Has anyone read George W's response to the DNC yet?

[Spencer]

if all you bush lovers have grown up poor(on almost many gov't assitance programs) like me, you would understand why i will never vote republican. Republicans and Democrats are the same for the middle class but the republicans would rather help(give special privileges and cut taxes) and befriend the the rich in hopes that the freebies the rich are getting will "trickle down" to the lower classes....

Blah. Blah. Blah. Bad Republicans. Here we go again…

So what do you think would be fair? Say I've got an idea...

How would you like a system where the top 1% of earners pay approximately 1/3 of the entire income tax bill? Fair enough?

Then to really soak the rich, let's say we make maybe the top 10% pay about 2/3 of ALL income tax? That sounds pretty good, too, doesn't it?

Then to make it truly fair lets give all of the poor people a break...so let's let the bottom 50% (HALF of all taxpayers) responsible for only 4% of ALL remaining income tax.

Surely that sounds good...doesn't it?

Well it may or may not sound good...but it should be familiar…because that's EXACTLY what we're doing now.

The "big bad rich" are getting the breaks -- because they pay an entirely disproportionate amount of taxes in the first place.

The top 10% pay 2/3 -- and the bottom 50% pay 4% -- sounds fair enough to me. But what do I know? I'm too busy working to tithe my part of the 2/3 to sit around and complain about how unfair it all is.

But I guess, in any case, the Democrats can do better. I guess if John Kerry is elected he can make it all better. After all, he's a real "man of the people" – what with the 5 mansions, billion dollar meal ticket, and the European prep school background – I'm sure he knows exactly how to help the poor.

What a joke.

 

[comquat1]

I second Ponyboy, Keyes is a very sharp guy. Just not sure if Ponyboy was kidding or not.

 

[NSXLuvr]

what would be fair is a Flat tax! Every person/corporation would have to pay it. Nobody gets away with not paying taxes(if they earn say more than $24k/yr). It would get rid of all loopholes, tax breaks, and alot of beaurocracy. Alas, it would also get rid of Tax accts, and Tax attnys. So, it won't ever happen.

 

[SCS2k]

Blah. Blah. Blah. Bad Republicans. Here we go again…

So what do you think would be fair? Say I've got an idea...

How would you like a system where the top 1% of earners pay approximately 1/3 of the entire income tax bill? Fair enough?

Then to really soak the rich, let's say we make maybe the top 10% pay about 2/3 of ALL income tax? That sounds pretty good, too, doesn't it?

Then to make it truly fair lets give all of the poor people a break...so let's let the bottom 50% (HALF of all taxpayers) responsible for only 4% of ALL remaining income tax.

Surely that sounds good...doesn't it?

Well it may or may not sound good...but it should be familiar…because that's EXACTLY what we're doing now.

The "big bad rich" are getting the breaks -- because they pay an entirely disproportionate amount of taxes in the first place.

The top 10% pay 2/3 -- and the bottom 50% pay 4% -- sounds fair enough to me. But what do I know? I'm too busy working to tithe my part of the 2/3 to sit around and complain about how unfair it all is.

But I guess, in any case, the Democrats can do better. I guess if John Kerry is elected he can make it all better. After all, he's a real "man of the people" – what with the 5 mansions, billion dollar meal ticket, and the European prep school background – I'm sure he knows exactly how to help the poor.

What a joke.

So the top 10% pay 2/3 of all income taxes? They ARE getting a break because it is common knowledge that the top 5% of the population control over 80% of the wealth in this nation. And since the remaining 95% of the population only controls 20% of the wealth in this country, then a tax break for them seems only fair, after all they are paying 1/3 of the taxes (your number) yet only control that 20% of the wealth.

 

[Brian2by2]

if all you bush lovers have grown up poor(on almost many gov't assitance programs) like me, you would understand why i will never vote republican. Republicans and Democrats are the same for the middle class but the republicans would rather help(give special privileges and cut taxes) and befriend the the rich in hopes that the freebies the rich are getting will "trickle down" to the lower classes. well has anything trickled down yet, NO, instaed the rich guys are "outsourcing" jobs to other countries to make themselves richer and america is now left lesser jobs. The Democrats want to tax the rich more and even more for those who wants to outsource jobs and also help the poor. I hate taxes like all americans but you(the $500,000+ anual salary people) shouldnt get tax breaks if you can afford to pay more taxes and even if you(corporations) get tax breaks you shouldnt outsource jobs. Bush should better stop befirending and helping these corporations and start kicking their asses(control what they are doing) for what they are doing. i wealthy now and this is all thanks to the Democrats , until the democrats stop helping the poor , i will always vote democrat or a party that would rather help the poor over the rich.

For elections i would go with a system like this:
each county(population at least 100,000) you win you get 1 pt.
each state you win you get 2 pt.
each 1,000 votes you recive you get 0.1pt
NOTE these numbers are just randomly chosen and if thoughtfully chosen would make the election system more fair.

First, I would like to start off by apologizing to Eric5273...I saw the yellow NSX in the avatar and assumed this thread was yours. I know you have more intelligence than this guy.

Now, to ADNOH: Don't lecture any of us on "coming from poor to rich". I would bet that a majority of us have made our living on our own...I'm still doing so. I could go the route and suckle my dad's success, but I want it on my own. Don't pull the "less fortunate" card.

Why do you feel that ANYONE in America deserves "special privileges"?? Are all men not created equal? Why give the little guy the break? Who knows if thats his real income! Maybe he's putting cash aside? Maybe he's buying drugs? Maybe he's pissing it away at strip clubs? There's a reason why he can't break through...maybe its his fault, maybe it isn't, but he still doesn't get privileges that another man isn't entitled to. The upper class worked hard to get there...SOMEWHERE along the line, there was blood, sweat, tears, and a hell of a lot of brains and foresight to get them there: WHY TAKE IT AWAY to give it to the man who doesn't have enough discipline to save a little??

The Democrats don't want to raise the taxes on the upperclass. In fact, Kerry said he doesn't want to raise taxes PERIOD...yet, his voting record in the Mass. says different. Oh and lets not forget where he comes from, with his mansions and botox and crap.

Money hasn't trickled down from the rich, eh? Open your eyes.

You want to talk about people who should be taxed? Lets talk about actors and actresses who get paid $35 million PLUS to make a movie! Lets talk about Basketball players getting $12 million a year to play a game! Lets talk about musicians getting paid $1-2 million a SHOW. Talented, right? They deserve that because they have a unique gift?? Well, so do the big business CEO's and executives. They have brains, balls, and have slummed to get to where they are, so they deserve equal rights as the guy who's trying to get there somehow.

I would like to end this post by referencing the Bible:

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day....Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

 

[Eric5273]

In fact, Kerry said he doesn't want to raise taxes PERIOD

Not true. If you had watched his speech at the convention last week, you would know that he said he is going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on those making over $200k per year (i.e. raise taxes) and will lower taxes for the lower tax brackets. Whether or not he will do that is anyone's guess, but that is what he said he will do.

Money hasn't trickled down from the rich, eh? Open your eyes.

No, it has trickled up from the poor, and the gap between upper and lower class continues to get wider. Every year a smaller percentage of the population controls a larger percentage of the wealth compared to the year before. This has been the trend over the last 50 years, and it continues on and on exactly as Karl Marx predicted. Every year there are more homeless people, more people living without health insurance, and more people living below the "poverty line" which is so low to begin with that's it's a joke. I think the current poverty line is $18k per year for a family of 4. So if you're a family of 4 with an annual income of $19k, you are not considered to be living in poverty -- what a joke!

You want to talk about people who should be taxed? Lets talk about actors and actresses who get paid $35 million PLUS to make a movie! Lets talk about Basketball players getting $12 million a year to play a game! Lets talk about musicians getting paid $1-2 million a SHOW.

Yes, they need to bring back the old progressive tax structure that existed from the 1930s until the 1980s. For anyone who is old enough to remember, please chime in and advise Brian2by2 what the top tax rate was.....

I would like to end this post by referencing the Bible:

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day....Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

What if this "man" is actually 2 little kids with a dead-beat dad and a 21 year old mom who is a high school drop out? Then what? How do these 2 little kids get a fair chance in this wonderful country?

 

[Spencer]

[

…since the remaining 95% of the population only controls 20% of the wealth in this country, then a tax break for them seems only fair, after all they are paying 1/3 of the taxes (your number) yet only control that 20% of the wealth.

Irrespective of tax dodges (I hate some of them, too) I think that you're confusing wealth with income. Forgetting about income taxes for a minute, should we then just attempt to confiscate the wealth of the upper 10% to make everything more equitable? What does that do to the lion's share of capital, that goes to employ everyone? Would you recommend that? Shall we take their money and evenly distribute it to poor people so they can all stimulate the economy by buying a new dining room set next week? That would stimulate the economy real well…yeah right, for about six minutes.

Seems to me, that every country that tries screwing with the very people who invest in the means of production (those hated top 10%) ends up having capital flee to another location or worse.

Like, for example, take Venezuela. Chavez, the nut job dictator, goes after their top 10%…and now presto…a severely devalued currency, no middle class left, and even worse for the lower classes. While that's an extreme example...now THERE'S a guy who really knows how to help the poor! (And the pathetic part is, everyone there with real money has it parked offshore in dollar denominated investments waiting for the storm to blow over.)

Earlier, Sig said 'business is like water' -- well to that I'll add capital. You f#@ck with it and it's going to flow somewhere else.

P.S. As hard-to-believe as they are...they're not my numbers…they're the most recently published from the I.R.S.

 

[Ponyboy]

if all you bush lovers have grown up poor(on almost many gov't assitance programs) like me, you would understand why i will never vote republican.

I grew up poor. Single parent home, Section 8 housing, WIC cheese and milk, shoes two sizes too small, gang infested neighborhood, public school in every grade. I have never used that as an excuse of failure or in an attempt at begruding someone else's success. That said, you may want to mature at a more rapid pace and understand that YOU ALONE are responsible for your success or failure in life.

Oh yes, I was serious about Alan Keyes. He's come to Tulsa a few times and I try to catch him whenever I can. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

[Eric5273]

I like some of what Alan Keyes stands for, but I think he lacks policy in a lot of areas. He thinks all problems such as crime, poverty, etc, are a result of the degrading of morality in this country. However, his theories do not explain how crime and violence are so low in a country such as Holland where things such as prostitution and marajuana are legal. Although I agree that morality of society in general is a problem in this country, I think he greatly simplifies the issue. Also, he offers no legislative solutions to this problem -- he appears to think if he was to be elected president, people would line up to follow his fine example and all our problems would disappear.

 

[minervoflorida]

Bush

Bush,
No WMD
Carlyle Group,
Torture POW
No help on Medical Insurance , Medicare, Soc. Sec.
Soften Polution for big business
Over spend
Tax cut, 60% goes to 1%
Halliburton
World hates us, will not work with us
Terrorist recruiting is way up
Armed Service enrollment is way down.
No one is held accountable for Intellegence mess
He PROMISED to get the parties to work together
With him it is ALL about the money and big business

And I voted for him, was I wrong.

 

[paladin]

Re: Bush

No WMD
It has been widely documented that given the information and speculation by the WORLD's intelligence services, that the conclusions they came to would lead any person to believe they had WMD's. even Putin agrees.
Torture POW
Our prisoners get raped in the ass. Its been known for years, its a joke to us now. A few misguided GI's make some terrorist play naked twister and all of the sudden its an outrage?
No help on Medical Insurance , Medicare, Soc. Sec.
Soften Polution for big business
I'm not sure where you're going with this one. There's no magic bullit in the world that can fix Soc. Sec., and medicare is expensive enough already.
Over spend
Simple math. Government budgets money based on how much expected revenue they will recieve from taxes. When the economy tanks, they recieve less, and therefore are doomed to overspend. Its nothing shocking here, it happens all the time
Tax cut, 60% goes to 1%
60% of one tax cut. Now i slightly question your figures there, i know that it was certainly larger than 1%. Besides, those 1% are still paying a much higher percent than everyone else, so their burden is still unproportional.
Halliburton
Ahh, the lovely Red Herring that is Halliburton. I mean, Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton, and now he's the V.P. AUTOMATICALLY ensures this huge level of corruption!
<_/sarcasm_>
Halliburton doesnt control nearly as many of the lucrative contracts as people like to infer. They submitted bids just like everyone else.
World hates us, will not work with us
Thats a slightly misleading statement. We've been disagreeing with the French and Germans for years, but we're still friends with them. We still work with them. The only people that seem to hate us are the ones that always have and always will.
Terrorist recruiting is way up. Armed Service enrollment is way down.
I would LOVE to see some evidence for this. The first is completely unprovable, so how you can infer that must mean you subscribe to the M. Moore school of statistical analysis. I rad an article that the military recruited over 30 thousand in the last year alone. That doesnt seem like a drop in recruits.
No one is held accountable for Intellegence mess
Did you not hear on the news the DCI got axed over the poor handling of intelligence? How about the fact that we've been through a handful these last 10 years?
He PROMISED to get the parties to work together
He promised to try. If the Dems dont want to work with Republicans and vice versa, you cant blame one man.
With him it is ALL about the money and big business
And John Kerry isn't? A lesser known fact, the Bush's are millionaires. the Kerry's are BILLIONAIRES. How that makes only one of them accountable to money makes zero sense.
And I voted for him, was I wrong. [/B]
If you feel that way, its certainly your prerogative. If you feel that way only for the above reasons, its your ignorance.

 

[minervoflorida]

Carlyle

You forgot to talk about these items.
The Caryle group,the pollution items for the Electric Companies, and their emmisions.

Sorry but I do not see it your way.
Besides, Bush seems really dumb, did you see his last press conference, about a month ago, where he answered questions without reading the answers, I actually felt bad for him.

I do not appreciate being called ignorant, we should be able to discuss these issues without personal attacks. I love this news group and feel very bad you called me ignorant, I read a lot of press and follow the news very extensively.
If I had an opinion without reading the news then that might be different.

 

[Eric5273]

Re: Re: Bush

No WMD
It has been widely documented that given the information and speculation by the WORLD's intelligence services, that the conclusions they came to would lead any person to believe they had WMD's. even Putin agrees.

Yes, that is why all the members of the security councel voted in October 2002 to send the inspectors back in. The inspectors were doing their job, just as they did the first time before the UN ordered them to leave in 1998 ahead of Operation Desert Fox.

From the mouth of Bush's own WMD expert:

David Kay: Bush, Blair should've known intelligence didn't show Iraqi threat

Torture POW
Our prisoners get raped in the ass. Its been known for years, its a joke to us now. A few misguided GI's make some terrorist play naked twister and all of the sudden its an outrage?

There have been murders of over 30 POWs which are now being investigated. And there has been real torture, beatings, prisoners being sodomized, etc. Congress voted to not release the last group of photos because they were so bad they were affraid of the repercussions in the Arab world.

No help on Medical Insurance , Medicare, Soc. Sec.
Soften Polution for big business
I'm not sure where you're going with this one. There's no magic bullit in the world that can fix Soc. Sec., and medicare is expensive enough already.

We are the only industrialized country in the world that does not guarantee health care to our people. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussein had guaranteed heath care, and they still do, and guess who is paying the bill now?

Over spend
Simple math. Government budgets money based on how much expected revenue they will recieve from taxes. When the economy tanks, they recieve less, and therefore are doomed to overspend. Its nothing shocking here, it happens all the time

Funny how the Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives

Anyone care to guess the one small section of this chart when a Republican was NOT in the White House?

Halliburton
Halliburton doesnt control nearly as many of the lucrative contracts as people like to infer. They submitted bids just like everyone else.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml

"Even before the first shots were fired in Iraq, the Pentagon had secretly awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root a two-year, no-bid contract to put out oil well fires and to handle other unspecified duties involving war damage to the country’s petroleum industry. It is worth up to $7 billion."


http://magic-city-news.com/article_1678.shtml

"According to Time magazine (May 30,2004), Dick Cheney's former company, Haliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth over $7 billion to help rebuild Iraq. The process for awarding this rare and lucrative contract was coordinated by Dick Cheney's own office in the White House."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/30/cheney.halliburton/

According to an e-mail excerpt in Time, the contract was "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w[ith] VP's office."

The Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract three days later without seeking other bids, Time reports.

Time says it found the e-mail "among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group."

With him it is ALL about the money and big business
And John Kerry isn't? A lesser known fact, the Bush's are millionaires. the Kerry's are BILLIONAIRES. How that makes only one of them accountable to money makes zero sense.

They are both the same. If you want change in this country, then vote for someone else. If you like things the way they are, then flip a coin. If Kerry is elected, nothing will change.

 

[Brian2by2]

Re: Carlyle

You forgot to talk about these items.
The Caryle group,the pollution items for the Electric Companies, and their emmisions.

Sorry but I do not see it your way.
Besides, Bush seems really dumb, did you see his last press conference, about a month ago, where he answered questions without reading the answers, I actually felt bad for him.

I do not appreciate being called ignorant, we should be able to discuss these issues without personal attacks. I love this news group and feel very bad you called me ignorant, I read a lot of press and follow the news very extensively.
If I had an opinion without reading the news then that might be different.

He schooled you on just about every thing you listed albeit three items and you're complaining? Wheres your rebuttle to his statements?

 

[Brian2by2]

Re: Re: Re: Bush

They are both the same. If you want change in this country, then vote for someone else. If you like things the way they are, then flip a coin. If Kerry is elected, nothing will change.

I do agree with this statement to a point. At least Bush is being the more honest and decisive of the two.

I honestly wouldn't trust my vote to anyone other than either a Republican or a Democrat candidate, so voting other isn't an option.

 

[paladin]

And i'll go ahead with the 2 items i missed!
I (now this is something you dont see every day) am not informed enough about the Carlyle Group to make a remark, so i'll hold any comments about that one.
And the pollution laws he enacted (or should i say, failed to) were only in response to some hardcore legislation put in by the former v.p. Al Gore
I threw in the ignorant comment not as an insult, but because of the actual meaning of the world.
ig·no·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.
Disregarding factual information falls nicely into that 3rd category.

And the Only country in the world that doesnt guarantee health care? thats crazy talk. There is no hospital in america that will not treat someone in critical condition. In Canada, however, they're reeling from a case where a man was sent away from the ER because he didnt have his card, and died before he could make it back. A real good system in place there, i must say.
I'm not from Canada, so i can't really talk at too great lengths about how their federal health care system performs. perhaps one of them could chime in?
Lastly, the whole "economy was great because of Clinton" is getting pretty old. Its been beaten to death, and as Clinton was on the way out the economy was already headed for destruction. It almost worked out too well for Dems in this case. Its simply a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. You assume that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other, while at the same time giving no evidence that either president had any real effect on the economy.

 

[nkb]

In Canada, however, they're reeling from a case where a man was sent away from the ER because he didnt have his card, and died before he could make it back. A real good system in place there, i must say.

Excellent deduction, paladin.

Let's base our impression of Canada's health system on one screwup. Good thing things like that never happen in our country.

 

[nkb]

Lastly, the whole "economy was great because of Clinton" is getting pretty old. Its been beaten to death, and as Clinton was on the way out the economy was already headed for destruction. It almost worked out too well for Dems in this case. Its simply a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. You assume that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other, while at the same time giving no evidence that either president had any real effect on the economy.

Well, based on that statement, Republicans can't argue that the reversal of the economy is due to the tax cuts, right?

 

[Brian2by2]

Excellent deduction, paladin.

Let's base our impression of Canada's health system on one screwup. Good thing things like that never happen in our country.

Do you think its an isolated situation? Do you ALWAYS have your wallet on you when something bad happens?? I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where people have had to go home to get their card and only lost blood or suffered a lot of pain. This was an extreme case, but if everyone has healthcare, whats the problem?

 

[Spencer]

Re: Carlyle

You forgot to talk about these items.
The Caryle group...

Hey guess what? The whole Michael Moore / Carlyle Group issue is a bunch of urban folklore at best.

In fact, you probably know another of their famous investors...

Maybe you'll recognize his name...

He's one of the most outspoken Liberals there are...

He has a visceral hatred of George Bush...

In fact, he's the money behind moveon.org...

Yep that's right. George Soros.

(Gee, maybe he's in Bin Laden's pocket, too. Quick let's call Michael Moore to research the "facts" -- lol.))

 

[huckster]

The president in office during time of crisis/war has ALWAYS gotten his 'bell rung' in public opinion polls. I actually think this is a rather interesting phenomenon and probably says something about our great society.

These presidents have come to be considered 'great' after the wars are won. The glaring exception is vietnam (Johnson and Nixon). The one war we (public opinion) considered a loss.

I dont see President Bush as being a 'great communicator'. Some of his Bush-isms even seem beneath the office.

BUT i do respect many of the tough decisions he's made, and more importantly how he's handled many of the tough situations laid upon his doorstep. I suppose I prefer substantive actions over polished communication. And President Bush has definately provided substantive actions.

During President Bush's tenure, he has weathered both economic crisis and 911 terrorist attacks. The economy is doing better, whether you choose to give him credit for that or not.

More directly, he has established a whole new security agency to deal with the terrorist threats. He has struck back overseas against terrorism in Afghanistan and removed a dictator in Iraq who was at best calling for Americas downfall and at worst had the means to attack with WMDs. (And refusing to allow inspections to search for WMDs).

When you consider all of this, President Bush has actually accomplished much more than most presidents. And all of this in less than four years of office.

Sure, I've got my concerns. We didnt exactly garner widespread international support. Although many more nations were involved and supportive than have been regularly reported in the media.

And I really question the Cheney-Halliburton connections and 'back room contracts'. On this topic however, I think there were few companies that could offer the entire range of 'services' they were looking for (ie; battlefield work and security--surprising number of ex soldiers in this company). The process of open bids and prior media scrutiny would also have been handcuffs on action. Many companies would have been willing to bid and bid lower, but unwilling to deal with the employees danger and deaths.

When I add it all up, President Bush HAS accoomplished a lot, in a very short period of time. The terrorism problem was inherited, but the most devastating attack to date happened on his watch. Overall, I commend him on how he has handled it.

Regarding Kerry, I dunno. And from listening to Kerry, I gather he doesnt know either. The most obscured fact about Kerry is one of the most important ones to me. The only thing for sure are 'death and taxes', and how a person handles both says a lot imo. Last year Kerry reported 490k plus in income, but paid 90k in taxes. He made significantly more than I did, and still contributed significantly less tax dollars. In fact, he 'beat' the alternative minimum tax of 25% (roughly 122,000$ on his 490,00$ reported income). This may not be 'cheating', and I'm sure the loopholes he used were very legal, but it was something I was unwilling to do. And I certainly am NOT a billionaire or married to a billionaire.

 

[nkb]

Re: Re: Bush

No WMD
It has been widely documented that given the information and speculation by the WORLD's intelligence services, that the conclusions they came to would lead any person to believe they had WMD's. even Putin agrees.

Not accurate. The majority of the dissenting countries, such as France and Germany, did not want to join in the war, because they were not convinced about WMD. They were asking for more investigation. So, I guess others did come to (correct) conclusions.

Torture POW
Our prisoners get raped in the ass. Its been known for years, its a joke to us now. A few misguided GI's make some terrorist play naked twister and all of the sudden its an outrage?

This has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread. Our government has admitted to torture, and even murder of POWs. As someone mentioned, a lot of pictures were not released because of their inflammatory nature. And we're talking about real torture, not just humiliation by making people play naked twister.

Over spend
Simple math. Government budgets money based on how much expected revenue they will recieve from taxes. When the economy tanks, they recieve less, and therefore are doomed to overspend. Its nothing shocking here, it happens all the time

It's not a coincidence that Republican governments generally run a bigger deficit than Democratic governments. Yes, the flip side is Republicans usually create tax cuts, while Democrats raise taxes.
What cracks me up about your statement is that because it happens all the time, we should just accept it. What a ridiculous attitude! Maybe we should just accept that there will always be terrorism, and murder, and rape?
If we could just have a government (regardless of party affiliation) that would be fiscally responsible for, say, 2 decades, our deficit would be gone (maybe I'm being optimistic), and we would pay LESS taxes form then on. What a concept!
This should be no different than what we do in our own personal finances: Pay off debt, then splurge.

Halliburton
Ahh, the lovely Red Herring that is Halliburton. I mean, Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton, and now he's the V.P. AUTOMATICALLY ensures this huge level of corruption!
<_/sarcasm_>
Halliburton doesnt control nearly as many of the lucrative contracts as people like to infer. They submitted bids just like everyone else.

The Bush administration, after months of not commenting, has fully admitted to awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton subsidiaries. The reason they give is that allegedly there were no other companies that were able to handle the job.

World hates us, will not work with us
Thats a slightly misleading statement. We've been disagreeing with the French and Germans for years, but we're still friends with them. We still work with them. The only people that seem to hate us are the ones that always have and always will..

After 9/11, the entire world (with some obvious exceptions) was behind us, and outraged at the attacks. Countries were sympathetic, and there was all sorts of good will. With the right diplomatic touch, this could have been a concerted effort to fight terrorism. But, the Bush administration managed, in record time, to turn world opinion against us, because of strong arm bully tactics.
I contend that more people hate us now than did before 9/11, and that is quite a feat.

With him it is ALL about the money and big business
And John Kerry isn't? A lesser known fact, the Bush's are millionaires. the Kerry's are BILLIONAIRES. How that makes only one of them accountable to money makes zero sense.

It is completely immaterial what the candidates' personal wealth is. What their domestic policies are should be the focal point. Believe it or not, you can be rich, yet still set policies that don't favor the rich. I don't think too many people will argue that the Bush administration favors the corporations. Kerry has stated that he plans to put rules in place that will favor the little guy (for example, less tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs to other countries).

And I voted for him, was I wrong.
If you feel that way, its certainly your prerogative. If you feel that way only for the above reasons, its your ignorance. [/B]

It's funny how you accuse others of being ignorant, yet, among the above points, you are the one to display ignorance.

 

[nkb]

Do you think its an isolated situation? Do you ALWAYS have your wallet on you when something bad happens?? I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where people have had to go home to get their card and only lost blood or suffered a lot of pain. This was an extreme case, but if everyone has healthcare, whats the problem?

I don't proclaim to know how Canada's healthcare system works. Does this happen all the time? Possible. Should you condemn something based on one anecdotal account? No.

 

[paladin]

I don't proclaim to know how Canada's healthcare system works. Does this happen all the time? Possible. Should you condemn something based on one anecdotal account? No.

The story about the healthcare system was only the latest one, from what i've heard there are alot of problems they're attempting to deal with right now.

You honestly can't take the position that because France And Germany (nice little acronym there), that the WORLD didnt want us to. You forget we had a pretty sizeable coalition. besides, its also known that Saddam had sizeable debts to France and Russia. Debts that those countries were very interested in.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread. Our government has admitted to torture, and even murder of POWs. As someone mentioned, a lot of pictures were not released because of their inflammatory nature. And we're talking about real torture, not just humiliation by making people play naked twister.
I'm skeptical of the "murder" aspect here. But these guys are terrorists, not reguler GI's. Their very existence is in defiance of the Geneva convention. As such they are not protected by it. If you open fire from within a crowd of civilians expect to be tortured. you probably deserve it.
It's not a coincidence that Republican governments generally run a bigger deficit than Democratic governments. Yes, the flip side is Republicans usually create tax cuts, while Democrats raise taxes.
What cracks me up about your statement is that because it happens all the time, we should just accept it. What a ridiculous attitude! Maybe we should just accept that there will always be terrorism, and murder, and rape?
If we could just have a government (regardless of party affiliation) that would be fiscally responsible for, say, 2 decades, our deficit would be gone (maybe I'm being optimistic), and we would pay LESS taxes form then on. What a concept!
This should be no different than what we do in our own personal finances: Pay off debt, then splurge.
Yes, we shoudl accept it because thats how countries work! But i dont see how the Dems plan to lower the deficit AND increase spending on social welfare, without A: Cut money from existing programs, or B: raise alot of taxes. Now i wouldn't be so offended by B, except i know they're gonna make it unproportional! They're going to continue on with the worker's plight theme and tax the hell out of corporations until there are no more. For some reason the trend lately has been to villianize both the incumbent president and big corporations.
After 9/11, the entire world (with some obvious exceptions) was behind us, and outraged at the attacks. Countries were sympathetic, and there was all sorts of good will. With the right diplomatic touch, this could have been a concerted effort to fight terrorism. But, the Bush administration managed, in record time, to turn world opinion against us, because of strong arm bully tactics.
I contend that more people hate us now than did before 9/11, and that is quite a feat.
You could contend such a feat, but honestly the numbers dont support your arguement. France has always had a problem with us, as had Germany for the last 10 years. How many countries have "left" the coalition? few. Spain, and only because of their new socialist party p.m. who was voted in on scare tactics.

And finally, I attempt to back up my opinions with fact, rather than just display them and make a decision based off them.

 

[Eric5273]

The amount of ignorance in this thread has grown to the point that I'm shocked some of the people here are smart enough to hold a job and be able to afford an NSX.

If you show someone that a ball is round, and you show them the definition of round, and 5 minutes later they say its square, there is then no way to discuss the subject intelligently. Of course it could be due to the fact that the media has shown this ball 10 million times in the past and each time said it was square. This is called brainwashing -- the American public is in the same place as the soldiers in The Manchurian Candidate.

This thread has died and gone to hell. Let's move on....