*DAMN R6 Forum

After watching the State of the Union, I had a  realization that Bush will not be reelected. His rhetoric although effective on the less agile minded, did not posses the stinging potency to unify Americans behind his regime.

 Ten Reasons why Bush Sucks

1. The Patriot Act- In his State of the Union speech the President attempted to pass this act off as an invaluable tool  in the so called war against terrorism. This is somewhat disconcerting as many of the 9/11 hijackers were in the San Diego phone book under their real names which were also on suspected terrorist lists.

"Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.

The Department of Justice is expected to introduce a sequel, dubbed PATRIOT II, that would further erode key freedoms and liberties of every American." From the American Civil Liberties Union.

2. Iraq- not much explanation needed here, to date 503 American troops have died because of Bush's aggressive foreign policy. In the coming months you will see more unrest as the people of Iraq call for direct national elections and the U.S. calls for a complicated caucus system. Already a majority of Iraqis favor a government that is run under traditional Islamic religious law, which undermines the democracy the U.S. will attempt to put in place. It will not be pretty, if the U.S. attempts to install a puppet regime as it has on countless other occasions. Not to mention Iraq is divided heavily between the Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish peoples, although Saddam was a bastard he still kept these 3 extremely volatile sects from ripping each others head off. Mark my words 10 years from now Iraq will be more dangerous to the U.S. than it was when Saddam was in power, when an Islamic radical takes control as we have seen on numerous occasions in the middle east.

3.Osama Bin Laden-remember him? Odd how this man was not once mentioned in the President's State of the Union, did I miss something? or is this guy still out there plotting the next terrorist attack on the U.S., how does this make Bush suck? Well this was the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks and yet he remains free while our attention has been distracted to good old Saddam.

4. Tax Plan- I could go into a multi paged synopsis about his plan, but I'll keep it short and sweet. His plan favors the rich, the people who are in need of tax relief the least.

5. Prescription Drug Plan- This is great and extremely good legislation, if you're a CEO of a large Healthcare company, I however am not.

6. Environment- This is another topic in which I could go pages on, but again I'll keep it short. His cleverly named "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" legislation are absolutely great, if you're a Corporation that pollutes and or a Logging company. "Clear Skies" rolls back the Clean Air Act and shields Corporations from damaging fines if they pollute.

7. Mars/Moon-What the hell? Boosh wants to spend billions on space exploration, when so many other programs of importance on Earth (specifically America) are neglected and underfunded, mmmmk.

8. Immigration policy- Well good old G.W.B wants to let Illegal Aliens become legal residents and obtain work permits. Again that is an awesome idea if you're a multinational corporation looking for nearly slave wage labor.

9. Abstinence Programs-Is this man insane? How about he give the money promoting Abstinence to programs that promote safe sex, because in reality who the hell practices Abstinence.

10. Same Sex Marriage- Being a heterosexual male that is quite secure, I see no reason why in the United States of America you cannot marry whoever the hell you want, is this not a supposedly free society? The President came out against this and I think it will come back to bite him in the ass.

Well, this is just my opinion on why Bush sucks, thank you have a nice day.

Yea he does suck, but i like the mars plan...and the base on moon stuff too

Yeah, hell its not like there is anything more usefull that he could do with one trillian dollars is there.......

I'd prefer to just concentrate on the state of the union. Here are the most glaringly bad parts:

1. The part where he said America has the best health care system in the world. We don't. It's terrible.

2. The part where he talked about keeping kids of drugs and funding drug testing in schools

3. The part where he talked about steroid use in pro sports. Topicality, please.

4. The part where he talked about "family" and marriage and even threw out the idea of a constitutional amendment. This was the most offensive part to me.

5. The part where he wanted to make the tax cuts permanent, without mentioning the fact that either
a. the deficit will grow even more ridiculous
or
b. he will cut shitloads of programs

Also, his health ideas were awful.

So I don't sound all negative, he did an OK part defending his foreign policy decisions even if I don't agree with them. The domestic agenda however, was outrageous.

I've been busy, so just a quick note in agreement:

Britnay Spears does more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than two gay men  putting rings on each other's fingers. Jeez, George, stop being such a hypocrite.

I mean, come on! One of the world's most high profile people got married on a lark in Vegas, while drunk, and then had the marriage annuled.

But no, it's the shitrammers that Bush is afraid of. (Well, perhaps not, it may just be the sort of voters he wants to attract are bigots and homophobs) What does gay marriage do to destroy marriage? Other than let human beings love each other in a formal way? Other than being equal protection to equal people, everwhere? Nothing. It does nothing but liberate.

This country is not so biased as to support a Constituional Ban on gay marriage. Indeed, the government tends to do a poor job when it tries to regulate social life: take for example the ammendment on booze and our war on drugs. Yah. We sure did a bang up job on both of those. Now, let's try and ruin the lives of decent people by making their love life and human passion officially Wrong. Gah! Bush you fucking fascist. When are the pink triangles coming out?

Okay, my turn :)

Sorry to disappoint you, but Bush will be re-elected.  The very short reason for this is that the vast majority of the people of this country DO NOT trust the Democrats on National Defense.  For that one reason alone, no Democrat will be elected President in 2004.

Okay, now for your points....

1.  Just what key freedoms and liberties have you lost?  There is NO difference in my life since the passing of the Patriot Act.  If this is something that scares you, maybe you should take a look at what you are doing wrong....cause those are the only people who should be scared by the Patriot Act.

2.  I love this one....how Saddam kept these 3 volatile sects in line.  Any clue how he accomplished this?  How about mass murder, rape, torture, and imprisonment.  Guys, you have got to stop believing that Saddam was some kind of Saint.  And, 503 American troops have died.  Yes, and some of them were friends of mine.  And guess what, they died doing what they believed in....namely giving FREEDOM to those that have never known it.  I love how people who have never served in the Military throw around our dead as a statistic.

3.  As for Osama....we will get him.  Just like we got Saddam when nobody said we would....

4.  His plan favors the rich???  Just who the hell do you think PAYS most of the taxes???  I'm sick and tired of everyone thinking that the rich should have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than anyone else!  Hell, I'm far from being rich, and I get taxed to DEATH!  The tax cuts that he has put forth have helped my family out a great deal (and I'm just a middle-class family of 3 with one person in the house working).

5.  The Democrats blasted Bush like crazy for not having a Prescription Drug Plan for Medicare.....and now that he gives them one, they gotta find reasons to blast him for doing it....heaven forbid he does something that Democrats have wanted to do for years.  The Democrats are just pissed that he is taking all of their steam away.

6.  Please, would everyone just get off the environmental band-wagon a moment.  If you are so worried about the environment, then you need to sell your car and/or never buy one again, sell that Macintosh that is using up excess energy, and stop using electricity all together.  Until you stop creating polution, you have no right to dictate anything.

7.  Bush didn't even mention the Mars thing in his State of the Union Address.

8.  Ahh, the Immigration thing.....another thing that Democrats are pissed off about because THEY wanted to do it first!

9.  Heaven forbid kids practice abstinence before marriage.  I'm sick and tired of seeing 12 year old girls getting pregnant.

10.  Sorry again, my morale values tell me that Marriage was created by GOD to be between a man and a woman.


Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Just a few bushism's for the fun of it :D

? "Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
?''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe?I believe what I believe is right."
?"More and more of our inports are coming from abroad"
?"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
?"The fact that he relies on facts...says things that are not factual...are going to undermine his campaign."
?"There's an old saying in Tennessee?I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee?that says, fool me once, shame on?shame on you. Fool me?you can't get fooled again."
?"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."
?"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."
?"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it"
?"I think we agree, the past is over."
? "Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are. We're very generous."
? "The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."


Awh its just so easy.. there are just thousands of them :)

I think hes a great president you guys over kill everything.

I mean, the only mistake i didnt like was the crusades speech.  >:(

Honestly, I cannot believe that you are saying this. Do you really think that if we cut back on space exploration and the new frontier, we would really solve the problems we have here on Earth, much less the United States? COrrect me if I am wrong, but looking back on fiscal year 2002, a total of $14.5 billion was spent on NASA while a total of $1.3 trillion was spent on social programs (health care, education, etc.). Do you think by slashing the entire NASA budget (if given to social programs, it represents a whopping 1% rise in spending) we would be doing humanity a favor?

It is human nature to expand beyond the borders as we know them. It is reasonable to think that a lunar base will expand our ability to explore deep space due to it's low gravitational pull and abundance of a perfect fusion fuel, H₃.

The question you have to ask yourself before posting this stupid is this: Is putting a mere band-aid on today's problems worth mortgaging the potential futire of humanity? What would the world be like today if we took your thinking and applied it to all the great expeditions that have occured?

 1. Any freedom that is infringed upon by the government deserves opposition, this is the first step in the extinction of personal privacy.


2. No one thinks Saddam is a saint, but ruthless dictators like him come a dime a dozen. Im sorry to break it to you, but they died for oil. Ha, if people like myself did not bring up such statistics then the dead would all too soon be forgotten. The DOD won't even allow press at the return of the coffins for PR purposes, now that is in my opinion the most disgraceful thing you could do to the fallen. I will not forget.


3.Thats super, but for now he is utilizing his CIA training to plan the next attack on the U.S. while we have our thumbs up our ass in Iraq.


4. Everyone will always complain about Taxes. I find it interesting that this President has received hardly any criticism for racking up the largest defecit in history. As for the rich, well fuck the rich.


5. Typical right wing response. Im not a hardcore democrat, just someone who sees the injustice of taking advantage of the weak, and giving to those who are motivated by greed.


6. Ok, that has to be the most elementary argument I've ever heard.


7. Musta thrown in the anti-steroids thing instead.


8. May I ask where you get your inside information of the Democratic parties political strategy?


9. That's Harve's fault.


10. The GOD argument is hardly academic, my Patriotic values tell me that this is the land of the free.


I say fuck the Moon and Mars lets go straight to Uranus.

Mainman, pull your head out of Bush's ass. There's not enough room beside GhostSniper's.


The Patriot Act infringes on the rights and expectations associated with being an American. The Patriot Act was a rushed attempt to make American citizens feel safer in their contry after 9/11, regrettably, it's done the exact oposite.

 2.) Democracy in the middle east is an idealistic response to a bad situation. Ideally, the different ethnic groups in the middle east would come together and unite to form democratic govornments. Then again, ideally, the world will be a place free of terrorism and sadists. Neither is going to happen in the immediate future, or even in 10-20 years. As weapons technology expands, the major world super powers ( America and it's allies ) will have to accept the ability of terrorists to aquire weapons of mass destruction with ease. I'm not saying negotiate with terrorists. Far from it. I'm saying don't create more terrorists than already exist.

503 US Soldiers dead. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi for a moment. There are foreign soldiers patrolling the streets of your home town. Each day, they conduct raids on buildings, taking prisioners - most of who will be released after they're deemed innocent. You see 3 humvies pull up to your house, soldiers jump out and kick in the door. You've got an AK-47 next to you. What are you going to do? Let them take people from your family away? Hell no.

The resistance in Iraq won't be stopped by raids, or capturing key resistance leaders. In fact, in most cases, such activities will just provolk more resistance. If there are an infinite amount of people willing to give their lives up trying to take yours, you won't win by force in such cases. That's common sense.

What'd we go to war in Iraq for? To remove the threat posed by non existant weapons of mass destruction? The Bush administration is now leaning towards the "liberation" approach. Personally, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer under a stable govornment ( Saddam's govornment was horrible, but it was stable, and the living conditions for the average Iraqi weren't bad ), than with the American forces there.

Ok, enough about Iraq.

3.) In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden isn't nearly as big of a threat as he was in 2001 ( i.e., before the US invasion of Afganastan ). Afganastan was the perfect place for Al Quida. He no longer has as good of places to train people, and let's face it, his forces were decimated in Afganastan. I'm not saying I don't want to see him caught, or that it's not important to catch him. Only that he's not nearly as much of a threat as he used to be, so I can understand the Bush administration wanting to concentrate it's military power elsewhere.


4.) GhostSniper, I've never understood that approach, perhaps you could enlighten me? Yes, the rich are the ones who pay the most taxes. That is how it should be. They can afford it. Look at it this way - who needs tax relief? Multimillionairs, or peoeple who are just barely getting by? Shouldn't the answer be obvious?

You pay for what you get. You want a good country to live in, you've gotta pay some taxes. The money has to come from somewhere .

I won't comment on his perscription drug plan, because I don't know much about it.


Just, please, for a minute, pull your head out of your ass and think.

The idea is to minimize out pollution. As in don't pollute anymore than is necessary. I think you're smart enough to be able to reread what you said and notice how lame it sounds.


Look at Bush's background. What does he care about the enviornment? I think that most people can agree that Bush's approach to enviornmental issues is "fuck the enviornment, I'll be dead by the time it gets TOO bad. . ."


I don't really have a problem with his space exploration plan, other than the fact that I think he showed his ignorance about such issues, and his goals involving Mars and completly unrealistic. Like Sin pointed out, the amount of money that NASA gets is insignificent compared to many other things. Looking at the potential of sending another mission to the moon could, like Sin pointed out, open up the potential for new energy methods.



Very few people, when at a party, are going to be thinking "I can't! She might get pregnant!" That's not something that runs through our heads. Schools and other youth events would be better off promoting safe sex - something that we might actually take note of.


I'm split on this issue. Part of me says that Marriage is something between a man and a women; that's what it is nothing more to it. However, another part of me says "why shouldn't gay people be entitled to the same rights as those of us who are straight?" They're born without access to the same rights as us.

Very mature, I doubt the "Uranus" comment was a coincidence. Come back to me with a real argument and I might not ignore your posts in the future. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you should to ignore it, rather, you should take into consideration why someone else thinks that way and try and counter their points like I did with you.

Added: The flaming was deleted from the thread by me. Anymore unconstructive flames will get a warning and multiple warnings will get you a ban.

PsYcO, Twas a joke, In my opinion the potential future of humanity is on this earth. Although the space endeavors have given us countless technological innovations (tempurpedic mattress, tang ect..) perhaps we should focus on improving life in the very world in which we inhabit. 1 in 6 children, 1 in 10 families, 1 in 8 individuals and 1 in 10 seniors live in poverty. To me this is unacceptable. The President however neglects these fundamental social issues. Space exploration is inevitable for human kind, however it sickens me to know the very infrastructure in which this country is built upon is crumbling, and companies are exporting jobs over seas in extreme numbers and we want to allocate monetary funds for further space exploration. I wonder who is going to make the rockets that send us to Mars and the Moon? Lockheed Martin perhaps? or Raytheon? Whichever makes little difference, I will support further space exploration as soon as our country gets its priorities straight. Will it choose the people or will it choose monetary proliferation? I fear the latter, but time will only tell. I apologize for my "Uranus" comment, if you found it offensive.

I like how Bush is not even a real conservative. Remeber 2000? I sure do, he ran on the platform of small government. The government now is much larger than Clinton's government, and these arent even organs to help people, they are organs to control people. With the expansion of the government he drastically cuts taxes and then he proposes a Mars program. This wont be done on his administration because many legislators in his party objected to the massive amount of spending that it would require along with the excessive security.

Go to Mars and establish a Moon base. It will be a testament to the might of humanity just as the moon landing and Yuri Gagarin's flight around the earth. However, we should prepare for it and save up for it, not make the tax cuts permanent.

I 'm going to avoid getting into the entire debate, but one thing that struck me, was his section about the whole abstinance programs, drug education programs, standardized testing, and the anti-steroid business.  Just keep in mind im currently a senior in highschool, and granted, it is just one section of society (a fairly well off area is sending kids to the highschool, so im not seeing the conditions youd see in the heart of a major city like NYC or Chicago) but either way...

To kick it off, I think Typhy said it the best.  When the opportunity presents itself, the last thing in your mind is "gee, i wonder if she will get pregnant."  I dont know from personal experience (yes, blast me if you want, im abstaining by personal choice, not by what some educational program taught )  I know this from interacting with a group of people who are proud to not abstain (as you would expect with many teenage males) the point im trying to get across with this one is, it doesnt matter how much you tell people this, douse them with educational programs and what-not, i can garuntee you, from having point blank views of the age-group he is hoping to change, it wont make a lick of difference (no pun intended).

Moving on, the drug education thing is pretty much the same, and again, a warning, most people at my highschool are intelligent enough to avoid the major drugs (X, Acid, Meth, etc) but, i personally dont think that is what he was saying in his speech.  What i think he was saying, is that law enforcement should crack down on weed, or whatever you want to call it.  This however, would be even more pointless than the abstinance education.  I can go through my entire senior class, and count on just my two hands, how many people, myself included, do not drink or smoke dope on an almost weekly, if not daily, basis.  The only way to bring down substance abuse in the teenage population in this country, is to make the penalty for even being in possession, so harsh, that it would be too much a risk to smoke.  However, even with that in place, two more huge changes would have to happen.  First, police would have to be much more observant and in-tune with the happenings of their area, where the parties are, who the dealers are, and also being able to find the grow rooms etc.  In the state of Washington, in particular the Pacific-Northwest, where I happen to live, you have, roughly, a 1 in 10 chance of being caught growing marijuanna plants.  In addition, by growing about 15-20 plants, one could, according to a documentary (which is very recent) make about 50,000 a year.  With no income tax, etc.  Youre going to have to spend astranomical ammounts of cash to make it more dangerous to grow it, than it is to get caught.  Plus, youll have to provide all the extra prison space for the flood of new inmates.  Good luck with all the tax cuts pulling that off.

Ah yes, next up: Standardized Testing! Boooo hiss!
Now, this may be slightly biased, because im a student, but here we go.
Ok, i dont remember the exact words, but essentially, Bush said standardized testing helps keep everybody on a generally even level of education, so that anyone who is getting left behind, will be noticed and helped back up to speed.  A pitty that isnt QUITE how it works.  How it works, in Washington at least, if there is a major deficiency in scores (this is in reference to the standard, 1st 4th 7th and 10th grade tests that all states now give) in one school, be it in people just passing, or in one area in particular (note, there are only two areas, verbal and math, completely excluding science, history, and everything else, making the test quite faulty right there) the school gets looked over by the state, or county, or whatever.  That means that job in-security for teachers goes through the roof, since if parents have been recently complaining about a teacher, for whatever reason, they can then get the boot.   Not only this, when the cause is found, almost always being due to tremendous class sizes, or lack of funding, the schools get reprimanded, and, surprise, get no more extra funding.  Zero.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nadda.  So the kids that are falling behind, come 2007 in Washington, do not graduate until they pass the standardized test, or WASL (in Washington.)  So there they sit, in highschool, unable to get extra help because of lack of more funding, but just re-cycling in the school system, being generally un-productive, when they could be out in the workforce, but are being held back by a standardized test that barely tests anything.  Now, im not saying they make some, month long testing marathon in which every subject from A-Z be tested in depth, but i think it is foolish to try and assess someone's academic knowledge by asking them about 200 questions in two fields.  Like someone who is destined to be a mechanic.  Im not a car person, but last i checked, there werent alot of verbal, nor math skills, required to being a mechanic that could fix just about everything that could go wrong with a car.  But that person could be stuck until theyre 21 in the school system because of this standardized test, when they could be out making a pretty hefty salary.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

Now, i think this last one really speaks for itself.  How many of you, as a result of hearing about a sports jock using steroids, started shooting up.  Cmon, lets have a show of hands please.  Oh, nobody? Well thats a su-oh wait, this isnt a "Steroids Anonymous" meeting, this is the STATE OF THE FREAKING UNION ADDRESS!!!!!!! Sorry, wrong building.  

*rings a bell* ok everybody, back at each other's throats!!

Lone-Wolf

Good job, ty. you really got me there  ;)

THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE

Rarely do I side with Pat Buchanan, but what Bush wants to do in his immigration policy is just flat out wrong. He wants to take away jobs from higher charging Americans and want to give them to desperate illegal aliens that will work for barely nothing at all. Any dumbass knows that companies exist to make profit. So if you have an American worker that wont work below $8.00 an hour and an illegal immigrant from the Central Plateau of Mexico that is willing to work for $5.50 an hour, who are you going to pick to make your buisness more profitable?
This decreases the employment rate of American citizens and legal aliens. Aren't they the people the government should be representing? Now, if these immigrants are willing to work for such low wages, they should enter the country leagaly and apply for a work visa, and then be eligible for hiring.
       Now, how about the lack of security. I know, I know I sound like a hypocrite, because in my last post I said there was excessive security. I should clarify that we are investing in the wrong sectors in security, we are investing in citizen surveillance. Look at our borders! They are about as pourous as the Iraq-Iran border. How can you tell that the immigrants coming over arent Al Queda. Put a Punjabi in a poncho and you wont even be able to recognize him from a Mexican. Dont say the government does not have the resources to adequatley patrol the border either.
      My homecountry, the Russian Federation has an extreamly tight border, and the longest borders ever. They have to patrol from Sochi on the Black Sea all the way across the endless steppes of Siberia to Vladivostock on the Pacific. The southern fronteir is one of the most secure borders in the world considering it length and Russia has less man power and less financial resources than the United States. If a bunch of drunk and hairy Russians such as myself can do, then you Americans can do it.
                                  THE GRAND ALLY OF ESTONIA

      I like how Bush boasts about his grand new coalition in Iraq with all the international help he gets. Oh no! Buckle down Abdul! The Estonians are coming!!
Not to put down the nations that do endorse him, but they are economicaly and diplomaticaly insignificant countries. Estonia pop 1.5 million is about the size of Austin, Texas in land area and people, not to mention the many other small European countries simillar to them. What Bush has done is alienate ourselves from other more influencial and benificial European Allies most notably Germany who is an economic and diplomatic power to be reckoned with. They make cars and pharmecuticals from the Ruhr, develop machine tools, and hold many finances in their banks. All Estonia does is export a few barrels of Oil Shale from their beaches around P?rn?.
       Apart from our allies he angered some of our competitors. With his invading of Iraq he has disgruntled the leaders of China along with Vladimir Putin and the Duma. I dont need to tell you how valuble a trade partner those two nation, especialy China are.

*will spell check later

Reason number 11.  If you can't pronounce the word 'Nuclear' correctly, then you shouldn't be the "leader of the free world".  I mean come on.  Nucular?  Who says that?

Also, being that I am a teacher, I find it quite disturbing that our Federal government has spent more money on education in Afghanistan and Iraq than it has on our own schools in the United States.

Here are some scary facts:

1.   The Department of Defense budget was 312 Billion dollars this past year.  It was considerably less for education.

2.   The Federal government of the United States contributes only 8% of all money spent on education in the entire country.  The other 92% comes from the States.

3.   According to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (http://www.juvjustice.org/media/1009.html) and many other organizations and reports,  Hmm, you do the math folks.  Perhaps we should concentrate of giving our children the education they deserve instead of ear marking billions of dollars into a fucking moon base or exploring Mars.  (Please take me seriously about this moon base thing even though I used the word 'fucking'.  Normally, you should not use expletives when rationally discussing topics, but it's a fucking moon base.)

Final thought:

Bush will most likely be re-elected due to the simple fact that the Democratic party is literally tearing themselves apart, and on television no less.  Plus, if any independent candidates run, they will probably run on platforms more closely aligned with Democrats since the Republicans are going to try to put the same guy back into office.  If the Independents try to resemble Republicans, which they sometimes do, they will simply be overlooked as they usually are.  Another reason why Bush will most likely be re-elected is that Democratic voters might be disenfranchised and will not vote at all.  Bush could possibly win the presidency again merely due to the lack of Democratic votes.

One of the largest issues that I wish would be resolved, by either party, instead of being talked about is definitely education.  Education is the key to everything else in our world today.  Unless you want a bunch of mindless citizens who can't graduate high school and then end up in jail.

.::|N| Noto

I have a question here.  What would happen if homosexual marriages were allowed at all levels?  Well, I think the biggest fear is not a bunch of "shitrammers" leering at your children or giving you a slap on the ass in the office.  I think the biggest fear must be some sort of financial hooblah.  Being married has a lot of financial strings attached, some bad, but many good.  It just seems that since the United States is more caught up with capitalism rather than religion or morality, I believe this issue of homosexual marriage is somehow related to money.  Does anyone else agree with this view?  I just can't believe that Americans in general would really care if homosexuals were married.  It's "big business" that's problem from where I'm standing.

.::|N| Noto

Well, I half agree and half disagree.  I agree that the "rich" pay most of the taxes, because just percentage wise, the rich will always end up "paying" more.  Frankly, I would like to see across the board tax percentages.  Different taxes for different incomes hasn't worked very well ever since it was implemented.  Perhaps it's time to try something new.

Now here is where I disagree.  The rich are usually rich for one very big reason.  They worked for it and they earned it.  If I was a rich man (No fiddler jokes please), I would be pissed that the government would want to tax me at a higher rate than some schmoe making 12k a year.  Perhaps that window washer should stop bitching about how much they are being taxed and get an extra job, or a different job.  Everyone has choices, even if they don't seem feasible.  Basically, the rich earn what they make (for the most part), and I do not think the government has the right to take advantage of these hard working Americans.  Why do you think so many of them get offshore accounts and use the Swiss bank?

I think we all can agree (Americans) that our tax system is very screwed up due mostly to its complexity.  But, the system is very large and complex.  There's no way to "fix" it completely.  The only thing that can be done is to patch it up as time goes by, but for every item you "fix", another one rises in its place.

.::|N| Noto

     I agree wholeheartedly with your stance on this one, Lone Wolf. There is no rational reason for marijuana to be illegal. Instead, it is illegal because the manufacturers of the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol don't want that competition and have the bribe money to ensure the legal/governmental status quo.


     I think you're wrong on that one, Noto. Many people espouse the open-minded view of tolerance towards gay marriage, but are secretly disgusted by homosexuals. Now, there's nothing wrong with that view, as long as those same people realize that freedom for a minority does not require participation, acceptance, or enjoyment on the part of the majority. It simply requires noninterference.
     At any rate, the status quo re: gay marriage is most assuredly a "moral" problem, as there's no money being lost by "big business", except possibly the manufacturers of bridal dresses. I'm curious what you meant when you said that big business is the force keeping gay marriage illegal. Where do you see the economic motivation coming from?

     On the tax issue, it's a widely known fact that our tax system is crap. I'm in favor of a full replacement, while others prefer the idea of reform. Personally, I believe that the graduated tax system is inherently flawed and will always lead to more trouble than it's worth. We've had the tax discussion before, so I won't go into it here.

I just got to say that i love that quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger....

" Gay marrage is somthing that should happen between a man and a woman"


Oh dear... and somebody made this guy governor of California?

I was referencing that with the tax issue as well.  I agree with what you have said, but I feel that there are other issues at work other than disgust towards homosexuals, albeit that is the major highlight.  And if there are other issues in American society, it's most likely having to do with money in some form (i.e. insurance companies, pensions, retirement, 401k,... I'm not sure how in depth being married has to do with those items, but i know they are interwoven considerable at many points).

perhaps we could shorten the whole topic by just trying to find one, just one small reason why Bush might not suck... just one.

... just one.

I can tell you many reasons....but my favorite is:

He isn't committing adultery every other night in the Oval Office.

From GhostSniper

Last i checked, the laws of the land, aka the United States, were not supposed to be influenced by relgiion, as when this country's constitution was created, a very big point was made for a seperation of church and state.  So, if the state is trying to make a case against same sex marriages, i sure hope it has a better reason than "we're doing this because it goes against the values of christianity"

Im not saying government officials have to be non-religious, or whatnot, I'd just prefer to see the religion of a senator, house rep., president, or whatever, bleed into how this country works, and especially how the laws are created and worded.  

Am i going to get struck down by a bolt of lightning now?

Lone-Wolf

Lone-wolf i think you are so spot on its brilliant. There is a nasty mix of state and religion, hell we have the same damn problem in the UK. Its not a good mix. and to say "we're doing this becasue it goes against the values of christianity" is just wrong. Why should christianity get top spot anyway?

***NOT*** bleed into how this country works, and especially how the laws are created and worded.

Sorry,  in the first post.

Lone-Wolf

Well what are the reason's for the mariage tax credits in the first place?  To give married couples a break for when they have kids, I bilieve is an issue.  Now I'm not up on every state's adoption laws but I do not think very many allow same sex marriages to adopt.  And can anyone honestly tell me how two guys are gonna make a kid and thus bring the next generation of American's into being?  

I'm not a homophobe or anything but how can someone that is not going to foster children need to be considered married?  They sure as hell are not going to need the tax cuts to help with a child.  I agree with the seperation of church and state but isn't marriage in the first place a religious concept?

Small addition / correction for Loth.  It's Dow and Dupont that want to keep Hemp illegal (not just marijuana).  Too many uses that compete with Nylon, etc.

Just have too add those into your conspiracy theory, that's all =D.  Since they are the ones that really pushed for it to be illegal in the first place (and they have so much more clout then the smokey five).


Lone-Wolf, you are dead wrong there.  Back when our constitution was formed, this was a christian state, and the laws were all based off christian morality.  The separation of church and state was not intended to keep christian morality from law at all.  It was intended to help end the religious persecution that went on in many European nations back then.  The Holy Roman Catholic Church had much power in governments, and the Church of England was headed by the King of England.  They didn't want the church to have power over the peoples religious freedoms.  That doesn't mean that they didn't base their laws off the 10 commandments, they just didn't want them being told to them from Rome or London.  Learn about these men (the Founding Fathers), most of them were devote, and many were even Masons.  

All that said, I'm not against "same sex unions" being recognized legally.  Live and let live.  Being a fan of liberty, they should have the same liberty to live how they like too, with the same rights and privileges as the rest of us citizens.

However people may feel about this issue, I think it's important to legislate it from a secular point of view. My christian beliefs inform how I feel about many social and political issues, but I never use them as a justification in public discourse. I'll quote the political theorist Kymlicka on the necessity for this:

"Liberal citizens must give reasons for their political demands, not just state preferences or make threats. Morever, these reasons must be public reasons, in the sense that they are capable of being understood and accepted by people of different faiths and cultures. Hence it is not enough to invoke Scripture or tradition. Liberal citizens must justify their political demands in terms that fellow citizens can understand and accept as consistent with their status as free and equal citizens. It requires a conscientious effort to distinguish those beliefs which are matters of private faith from those which are capable of public defence, and to see how issues look from the point of view of those with differing religious commitments and cultural backgrounds."

The discourse on this subject is ongoing, as law and compromise have not been reached. But the current debate is frought with religious reasoning, and until the focus is shifted away from that method of debate a true compromise will not be reached.

Ghost:
Would I rather have the president commit adultry every night and lie about it or wage a war of aggression by misleding Congress and lie about it?

I'd have the president who was an adultrious bastard over the fascist murderer any day.

Getting on to some other topics:
A lot of what liberals have trouble with is the epic shift in government policy towards a state governed through religion.

(And just a quick note to put in your bonnet: Under God does not mean For God. You live "under" your landlord but you do not live "for" him. Think about it.)

I think the vast majority of Americans have trouble with the increased faith based everythings.

Sure, it's totally fair for Bush to voice his opinions and base them in his faith. But, as President, he has a duty to uphold the Constitution. He has a duty to seperate his emotions from his job.

It seem he cannot or will not. He is thus a traitor.

Gay mariage is something that religion plays an emotional role in discussing, but cannot play a policy role. To base the state's opposition to gay marriage in faith is to spit on the good words of our fore fathers.

Consistantly, Bush has based policy on his faith. Of particular concern to me was his goal of providing federal funds to relgious organizations and relaxing the prereqs for those orgs in getting those funds. That's offensive. My priest does not deserve my tax dollars - he deserves my charity and my prayers.

I do not understand how conservatives, who scream when money is given via welfare or when money is given to secular orgs like Planned Parenthood, do not scream when the president promises to give money to relgious orgs. Your money is being given away - isn't that what you hate so much? That and heritics? And we all know that the religious orgs that he's thinking about are Christian ones, predominantly.

Bush is a big spender and he spends worse than any Democrat. Worse, he's only motivated by his special interest in Evangelical Christianity (sic, militant Christianity). He could care less about America, unless it's a fundamentalist America. It's offensive and un-American.

As for taxing rich people unfairly. Cooooome on. EVERYONE hates taxes. I do! I don't like seeing thousands of my glorious greenbacks funneled into Social Sec and state tax and federal taxes! I hate it.

But, it needs to be done. And rich people need to pony up their dollars too. Futher, most people who are classified as rich (over 100,000 in income) have the means to secure their dollars from taxes. They can often incorporate themselves or run their own company. They invest in the stock market, where the wealth generated is not taxed as highly. They can give a small portion of their income but a fairly high dollar amont to charities, thus reducing their overall tax rate. They can put funds into trusts or even start up their own charities, putting wealth into them but controling how it's spent ... And on, and on. Wealthy people are not taxed unfairly. They can and do have the ablity to AVOID taxes. They, in fact, often PAY people to help them avoid taxes. Of course, nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with you if you think they ain't getting a fair shake.

And don't even get me started on the ridiculoud ending of the estate tax. Bush sold that shit like it was killing farmer's babies, but all it was doing was hitting people like Bill Gates when they died. it was one of the ONLY TIMES during the lives of the filthy rich then the wealth they made during their life time was taxed. it's gone. But Bush's gonna raise 200 million for his re-selection!

Fuck, I hope there is a new tax put in: called the Gates tax. Anyone with a Billion bucks pays, oh, lets see, an even 10 million bucks in taxes per year. But the government gives them their own rural town to run as they see fit. Fair? You decide.

But, dude, we have it good in America. Taxes all over the world are tremendous. Most democracies have incredibly high taxes compared to ours, and they have them precisely because their citizens demand so much from their governments. We demand a lot too. Only we don't want to pay for it. Fucking freeloaders. So basically my feeling is anyone who bitches about high taxes is human. Anyone who wants to change them is a freeloader. You are a fucking freeloader, Mr. Bush.

You want roads? Pay taxes. You want schools? Pay taxes. You want food? Pay taxes. You want a secure job? Pay taxes. You want a world class Army, one that no one can touch? Pay your fucking taxes. You want to have moon bases and explore the cosmos? PAY your fucking taxes. You want your social security and relef for when you loose your job? PAY YOUR TAXES.

Better yet, DON'T flatten the taxes all helter-skelter. DON'T lower taxes without making sure you can COVER the REDUCED income. And DON'T, don't don't make tax cuts perminant. Cause if you do, and then we have a fucked up economy, we're not going to recover. Cause cutting taxes only provides stimulus IF there remains  enough income from those taxs to keep the lights on.

Bush is such a noob. That's why he sucks.

Bush just wants to cut taxes for the wealthy cause that money goes right back into his and his party's pocket. He trumps up the minor returns you and I get as the reason those taxes are being cut, but really, it's a cut that gives millions to millioniares (excuse my hyperboly)

Does a millionare really need a tax cut? Does he need THREE tax cuts? Does cutting his income tax or his estate tax or his dividends tax make him put MORE money into the economy? No, he saves it in Burmuda, where there are even fewer taxes.

The truth of the matter is that the only tax cuts that provide economic stimulus are those that go to the poor, who spend almost every dime they make each month, or to the middle class, who spend almost every dime they make each month. Give them a little more money, but keep taxing the rich, and the economy works better.

Here's a new but related topic:

Bush's cuts have put us back into massive deficits.

Do you know what a deficit is? It's a nice way of saying debt. Llike with most Americans, teh country is going deeper and deeper into debt. Oddly enough, the value of our dollar is decreasing too (because our economic polices are such crap). That means our ablity to pay off or pay down our debt is reducing while our debt is increasing.

Yay!

Cuttin taxes manifestly for the rich but supposedly for the poor made the situation worse because it reduced our income and insured we cannot maintain our current level of spending.

Think of tax cuts as pay cuts for the Federal Government.

Bush forced the federal government to take a pay cut right before a massive recession. Then we got attacked and had the biggest symbol of American Capitalism destroyed. Then Bush forced the gov to take another pay cut, right before our economy was made even more unstable through treasonous corporate scandals. And then, most recently, Bush forced yet again another pay cut for the Federal goverment, among massed lay offs. Meanwhile, he's been whipping out our children's credit card and buying more of everything and spending our money like a rich white republican in Bancock's red light district. (that's a loose dig at Neil (look asain hookers in my bed while I'm married) Bush.

(btw, why aren't all you conservatives astounded by Neil Bush and his close ties to China, foriegn nationals, and hookers? It's like he's everything you hate - AND he's destroying the sanctity of marriage. I guess, at least he doesn't have loving, consentual, not-with-a-hooker sex with men, right? You fucking hypocrits.)

So what Bush's done is make the government: 1) take three paycuts, 2) timed those cuts so that they hit America hardest, 3) "borrowed" (I say stole) money against the future of our children to pay for what we have now and to expand the heavy foot of goverment to profound levels, 4) watched as our ablity to pay our debt off disappeared.

Yay goes the RNC! Yay goes fundamentalist! Yay goes idiots!

Now, what if you were "America", and suffered three paycuts, were hit by tough times, got mugged by an old friend (the Bin Ladens are known buddies of the Bushes), started going deeper and deeper into debt just to get by, then starting buying new TVs,  new cars, a fancy security system, then rushed out and broke into that old friend-who-mugged-you's house and killed his wife, then bought a new gun and threatend a few neighboughs into helping you bust into another old friend's house, raped his wife and killed his kids, bitched at the local Home Owners association cause you had the most guns and the biggest house (forgetting you owe them all money....) ......

Nothing that's happened has been good. Sure, sure fucking over that old friend was good. Or at least at the time it was fun. I mean, he did mug you. But you only managed to kill his wife and drive him from his home. Now he REALLY wants to get you, but you have to keep an eye on the OTHER old friend's home you busted up and killed everyone in. You lied about why you did it too, so no one trusts you anymore, and you bullied everyone while doing it. (Seemed like he had some heavy weapons and he was hiding that other pal of yours, or something? In the end it didn't pan out.) That, and now your neighboughs hate you and want you to die. Oh, and whenever someone questions what you're doing you attack them, yelling, "9/11, 9/11!" and "God bless America!" Like that really helps.


If you were America you'd be fucking insane, right?


Basically, this is Bush's America. And all of us have to deal with it.

Actually, marriage isn't a religious concept. It's a state concept. Most people get married via a religious organization, but remember, ship's captains (for some silly reason) can marry people. Your local city hall can marry you, too.

Marriage is simply a structure wherein the state recogonizes a union between two people.

As for the tax stuff: I'm sure it's based around the presumption that they'll have kids. But, that doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to have state recognized marriages. They are seperate issues. I think gay people can make great parents. Who wouldn't want to be raised in a loving family, even if that family consists of two men or two women.

Hell, people found interracial marriage to be disguisting. In fact, we are seeing a rehash of the same arguments. Of course, it's really only bigots who have trouble with state stancified gay marriage, just like it was only bigots who were against interracial anything.

A lot of fundamentalists presume that when people talk about gay marriage they mean - and want - the various religious institutions to open up to gay marriages. Fuck no. This is an issue of the seperate between church and state. And just like the church should have no say when it comes to state recognized marriages, so too should the state have no say in church recognized marriages.

Sixhits, you'll want to check this out if you haven't already.

http://www.fairtax.org

 In my opinion the 200 plus FBI agents that the Republicans bogged down with investigations of President Clinton's sex life in order to bring articles of impeachment against him, would have been better utilized preventing TERRORISM as this was pre-9/11. Makes you wonder.

I was against the investigations of Clinton while he was in office.  It was a waste of time and effort (and millions of dollars).  

But that doesn't make me like Slick Willie any better.  Remember, he is the guy that invented the idea of when the spotlight got too much on him, he'd bomb Iraq again.

Besides, being the conspiracy theorist that I am, I blame the Secret Service.  If they would kill an icon like Marilyn Monroe to protect JFK, Monica shouldn't have been an issue.  

Buc, that's an interesting proposal.

Taxes based on consumption rather on income. It sounds like it would hit the wealthy hard while only lightly hitting the poor, cause everyone knows that the rich buy more than the poor.

Interesting.

I looked up those that contributed to the site. One of the primary participants is the Herritage Foundation, an organization that, according to Rush Limbaugh, "[Has] some of the findest conservative minds in America today..."

Could you see why I, as a liberal, would be hesitant to support a policy shift backed by a staunch and, more to the point, closed minded Republican like Rush and backed by a conservative thinktank like the Heritage?

Anyway.

A lot of what the site says sounds good on the surfice. It sounds so simple, too.

However, here's my retort: The problem with taxing only consumption rather than taxing on consumption and income, as we do now, is that taxes on consumption alone would reduce the Federal draw and would drive overall prices up in order to cover that deficit.

If one tax lowers then the other must be raised to cover the difference, right?

The concept that "the more you buy the more taxes you pay, and the less you buy the lower your tax burden" sounds grand, at first, until you consider that consumption taxes would be very, very high. If you dislike 8.5% in Cali now, imagine an additional Federal tax on top of that.

But still, logic seems to suggest that the wealthy would pay more taxes cause they buy more. Right? This depends on what you define as "more".

Ok. In dollars relative to poor people, yes, in a consumption based tax system the rich pay "more". As a percent of income, no, rich will pay considerably less. Poor people have fewer dollars to spend, and as i noted before, cutting the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax will raise the cost of goods and services - ie, raise teh cost of living. Poor people will not be able to afford as much as they once did, plus the social services that once were there to support them will be reduced or non existant, since the total revenue from taxes would be so much lower - how could the goverment afford them? It couldn't.

Income taxes are the only fair tax percisely because everyone HAS to pay them. Cunsumption taxes are not fair becuase people don't have to consume, and they don't have to consume in America.

Getting back to critiquing consumption taxes. Such taxes are not fair versus income taxes because they drive up costs for goods and services, making it harder for the poor to pay for them, while shifting the burden of taxes from the currently progressive burden (rich pay more as a percent of income and in dollars) to a regressive burden (poor paying a higher percent of income).

Regressive taxes hit the poor. Progresive taxes hit the rich.

In a income vs consumption tax argument, that is what it boils down to. And that is why Rush Limbuagh is so keen on the Heritage Foundation, and likely so keen on consumption taxes.

A consumption tax just nukes the Federal draw. Absolutely nukes it. If we shifted tomorrow and quit taxing income ... even IF we hiked tax rates for goods and services ... we'd loose billions if not trillions in revenue. The only way to make a consumption tax work as well as an income tax is to target tax rates on consumption to the income level of the consumer. But that's just another income tax, just an income tax by another name.

Frankly, I find the info-light Fair Tax website to be mildly offensive.

I trying to research their arguments I looked at a few of their policy PDFs and re-read their front page:

"Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes."

This implies, without any nuance nor any note on how that if we jumped to a consumption tax right now everything would work perfectly. Clearly, by reading this paragraph, one of three on the main page, we can see that it is not targeted at the rich, who already know that ending the income tax would be a boon to them, and tries instead to convince you and me that we'd be better off under such a system. It's scandelous, really. It promises the moon.

The research links are also light. They focus on the fact that the income tax was amended into the constitution and was originally very small. And look at the monster we have today. Ok. Yah, it's big and complex. You know what is even more fucked up compared to the goals of the original founders? The fucking vast and institutionalized military. Which would shock the founders more?

Anyway, i'm sick today and am much pissed for it, so no offense intended Buc. Taxes suck. Each side wants to do things to them. Obviously I'm gonna be rather skeptical when Rush is backing the stuff you show me. ;-)

This may be offtopic, but its something to remember.

Why does every post result is some type of flame. I mean, if some one expresses their opinion  STFU and argue you point instead of thinking about some punk @ss insult. I mean, great debats are nice, try respecting other peoples views.

Sixhits, we had a whole thread on this before, but I'll just say that you need to dig a little deeper.

1) Conservatives are not for a consumption tax, they prefer income tax (and it's many many loopholes).

2) Rush hasn't backed this (as far as I know), he just talks about a group that advocates this.  Him talking about something never made it true.

Now, on to some deeper issues.

3) There are states that do not have income tax, just consumption.  If they have been doing it for years, it isn't really doomed to fail.

4) In your talk about the poor, you missed that some items would not be taxed (like food isn't today, at least here).  This system would be more fair to the poor.  A) the necessities wouldn't be taxed, so they wont suffer there and B) it will encourage them to save money, not spend it (and we can talk about the effects that would have on economy later).

5) I think your point about losing billions and trillions is completely off base.  We wouldn't have to have different rates.  What we'd have to do is look at what the budget is (should be) and plan a % based upon that.  We know what the GNP is, we know how much people spend on luxury goods.  All it takes is to define what those goods are, and set the tax accordingly (of course adjusting the number to fit with both the initial slump in sales and yearly budgit considerations).

If you look in depth on that site, they actually answer, and not just on the surface, most of the things you've stated.  The models are already there, the examples are already existing.  7 States currently do not have income tax and 3 other state only tax interest and dividends (no other income).  So, if they can do it, why can't the Federal Government?  I suggest you look at the states too, since they range from Texas and Alaska to Florida and New Hampshire to Nevada.  

Ok, so lets say hypothetically, we have a religion that approves of (if one doesnt already) demands, or otherwise allows same-sex marriages.  But then, Bush pushes through congress a bill that includes no same-sex marriages.  The entire time, he has given no other reason for it than it is morally wrong, according to christianity.  Given a lack of other reasons (i cant think of any, probably because there are none) it becomse a law passed only to appease the standards for one religion, but now its law, so the religion that once practiced or encouraged same-sex marriages, is squashed by a law, and is then in the same spot the Lutherans & Calvinists were in late 17th century Europe.  

Unfortunately, the only "new land" they could go to is about 37 million miles of pure nothingness away, at its closest, with a 97% Co2 atmosphere, and no pre-existing native inhabitants to save their ass the first year they're there ( that they can kill later for resources).

Oh and dont worry, I know all about what was going on in Europe in the religious revolutions of the early 1500's.  Taking AP European History helps these things.  When you can name me all the Fredrick Williams and William Fredricks that popped up in Prussia & the German states in the 1600's, you get a cookie.  

Lone-Wolf

Bucc you know the state of Texas is in one of the largest budget deficits it has been in. Schools systems are failing and have lack of funding. Law enforcement e.t.c. all underpaid and under financed. To cite Texas's tax system as an example to be followed would be fool hardy.

I can't wait for Bush to get re-elected.....then you guys are REALLY gonna see some shit happen, cause then he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected again :)

Same goes for Michigan.  Except we are an Income Tax state.  We are in the worst financial state I've ever heard of here.

You have to take into account that Texas has been running without income tax even when it was doing much better, so put that blame where it belongs, bad management (same as here.  It's not the taxes that have caused the deficits, it's the shitty management of the money).  So don't confuse bad money management with a bad tax system.  They aren't the same thing.  After all, our Federal Government has managed to rack up an impressive deficit of it's own, hasn't it?

Also, No state does it exactly as proposed by that group.  It takes into account lessons learned from all the states and cities that do use consumption taxes.

If there is a GOD, he will, for the sake of your children's children and humanity as a whole, prevent Bush from destroying this country for another 4 years.

I'm not joking here, and I'm not trying to make light of a serious action, just making an observation.

But, I think the whole reason Bush chose Cheney as a VP was life insurance.  I mean, as many people as Bush has pissed off, you gotta believe that there is a John Hinkley writing love letters to Jodi Foster out there just fuming and cursing because ending up with Cheney is the only thing worse then having Bush himself as Prez.  

I look forward to 4 more years of Bush like I would to a root canal.  And since I've never even had a cavity, you can imagine how scared and how much dread that would be to me.

Although there are other people I would vote for over Bush.....NONE of them are running for President!  So if my choice is between George W. Bush and a bunch of wacko Democrats that I wouldn't trust to baby-sit my 4 year old.....I choose Bush.  Now if Colin Powell or Oliver North were running.....different story.  Oh God, I would really love to have Reagan back :)

Oh, I don't doubt it. Couldn't have said it better myself actually...

I can Alaric...

"I cant wait for Bush to get re-elected, so we, as a country (all 4 of us, being Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rummy) decide that suddenly, Switzerland is a threat to national security, harboring untold ammounts of Anthrax, VX Nerve Gas, and to boot, supporting every known terrorist organization on the planet single handedly.  And then going in there and turning it into Lake Switzerland, because we never liked the Swiss anyway, they always stayed neutral in the World Wars.  Those g'damn wimps."  

Thats what i care to say about Bush getting re-elected.

(In the event anyone reading this, or on the forums, is Swiss, i mean in no way to offend, just making a joke.  Who knows, he might decide instead that some state within the U.S. is the next big terrorist threat.  I've got my money on one of the states around the Great Lakes to be the first, or Washington)

What I have to say about Bush getting reelected: God forbid.

Lone-Wolf, perhaps, when it comes down to it, every country is a threat to National Security? World domination is the only solution.

Bad manegment is a major cause. Texas, when under the governorship of Anne Richards, ran better.

I did look into consumption based tax and it still screws the poor. They spend a larger amount of their salary than rich people do. Well this is how the tax system in Texas works. Now if we combined "your" Consumption tax with a tax on Luxery items, we could start ourselves on a way to a more viable tax system.

         Any system will get old after a while. Loopholes are made and people stray from their values. To quote Jefferson "We should have a revolution every ten years. This way the spirit of the people will not fade." Maybe its time for a revolution.

       Given your unique political views I am interested on who you are wanting to vote for president. You dont like democrats' domestic policies, but you dont like Bush's restriction on human rights? You got someone in mind, a Liberatrian canidate?

You know, I finally see why the vast majority of you have such warped views (not all of you, just most of you).  It's because you all grew up with Clinton as the President.  I however was born when Nixon was President, don't really remember Ford and Carter too well, and grew up with Reagan and Bush, Sr in office.  Guess that is where my warped views come from, I am just from a different time than most of the younger people on here.

Oh well, don't think I can change your views....but hey, I can have fun pissing you all off!

-GhostSniper Out.

Ahhhh, good point Typhy! I can see the nukes launching right now (I live within 100 miles of the Bangor submarine base, the 3rd largest concentration of nuclear warheads in the world, following the entirety of the United States, and Russia.)

As a little extra, you all should listen to this song by Randy Newman,  called Political Science.

 Someone who was born with Nixon as president is calling the views of those of us born with Clinton ( I was born with Bush Sr. ) warped? Talk about irony. . .

Perhaps the reason that we dislike Bush is because we expect better? Higher standards than someone who grew up with Reagan and Bush Sr? ( both far better presidents than Bush Jr, but nothing compared to Clinton, namely in his first term in office ).  

I am old enough to remember Nixon, Carter and Ford.  Carter was by far, the better president.  Reagan set out and accomplished one really big thing (getting the USSR into a spending war and bankrupting them).  This didn't do wonders for our economy or our deficit either.  

Carter was much more well rounded, and probably the smartest President we've had (at least that I can think of).  He gets a raw deal over the hostage situation, but the man actually had balls (he went to Three Mile Island in the middle of the crisis, and stepped right in, being a nuclear engineer and all).

Ford wasn't around enough to make an impact, and him just being Nixon's running mate was enough to end his career after that.

Nixon actually didn't do a bad job as Prez, except for the dumbest fucking mistake you could make in Watergate.  He had that thing won and never needed to do any of that.  Idiot.

Bush Sr was alright, but didn't do anything special really.  I wonder if the economy would have picked up had he been reelected, but we'll never know.  I doubt the deficit would have been reduced.

Just as a side note, Bucc.....Ford wasn't Nixon's running mate.  Spiro Agnew was elected Vice President with Nixon.....after Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed Gerald Ford as Vice President.  Then when Nixon resigned, Ford became President.  He then failed to get elected and lost to Carter.  So, there you have it....the only person in American History that served as President who was never elected to either Vice President or President.

True, Ford was our only president that was never elected.  I know that, it was just a poor choice of words on my part.

Gotta remember that Ford was a UofM football player and a local boy, so I know all about him =D.

You know I am tired of hearing Reagan this Reagan that. He didnt get the Soviet Union into a bankrupting spending war, Harry Truman did! The whole Cold War was a giant spending war. To say that the Republicans are responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union is just plain stupid. The democrats were tough as nails on communism with Truman's Korea, JFK's Cuba Missile Crisis, and LBJ's war in Vietnam, and Carter's making the CIA involved in Afghanistan with Zbignew *spits on ground* Brezhinski. I am not saying Reagan had nothing to do with it, but by the time the spineless Gorbechev came into power, the Soviet Union was on the decline. Indeed, after the death Leonoid Brezhnev. Reagan just happened to be at the end of it (rather Bush Sr.).

Another note about Carter is that he is one of the only presidents that I can say has a kind heart and decent soul.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=129

What Bush left out at the SotU speech.

I love it....now go back to that site and type into it's archive search Kerry, Dean, Clark, or any of the other Democrats running for President and see how big of liers they all are.

I don't agree with you about Reagan Sack.  He really turned up the heat.  

And my point was, He had two (said one last time, I'm correcting myself here) major goals he said he would accomplish, and did.  1) getting the hostages released (not that it was much of his work, but he still gets the credit. And 2) bankrupting the USSR.  And he did that to.

I don't care who started the cold war, it was never Americas goal to bankrupt the Soviet Union 'till Reagan.  Yes, we were locked in the cold war, even had grain embargo's so we couldn't sell the soviets bread.  But Reagan actually saw where the real "opportunity" (for lack of a word that will fit) was to bring down the USSR without a war.  And he upped the spending like nobody's business.  He wasn't doing it to make America stronger, to counter the threat, as past presidents had, he was throwing money away, just to force the USSR to do the same.  He did this like a poker player knowing he had the bigger stack of chips and was out to buy the pot, not win the hand.  And he did.

as i remember it reagan even told his russian counter-part that he was going to out buy and build the russians right into this situation they find themselves in today. good thing it worked cause war with russia would not have been pretty. and that's without the thought of nukes.

lol. like bush isn't a lier. lol. the guys the biggest threat to world peace we probably have and will ever see. yeah great idea vote him back in so he can fuck things up just a bit more.

I can agree with you that "Budget Cold War" began with Truman (in a sense), but Reagan scared the bejesus out of the Russians with the notion of "Star Wars".  I mean, who wouldn't be scared to have nukes pointed at you from outer space?  Reagan was definitely the one who toppled the USSR though, even though he didn't start it.


I'm a Carter baby. ;)  Carter is a great person, and there's no questioning that.  But what about Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Roosevelt?  Each of those presidents made great strides for the United States and did a great job.  The might not have been the best people, but each one of them definitely took America to the next step.  There are others as well, but we can always start a new thread about it later.  Unfortunately, I do not forsee a "Carter-like" president coming anytime soon in the next few elections.   :(

.::|N| Noto

"Star Wars" wasn't a nuclear weapon, it was a ballistic missile shield. The reason why it scared the Soviet's so bad is that they knew they didnt have the technology to create one themselves - and if the American's were successful, the US would have been nearly impermeable.

The real item to drive the Soviet's to collapse was the invention of the Stealth Bomber - this scared tehm because they were afraid of being nuked by something that wasn't easily detectable. They had the technology to detect a B-2, but it was ineffective in range and very costly to them if they decided to put them all around their giant borders.

As for Truman starting it, this may be so, but it had absolutely no effect on the USSR because at the time they could easily compete with us due to the fact that inflation (mass printing of currency whenever they needed "money") and true corruption hadn't set in yet. It was Reagan's jacking up of the defense budget that threw them off a cliff.

Now on to Carter: He is maybe the best person (character wise) to ever serve in that office, but he is by far and away one of the weakest President's to ever hold the office. He was so disrespected that the hostages were freed from the embassy the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in - a true parting slap in the face.

I know it is long but it is worth it. ;)

From: Message: RESUME of
George W. Bush
The White House, USA

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in
1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol.

I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days.

My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is
not available.

MILITARY:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went
AWOL.

I refused to take a drug test or answer any
questions about my drug use.

By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was
able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C
average.

I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in
Midland,
Texas, in 1975.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any
oil in Texas.

The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold
all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in
a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer
money.

With the help of my father and our right-wing
friends in the oil industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected
governor of Texas.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF
TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power
and oil companies, making
Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles
as
the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury
to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any
governor in? American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of
Florida, and my father's appointments to the
Supreme Court, I became President after losing by
over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter
office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a
continuing cost of over one billion dollars per
week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively
bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual
deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private
bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures
in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop
in
the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million
Americans lost their jobs
and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are
the richest of any administration in U.S.
history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza
Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign
fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder
for receiving the most corporate campaign
donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and
one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided
over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in
U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and
corporate attorneys to assure my success with
the
U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and
Halliburton against investigation
or prosecution. More time and money was
spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair
than has been spent investigating one
of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in
U.S.history and refused to intervene when
corruption involving the oil industry was
revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in
U.S.history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted
criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to
administration than any President in
U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security,
the largest bureaucracy in the
history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than
any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have
the United Nations remove the U.S. from the
Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S.
"prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have
refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse
United Nations election inspectors (during the
2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences
of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I
presided over the worst security failure in U.S.
history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after
the World Trade Center attacks and less than a
year later made the U.S. the most hated country
in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in
world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people
worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public
venues (15 million people),shattering the record
for protest against any person in the history of
mankind.

I am t he first President in U.S. history to
order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the
military occupation of a sovereign nation. I
did so against the will of the United Nations,
the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world
community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans
and support a cut in duty benefits for active
duty troops and their families --in war time.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about
our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the
lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a
majority of Europeans (71%)
view my "presidency as the biggest threat to
world peace and security." this is an actual
quote by the mayor of London, Ken Livingston.

I am supporting development of a nuclear
"Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring
Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.


RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor o f Texas
are now in my father's library, sealed and
unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my
insider trading and my bankrupt companies are
sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or
my Vice-President, attended regarding public
energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.


PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN
VOTING IN 2004.

PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW.
 ;D ;D ;D

i'll bet howard dean's is much better than that one, scrach.

Scrach,

That was the biggest pile of garbage I've ever seen.  Those statements are full of lies, mis-quotes, and spin that I have ever seen.

I'm just going to touch on a few, since I don't have all day to respond to every one:

George W. Bush never went AWOL while serving in the Texas Air National Guard.  I have a copy of his DD214 (which is publically available by the way) and no where on it does it list an AWOL.

Contrary to popular belief, joining the National Guard does NOT keep you out of combat.  You have just a good of chance of being activated for combat as any active duty unit stationed in CONUS (that's Continental United States for those of you who never served in the military).  His unit simply wasn't activated for combat (and other F-102 Fighter Squadrons did get sent to Vietnam, so don't go there either).

I hate to tell you guys, but Texas IS NOT the most polluted state in the Union.

George W. Bush was NOT the first President in U.S. History to enter office with a criminal record.  Moron.

Did you happen to notice that all those bankruptcies and forclosures happened AFTER September 11???  Fucking Moron.

"I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring
Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice."

Okay, one down and one to go--if you havn't seen the news lately, we captured Saddam.  You are such as stupid fucking moron that you couldn't even edit this trash that you copy and pasted from somewhere.


Okay, that's as far as I'm going....if I get any more annoyed I would have to drop a WMD on your house.

-GhostSniper Out.

Well, I think it's obvious what was going to be put on those ICBM's.  Nuclear warheads perhaps?  What a better place to store nuclear warheads than orbiting the planet?  From what I understood about the Star Wars program was that they were looking into moving roughly 33% of the nation's ICBM's into orbit.  The majority of our ICBM's at that time were fully equipped with nuclear capabilities, and I have a feeling the nukes would be sent to orbit because it was the one place the Russians really had no presence and also had very little means of shooting down.  

If I was a war monger, I would put my nukes in space too.  Why?  Because during the event of a nuclear attack, I wouldn't want my nuclear warheads taken out in a first strike and find myself with no retaliation effort.  If the warheads were in orbit, there would be very little concern of them being destroyed.

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating what I know, which isn't necessarily the truth, but it does make sense.

.::|N| Noto

Scrach,

Everyone has skeletons in their closet, but I think your "e-mail spam" that you have posted here has included too many of them.

.::|N| Noto

Hey guys I am sorry if you think it is spam or un true but I just got that on an e-mail.  I thought it would be funny gez.  

He was still a chear leader ;D

If you think it is un true you don't have to blast me about it.  Its not like I took the time to check every single quote.  I thought it might be interesting for other people to read and if it struck a bad cord with you or anyone else I am sorry but gez the topic is about why bush sucks.

He was still a freeking chear leader. ;D

Although he was never classified by the military as AWOL, there are some major irregularities in his service record. From May 1st, 1972 until April 30th, 1973 George W. Bush logged no days of service, when he should have logged at least 36 days.

 These two articles shed light on the matter http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671 and http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3778

Frankly, it is painfully obvious that during the Vietnam War George W. Bush was a coward. What makes this increasingly sickening  to me, is that he is so willing to send others to combat when he himself avoided the horrors at all costs. And now this pampered man born with the golden spoon of affluence in his mouth is the most powerful man in the free world. I must go vomit now.

Star Wars had absolutely nothing to do with our ICBM's. The point of the project was to launch satellites carrying exotic weaponry (such as lasers or rail weapons) into space that would orbit the United States to protect us from a Soviet ICBM launch. This is far different than putting our ICBM's into space as an interceptor - and even if we did, it would make no sense to have a Nuclear warhead on it because it could only do more harm than good.


All of our ICBM's, then and today, are equiped with multiple nuclear warheads. It is too costly and confusing to put a conventional warhead on a ICBM. As for Russian's shooting them down, that would be impossible. ICBM's move too fast and have too high of a trajectory to be shot down by any current means, save for the ABM Missile SHield that is being developed right now.


Putting Nukes in space is simply a bad idea because they are more susceptable to be destroyed in orbit than they are in their silos. All it would take is an anti satellite missle to presumably shoot one down. As for a Nuclear attack, we have the means of detecting global launches and thus would be notified if a country ever decided to launch a nuclear weapon at us. US Space Command or NORAD would notify the President immediately and we would have plenty of time to return fire and thus destroy the Earth.

Where you seem to get confused is that you think the program of today is the same as the SDI Defense codenamed Star Wars was in the 1980's, but it is not.

Today's system that is being developed is a series of land, sea, air, and space radars that guide a modified ballistic missle into a crash course with an incoming warhead, thus destroying it. The point is to hit the missile before the warheads arm, thus destroying it with a minimal damage effect. The interceptor is not equipped with any weaponry because the force of the collision itself is sufficient to do the work.

Star Wars had everything to do with ICBM's.  I never said they were limited to ICBM's because it were obviously not.  ICBM's were definitely a consideration for orbit due to the fact that you could easily put a dozen orbiters strategically located around the planet, thus sutting down the distance to targets.  Star Wars was also to be operated in low orbit, which would even more drastically cut down the distance.  Considering lasers and rail guns never came to fruition in their real sense of purpose, ICBM's (not necessarily the ones with warheads) were the only weapons that we had that worked at the time.  Keep in mind that when I say ICBM, I truly mean an ICBM.  Not all ICBM's were of the land target destructing type.


Incorrect again.  Even before the cut down in Nuclear warheads at present day due to the START II Treaty, it was actually too costly to equip all ICBM's with nuclear warheads anyway.  You can find that info from the multiple sites that discuss present day stockpiles, code named "Enduring Stockpile".  As for Russian's being able to shoot down an ICBM, you can't say it was impossible.  Cluster Pack PVB's from Russia could take out an ICBM, but it had extremely low accuracy.  Remote, but still possible.


Now, putting anything in space these days of military importance would not make sense due to its vulnerability, but 20 years ago, the United States didn't exactly have much competition for the items you speak of.


I'm not confused.  I was strictly speaking of the 1980's program.  The Star Wars program I'm speaking of was to replace the MAD program of deterrance.  Reagan wanted a means to shoot down missiles, just like today.  I hope I didn't give the impression that Star Wars was simply a way of attacking from space, because it is not.


I agree with you there, but as for the interceptor not having any weaponry, I thought it had a charge, which would create a zone of destruction so that no pieces of the incoming would be recovered.  I saw that on CNN I believe, but who knows who dug up that stuff.

Personally, I would love to see a complete zero tolerance of nuclear weapons from all countries.  I'm not sure why we still have nuclear weapons.  We have non-nuclear weapons that make Nagasaki look like an Iowan cow party. ;)  It would be nice to see someone with sense in the government to have the balls to ask for complete nuclear disarmorment.  It just seems that we are only trying to make sure no one has more than the United States, which easily outnumbers most nuclear nations put together.

.::|N| Noto

     In a world populated by sane and rational people, a complete worldwide ban on nuclear weapons would be the obvious best choice. Unfortunately, we live on Earth. If "everyone" has nukes, then no "rogue nation" is going to think seriously about using their nuclear weapons, because they know that it would be suicide. If the "law-abiding" nations went along with a total disarmament treaty, that same "rogue nation" would have far fewer qualms about nuking the place up.

     Of course, that logic only applies to conventional nuclear weapons (which happens to be a nice little oxymoron), and has no bearing on terrorist-style portable nukes.

To GhostSniper: I dont know if anyone has touched on this but it said it made the City of Houston the most polluted city thus bypassing the City of LA. We are comparing cities, we are not comparing states. Dubya was never formally charged with AWOL, but he has expereinced long and unauthorized "haiatuses." Bring us a link of that document of his if you could. Oh wait nevermind, Spetsnaz did.

Back to Reagan: You have to look at the Soviet's as well. Gorby was a push over a pussy if you will (most people from the Krasnodar oblast are pussies so this explains alot. Thats inside Russian humour for you.) If anything took us Russian's down it was Afghanistan. Kudos to Carter for starting it, and Kudos to Reagan who continued it.

By the way, I think Carter was a good president overall (meaning his "net" contribution to the nation was positive. However, that statement I made earlier was about his person.

He still is a freeking cheeleader, imo. Except now he gets to hang in the White house, while Dick Cheney plots to pollute the planet and charge exorbitant amounts  of money for clean air from his underground bunker (kinda like the bad guy in total recall). I'm exagerating a bit, but what scares me about the people running the country is that Bush has neither a clue nor a brain, while Dick has no soul. Just look at their demeanor and facial expressions and it becomes obvious. Also, he's constantly on vacation, doesnt read the papers (he gets summaries from "objective" sources sources like Rice) except the sports page and otherwise behaves like a fratboy.

Now, to the Reagan thing...There are SO many different theories about why the Communist system collapsed, the most primitive of which is probably the one about how Reagan's arms build up overstrectched the USSRs economic capicity. Its a myth, but a lot of people believe it, so......Gorbachev had a lot to do with, as cossack mentioned. I guess if Andropov's kidneys had been better, maybe the cold war would still be going.

     I just happened upon this and found it a very interesting take on things. The author is "just a cartoonist", but he's a thinker. Here's the link (http://www.angryflower.com/). The entry in question is titled "Bush on Mars" and is immediately below the "buy my book" ad (The Ultimate Book of Perfect Energy, heh).

I think one of the best cartoonists regarding politics is "Steve Bell"

He's done a couple of books... can't remember them for the lfe of me but i'll have to dick up a couple of his strips.. He's got Dubbya down to ta tee as the dumb F*ck monkey man

No matter what Bush supporters claim about the candidates running for the democratic nomination, their claims can be reversed. As much as Dean lies  Bush lies more. The reasons for war have been twisted depending on what idea the center and left shot down.  Healthcare still revolves around the HMOs, something which we are the only country in the free world with such a extreme position. We are killing our own envirnment, We have homeless on every block of our nations capital and yet we are willing to fight oversees. When do our needs get answered? how many more wars until we lose the will to fight? All of us here can see that Bush's latest math in the state of the union makes no sense. Tax Cuts Increased + Mission To Mars (1 billion) + War DOES NOT EQUAL cutting the deficit in half in five years. It just doesn't make sense guys.

Okay, you and half of the other people in the country are continuing to spread a lie....SHOW ME WHERE in the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS that GEORGE W. BUSH said anything about A MISSION TO MARS.

It isn't in there.  He didn't say anything about it.  Get your facts straight before you continue posting on this forum.

Ghostsniper I apologize if what I said came out as "George  Bush said in the state of the union we are going to Mars" because you are right he didn't say that in the addres. However what I intended to say was that he had already brought up the NASA plans to re-allocate 10  billion and then add another 1 billion which is just for starters mind you. THEN in the State of the Union he ADDED extension of Tax cuts, and carrying on rebuilding of Iraq. He then said that the deficit would be cut in half in 5 years, but your right im sorry I didnt make that clear.

Free Trade losses American jobs, it creates an envirnment for sweat shops and slavery work in other countries such as Mexico. When these jobs are sent away from our border Envirnmental regulations and minimum wage laws which protect workers here are thrown out of the window as are child labor laws.

The budget deficit is gonna be frikken HUGE...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0128/p01s03-usec.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0128/p01s03-usec.html)
Ghostsniper, unpaid college loans are one thing, but a half a trillion? Who cares if Bush said it in the State of the Union address. It's gonna have to be paid for somehow regardless. So don't dodge the substance of the arguement.

class of 2007 huh zait? ask your teachers when nafta and the wto were started and which president signed america up for them.

Seeing as it was signed in 1994 I would assume Clinton signed it... I must be missing your point here if your trying to assault democrats to get back at me thats your choice I have not problem with you Clinton bashing, nor do  i have a problem with your comment regaurding my age. Nice try though  ;)


How come you point out that a Democrat president signed it and make it look bad but when it comes down to the argument against Bush you say Free Trade is good. Whats it gonna be?

Bush sucks because he makes so many otherwise nice people act arrogant and respectless. And yes, I'm talking about you.

Your obviously not talking about anyone on this forum since everyone here is arrogant and respectless regardless to begin with. Nice people avoid the *DAMN forums. I thought that was common knowledge.

NAFTA or free trade in general arent the product of either the democrats or republicans and blaming one person (Clinton) for it is absurd. It would have happened (maybe earlier if the Repubes had been in office) regardless and the real opposition to it came from legislators whose constituencies would be affected by the relocation of industrial jobs to developing countries.
Despite the schizophrenia about free trade in this country, i think its necessary in order to adapt. Generally, developed countries are moving towards service- or tertiary-sector oriented economies, while the developing ones are struggling to industrialize. The only problem with free trade is that its all a big lie, since most industrialized countrys still protect much of their local agriculture ,like the $3 to $4 billion the US hands out anually to southern cottonfarmers, so that poor countries cant compete with their prices. One study showed that for Burkina Faso, this meant that almost twice as much money was lost by burkinabe farmers because of the price differences with US farmers than was received in development aid from USAID.  I think its enormously hippocritical of Bush to go around the world vaunting free trade as a way to relieve poverty when we are making these places poor by some very un-free tradish practices. If you really wan't somthing to be pissed off about the US government (the EU does the same, btw) and how it fucks poor countries......farm subsidies are a much better place to look than Iraq.

Recent interview with George Bush.  A must read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4209295/

Omg
"in my language"    so this is why I can never understand him its because he has his OWN language.  
I get it now.  ;)