*DAMN R6 Forum

With the selection of John Edwards as the vice presidential candidate it looks like the Dems have shaped up a great ticket.

Strong foreign policy leadership backed by a brilliant and hopeful domestic message.

Too tired to post anything longer than this ...

Everybody, welcome to the next four years of your life.

hopefully..... i am still really scared that more bullshit will fire out from the bush cronies right at the last minute. and Dub ya will take the prize. (I am a believer that our government had a part in 9/11.)

3rd world country HERE WE COME!

Rebel, I think it will be better to have someone with a IQ higher than rabid's. (I'm saying Bush is a moron)

if by this statement you mean Bush's "war on terror" and the next attackts that will happen if he is re-elected, then i totally agree. The 3rd world countries are the easiest to conquer, and it makes us look more powerful when we win in 2 weeks. I mean hey, would you kick a crippled man's ass to make your self good, of course you would. ( i rhymed, hehehe.......)

Six i think we need to focus on getting you back on track... DONT BUY A PC!!!!

The Kerry administration will go down on hard times. The damage the Bush admin has already done can not be fixed in four years. Hell, we havent seen the start of the domestic crisis.

Republicans may laud themselves over the 1.5 million jobs they just created, but do you know what sort of jobs those are? Educated High Tech workers are working in blue-collar jobs that can barely pay the rent much less the college debts they already have.

I can grind the republicans on their domestic policy till the three horseman come home (so I will). Back in the days of Clinton I had health care. Today, I am uninsured as is my whole family. If I get into some unfortunate accident, I have to choose to have a crippled arm or a college education. Hell, I will probablly get neither treatment or college. I am not the only one in this situation. Lets look at Bush's so-called homestate. I live in Texas where the weather is unpridictable, the women are the prettyist "thangs" you ever did see, and most children are uninsured and live below the poverty line. Not only that, the one child left behind-like policy implemented in Texas long before Bush was declared the victor of the 2000 travesty in the Texas House of Representatives, has made Texas have one of the lowest education standards in the nation. Only the state of Missisippi is considered to have a more degraded education system.

The no child left behind policy is also making schools shut its doors. Let me use the example of a local alternative high school here called Garza. Garza takes troubled children that otherwise flounder in the traditional setting and make them into well to do citizens. 75% of graduates go on to college. This is remarkable for a Texas public high school. However, it takes many of these students a little bit extra time to graduate. Life usually deals them a bad hand. In some cased both of the child's parents are dead or not there for them. Infact, over a third of the student body is leagally homeless (living out of their car) and have to support themselves with a full time job. Since it takes them longer than the standard four years, the Bush law labels them failures. With so many "failures" in the school, the school can be shut down by the state. The same state that would rather pay our school taxes with "sin tax" then raise already low property taxes sligtly higher so that the future could have some sort of an education. This is all Bush's policy being enacted in Texas, just wait for it to happen in the nation.

Although you have to subscribe to read the whole story, here is a link to the Texas Monthly article about Garza and an article explaining to Texans why the world hates us: http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2004-07-01/index.php (http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2004-07-01/index.php) Its better than no link at all.

    If a Texas run by purely Bush policies is a precursor for the nation, then we are to expect an increase in blue collar jobs, rising poverty levels, lack of funding for education, hordes of uninsured families, and an overall degredation of the enviorment and nation's infastructure. To put it in Rebel's words, "3rd world country HERE WE COME!"

Well,

Being a bit schooled in economics, you should all well know that the Clinton years were all high and mighty do to very bad domestic policies.  Why do you think the economy of America got so over inflated.  Must I remind you that the economy took a downturn at the end of the Clinton administratin and Bush just inherited the mess.  

Now I must say that Bush has really done nothing to resolve the matter.  I am not sticking up for him.  In actuality he has pretty much done nothing to aleviate the matter, the tax cuts created a false influx of spending but had no real long lasting effects.  In fact, me being a single non property owner, my taxes went up.  So Bush's tax cuts increased mine and paid for GS I guess, well him and the 5 million illegal aliens in california.

So please, I am a independant but do not laude clinton for superior economic policies.  We are in fact coming out of a bad recession that his administration created.  You can just thank Bush for not doing anything about it, but in doing so, we are actually slowly turning around.  Most economists believe we could of shortened the length if swift action was taken.

As for the healthcare issue, this is due to a long policy of state missmanagement.  It is just that most people hope the National government would step in and cure the problems; ie: money to states for welfare, national health plans and so forth.  But in doing this is only to raise taxes more.  

I could go much lengthier into the topics but I just wanted to end all of the horrah's for who thinks who did good and bad.  As for texas, man, that is mighty interesting about the schooling policies.  Good find!

(added, after reading through some journal articles, most leading economists and investors believe we are in another false economy.  This means another adjustment (drop in stock prices) is on the horizon.  All leading indicators are showing this and as the percentage rates hedge higher, many people will go into bankruptcy because they purchased flexible house loans and such.  This will all lead to what may be another big long wake of shit for a while to come.)

I do not get any memos sent out to me. I was just eating lunch at the state capital the other day and started thinking about the bind the state is in. Then I got to thinking about the bind the nation is in. Its not that I laud Clinton so much for the prosporous times under his term (although I understand that it came off that way in the post), but compare different times and different regions of the country. I can look at the politics of everything and who did what to the economy, the point is, is that in 1998 I had healthcare, people had highly skilled jobs, and the education standards are no where as bad as they are today. I know Texas has been under Bush's policies for close to a decade now, and it laggs behind in healthcare, education, and the enviorment drasticaly. It could serve as a precursor to the next four to eight years (I say eight because even though he would be out of office, the effect of his policies would still linger).

Those are the facts, as for how those facts came to be, that is a matter for us to determine.

The point is, it dosent matter if you GhostSniper are living in a mansion, the poverty rates are rising. Now I know the census is slow on these sorts of things, so here is the national poverty statistics. You will notice that once 2001 rolled around the corner, that poverty began to rise, breaking its eight year downward trend. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02fig1.jpg (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02fig1.jpg) If you also look at the trend, it shows that poverty decreases in democratic administration. JFK-LBJ rates drop like a rock. Nixon they are neutral, and in Reagan they skyrocket! Even twenty years after Reagan we have not been able to get back down to LBJ-Nixon poverty rates. I do not know what the 2003 poverty rate is, as the census is slow. However, if Texas is a precursor to the nation it might look a little bit something like this: http://www.cppp.org/products/fastfacts/poverty.html (http://www.cppp.org/products/fastfacts/poverty.html)

GS, I would also like to know your point. Is your point that mangerial positions have healthcare? Is your point that private manegeral positions make more money than USAF sargeant?

Sorry Cossack,

But I must point out some false logic in your points


Under this statement and thinking, that would mean the clinton years of good times and prosperity were a result of lingering first George Bush's policies and the bad times of the current Bush's presidency  would be an effect of the Clinton administration.  So you can't fix the good times for a president that you think did well and then be ready to blame the future on a incumbent presidents policies. It just seems to make the arguement fit where you would like to see it.  Maybe this was not your intent but it is misleading.

As for texas, I can agree that his policies were a direct misfortune for the state as I read it.  I am unfamiliar with the polices and government of texas so I cannot be so certian, but you do have a valid point there.

Well as I said I made it sound like a praise Clinton for the economy of 90s but I do not. When I say the under the times of Clinton I am saying the mid to late 90s. The whole mess is bipatisan. I blame Bush (or whoever is running him) for the complete degredation of our health system and other social services. I also blame him for the fact that he is cutting taxes and reducing income for the government in a time where we need to somehow increase it.

I do hope you read the next half of my post, as you first posted this when I was editing it.

thats why you need to see Moore's documentary: apparently, Bush did some "great" things for the veterans and for the combat soldier's health care

     Regarding Cossack and Fah's points about the lingering effects of economic policies, I think my political science professor said it best when he compared economic management to operating a bicycle while sitting on it backwards; deciding where to steer and how hard to pedal based only on the road behind you.

     Economic manipulations take lots of time to take effect. Once enough time has passed to make past trends noticeable, an economic policy change is made, and six to eighteen months later, you might be able to tell what the effect of that change was.

Timeline:

Kerry elected president
2days later

BOOOOOOM Nuke blows in New York City due to the release of iraquis in guantanamo bay

2days later

Another violent attack that was not stopped by the Kerry organization happened this time in San Fransisco

2 days later

Washington DC is nuked, America's government falls, Economy collapses, America is now a 3rd world country.

2days later

Rebel hunts down all the people that loved Kerry and assassinates them, along with the help of GhostSniper.

Rebel and GS rule the US

Very creative, Rebel.

     Wait, there are Iraquis in Cuba? I thought it was just American citizens being held in violation of the Constitution. Silly me.

Timeline B:

Bush steals the election again.
2 days later

BOOOOMPOP a dirty bomb containing anthrax is released in NYC, due to the exacerbation of islamic fundamentalism brought on by a unilateral, preemptive foreign policy. Bush and Cheney watch with glee from their secure bunker in Langly.

2 days later

Marshall law is declared and the Bill of Rights is voided. Patriot Act 3 is passed, declaring due process a hindrance to the war on terror. American citizens are systematically searched and any dissent is dealt with harshly.

2 days later

Neocons cease this opportunity to enact their "final solution", and strategically use the remaining citizens of the United States as the fuel for their war machine in an effort to secure global domination.

2 days later

The United States nuclear arsenal is utilized to stamp out global opposition, however this plan back fires and the world is cast into permanent nuclear winter. Plant and animal life cease to exists after 3 months of darkness.

1 day later

Jesus comes back to earth and laughs, stating "Didn't I say blessed be the meek? Not blessed be the greedy, prideful, warmongers, dumb fucks serves you right for letting a man with a 6th grade vocabulary steal your democracy."

w00t!  That's the part I want to see....all the rest is just GRAVY!  lol[/size]

Hurraah for timeline B.

Well, living in the Capital of Texas as well I can see where Cossack comes from in that sense.  He is absolutely right by saying that this has been bad from the get-go with the Bush administration.  His politics here have left a ton of people homeless and they are literally on every corner begging for money trying to feed themselves and their families.  As for GS, well, I just dont see how you can blame your success in the Auto business with politics.  i just dont really see the correlation.  Before I moved here I was also running an auto store in Buffalo NY and I can say that the reason that the business wasn't doing so well was more because of the politics of the Auto business over the politics of the government.  It almost makes sense because you are saying that you went back to work as a salesman in 2001.  Right around the time most of these car companies were offering 0% financing on new car sales.  That right there stole a lot of the business from the other retail chains selling aftermarket replacement parts for their cars went under because of all the auto sales companies making their move to take the money from the parts businesses and putting it back into their own pockets.  Basically duping people to buy cars from dealerships instead of fixing the cars that they have.  Not that that issue really bothers me but, I dont see how that is related to governmental politics.  It had nothing to do with Bush, let alone his obvious dis-concern with the welfare of the populus of this nation.  I am not sure where you live in the nation GS, but I was in NY during the 9/11 issue and to be honest I can tell you for a fact that Bush did nothing to help the people in that state other then take the focus off of the real issues with unemployment and whatnot and put their focus on 3rd world countries.  He talked a lot about all these things that he was going to do but in reality he hasnt done much to change anything in that case.  So as you might be a Bush supporter I have to say that I hope that isnt the reason for your decision because there is over 75% of the population of this nation that think otherwise. Relating one good thing in your life to the government in that sense isnt the way I would vote for a president.

:MoD:Saberian
FYI = Al Gore = Hired by Steve Jobs for Apple and now is on the board of Directors.
         Steve Jobs = Hired by John Kerry as the Marketing and relations manager for the        John Kerry campaign

The auto companies would not have been able to offer 0% financing without the ultra low interest rates and tax breaks that Bush was promising them....and that he delivered on, by the way.  That is how politics helped me out directly.[/size]

Where'd you hear about this?

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aIzb2nc.YIIE

Srry you got to copy and paste this whole link to get the exact article guys, sorry about that =(

Here it states that Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs get taken on as advisors.  Plus it's all around here at my work.  Let's just say I get good info on this stuff.  i wont go into details but you can at least check out this article for yourself about this issue with these two characters.  Although the Swarzenegger backing by buffet I have no comment on hehe.

:MoD:Saberian

Low rates were a Greenspan thing. They are a byproduct of a down swinging economy. You cut the rate so that ppl are encouraged to spend more money, cause money is "cheaper".

Tax cuts are a byproduct of an UPSWINGING economy. You're taking in more revenue, so you can afford to cut taxes.

Worse, the Bush tax cuts are not incentive tax cuts, they're structural reductions. Incentive tax cuts are designed to target at risk individuals and businesses, helping them afford the cost of living while allowing them enough cash to spend, thus putting something back into the economy. Bush's tax cuts do neither. The cuts he gave went mostly to the wealthy, who pocketed the profit. That money would be better handled if it went into the middle class and the working poor. They spend nearly every dime they take in. If you give them more, they are likely to spend it -- imeadiately.

There's another aspect of the Bush economy - Big Federal Spending. I don't think there's an honest fiscial conservative left in the Republican Party.

It's not like I'm pro-big spending. Come on, no one wants to see the Feds spend like a drunken sailor.

I'm pro smart spending, and also smart cutting. Whatever is appropriate.

I'm also against ideological dishonesty. And right now a lot of Repubs should be anti Bush, cause the man has duped them. But they don't care.

Sorta how ppl who are patriots don't get upset when those in thier party plot ways to delay the election. That shit is anti-American if I ever heard.

Whats so brilliant and hopeful about suing the pants of everybody so prices skyrocket? Medical costs are rising by leaps and bounds thanks to the Tort lawyers, people like John Edwards (hereafter called the puppy). Strong foreign policy leadership? What, 1 term on the senate intel committee and a 3 month term of service in vietnam? I suppose those "unnamed foreign leaders" will help right? And whats so brillant and hopeful about saying that this is the worst economy since the great depression? (btw, look at the numbers, and this is such a fiction i can't believe even the media is swallowing it)

Kerry picked the Puppy because he LOOKS good - and thats what 50% of america votes for - who looks good.

I'm not a huge bush fan either - he keeps growing the government and spending MY money on people who won't get a job.

Oh and on the tax cuts thing - what do you think the rich do with this money that they earned and wasn't taken by the government?

What the left calls "stashing" their money is what is known as "saving" or "investment." Say a rich person gets 500k less money taken by the government. That 500,000 dollars that goes into the bank is 500,000 dollars that the bank can now lend out as capital for business and personal loans - capital that will be used! Instead of buying groceries, this money will be used to BUILD a grocery store! Or allow a small business to invest in equipment and supplies, as well as the initial labor investment! Money moves. Unless that wealthy person takes the money and places it under his couch, any money he doesn't use is used to fuel the economy. And what does his money do if it is taken by the government? It goes to a select few, the politically well-connected groups, who use this unearned income for their own benefit. Its the PRODUCERS vs the LOOTERS. Say you take 500k from the richest 10k people in the country. "So what's 500k to them anyway?" and then you spend that 5 billion dollars on a new greenhouse in Iowa, Subsidies so farmers don't farm, "support" for the sad weasel-breeders who lost their jobs can sit around without a job, etc etc. You get an aristrocracy of PULL - whoever can convince congress to give them money thats been taken from someone else gets it.  How is this MORAL? How is this ETHICAL? Its friggin stealing, plain and simple.

And right now, the looters are in control, and all of your peoples vaunted hatred for bush should be just the opposite - he's spent more every year on social programs than CLINTON did!

I have major problems with him for his Prescription drug benefit, his massive spending on "mercury" protections and other crap - face it, 99% of us are going to die of something like cancer (caused from getting old / smoking, not from these "pollutants"), heart disease, or an accident.

WESTAMASTAFLASH'S ECONOMIC LAW #1: THE WEALTHY DON'T HAVE A GIANT MONEY VALUT WHERE THEY GO AND SWIM IN THEIR GOLD COINS LIKE SCROOGE MCDUCK!

And this my friends, is why I may move to America if I get a high high (you get the point) paying job.

But on the other hand Average to poor families get screwed (probably because they don't spend as much) and the government feels "why help people who are in most need when the money won't come right back to our country?"

Krush - those poor families didn't pay any taxes in the first place! And making need the basis of government handouts is ludicrous - you sound like marx now. Remember - THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY IS the TAXPAYERS money. Thus all spending must pass the "Would you put grandma into a prison if she didn't pay for this" test, because that is what you are doing when you tax people - point a gun to their head and say give me your money. Giving money to poor people does not pass the put grandma in prison test. Philanthropic organizations exist for a reason, but MOST require that the poor people work hard and try to better themselves - and many, frankly, don't. Why do you think obesity is such a problem amongst the POOR - not the middle class or rich? Poor fiscal management, getting themselves into huge debt, etc. Learn to LIVE WITH LESS. Food is cheap - there is a company that makes freeze dried food products - waltonfeed.net - 400 dollars for a YEARS supply of all the nutrients one person needs. You can't tell me that its impossible for a person to make 400 dollars in America. Instead, they're buying MacDonalds, getting cable television, drinking, smoking, etc etc.

You're telling me that no poor families ever payed taxes? so what you're saying is screw all the poor american families and help the rich out even more? and they expect us to be patriots to a country who doesn't even help many of its own people. (must be a republican way of thinking)
btw: in many cases it's actually the rich who are drinking, smoking and doing drugs on account of their money.

Dude, you missed my point - THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ALLOW A FREE PERSON TO SUCCEED OR FAIL ON THEIR OWN MERITS, FREE FROM FORCE OR FRAUD OF OTHERS.

It is not to "help" people - REMEMBER - government money is the TAXPAYERS money.

A person is entitled to ONLY what they HAVE intrinsically - their RIGHT to life, their RIGHT to liberty, and their RIGHT to their own persuit of happiness. All other true rights derive from their RIGHT to CONTROLLING their own life.

It is their job to then life that life, provide for themsevles using their body and mind, and seek their own happiness. Nowhere does it say that they have to "help" others, that somehow their work and productive ability should be SACRIFICED to allow others to freeload off them.

Charity is all fine when IT IS DONE FREELY WITHOUT COERCION. Forcing someone to "be charitable" by taking money from them and giving it to others is MORALLY wrong.

Oh and you said

No. I'm saying let the "rich" keep what they've earned to to their productive ability - and let the "poor" keep what they've earned. Let them be free - help neither!

But it is the governments job to provide enough jobs for the people of the United States (enough good jobs) the more money we lose the less jobs we have . . . I highly doubt that most of our money lost is caused by poor families of the U.S. How does the poor get back on track when it is nearly impossible to find a good job or in some cases no job at all (after losing jobs in the lay-off streak we had)

Oh my god. How is it the governments job to "provide jobs"? Dude, listen to reason! Like i said in another post -  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE IT.

People who start businesses create jobs - not government. Government makes people LOSE jobs - with minimum wage laws, with envirnomental regulations, with OSHA regulations, etc.

I suppose you haven't seen the straight 10 month growth in jobs. Additionally, if you want a "good" job, you need to have SKILLS - and many people DON't - and refuse to go back to school or training to get skills. I looked in the paper today - hundreds of jobs are being advertised - and several only require manual labor! The jobs are there - and if they weren't, I'd still say that it is not government's job. Start a business, find a niche. Thats what being free is all about.

     On this point, I have to agree with Flash. The government's only proper role in "producing jobs" is standing at the head of the chain and proving education. The better the education, the more jobs there will be (eventually).

and still not back to normal, most the jobs that are now being created are low-class jobs for kids usually. But most those are being taken by adults on account of the fact that we have a lack of good jobs open. Which in return ends up hurting college kids who may just need a summer job.

So what would you have us do Krush? Whats your "solution" to this problem? I claim its freedom. What's your answer?

From the Preamble to the US Constitution: The "job" of Government.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Let's look at a few points:

I think we've demonstraited in the 1860's the prevailing opinion on what is a more perfect union.

We can all agree that establishing justive is good -- we may likely differ on our interpretations of what justice is.

As for domestic traquility -- again, we can agree on the concept but likely disagree on the execution.

Common defense -- ditto.

Promote the general welfare: This is the part of the Constitution that seems to be in debate right now. This concept, the general welfare of the people, is at the heart of what the governmental philosophies disagree on -- from Liberatarians to Communists to Fascists. West seems to be advocating that it is the duty of the individual citizen to provide for their own welfare. Krush agrues that it is the duty of the government to provide for our own welfare. But I think both miss the point: it is the duty of the United Stated federal government to promote the common good. Again, most disagree on what defines common good -- or general welfare as the Preamble states -- but all agreet that it is the job of the government to promote it.

West: it is not the government's duty to provide jobs so much as insure that their is an environment that promotes job growth. There is also a notion that it is the government's duty to insure that the people are able to achieve the maximum potential in their personal lives because it is in the common good for everyone to achieve greatly.  This is where I fail to understand your wraith for those that want the government to do more and do it better. The government itself provides job; it also designs the commercial fabric by which we all are employeed -- to argue that the Government is not required to produce jobs is a foolish miss-interpretation of the truth.  The Government is the ONLY entity that is required to produce jobs!

As for Liberty: again, we all agree that this is our highest ideal. And this is where I get incredibly frustrated -- it is the government's job to promote Liberty above all else. Liberty was the pan-ultimate reason for the Revolution, it was the most sacred of ideals that permiates our social fabric, it is the cornerstone of progressive social changes such as the freeing of the slaves, the female right to vote, as well as rights such as the right to bear arms. And I look at the man in office today and can see how he clearly DOES NOT value our Liberty. The actions he's undertaken have devalued our personal liberties, built structural limits on them, altered the means and ways by which the federal government may legally violate them, and done so all under the guise of protecting our Liberty.

Which is the heart of his personal evil.  He's a liar and he does not cherish our Constitution.

So, some immeadiate counters:

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE IT. "

Wrong. The only reason we have any rights at all is because someone, long ago, wanted to codify those rights. In essence, they were produced.

"It is their job to then life that life, provide for themsevles using their body and mind, and seek their own happiness. Nowhere does it say that they have to "help" others, that somehow their work and productive ability should be SACRIFICED to allow others to freeload off them."

Again, I am not personally required to give to charity. However, I do have to pay taxes. If I'm wealthy, I pay more because I have more to pay. The Government has a duty to promote the general wellfare, NOT my personal wellfare. If the general wellfare benifits at my expense, and especially when I can afford that expense, then that is Good and, more to the point, is in keeping to the letter of the Constitution.

"THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY IS the TAXPAYERS money."

I completely disagree with this. The Government's money was the taxpayer's money. Now it is the Government's money, and the Government is charged to use that money in ways as outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution.  It is foolishly simplistic to call the Government's money the taxpayers -- sort of like saying that the money I give to Apple is really my money. Well, it was. Now it is theirs.

And remember, Taxes pay for services. We all want services. If we reduce taxes we by default are reducing our own services. We can nit-pick around this but that's the factual reallity -- you cannot get something for nothing.

"Charity is all fine when IT IS DONE FREELY WITHOUT COERCION."

Taxes are not Charity. Taxes our are duty as citizens. They are not coerced, they are put in place by elected officials who represent some of the interests of their districs. Arguing that paying taxes is a form of coerced charity is misguided -- cause invariably the taxes we pay affect us to our personal benefit.

This get back to the concept of general welfare: do rich people need more services or do poor peeople? Can the rich or the poor afford on their own a high standard of living? Who does the Government have a higher duty to, when you take into consideration it's duty to promote the general welfare?

"Learn to LIVE WITH LESS."

Really West, what sort of America do you want us to live in?

West, you say freedom all to often. Learn to use it properly and not spam it as a low blow argument.

West, you say freedom all to often. Learn to use it properly and not spam it as a low blow argument.

As I've said before, you're personal success is not reflective of what's happened in America.

First and formost, the United States over the reign of Bush has had a net job loss.  That is, more jobs have been lost since Bush took office than gained.  It is all well and good to point to job gains in the last year, but you need to put that into perspective: job "growth" has NOT reached the leveled predicted by the White House nor the levels needed to break even with the net job loss.

That is not what I'd call economic success.

So really, how great is Bush's economic policy? And how great is the White House at hitting it's own expectations?

Also, before I get painted with the knee-jerk wingers response that I'm being too pesimistic, you need to remind yourself that generally reporting on the facts is considering telling the truth, rather than being negative.  In sum, saying things aren't going well isn't a bad thing when it's true.

Let me create more havok within your politics discussion about economics and jobs.

Can someone who blindly supports either party please explain to me why both sides are seriously considering amnesty for illegals.  On top of this, both parties are also considering adopting a bill that would allow illegal immigrants who worked in the US to receive social security.  I mean, the tax burden, the already fucked social security problem compounded with these ideas would rain shit on us for some time to come.

I don't know what side you support or care, but you do know both sides are going to sell you out.  And why would they sell you out, because right now they feel that Hispanic america is the swing vote for what is currently a close election.  Can you believe they are fucking us over for what was only 5% of the vote in the last election.  Not only that, but the only place the majority of those votes were cast were in 3 states.

Don't think I am some racist nut either.  I am half mexican and decendant of acutal illegal immigrants.  But I don't condone what my ancestors did or what mexicans and a large number of asians are doing.  Being in california we have a large eye opening into the issue and how it is slowly bleeding our state dry.

So, for all of you out there on the I love democrat, I love republican train, they are both currently caring only about their party and their own personal success.  Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win.

"Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win."

Pretty much. But it varies by degrees.

The problem with American politics -- or the beauty of it -- is that is forces to cover a range of issues. A party that truly reflects only one thing can rarely become elected and will never stay in power. Do I think amnesty for illegals is good or bad? I haven't thought about it, nor looked into it, so I can't give it an informed judgement.

My knee jerk reaction is -- I'd rather have these people "in the system" than outside of it. If you make them citizens, or give them all green cards, then they have to pay into the system, and they have to pay taxes. Instead of being a raw burden on society they can start to self support it.

But would that happen easily? Could it happen without major structural changes to policies like Social Sec?  I don't know.

1) what exactly is wrong about giving I.A.s amnesty?
2) what makes Kerry one of the biggest scumbags to run for Pres?

Nice monkey wrench, Fah.

I'm tired and have a headache, so I'll return to respond on somethings later. But as a teaser of what's to come:

"Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a Far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s."

And the stern "war President" G.W. is a far cry from the coke snorting, drunk driving, abortion forcing, dereliction of duty "dog ate my records" daddy put me into the National Guard punk that he was in the 1970s.

I mean, pwnd.

You may be right on the coke snorting, drunk driving, and daddy got me into the National Guard part.  But where did the abortion forcing come into play?  And Bush was never derelict in his duty.  If you had ever served in the U.S. Military, especially the National Guard or Reserves, you would know that stuff like that went on all the time (and to a large extent, still goes on all the time).  Everybody acts like he just went AWOL for a couple of years.  Hate to break it to you, but you aren't AWOL when you get permission to do it.[/size]

The abortion is an open rumor long floated and supposedly proved by L. Flint.  

Whether or not an action is common does not excuse that action. Stealing is common -- is stealing any less a crime? What Bush did was a punishable offense and he should have been courtmartialed. Conviently, the records that would prove his innocence or guilt are missing. Convient, because the records that are missing are solely for the monthes when he dissappeared. And he never got permission to skip his physical -- and he made us waste millions of dollars training him, all to see him grounded. It reveals a serious character flaw in him: his sense of entitlement and his inable to act responsiblity. That, and it was criminal.

It wasn't criminal!  It wasn't a crime!  In the National Guard, you can skip an entire YEAR of service, as long as somebody knows where you are and as long as you make up that service (which Bush did, by the way).  You need to learn something about the way the National Guard operates, instead of just listening to what Democrats have to say about it.  I happen to know a little about the subject.

Also, if this was really an issue, then it would still be getting played up and would never have died down the way it has.  Just like in the 2000 election, the Democrats bring this up just to get everyone thinking about it, but they can only play it up for so long before it dies back down again.  You can probably expect it to come up at least once more before the election.[/size]

Ah but here's the first logical flaw - there is no such thing as the common good. This is a fiction - people only exist as individuals, thus any "common good" can only be regarded as the sum of "good" across a society - but becuase individuals preferences cannot be compared across persons (basic economic law about preferences), this is irrelevant.

What might be good for one person may be bad for another - and even if 99% of people agree on what is "good" - they still don't have any right to force it on another. Just because a society can see what is bad - based on destruction of indiviuals rights - does not mean they can then define "good".

So far, logically correct. However, your premise is too wide, which leads you into the fallacy:
Again, a logical argument thats is predicated on incorrect premises.
The market system is INVISIBLE, no one directs it, no one "created" it - especially not government. It is this "invisible hand" that Smith spoke of in Wealth of Nations. The commercial fabric was developing fine and dandy without government in the early 19th century, however the government decided that it needed to be involved, and started creating legal fictions such as "corporations" - a legal person that does not exist. Corporations in the physical sense had been around for a long time before that - partnerships etc - but by creating this legal fiction government was able to regulate what people were able to do with thier own assets.

This all comes back to a battle that was lost in the 19th century - the battle for the central bank. And the wrong side won - banking is the only monopolistic industry in existence today. And because of this, the government now controls the amount of free capital in a society. This is completely wrong!

True. But is the alternative any different? If bush takes away your freedom to burn the flag, how is kerry taking away your freedom to BUY a flag (via tax increases) any different?  Or censoring your speech by calling it "hate speech"? Or promoting "diversity" by claiming that blacks are not as smart as whites so they need to have lower standards to get into college?

And the opposition does? A man who swore to uphold the constitution, yet claims that he committed war crimes? A man who went to europe to aid the Communist North Vietnamese (an enemy of this nation at the time, and still today)? Clearly he missed that part about not being a tratior.
From that definition of produce, you can get that. But I was aiming for something more along the idea that somehow I have a right to, for example, have food. Food is produced by a farmer. Do I have the right to go and take it from him without exchanging value for value?

And I still maintain that the fundamental rights are INTRINSIC - meaning that they derive from what man IS - and whether they are codified or not, they still exist via logical deduction from what man is.

Again, see above - what is "general welfare"? Preferences cannot be compared across multiple persons - so there is no such thing as the "common good" or "general welfare". So it is right to force someone to be a slave to others - to take their money and give it to those who have not earned it? Who is to say that "they can afford it" - that money can be used for many things - including some that you altruists hold dear - getting people jobs, for instance. If the government takes that money, how do I hire someone with it? Or loan it out?

The FUNDAMENTAL difference here is that the government has taken that money by FORCE. You give apple money on your own free will - you pay taxes because you know the IRS will come knocking if you don't.

But the point is that these services are offerred better in a free society. The only services we need are the ones that protect our freedoms - the police to protect our property, the courts to protect our contracts, and the military to protect our lives.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. You argue that a democratic system, where elected officals are right is the solution. I argue that strict rule of law and respect for individual rights are the solution (see Hong Kong under the british - though no one elected the governors, Hong Kong was one of the freest places on earth!)

If an elected government respects individual rights and property rights, then that government works. When it infringes on these, it is just as immoral as the communists under Stalin or the Germans under Hitler.

A high standard of living is the reward for ability, saving, and investment.

When it comes down to it, to promote the general welfare is done best through allowing the free market to floruish, not stamping it down.

You took this out of context, as I was discussing how the poor can improve their lot - by saving, by investing, by gaining skills.

These days, very few people know proper fiscal management. If we have government schools, we need to start teaching kids about how to use money - and how money WORKS. There is a huge emptiness of knowledge about basic economics in the country today.  


EDIT: Fixed Quotes

     Flash, your sexy, sexy Libertarianism brings a tear to my eye.