now, you give a tax cut of 10 percent of the amount they currently pay to each person. The rich guy now pays 36 percent while the poor guy pays 9 percent. The rich guy pays 180,000 in taxes while the pooer guy pays 1,800 in taxes. The rich guy still makes 25 times what the poor guy makes and still pays 100 times as much. But the statistics that get fed to you are that the rich guy now pays 20,000 dollars less while the poor guy only pays 200 dollars less. Oh the poor guy's getting screwed isn't he?

So now, everybody gets to keep more of their money and they spend it on things. Now with people spending more on things you need to make more things. And if you need to make more things then you need more people making those things creating jobs and people make more money to spend on these things and the whole process feeds itself and everybody's happy :)

Is it better for the rich to spend their money on lots of pretty things instead of taxes? I'm not sure, but some taxes do more good for society than they do harm for the rich.

Take, for example, the Estate Tax. The Estate Tax is being repealled and, as the following article from the American Sociological Association illustrates, despite the savings the wealthy will receive, this is not a good thing.

Taxes actually get mostly wasted by the highly inefficient and ineffective legislative body that is congress. There is so much partisan opposition and petty bickering and special intrests deals that the money doesn't go where it should. If you leave the money in the hands of the people then:

a) The people will spend their money on stuff they want instead of stuff special intrests groups in washington want for congresspeople's home districts.

b) The government will have less money and be forced to spend it better. The government could do the job that they are doing for much less if they just spend more wisely.

As for the Estate Tax, the tax is only on the properties of dead rich people. It's not right for the government to take money away from the families of the dead, even if they are rich. These people must have done something right to have so much money, the government shouldn't take it away from them just because they were successful.

And about this gap between whites and minority groups:

In 1998, the median income of black households was about one-half that of the median of white households, but black households’ wealth was only about one-eighth that of median white households’ wealth.

Woah woah woah? The minorities make half the amount of whites but have only one eighth the wealth of them? Shouldn't they have one half of the wealth? Why don't they? Is it because they don't use the money they have well? (much like our government i might add) Minorites aren't poor because whites keep them down, they keep themselves down by wasting the money they have.

~Don't Panic

EdvardMunch

07-12-2004, 1:24 AM

Minorites aren't poor because whites keep them down, they keep themselves down by wasting the money they have.

The "culture of poverty" theory is a rather controversial one, and definitely not proven. Although poverty is partially perpetuated by poor spending, they are not freely wasting it away. Here are some possible reasons for the continuation of poverty:

1. Minorities and the poor receive substandard education. Without proper education and knowledge, money isn't spent as wisely. http://azbilingualed.org/AABE%20Site/AABE%20NEWS%202003/minorities.htm Children who grow up in poverty are proven to be poorer problem solvers: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_53573.htm

2. Being impoverished is outright stressful and can have a significant impact on spending judgement.

3. People in poverty are more likely to be in poor overall health or be injured. This, coupled with the fact that being in poverty makes one, on average, one third as likely to be uninsured (http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/hlthin02/hi02t1.pdf = A 2002 census survey breaking down the amount of uninsured people. 19.3% of people making $25,000 - $49,999 are uninsured. The uninsured rate drops as income increases. http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/hlthin02/hi02t2.pdf = A 2002 census survey breaking down the amount of uninsured people in poverty. 30.4% were uninsured) makes for some hefty living expenses. These expenses can be in the form of medical bills, lost work due to ill health, an increase in resource consumption while recouperating, and many other ways.
There is also a higher rate of mental illness among the poor. That's costly.

4. Living options are limited by poverty as well. You can only afford to live in the cheap parts of town, which tend to be the most dangerous (which adds to health problems as well). These areas don't exactly have the best deals either.
Furthermore, because you lack the money for transportation, you're stuck with what there is in your neighborhood.

I don't have any data about how well the government spend their money as opposed to the rich, but it seems to me that the poor are better off with the government controlling the finances. If taxes are dissolved/significantly lessened, how will the money from the rich find its way to the poor?

Rich people prefer to spend money on other rich people, because the rich shops have the resources to make/order what the rich customers want. I can't imagine too many rich people preferring to shop at Good Will when Barneys is so much nicer. It seems like money from the wealthy stays among the wealthy.

The poor enter into the equation by working to keep the stores open, and they are underpaid by their bosses. The bosses can afford to pay them a lot more, but that's not how you get rich.

Ole-The-Murder

07-12-2004, 9:20 AM

That's another thing, marketing makes us believe what we should waste away our money on, and no-one has a sense of logic enough to put them in a bank account and play a little safe, instead of egoistically buying shit you don't NEED. Quite that simple, stop listening to radio and television and buy all that luxury shitshat. Concentrate more on the necessary, I say. Then the luxury comes secondary, and all that obsessive consumer-whore thinking which is forcefed by gullible idiots. You know, you CAN have fun withouth buying something, you know? Bah.

JenJen

07-31-2004, 9:26 PM

okay so i'm not much of a politics buff, but war is something i really don't agree with. I can't have an opinion on all of what Bush has done, but if i were able to vote it wouldn't be for him. I figure that you truthfully have no solid idea on what would have happened if he didn't choose to do some of the things he did, so why don't we give someone else a shot at it for a while? I think it would be refreshing to see other points of view running the show.

Wicked_Statue

09-22-2004, 8:40 PM

Bush has done more than any president in history of invading countries and blaming others for doing stuff that arent even bush's business. Bush has done more than any other president to make america hated by others. Bush has done more than any other with the deficit.

Draix

09-22-2004, 10:54 PM

Hate is a powerful word... Though i dislike bush the only other guy we have is kerry, some guy that will do anything to get into office. But if i had to vote it would be karry, he agrees with some bills that i believe will help mankind. In any case i dont think either of them know WTF their doing, heck i prob know more about keeping a nation safe and healthy, they just know how to kiss ass

Scipio7777777

09-23-2004, 8:46 PM

Bush has done more than any other with the deficit.

this is not true during WWII the deficit rose a damn lot during Reagans arm race with the Soviets the deficet rose higher than it has under bush

Bush has done more than any president in history of invading countries
another lie during the spanish american war we invaded Cuba, phillipines, guam, and puerto rico more than bushes Afghanisrtan and Iraq

Bush has done more than any other president to make america hated by others
first of all i dont belive everyone hates america becaues of bush but even if they do it still wrong during the cold war many countries and people disliked america for its 'warmongering'

Ninja-Pirate

09-23-2004, 9:18 PM

No.

At this point in time, the National Debt is the highest it has ever been. Ever. It's true that there were huge growths during the 80s and WWII, but we are currently hitting record budget deficits, which only serve to increase the debt.

And during the Spanish-American War, we did invade Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Phillipines. However, none of them were sovreign countries; they were all Spanish territories. And Puerto Rico and Guam still aren't countries. So though we invaded what are considered countries today, then we were really just invading Spanish territory, which is only one country. Bush has started more offensive wars than any other president.

Ragnarox

09-23-2004, 10:11 PM

OOC: I accidentally posted something and tried to delete it. It didn't workm, so now I am apologizing for it. My Bad...

Scipio7777777

09-24-2004, 2:05 PM

At this point in time, the National Debt is the highest it has ever been.what i am talking about is national debt GROWTH not about how high it is unless bush had paid it down since he is the most current prsident it would be the highest

as for offensce wars wasn't the US attacked on september 11th by the terrorstist that the Talban were harrboring???????????? and that saddam was monetarily supporting

also maybe a better argument than the spanish american war is WWI we attacked the axis powers did we not?????

Ninja-Pirate

09-24-2004, 5:17 PM

No. We did not attack the Axis powers in WWI. We attacked them in WWII. WWI was the Central Powers. And you cannot make a plausible argument that says that either of those was an offensive war from the American position.

And I said that the national deficit is hitting records. Allow me to clarify. This means that we are adding more money to the debt than we ever have in the past. So the debt is growing faster than it has ever grown.

And Saddam Hussein and al Queda, despite the beliefs of Dick Cheney, are not in any way connected. Colin Powell has publicly stated this.

Kopaka

09-24-2004, 5:20 PM

We attakced neither, dudes. WW1, Lusitania sank, we enter war. WW2, Hitler attackes France because of the treaty or Varsay, or whatever.

We entered WW2 because of Japan's attack, and Russian getting crushed.

Scipio7777777

09-24-2004, 5:25 PM

And Saddam Hussein and al Queda, despite the beliefs of Dick Cheney, are not in any way connected. Colin Powell has publicly stated this.what about that one terrorist zarqowi are however you spell his name he was in iraq

and besides al queda saddam gives money to the families of suicide/homicide bombers in paelstine/israel

As for WWI the lusitania just happened to have a few americans on board it was not an attack on us so we in effect went to war and invaded them

riBd

09-24-2004, 5:26 PM

Demosthene5

09-24-2004, 6:31 PM

Actually, we entered WW2 because of Germany's declaration of war on us.
We were "in" the war indirectly for years against the germans using funding, weapons, and other junk, and it wasn't until they were constantly caught defying our agreements, such as do not kill out trading, civilian, or whathaveyou boats that we actually got "in the shit" as Kubrick would say. The only thing pearl harbor really influenced was public opinion, and in america thats a pretty powerful thing anyway, so I dont think theres one individual occurance that got us into ww2. Its like asking "why was the civil war fought?"

Also a declaration would help I suppose...

riBd

09-24-2004, 6:58 PM

We were "in" the war indirectly for years against the germans using funding, weapons, and other junk, and it wasn't until they were constantly caught defying our agreements, such as do not kill out trading, civilian, or whathaveyou boats that we actually got "in the shit" as Kubrick would say. The only thing pearl harbor really influenced was public opinion, and in america thats a pretty powerful thing anyway, so I dont think theres one individual occurance that got us into ww2. Its like asking "why was the civil war fought?"

Also a declaration would help I suppose...Let me clarify.

The declaration of war on US is what allowed President Roosevelt to bring our troops into the war (in euroupe), resulting in a hell of a lot of casualties.

That's quite a bit different then just sending weapons, money etc...

Without such a declaration, the American public would have been totally against war in Euroupe.