Could Bush Lose It?

I've been thinking recently about the information that's been coming to light regarding our recent war and the reactions of our government to it all. After watching Democrats on TV last night giving testament towards their Presidential campaigns, and listening to them hammer on the point of the Administration's lies, it makes me wonder. (Al Sharpton made me shudder with his "Slap the donkey!" speech.)

Right now, the economy's not so great. There was a report released a while back saying that we've been on the rise, gradually, for some time. Unfortunately, the signs of this progression are not wide enough to be seen. They may be there, but all we hear about are the struggles of the "working man" trying to find a job, about layoffs, and spending cuts. Every single Democratic candidate last night railed on the state of the economy, promising to fight for the "working man". (Especially Gephardt, with his Mom & Dad union story.) This also makes me wonder.

I will go to great lengths to defend anything Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky. Nobody can convince me that he was wrong to lie. But that bravado is just silly favoritism and personal opinion. When Clinton was on trial, at risk of being the first President to be impeached, I was worried. I thought that the prosecution might succeed, that he'd be impeached and that someone else would be running things.

So my question is for the die-hard Republicans - and I pose it only to hear opinions - do you worry? During the war, I wouldn't have doubted the re-election of President Bush. Now, though, I'm not so certain. We've found out that some of our information presented to the U.N. was false. We've found out that our intelligence agencies did not correspond properly and, as a result, we missed a small chance to prevent 9/11. We've seen various figures in the Bush Administration on news shows and in interviews get roughed up because they don't want to blame anyone else for the accusations even while they don't want to take the blame. Rummy got roughed up on Meet the Press, and he stumbled over his words through the whole interview. He didn't seem confident.

Are there Republicans who are worried about Bush being re-elected? Do you think that the Democrats will be able to draw enough public attention to the misinformation and the still sour economy?

I doubt the man's re-election now. Whether or not any of the things happening are true, it's what people are seeing.

And, by the way, I want this to be civil, so certain posters *cough*Almaci*cough*, please don't harp on who's right or wrong. I just want genuine opinions and reasons. Take care, everyone.

Every candidate in history has said he would, "vow to fight for the working man." This is the first time I can remember where a Democrat has actively campaigned for the presidency with "I'll repeal all those tax cuts!" being part of his agenda, though.

Yes, repeal the tax cuts and replace them with tax hikes. Makes plenty of sense.

I don't think that Bush will have much of a problem getting re-elected. The economy is on the upswing, the stock market is reaching decent numbers and so far, the Democrate's have'nt produced a decent adversary for office.

Honestly, from an economic point of view, those tax cuts will probably have to be repealed in order to work ourselves out of the enormous debt that America is entering into. If you find some economic data on it, I guarantee you a horrifying read.
Anyway, the Democrats have a few good reasons to oust the Republicans/Bush, not least of which is the fact that they've basically turned a serious economic stumble into an economic nightmare. (Using tax cuts like these, btw, has never been a viable economic solution)
However, the Democrats can't seem to stop bickering long enough to come to any consensus on where to stand on any important issues. Rather than rant, as I'm inclined to do, I'll refer you to the "democracy your days are numbered" thread.
I'm not sure Bush will obtain re-election, and normally I wouldn't want him to, but I'm actually quite fearful of who could replace him. Lieberman? Sure... let's just set fire to our own head and run down the street screaming while we're at it.
I'm not sure this answers your question, Calliander, but whatever... ?

EDIT: Originally, when I read the subject of the thread, I thought you were going to posit whether Bush could lose his sanity at this point or not :) Play his fiddle while Rome burns, if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I don't think that Bush will have much of a problem getting re-elected. The economy is on the upswing, the stock market is reaching decent numbers and so far, the Democrate's have'nt produced a decent adversary for office.

---

The economy, though in an upswing, isn't creating any jobs, and probably won't begin to do so in great numbers for 6 months - 2 years, is what I've been able to gather. Basically, productivity is higher than it has ever been, but that's because people are frickin' scared shitless of losing their job :) and "because of technology" the economists say, but I think we know the former is probably more accurate.
Even if the economy is getting better, as companies are shipping work over seas (I should know, I'm losing my job to India very soon) we're actually putting less and less economic oomph back into the economy as the economy grows, so the economic growth data is a little deceptive.

Job creation is what will get votes for Bush at this point. We've lost 2.6 million [I think???] jobs, and rising still, over the last couple years now.... that's a couple of votes.

I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican, but I wouldn't place my bets on Bush winning 2K4. Back in the 2K election, I wished I could vote "Neither of the above".

Taxes are already too damn high on middle-class and below. These classes should have either a reduced tax burden or none at all. Let the rich make up the difference. Take away a lot of the tax deductions that the rich can abuse. Tax cuts should be for the working man ONLY. As for Leona Helmsley and her early 90's mantra "Only the little people pay taxes"- I think she deserved to get slapped with a $7,000,000 fine the way she did.

Isn't it a pisser to think that retired rich people are earning Social Security out of your tax dollars? I think they shouldn't be allowed to partake in that. If they use their earnings responsibly and/or invest wisely, they can remain set for life. The thought of Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, Ben Affleck, Michael Jordan, or Jack Nicholson etc. earning Social Security at some time is something I find extremely galling.

I truly, truly, dislike Bush. And the Republicans, for that matter. But I don't see the Democrats even having a chance unless they can get a candidate with charisma.

Right now, they're dead in the water.

Although, do you think there are enough rich people to make a dent in the Social Security dilemma? I mean, those people only make up a few percent worth of Soc. Sec. recipients.
Also, I'm not sure I agree about taxes being too high on middle class america... they just lowered them a little bit, even,but I certainly think that wealthier people get off far too easily. After going to High School in what would be considered a mid-mid and upper-mid class area of Northern Illinois, and hearing how families get around all sorts of taxation, it simply astounds to wonder how much more money the governement ought to be taking in from these people.

This is cool, guys :)

I'll go with maybe.

Quote:

---

Isn't it a pisser to think that retired rich people are earning Social Security out of your tax dollars?

---

No. They, in addition to all other classes, are entitled to social security. You must remember that the upper class pay a very high amount of taxes compared to what they make, versus the middle and lower classes. So it's not only "your" tax money that they're using, it's their own also.

Quote:

---

If they use their earnings responsibly and/or invest wisely, they can remain set for life.

---

So can middle class Americans. Why do people opt to buy nice houses, a car for every person in the family, boats, expensive electronics, etc. instead of a more modest lifestyle to save up for their retirement? Should they be entitled to social security, despite being able to afford to live a decent life after retirement?

I thought social security was like insurance. Its taken under the idea that its coming back to you. Its not a general tax for the support of underprivileged cats.

tones: I don't recall most middle class people I knew having cars for everyone, nice houses, boats and expensive electronics. Maybe one of the above -_o But the general idea of not spending above or at your means is correct.

What income bracket would you consider middle class?

hmm. . .+50 to -100K? What's the official line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

So my question is for the die-hard Republicans - and I pose it only to hear opinions - do you worry? Do you think that the Democrats will be able to draw enough public attention to the misinformation and the still sour economy?

---

Well, somewhat, but what can I do? I'll cast my vote when the time comes with the hope of keeping democrats as far away from the whitehouse as possible, and that's about it ;). And when have the democrats (presidential candidates) NOT drawn attention to "misinformation," "failures," or "tax-cuts for the rich"? That's all they ever do... Complain, complain, complain, complain... "Where's Bin Laden?? Hm? Hmmm? You can't find Bin Laden!! Ha ha, he he, ho ho... Where's Saddam? Hm?? You can't find Saddam!!! Where's the WMDs?? You can't find 'em!! Ha ha ha, he he he, ho ho ho..." I'm not voting that in, sorry... However, Joe Lieberman would be the only one I'd ever consider if I was a democrat (at least he's gotten off the "I'm NOT Bush" platform). Anyway, it's no longer looking like a sure thing for Bush, so there's cause for concern. But, oh well, we'll see what happens...

I can only hope that Bush doesn't get reelected. I don't think he's looking too good right now with all the crap our country is in. So I'll keep my fingers crossed.

SC

I heard on the radio today, that Arnold Shwarzenneger had to disclose his earnings for the past 2 years(Governor race). He earned about $37 million in 2001 and had to pay $10 million in taxes. It does'nt sound like the rich are getting any tax breaks to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I heard on the radio today, that Arnold Shwarzenneger had to disclose his earnings for the past 2 years(Governor race). He earned about $37 million in 2001 and had to pay $10 million in taxes. It does'nt sound like the rich are getting any tax breaks to me.

---

When you're making $37 million a year, I don't think $10 million will hurt you the same way a person who makes $37,000 a year. Trust me, Arnold's not hurting.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I heard on the radio today, that Arnold Shwarzenneger had to disclose his earnings for the past 2 years(Governor race). He earned about $37 million in 2001 and had to pay $10 million in taxes. It does'nt sound like the rich are getting any tax breaks to me.

---

Well, you've got me there.
I guess I was more talking about people who own businesses and can hide earnings/ put them under other categories. Arnold is one example of someone who can't get away with pulling the wool over the taxman's eyes for the most part, you're right.

I can only hope...

We'll see, I'd love to see him debate with Dean, or even Kerry. I hope to God that Lieberman doesn't get the nomination

who elses think that we should get rid of social security? It is an old ass system that needs to be ripped to shreds, of course running on that policy would be political suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

When you're making $37 million a year, I don't think $10 million will hurt you the same way a person who makes $37,000 a year. Trust me, Arnold's not hurting.

SC

---

No, he's not, but he's not getting any favorable tax breaks either. The guy making $37,000 would pay out about $10,000 in taxes using Arnold's scale. I just peeked at my income tax filings for 2001. After exemptions, my taxable income was around $47,000 and the taxes for that amount were around $6700. I recieved an income tax return of $1500 for that year. So, for a household income of over $55,000, I was only taxed around $5300.

having ignored the rest of the thread, Bush could easily lose. i like leiberman in this race, he could draw moderates and even conservatives with his social message. Naturally i would prefer McCane, but i would vote leiberman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

who elses think that we should get rid of social security? It is an old ass system that needs to be ripped to shreds, of course running on that policy would be political suicide.

---

I think we could probably start an entire thread based solely on that.

Any takers? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

who elses think that we should get rid of social security? It is an old ass system that needs to be ripped to shreds, of course running on that policy would be political suicide.

---

No, I don't. Even though I have investments like 401K and such, there are certain sectors of the public, that have no such option. I could'nt imagine a broke ass family, living on less than $30,000 a year, having any investment options other than social security. Sure they may have a house that's paid for (Highly unlikely), but the cost of living when your 70 years old and have nothing but the house you live in, would be more than enough to make these people homeless or starving to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenshin

I truly, truly, dislike Bush. And the Republicans, for that matter. But I don't see the Democrats even having a chance unless they can get a candidate with charisma.

Right now, they're dead in the water.

---

Dean's charismatic, he just has other problems. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dripdry

Honestly, from an economic point of view, those tax cuts will probably have to be repealed in order to work ourselves out of the enormous debt that America is entering into. If you find some economic data on it, I guarantee you a horrifying read.

---

Deficit during slow times, surplus during good times. Macroeconomics 101. :p

But there's still more to it than that. I was pointing at Republican fiscal irresponsibility, and that making tax cuts of that nature has NEVER worked for the economy, that it's completely backwards. I won't argue with you that deficit is usually along for the ride with a slow economy, but it seems foolish to play along thinking that this isn't anyone's fault and is just a matter of macro economics. The situation could have been handled in a different way. After all, we have projected debt for America that could send it into a slump as dire as that of Japan, if something isn't changed soon. At least, that's what I've read, so I suppose that it may be as much hype as others are spouting, so I'm sure the truth lies somewhere a little more on par with betweenity.

He'll just rig the election like he did last time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dripdry

But there's still more to it than that. I was pointing at Republican fiscal irresponsibility, and that making tax cuts of that nature has NEVER worked for the economy, that it's completely backwards. I won't argue with you that deficit is usually along for the ride with a slow economy, but it seems foolish to play along thinking that this isn't anyone's fault and is just a matter of macro economics. The situation could have been handled in a different way. After all, we have projected debt for America that could send it into a slump as dire as that of Japan, if something isn't changed soon. At least, that's what I've read, so I suppose that it may be as much hype as others are spouting, so I'm sure the truth lies somewhere a little more on par with betweenity.

---

The government just needs to spend less, is all it comes down to. It's alot of people's fault that the government is going further and further into debt, but none so much as the democrats, imo.

I hope he doesnt.
I hope for the best and fear for the worst as i always do.

Democratic policy over the last 20 years has been what has pulled this country out of debt.
I'm curious, why is it more the Democrats' fault?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, this country was going into debt hand over fist until a majority Republican congress was picked in the mid 90's, which cut spending on alot of programs that were put into place by Democrats.

My memory on this could be wrong, feel free to correct.

The election is still more than 1.5 years away, I think the economy would have picked up a bit more by then, and people would not be as negative about the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

No, he's not, but he's not getting any favorable tax breaks either. The guy making $37,000 would pay out about $10,000 in taxes using Arnold's scale. I just peeked at my income tax filings for 2001. After exemptions, my taxable income was around $47,000 and the taxes for that amount were around $6700. I recieved an income tax return of $1500 for that year. So, for a household income of over $55,000, I was only taxed around $5300.

---

I'm saying that to someone making $37,000 a year, $10,000 means more than $10 million does to Arnold. Even $5,000 is a large amount to pay for a middle class family. If I had $37 million a year, I wouldn't complain so much about paying $10 million in taxes...wait...yeah I would. ;)

SC

Quote:

---

That's all they ever do... Complain, complain, complain, complain... "Where's Bin Laden?? Hm? Hmmm? You can't find Bin Laden!! Ha ha, he he, ho ho... Where's Saddam? Hm?? You can't find Saddam!!! Where's the WMDs?? You can't find 'em!! Ha ha ha, he he he, ho ho ho..." I'm not voting that in, sorry

---

I'm not really a die hard Republican, but I've grown to become a big hater of the Democratic party, due to the reasons that Nightwolf listed. I just wish that we have a better alternative, a 3rd party maybe. At this point I would hope Bush gets reelected, not because I like him, but because I just don't think the Democrats deserve to win ANYTHING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gutsman

The election is still more than 1.5 years away, I think the economy would have picked up a bit more by then, and people would not be as negative about the economy.

---

That's what I'm hoping; not just for my sake (getting a higher paying job would be nice), but for the people who don't even have a job now that can't get one because all of these companies will not hire anyone. But what if it doesn't get better? Nothing Bush has done so far has boosted hiring, and that's what scares me most. What if attaining a job is as difficult a year from today as it is today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

I'm saying that to someone making $37,000 a year, $10,000 means more than $10 million does to Arnold. Even $5,000 is a large amount to pay for a middle class family. If I had $37 million a year, I wouldn't complain so much about paying $10 million in taxes...wait...yeah I would. ;)

---

That $5,000.00 to the person making $37,000.00 a year is a down payment on a car; savings towards a child's college education; gas money; bills; a new computer so that a child can take advantage of current study tools; a cadre of things. In other words: a little bit more room for financial maneuverability. If you've got $37 mil and you lose $10 mil, you've still got $27 mil.

But that doesn't mean you eliminate taxes for the $37 thou guy and hike taxes for the $37 mil guy. It just means that I wish I had that $10 mil the big guy's losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gutsman

I'm not really a die hard Republican, but I've grown to become a big hater of the Democratic party, due to the reasons that Nightwolf listed. I just wish that we have a better alternative, a 3rd party maybe. At this point I would hope Bush gets reelected, not because I like him, but because I just don't think the Democrats deserve to win ANYTHING.

---

Well, really, though; we ought to have some better results on Bin Laden by now. And it's also kind of funny that the same people who didn't want to give U.N. inspectors time to find WMDs are now saying that they need more time to find the WMDs in Iraq. :)

I think they've got plenty of good reasons to hammer away on these things because they're important no matter which side of the coin you're on. For instance, how do you feel, knowing that our government basically lied to the world in order to carry out a war? Does it bother you, or do you shrug it off? Why or why not?

Personally, I think we did a morally correct thing, but I don't know if the way we went about it was moral. I don't think Saddam was an imminent threat (nor do I think North Korea is, or else we'd hear more about that), and we could have waited for world approval before going in there. But that's just me, and I like to hear the opinions of others on the matter.

I guess some of things do bother me, but I dunno, foreign policy issues have never been the deciding factor in presidential elections, and I don't think it will be in this next one either. Like they said, it's always about the economy, stupid. If the unemployment rate is still hovering at 6.5% by this time next year, then Bush probably will lose. Bush's problem now is that the tax cut and other policies he implemented to boost growth and employment are not kicking in fast enough. Fiscal policy tends to work very slowly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

That $5,000.00 to the person making $37,000.00 a year is a down payment on a car; savings towards a child's college education; gas money; bills; a new computer so that a child can take advantage of current study tools; a cadre of things. In other words: a little bit more room for financial maneuverability. If you've got $37 mil and you lose $10 mil, you've still got $27 mil.

But that doesn't mean you eliminate taxes for the $37 thou guy and hike taxes for the $37 mil guy. It just means that I wish I had that $10 mil the big guy's losing.

---

I agree completely, but it's incorrect to say that the rich are being taken advantage of by tax laws.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

I'm not sure what you're referring to, this country was going into debt hand over fist until a majority Republican congress was picked in the mid 90's, which cut spending on alot of programs that were put into place by Democrats.

My memory on this could be wrong, feel free to correct.

---

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped..._ft_091202.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

(nor do I think North Korea is, or else we'd hear more about that)

---

Just because we don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't an issue, particularly when the government has no idea what the they're going to do about it.
Hasn't North Korea been stating for decades that once it reaches nuclear power, it's going to do to Japan what Japan tried to do to it back in (I think) the Korean War years? Wipe Japan off the face of the earth. No, I don't think North Korea poses a threat to us, but they certainly seem to pose a threat to another world power.
Also, I've gotten the distinct impression, from what I can gather, that the reason we aren't hearing about it is because it's nearly an impossible situation. Noboody in any big chair wants to talk about it. The government is basically stuck on what to do about North Korea. Basically, we have a situation where if North Korea sees us make any move to strike, Seoul gets pounded with the heavy artillery hidden in their underground bunkers, almost instantaneously, and a pretty big handful of civilians will die.
Thoughts?

I'd like to see a Republican (maybe, I dunno, McCain) commit political suicide and run against Bush for the Republican ticket. Not gonna happen, but I can dream.

Does Bush stand a chance of losing? Yes. As has been mentioned, the economy isn't doing so great from the avg. person's POV. There is a distinct chance we'll see the market get back up to 10K and still see very little change in the job market. Too many companies and corporations are exploring alternative sources of cheap labor, or enjoying the benefits of forcing their employees to take up slack from fired coworkers. They feel empowered by the current job market to treat employees as easily replaceable commodities.

Bush's best chance at being re-elected would come from (a) a revival in the job market, and (b) the continued ignorance, in-fighting, and ineptitude of the Democratic party. Maybe once a single candidate is focused on by the Jackass party, some focus will occur. The Democratic party needs to rethink itself and tell the American people why it's different from the Republican party. "Democrats: We're Wishy-Washy" doesn't make a great party slogan, but that is their slogan as far as I'm concerned.

Whoever opposes Bush needs to hammer on the following: (1) Fiscal Responsibilty in government. (2) Job Market/Economy. (3) Missing terrorists and WMD (assuming none are found in the next 18 months). (4) Corporate corruption (funny how Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. have all disappeared from anyone's agendas). (5) Medicare and Social Security (always a fun campaign topic). (6) Foreign Policy. (7) Environmental Policies. (8) Media Policies (see FCC's recent rulings that allow a single company to control more of city's media than ever before). (9) Privacy & Loss of Freedom (see Patriot Act, TIA, TIPS, potentially even DMCA).

I'm sure there's more. But that's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

(7) Environmental Policies.

---

A lot of people missed the Clear Skies thing and that other one that let those smokestack places build whatever they want without regulatory equipment for the smoke.

Quote:

---

(8) Media Policies (see FCC's recent rulings that allow a single company to control more of city's media than ever before).

---

Wasn't the ruling to disallow that? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that they said that the large cable companies couldn't buy into the smaller media of cities and towns? I could have misread the article.

Hehe, oh yeah - Al Sharpton isn't wishy-washy.

But then, I don't want a man who would use the term, "Slap that donkey!" running the country. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html


The FCC under Colin Powell's son, voted to decrease regulations on media congolmerates. Last month, the House put a provision in a bill that would negate that decision, and the senate was expected to put a similar provision in as well. The FCC ruling could be bad for both Democrats and Republicans, depending on which way the media heads were leaning politically.

And I didn't say Al was wishy-washy. I said the Party was wishy-washy. ;) I still stand by that statement. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dripdry

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped..._ft_091202.htm

---

That's really just an opinion article, and I don't agree. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, which is why he worked fairly well to form a better economy with the Republican congress (by not veto'ing stuff). It was also a lot of being in the right place at the right time. Ross Perot could've been in office and it still would've been a great economy because of the internet boom at the time. Likewise, Clinton, Kennedy, Washington...whoever, would still be in the same slump we're in right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

That's really just an opinion article, and I don't agree. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, which is why he worked fairly well to form a better economy with the Republican congress (by not veto'ing stuff). It was also a lot of being in the right place at the right time. Ross Perot could've been in office and it still would've been a great economy because of the internet boom at the time. Likewise, Clinton, Kennedy, Washington...whoever, would still be in the same slump we're in right now.

---

Makes sense to me. I agree. :)

Considering how devastating the double whammy of the internet crash and 9/11 were, I think Bush (and Alan Greenspan) deserves some credit for the fact that things aren't even worse than they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I heard on the radio today, that Arnold Shwarzenneger had to disclose his earnings for the past 2 years(Governor race). He earned about $37 million in 2001 and had to pay $10 million in taxes. It does'nt sound like the rich are getting any tax breaks to me.

---

Income in the top income tax braket (over $288,000) is supposed to be taxed at a rate of 38.6%, which means Arnold should've paid around $14 million in taxes. Arnold paid around 28%. For comparisons sake, the rate for income earned between $43,850 and $105,950 is 27%. Seems like he got a big ol' fucking break to me.

Well he also paid about $4 million to charity, which is tax deductible, which brings his income down to about 23 million, so 10 million in taxes sound about right.

33 x .386 = 12.7

Where's the missing 2.7 million? There's no way a tax shelter or loophole could be involved.

Probably in tax deductible interest related to his real estate holdings and Planet Hollywood. :) I'm guessing way out in left field here though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

I thought social security was like insurance. Its taken under the idea that its coming back to you.

---

Too bad it doesn't actually work out that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

Probably in tax deductible interest related to his real estate holdings and Planet Hollywood.

---

*coughcoughTaxSheltercough*

One thing that I think could hurt Bush is Iraq. Analysts relased estimates the other day that rebuilding Iraq will realistically cost $6 billion.

$6 billion!!

Of course, there's no way the US government can/will pay that, which will increase unrest in Iraq.

In irregular Shiite opposition army has been formed which claims roughly 30 000 troops. If the rebuilding effort falters, expect that to rise as people see their businesses and jobs won't be coming back any time soon, at least not as soon as promised.

This could lead to increased US military casualties, and we all know how well that plays at home. Between that and the economy, yes, there's a chance Bush could lose if the next year doesn't go well.

In government money, $6 billion is chump change. That's what, 6 Lockheed Martin (verification on brand?) stealth bombers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

And when have the democrats (presidential candidates) NOT drawn attention to "misinformation," "failures," or "tax-cuts for the rich"? That's all they ever do... Complain, complain, complain, complain... "Where's Bin Laden?? Hm? Hmmm? You can't find Bin Laden!! Ha ha, he he, ho ho... Where's Saddam? Hm?? You can't find Saddam!!! Where's the WMDs?? You can't find 'em!! Ha ha ha, he he he, ho ho ho..." I'm not voting that in, sorry...

---

I understand it's the triumphant tone you're objecting to, but they're an opposition party. What should they be saying? They wouldn't be serving democracy otherwise.

And to be fair, is that really any more annoying than the carping opposition-republicans offered up? Unless you think Ken Starr was being perfectly reasonable whenever he mentioned Clinton's "grave moral injustice".

I think whining is just a function of politics in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tones

In government money, $6 billion is chump change. That's what, 6 Lockheed Martin (verification on brand?) stealth bombers?

---

I wouldn't say it's chump change. Congress is already objecting, and the US economy can't really afford to export that much money right now. I think around $1 billion was pledged to rebuild Afghanistan, and they ended up putting in less than a third of that before pulling out.

I don't see Bush pulling out of Iraq, but I don't see him getting that much money into it, either.

Mind you, Reagan spent like $15 billion a year on Star Wars, so who knows?

to bad their are no diffrence between Democrats, and Republicas.. They have diffrent names, so people can be brainwashed to belive that their is a democrazy.. When in fact we have been living in a two party WHITE DICTORSHIP,,,

Actually, what the fuck do you expect the Democrats to do?
Just forget on all those promises and claims made by Bush wich he didnt fulfill?
Get real, Bush said he would get Saddam and Bin Laden death or alive and they claimed they knew exactly where the WMD´s were at etcetera, didnt provide the goods so its fair game to bring up those isseus.

I don't remember Bush promising to get Saddam or bin Laden dead or alive....what he said was more like "we will continually to hunt them down and bring them to justice" or something like that....

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Quote:

---

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

---

Wow. Thats gotta be the worst one I've heard yet. What a stupid thing to say. I hate almost all polititians...but I hate Bush the most.

Though I can't claim to be well versed on politics, hearing them bicker back and forth gets me pretty down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

and so far, the Democrate's have'nt produced a decent adversary for office.

---

I think Dead, and especially Kucinich are very intelligent and very qualified, and both willing to do more than just pandor.

That said, I'd vote for anyone this side of Hitler over that monkey ass cowboy dumbfuck.

Quote:

---

Actually, what the fuck do you expect the Democrats to do?
Just forget on all those promises and claims made by Bush wich he didnt fulfill?
Get real, Bush said he would get Saddam and Bin Laden death or alive and they claimed they knew exactly where the WMD´s were at etcetera, didnt provide the goods so its fair game to bring up those isseus.

---

But bringing up those issues isn't going to do much except to get a rise out of people who already hate Bush in the first place.

If they want to reach the mainstream American voter, they need more than just Bush bashing.

Why do so many hate Lieberman? I'd vote for him if Nader doesn't run (and it seems he will not). That said:

I'd place my whole yearly income in Bush winning.

Lieberman :: Democrat
AS
Schwarzenegger :: Republican

How so... being that I don't know how much of a Conservitive Arnold is.

Lieberman's a conservative. He's not even all that moderate. I have no idea why he pretends to be a Democrat.

He isn't much of a Republican (Arnold). Maybe on financial issues, but social...? And he still hasn't actually said anything about how he would bring CA out of debt.

I never understood the 'let the rich fit the bill' ideology. If I were rich, and my money could help, I'd give...but I wouldn't care for having it taken from me. And besides, that would be me. My choice. Doesn't mean another rich person would.

As for Bush...I don't worry. What I worry about is; what are we doing about N.Korea? About Liberia? About Palestine and Isreal? About the economy here at home? About the overspending and mismanagement of funds in 'welfare state' programs? Show me someone who has a good plan to tackle these things, and that's where my vote is going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

I never understood the 'let the rich fit the bill' ideology. If I were rich, and my money could help, I'd give...but I wouldn't care for having it taken from me. And besides, that would be me. My choice. Doesn't mean another rich person would.

---

Yeah, much better to let the poor and middle class foot the bill. :rolleyes:

Rich people can proportionately afford to pay more taxes, so they do. The still end up with fuckloads of cash. I don't feel sorry for some guy who's making $500,000 a year because he has to pay a larger proportion of that than some guy who's making $20,000 a year. Boo fucking hoo, the guy's still walking home with $340,000. And that's not counting the loopholes and tax shelters he has access to that Mr. Lower Class doesn't. Shit, 40 years ago the top income bracket paid around 60%.

Now if you want to bring up the Laffer Curve, we'll talk. But I'm not about to take pity on the wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

who elses think that we should get rid of social security? It is an old ass system that needs to be ripped to shreds, of course running on that policy would be political suicide.

---

Instead of ditching it, they should privatize it completely. As it is now, you're not getting back all you put in. You don't own jack out of your contributions.

Quote:

---

What Dennis Hastert said, from http://www.forbes.com/2000/11/21/1121freeman.html
"Hardly anybody today would put money even into a checking account unless they were getting a 2%, 3% or 4% return on their account. That's just how we do business today. When people put money--literally thousands and thousands of dollars every year--into their Social Security accounts, they're getting less than 1%, if they get that. Some people get a negative percentage back. That's just not good enough."

---

I'd rather have that 6.2% x 2 going into a completely private retirement account with greater returns than pay the Social Security tax as we know it.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp2.html

Quote:

---

And besides, that would be me. My choice. Doesn't mean another rich person would.

---

Taxes aren't voluntary contributions. Its the government forcibly collecting money. Once its been decided, they'll take from the middle class regardless of whether the middle class fellow chooses to give money or not, and they can get more money from rich people while causing less harm than taking money from poorer people, so they do.

what are we doing about N.Korea?

I think there's 5 or 6-way multilateral talks coming up.

About Liberia?

US warships are already off the coast. Marines are on their way to be sent in.

About Palestine and Isreal?

The Middle East Peace Plan?

About the economy here at home?

Tax cuts, interest rate cuts, tariffs....etc

I know that. I'm not fond of the way we handle taxation - middle, lower, or upper class. Then again, one would agrue (and I'd agree) that without taxes, there would be no money to run the nation. Which in turn can go in a million directions of discussion; some would say the gov. has no business on these social programs, and no claim to taxes. Others would point out that without a strong central gov. to take care of us, we'd split and implode. Either way you'd have people who'd think the current level of taxation is too much or too little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gutsman

About the economy here at home?

Tax cuts, interest rate cuts, tariffs....etc

---

Tax cuts aren't going to make big difference in the end. Might as well just sit back and let the economy correct itself. If we want to jumpstart the economy we need a real war. None of this piddly three month shit taking on puffed up third world dictators. We need to start WWIII without nuclear weapons being involved somehow. That'll get the economy pumping.

Maybe we could declare war on homosexuals before they can build their giant laser beam to turn everyone else gay.

that's sarcasm, right?

Actually, there are people who believe (and historical backing to push) that the economy 'fixes' itself quicker when left to its own devices, rather than having the fed. jump in and 'fix' it. There's also evidence that would point to the contrary. To me, it makes enough sense that our market system could turn itself around, but I've always been optimistic, economically.

One example of fed. help interferring would be min. wage laws. *Gasp* NO, I don't think people deserve to be paid less...but on a deflation or before an inflation takes full effect, you could curb the length of time by lowering min. wage. To an employee, this sounds like getting paid less, but it terms of actual worth of the dollar, you 'save' the exchange rate by keeping money circulation down. At least that's how my Bush-hating econ professor put it - and I agreed wholehearted. Because logically, it makes sense.

Yet back to here and now...one of the knee-jerk reactions to financial woes is to raise min. wage. If people just 'feel' that min. wage isn't enough, that would be push enough for another hike to pass. No matter if it's actually economically sound to the market as a whole, or the individual. Just one reason I don't think the gov. fixes economy better than it could on its own. But its something the people want, and something the politicians pander to. No matter about learning enough about the market for individuals to understand it and work to really help it. Normally, it's all about the individual's experience. If they 'feel' they aren't making the money they deserve, that's enough to get their vote for any legislation that could promise more money in their pocket. Welfare aid, higher min. wage, tax cuts (*gasp*)....

But now I went on a complete tangent ^^;

Quote:

---

that's sarcasm, right?

---

It was an opa reference. See,opa thought that the gay people might develop a ray to make everyone else gay. If everyone else was gay, then they would be equal, and that's what they really want. Isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

It was an opa reference. See,opa thought that the gay people might develop a ray to make everyone else gay. See, if everyone else was gay, then they would be equal, and that's what they really want. Isn't it?

---

You have got to be fucking kidding me? That's a true story? :xx:

Democrats are going to bash Bush. It's what the opposition does. You can't expect Bush to go on about Bin Laden, Saddam, WMDs, etc and not expect the Democrats to call him on it.

It truly depends, in my opinion, on whether the collective IQ of the country is low enough to still be awed by the distractions the republicans had tried to put in place to make us believe that what he has done with his agenda is more important than the utter ignorance he has displayed with is homeland policies.

It also depends on how well the other parties can shake the countries preconcieved notions that the war was good, and the way we are dealing with is equally good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

I will go to great lengths to defend anything Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky. Nobody can convince me that he was wrong to lie.

---

Hmmmm....lying about receiving a hummer from a fat intern or deceiving a nation through scare tactics into going to war, getting thosands of folks killed (no longer here on this planet) for his rich fat cat oil mafia buddies...yup...big difference. Just a thought.

Unless there is another "terrorist" act, that only Bush can "save" us from before Nov2004, I dont see Bush winning, honest opinion. He's becoming real transparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOVESKI

Hmmmm....lying about receiving a hummer from a fat intern or deceiving a nation through scare tactics into going to war, getting thosands of folks killed (no longer here on this planet) for his rich fat cat oil mafia buddies...yup...big difference. Just a thought.

Unless there is another "terrorist" act, that only Bush can "save" us from before Nov2004, I dont see Bush winning, honest opinion. He's becoming real transparent.

---

I like the way you think and to me you make absolute sense, but I think I have to go with youandwhosearmy on this one. This really all depends on whether the American public will wake up and see what's going on and whether Democrats will make light of these facts or squander them by trying to beat Bush on issues.

SC

Is our Bushy losing it? Will he win the election...
this might explain a few things:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/943879.asp?0si=-

Be afraid, be very afraid.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

I understand it's the triumphant tone you're objecting to, but they're an opposition party. What should they be saying? They wouldn't be serving democracy otherwise.

---

You can dignify it with "democracy" all you want, but it's nothing more than bitter partisan politics by hacks. I objected to it after 9-11 and continue to today as well. It's offensive and aggravating. Sure, they've got a right to do it (behaving like little children in the process), but they've got a right to be called on it and hated for it - just like the rest of the Bush-haters.

Why are you asking me what should they be saying? You mean you want me to like their crap/tactics, too? And celebrate it as just another day in our diverse democracy? Um, I don't think so... Akin to listening to a bunch of Almacis spewing rhetoric and fighting for power is not something I'm going to celebrate. I responded to Calliander's question of "whether they'll be able to draw enough attention to it" with my view that that's all they've been doing and I'm tired of it already. Or at least, their tactics.

If they want more appeal, they might try following up their complaining by providing a solution; there's plenty of complainers already. It's telling me the obvious, like saying: Bin Landen is MIA... Well great genius, but the next step, if you're gonna complain about it, is, what are YOU gonna do about it if elected? Are they willing to go as far as ordering troops to cross over into Pakistan? Fuck if I know, cause they don't got a damn thing to say about it after that. And the record of democrats for the past 2 administrations isn't so hot when it comes to terrorism, so I dunno what they think they could do now... Doesn't provide for a very convincing argument to just sit there and proclaim you hate Bush. Well, I hate Bush-haters, so that makes it pretty easy for me...

Plus, what I object to the most is that it relies on failure (the strategy is to hope for a bad economy, and terrorists NOT being found) and at such a critical time in our history; to drive that point home and not provide a solution is to count on failure. It's this mentality that I'm getting, that, "Oh sure, finding Bin Laden would be great for the military, the country, the morale, the war on terrorism, etc., but on the other hand, it might drive Bush's approval rating back up which wouldn't be good, so let's hope it doesn't quite happen just yet..." I've gathered there are Bush-haters that DON'T want him found (there are some that believe he's innocent) or would prefer it after an election to avoid a job-approval rating spike. Hell, I do remember a poster in here that was almost doubly pissed at the 9-11 terrorists for making Bush popular... But that's just so damn pathetic and offensive; It's what I see in them and alot of other liberals... You even had a democratic senator at one point claiming Bush knew of the 9-11 attacks in advance and allowed them to happen for a "power grab." I'm not gonna pass off that crap so easily... "Opposition party" doesn't even begin to describe it. But hey, they wouldn't be serving "democracy" else otherwise... I never thought of it that way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

And to be fair, is that really any more annoying than the carping opposition-republicans offered up? Unless you think Ken Starr was being perfectly reasonable whenever he mentioned Clinton's "grave moral injustice".

I think whining is just a function of politics in general.

---

I find whining/bitterness/bitching of this magnitude, the kind that I saw after 9-11 and to this day, to be annoying and disgraceful. Great, so you hate Ken Starr and those republicans; not sure what that has to do with these democrats and their behavior up to this point unless it's supposed to be some kind of revenge. I do not know the level or magnitude of carping that occured then, so I won't be able to follow your "equating" of the two situations... I only have the behavior of both democrats (along with other liberals) and republicans to go by after 9-11 and apply my own virulent hatred based on what I saw... But, if some have a chip on their shoulders about their beloved Clinton and how Bush "stole" the election, that's fine; they shouldn't vote for republicans then.

It seems your usual response to criticism of democrats is to switch to republicans, thereby minimizing criticism against them in the first place. That's fine, but fair? I don't think I've ever seen you jump in to defend criticism of republicans by attempting to equate their behavior with democrats. But I have seen you jump in to equate Bush to Hilter like the rest of the hard left. Oh right, it's just "saying" though. I guess I should learn ways to equate partisan left-wing types whose views I disagree with to Stalin and see how well that goes over. Really, I wouldn't consider smearing someone by equating them to a dictator that exterminated millions to be "hate-speech." So, um no, I'm not gonna learn about "fair" from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

Actually, what the fuck do you expect the Democrats to do?
Just forget on all those promises and claims made by Bush wich he didnt fulfill?
Get real, Bush said he would get Saddam and Bin Laden death or alive and they claimed they knew exactly where the WMD´s were at etcetera, didnt provide the goods so its fair game to bring up those isseus.

---

I expect...and hope for them to lose!!! :p Along with more Senate seats... But they'll continue to do exactly what you've been doing Belgium; nothing noble or unusual about it... The disgraceful and bitter snickering manner that they do it in says it all. But, if I was objective about it, I'd expect them to provide a solution instead of, "Well, there's a definitely a problem here...it's BUSH... I'm NOT Bush, and we need regime-change, so vote for me!!! Booya!!" If I would ever even remotely consider voting for a democrat, that simply doesn't sell well with me... But, it's true, all they gotta do is sit back and pray for more failure... They need higher job losses, higher casualties in Iraq, and Laden/Saddam/WMDs to remain unfound; and then, they can try to sell the case of "Well, if we were in charge, this wouldn't have happened... Vote for us! Booya!!" Granted, that'll work with some, to be sure.

Only one I can respect is Joe Lieberman who voted for the war and doesn't now act like he's suffering from amnesia about it. You can also say Howard Dean's been consistent, but I find his shear arrogance and the Michael Moore bomb-throwing he was doing early on a turn-off. I don't even know where to begin with Al Sharpton... He seems to get the most laughs though, which is unfortunate, considering what he respresents. Gotta admit, I do get a laugh out of his, "I'm conservative; I wanna conserve civil rights..." line...

Well, what the fuck do you care anyway? Oh right, it's your job to stick your nose into US politics and affairs because you love the US... Well, listen to maruchan, there's no difference between republicans and democrats after all... So, I'm not exactly sure why'd you rush in now to defend them. A far left-wing guy like you defending a "right-wing" democratic party? Somethin' suspicious about that... What, the enemy of my enemy is my friend? They hate Bush, you hate Bush, so it's all good then? :) I mean, really, we have the NY Times and Hollywood Dixie chicks for this kind of criticism... I'm not sure how having candidates who only complain answers what they're actually gonna do about it. There're already plenty of bitches complaining and making snide remarks. *ahem* ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

You can dignify it with "democracy" all you want, but it's nothing more than bitter partisan politics by hacks. I objected to it after 9-11 and continue to today as well. It's offensive and aggravating. Sure, they've got a right to do it (behaving like little children in the process), but they've got a right to be called on it and hated for it - just like the rest of the Bush-haters.

Why are you asking me what should they be saying? You mean you want me to like their crap/tactics, too? And celebrate it as just another day in our diverse democracy? Um, I don't think so... Akin to listening to a bunch of Almacis spewing rhetoric and fighting for power is not something I'm going to celebrate. I responded to Calliander's question of "whether they'll be able to draw enough attention to it" with my view that that's all they've been doing and I'm tired of it already. Or at least, their tactics.

---

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Republicans are just as guilty, if not more, of partisan politics. That's the entire Republican concept: To be opposed to anything Democrats do, no matter how good of an idea it may be. This happens for every President. So quit making ridiculous statements trying to point the finger of blame at Democrats for how crappy this country has become during the last 4 years.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Republicans are just as guilty, if not more, of partisan politics. That's the entire Republican concept: To be opposed to anything Democrats do, no matter how good of an idea it may be. This happens for every President. So quit making ridiculous statements trying to point the finger of blame at Democrats for how crappy this country has become during the last 4 years.

SC

---

Pffffft... Yeah right, that's the democrat model. I'll still hate 'em for the crap that I've witnessed since 9-11 and I'll never vote for that party. This doesn't tell me shit. I've watched media daily since that time, it's always them bickering like bitches endlessly and takin' snipes along with the help of partisan media. I'll take the lesser of two evils, and from what I saw, that's the republican party. You hate republicans? Well great, I hate democrats (liberal ones). No, that doesn't express it well, I fuckin' hate their guts; they make me SICK... But if republicans used the same kinds of comparable tactics in the past, as you say (which I highly doubt could ever even compare to post 9-11 behavior), I'd condemn it too. I hate it all the same. Watching their antics is what made me polarized from my frame of reference when the attacks occured. And yeah, once I realized they're the left-wing of the system, it added to the hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

Pffffft... Yeah right, that's the democrat model. I'll still hate 'em for the crap that I've witnessed since 9-11 and I'll never vote for that party. This doesn't tell me shit. I've watched media daily since that time, it's always them bickering like bitches endlessly and takin' snipes along with the help of partisan media. I'll take the lesser of two evils, and from what I saw, that's the republican party. You hate republicans?

---

..the help of partisan media? Who told you that? I know. It was probably Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanon, Monica Crowley, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coutler, and Joe Scarborough. ;)

Quote:

---

Well great, I hate democrats (liberal ones). No, that doesn't express it well, I fuckin' hate their guts; they make me SICK... But if republicans used the same kinds of comparable tactics in the past, as you say (which I highly doubt could ever even compare to post 9-11 behavior), I'd condemn it too. I hate it all the same. Watching their antics is what made me polarized from my frame of reference when the attacks occured. And yeah, once I realized they're the left-wing of the system, it added to the hate.

---

I don't condone the acts of many leftists since 9/11 but you cannot say it's any worse than impeaching a president for getting a blowjob.

I've noticed that many Republicans are outraged by the fact that so many people question what Bush does. How dare you question him! How dare you disagree! You must be a tree hugging socialist! Give me a fucking break. I think we have a right to get as anal about WMDs as you did about a blue dress.

The right in this country has to wake up and realize that they are not the only ideology in America. People disagree with them ( and at an alarmingly growing rate, according to Bush's approval ratings). They feel they're free to do whatever they want and then accuse the Democrats of whing when they're called on those actions. Should the Democrats whine less? Yes. But you can't expect them to stay silent about a war not everyone agrees on, soldiers dying daily, a shitty economy, and shady dealings in the Administration of Secrecy. Wait! If someone whines about it, the American people might hear them! If I fucked up America like Bush has, I'd want people to shut up too.

I couldn't have said it better myself Melf.

BTW, I don't hate Republicans, not like you hate Democrats. I just get tired of their holier-than-thou facade. Democrats are just as bad, but to say that Republicans are innocent of the same ploys is stupid.

I think I liked this line the best:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I think we have a right to get as anal about WMDs as you did about a blue dress.

---

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

The government just needs to spend less, is all it comes down to. It's alot of people's fault that the government is going further and further into debt, but none so much as the democrats, imo.

---

Everyone seems to forget, that we are at war. It cost's money and during times of war, companies and investors take a more conservative route. The same thing happened with Bush senior. We were at war with Iraq and the economy flattened because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Everyone seems to forget, that we are at war. It cost's money and during times of war, companies and investors take a more conservative route. The same thing happened with Bush senior. We were at war with Iraq and the economy flattened because of it.

---

War? Please. We're not in any war. If that's what you call that thing over in Iraq, then definition of war has a very loose meaning. We haven't found Saddam or any WMD and now that people are beginning to see through Bush, more people are starting to question our involvement and what it all means. What pisses me off is that no matter what happens, we can't just up and leave Iraq. We're in this thing for the long haul. Long after Bush is gone from office, future president's are going to have to deal with this convoluted mess that he has gotten the US into.

So if this is a time of war and according to you, the economy suffers during war, then our country will be in the shitter for at least the next decade. Because we aren't going to be finished with this for awhile. In the meantime, Americans will continue to get the shaft here at home since our government doesn't know what they're doing.

SC

Gee look at how this thread got derailed, and I had little iff anything to do with it.

Oh and Nightwolve, they dont come much more narrowminded then you do they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

Gee look at how this thread got derailed, and I had little iff anything to do with it.

---

I expected more of you, man. You've let me down. :(

Merely respecting the thread starters wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

..the help of partisan media? Who told you that? I know. It was probably Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanon, Monica Crowley, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coutler, and Joe Scarborough. ;)I don't condone the acts of many leftists since 9/11 but you cannot say it's any worse than impeaching a president for getting a blowjob.

---

Hardy har har... It came from the horse's mouth; Listening to Daschle, Pelosi, other Senators, the candidates, C-SPAN, liberal Bush-haters (plus NYTimes hit-pieces) going at it and analyzing what they say and how they say it... You do actually have to have visible evidence, ya know. But yeah, I know and watch some of those who you mentioned... Glad you're up on who in the media is conservative... Laugh at what you want, I never found that shit funny after a disaster like that.

Again, I don't care about the impeachment; I never fuckin' voted for it or paid any attention to it back then... I'm not apart of Hillary's vast fuckin' right-wing conspiracy to impeach his ass...ok? Get over it! However, it does not mean every single damn time someone criticizes democrats you immediately jump in and say, "Oh, the impeachment of Clinton...HYPOCRISY!" so that friggin' nullifies everything... NO, IT DOESN'T... They're not gonna worm themselves out of any ounce of criticism by simply crying fowl every single time. Nobody's gonna be eternally blocked from calling them out simply because of a referral to Clinton, Monica's fat ass and what the republicans did.

Look at this thread; you came in along with SC and immediately responded with the Clinton issue and the republicans... I've seen StriderKyo do the same in other threads the moment anyone dares to show hypocrisy or partisanship on the democratic side; but you jump for joy with the Bush hit-pieces... What??? What does that mean, exactly? That Democrats are free from criticism from now till kingdom come? What? Have you ever defended republicans by saying, "Oh look, the democrats did that, so it's nullified!! NEENER NEENER NEENER!"? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I've noticed that many Republicans are outraged by the fact that so many people question what Bush does. How dare you question him! How dare you disagree! You must be a tree hugging socialist! Give me a fucking break. I think we have a right to get as anal about WMDs as you did about a blue dress.

---

I don't give a flying fuck about a blue dress ;) , that's your hangup on Clinton. I'm in a post 9-11 world looking at a democratic senator or rep (whatever she was) claiming Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks and knowingly let them happen to make himself popular... The first time the WTC was attacked, did a republican accuse Clinton of knowingly letting it happen? No. But, accusing Bush of knowingly allowing the WTC attack to proceed and hence the death and destruction it caused is way out there. Accusing him of wanting Americans dead is utter bullshit and far worse... Then you had the whole smear campaign of his cabinet (except for Colin Powell, he's under the liberal shield since he's black) about the neo-con take-over; the Bush is Hilter/Mousilini crap; the slogans, "BUSH RUSH PUSH FOR WAR!" The rest of the snide remarks; A feeling of hatred by the Left (democrats included), that since Americans had an emotional attachment to Bush, a need to destroy it as quickly and as dirty as possible warranted an all out assault. All that shit got to me, I wasn't imagining it...

Anyway, I never said things like "How dare you!" and if I ever do, it's after analyzing someone's position to understand their motivation... Is there anger in their voice and are they a known liberal? Is it revenge for Clinton? Is it simply pure hatred for Bush due to his religion and other views? Is it honest-to-goodness pacifism? I have to listen to what's being said and the manner in which it's being said... You don't arrive at any of those conclusions without merit... You got me and others confused with someone who simply throws out the label in a knee-jerk reaction... Or you seem to think everyone blanket labels someone like that. Look how far you went into putting me into your box of supporting Clinton's impeachment and being anal about a blue friggin' dress.

As for WMDs, lemme ask you, would you like them to be found? Or, would you like them to remain hidden, to make Bush seem more of a liar and thus have less chances of winning?? We can both agree we don't wanna have America's credibility be shot down and have Saddam appear to have been telling the truth all along... See, those that carp on that issue and hate Bush, are objectively counting on WMDs never to be found. The same goes for Bin Laden and Saddam... You can't escape the fact that when you point that out, in order for the criticism to remain valid up until it's time to vote, you need them not to be found... You need the MILITARY to fail in those missions... I have an issue with that... And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Clinton and the mysterious blue dress... See how that works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

The right in this country has to wake up and realize that they are not the only ideology in America.

---

Who said anything about this? Did I? You're lumping me in with somebody else... That's ridiculous. "They don't know other ideologies exist..." Riiiight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

People disagree with them ( and at an alarmingly growing rate, according to Bush's approval ratings). They feel they're free to do whatever they want and then accuse the Democrats of whing when they're called on those actions. Should the Democrats whine less? Yes. But you can't expect them to stay silent about a war not everyone agrees on, soldiers dying daily, a shitty economy, and shady dealings in the Administration of Secrecy. Wait! If someone whines about it, the American people might hear them! If I fucked up America like Bush has, I'd want people to shut up too.

---

This is bs, and not at all what I was talkin' about. I always see this... You wanna lump EVERYONE who disagrees with Bush to be an honest to goodness concerned American... I don't care about someone that's a true pacifist; that doesn't have a grudge or axe to grind against Bush; that simply and honestly believed there was a better way to handle things... I have no reason to hate them; there's simply an ideological difference of an opinion... But, you wanna go off on a tangeant about ppl not being able to speak their minds and freedom of speech, blah blah...

I'm only looking at those with the axe to grind that are driven by mere hatred of Bush; That didn't have a problem with Clinton bombing Iraq, invading Kosovo/Bosnia etc.; Candidates that voted for this war and now act like they have amnesia all of a sudden... Congress approved this war... It's not "republicans" get to do whatever they want... Don't forget that...

I mentioned their carping on "You can't find Bin Laden, Saddam, WMDs.." Ok, well great... So, what next? I'm looking at an evident formula where if it's a failure, it's Bush's fault, but if it's success, suddenly it's only thanks to our proud military men/women (which it is). This was evident when Uday and Qusay were killed and they tried to down play Bush and credit our military for their work... So, if they remained unfound, it's "Bush can't find 'em", if not, "our military did fine work." What gives? I don't got a right to call 'em on that? Our military is doing the work, they're failing, but I don't friggin' see the need to transpose failure on Bush, and then success on the military... If they're gonna do that, they should tell us how they would've commanded the military differently to have ensured the finding of Bin Laden, Saddam, etc... Otherwise, as I stated originally, it's just cheap partisan hack politics.

I don't expect them to stay silent, they're not; I would expect them to actually list a solution instead of being the geniuses to point out, "Well, we really got problem here..." If that's all they're gonna do, and that's their message, I'm gonna call 'em on it... Whining is whining... Point out a solution and you'll go alot further. But hey, they get to whine, act like they would've done a better job, and I get to despise 'em for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

Oh and Nightwolve, they dont come much more narrowminded then you do they?

---

Oh crud, you pulled out the narrowminded card... That must mean you're an example of "open-mindedness." And if one should strive to be more "open-minded," that would mean being more like you :wtf:... So, um... I'll take narrowminded as a compliment thank you very much ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

BTW, I don't hate Republicans, not like you hate Democrats. I just get tired of their holier-than-thou facade. Democrats are just as bad, but to say that Republicans are innocent of the same ploys is stupid.

---

I never said republicans are innocent; I criticized what I saw and hate in democrats since 9-11... Kyo felt I didn't have any reason to have grudge against them (again, because somehow the republicans balance it out), and I explained why... You have a grudge against republicans on the impeachment... Fairy enough. But, don't eternally block any criticism of democrats by simply saying, "NO! It's the republicans fault! Remember Clinton?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

Look at this thread; you came in along with SC and immediately responded with the Clinton issue and the republicans... I've seen StriderKyo do the same in other threads the moment anyone dares to show hypocrisy or partisanship on the democratic side; but you jump for joy with the Bush hit-pieces... What??? What does that mean, exactly? That Democrats are free from criticism from now till kingdom come? What? Have you ever defended republicans by saying, "Oh look, the democrats did that, so it's nullified!! NEENER NEENER NEENER!"? I think not.

---

Personally, I'm not letting Democrats off on criticism I may have for them. I've gone off on Democrats before as well. But something about the smugness with which Republicans work just makes them an easier target, especially when they turn out to look like fools. And if I may say, that is the worst way to conduct a rebuttal; asking why we don't pick on the other side as often. Really immature.

Quote:

---

I don't give a flying fuck about a blue dress ;) , that's your hangup on Clinton. I'm in a post 9-11 world looking at a democratic senator or rep (whatever she was) claiming Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks and knowingly let them happen to make himself popular... The first time the WTC was attacked, did a republican accuse Clinton of knowingly letting it happen? No. But, accusing Bush of knowingly allowing the WTC attack to proceed and hence the death and destruction it caused is way out there. Accusing him of wanting Americans dead is utter bullshit and far worse...

---

I don't think that is what's going on at all. It's not realistic to assume that Bush wanted people to die to boost his image. But there were breakdowns in procedure that might have prevented 9/11 from happening, if not reducing the number of deaths. People want answers and instead of giving us any or accepting any responsibility, like he has done so many times since, Bush sends us to war with Iraq. It doesn't make sense. People just want the truth and it doesn't help his credibility when they aren't releasing the entire 9/11 report.

Quote:

---

As for WMDs, lemme ask you, would you like them to be found? Or, would you like them to remain hidden, to make Bush seem more of a liar and thus have less chances of winning?? We can both agree we don't wanna have America's credibility be shot down and have Saddam appear to have been telling the truth all along... See, those that carp on that issue and hate Bush, are objectively counting on WMDs never to be found. The same goes for Bin Laden and Saddam... You can't escape the fact that when you point that out, in order for the criticism to remain valid up until it's time to vote, you need them not to be found... You need the MILITARY to fail in those missions... I have an issue with that... And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Clinton and the mysterious blue dress... See how that works?

---

I hope they aren't found because it isn't going to change anything if they are. The only way things are going to get turned around is by bringing them to the front and this bullshit excuse for a war is exactly the way to do it. America's credibility is already shot so I think it would be better for the people to see the truth: There are no secret, hidden weapons of mass-destruction. All that crap about the weapons being 15 min from launch capability was a lie. But no one in the Bush administration wants to take responsibility. It happens with all administrations. As soon as the shit hits the fan, the point the finger at someone else.

Quote:

---

I'm only looking at those with the axe to grind that are driven by mere hatred of Bush; That didn't have a problem with Clinton bombing Iraq, invading Kosovo/Bosnia etc.; Candidates that voted for this war and now act like they have amnesia all of a sudden... Congress approved this war... It's not "republicans" get to do whatever they want... Don't forget that...

---

How is this any different from your hatred of liberals? We have a republican president and a republican congress. How is not "republicans get to do whatever they want"?

Quote:

---

I don't expect them to stay silent, they're not; I would expect them to actually list a solution instead of being the geniuses to point out, "Well, we really got problem here..." If that's all they're gonna do, and that's their message, I'm gonna call 'em on it... Whining is whining... Point out a solution and you'll go alot further. But hey, they get to whine, act like they would've done a better job, and I get to despise 'em for it.

---

Whining is the perfect word to fit your posts in this thread thus far. Get over it. This is how American politics works. Like they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Grow up.

SC

My God, it's rec.games.video.sega all over again. Ok, keep in mind I have no lost love for Bush nor for either political party or their behavior over the last 15 years. BOTH parties havie acted like babies when they weren't in power. The biggest difference is that this is the first time in 10 years that one party has held power in all three areas (president, senate, house).

Both parties have done revolting things over the last few years, post 9-11. Whether you look at the Democrats in Texas and their "camping trips" or the Patriot Act courtesy of Ashcroft and others in Bush's cabinet, the political quality of the country is currently that of potted meat. If you want to hold one piss-ant Democrat crack smoker as the shining light example of the party, that's your perogative. As to people who have reversed their stance on the war, the whole uranium thing and WMD kinda enters into it. Call it whining. Fine. But they will claim that they voted for the war because Bush told them there was a clear and present danger that Sadaam had WMD and was actively (and succesfully) pursuing nuclear weapons capabilty. We're now 3 1/2 months out of war, per Bush. The uranium line of his State speech has been dragged through the mud, and our forces have yet to find the clear and present danger of WMD. Do you find it surprising that some politicians that might have, in good faith, voted for the war might now feel duped? I'd say that maybe a few Republicans feel the same way, but it'd be political suicide to stand up and say so.

Quote:

---

As for WMDs, lemme ask you, would you like them to be found? Or, would you like them to remain hidden, to make Bush seem more of a liar and thus have less chances of winning??

---

You repeated this twice now. See, the assumption you're making is that the elusive WMD EXIST. If they exist, then, damn, yes I want them to be found. I don't care if Bush is in office or not. If we don't find them, America provides proof to all the anti-American rhetoric that we're big bullies who do what we want. We would have made ourselves an even bigger target than before. Then it will be the French going "NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!" And no one wants that. :) The problem is, if the weapons don't exist, they will never be found. There might be some politicians who are hoping the weapons are never found. There are probably a lot more who believe they won't be found because they don't exisit.

When people raised the issue of "Bush hasn't found the WMD/Sadaam/Bin Laden" in this thread, it was in regards (at least in my case) to the original poster's question of could Bush lose. If those missing items/persons are not found, it's a big hit on GW's credibilty, as well as our nation's intelligence agencies. If Bin Laden is found, great. The "War on Terror" is getting somewhere. If the WMDs exist and are found, great! America's credibility is back (at least partially). The idea that there is a massive conspiracy where liberals are praying to their deity of choice that terrorists, dictators, and mustard gas bombs remain hidden to help get Bush our of office is as offensive to me as the existence of it in your mind is to you. Granted, I wouldn't put it past some of the slimier Demo candidates to be doing so, but I doubt the majority of the party is doing such.

One last thing: Anyone who believes that, at this point, either party has your best interests at heart needs to turn off Fox, turn off whatever-the-liberal-channel is, step outside, and take a breath or twenty. The best we can hope for right now is to keep a balance like we did with Clinton (Dem Pres, Rep. house and senate, or vice versa), and work on improving the system by voting in people that will work to better the country rather than special interests.

Thank you Wolfen, for saying what I was going to say much better than I ever could. :)

Hear yee hear yee.
I declare Bush to have a credibility problem, hear yee hear yee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

America's credibility is already shot so I think it would be better for the people to see the truth: There are no secret, hidden weapons of mass-destruction. All that crap about the weapons being 15 min from launch capability was a lie. But no one in the Bush administration wants to take responsibility. It happens with all administrations. As soon as the shit hits the fan, the point the finger at someone else.

---

I'm pretty sure the 15-min potential strike was stated by British there, not here. But anyway, the problem with this is you had the UN with the known unaccounted-for biological/chemical weapons. Clinton made definitive statements about biological/chemical/nuclear to justify the 4 day bombing run... I don't think he did that just for the hell of it. Now, ignoring nuclear capability, the proposition you'd have to accept is that what the UN knew Saddam had was destroyed, and therefore he was WMD-free (Saddam was tellling the truth)... So, I dunno... The idea that he still had was unaccounted for didn't come out of a vaccum. If you believe Clinton destroyed them in '98, that's also another possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

How is this any different from your hatred of liberals? We have a republican president and a republican congress. How is not "republicans get to do whatever they want"?

---

Not sure about your question of liberals... I'm not hiding that I opposed to 'em from ideological standpoint (which can turn to hate depending on the subject). But, as for congress, it takes two-to-tango... Democrats have filibustering power, and they've got the ability to stop any bill from passing till they get what they want by standing firm. There's no supermajority of repubs as far as I know. If repubs were 2/3s in both the house and senate, then I'd agree with you (assuming they were all conservative as well). There's a slim majority of 1 in the senate, but you've had liberal republicans side with dems at time, so it's a sure thing as you say it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Whining is the perfect word to fit your posts in this thread thus far. Get over it. This is how American politics works. Like they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Grow up.

---

Well, hell, you came in whining about your beloved Clinton; and then Melf stereotyped me as being apart of Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy... WTF was that? As if I had something to do with wanting him impeached. I originally stated was why I hated liberal democrats and why I'll never vote for that party, then you and others went off on why I have no right to angered cause your anger over Clinton far more valued. Shit, I wouldn't have had a reason to respond if you didn't go nuts over it, so telling me to grow up is abit pot, kettle, black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

You repeated this twice now. See, the assumption you're making is that the elusive WMD EXIST. If they exist, then, damn, yes I want them to be found. I don't care if Bush is in office or not. If we don't find them, America provides proof to all the anti-American rhetoric that we're big bullies who do what we want. We would have made ourselves an even bigger target than before. Then it will be the French going "NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!" And no one wants that. :) The problem is, if the weapons don't exist, they will never be found. There might be some politicians who are hoping the weapons are never found. There are probably a lot more who believe they won't be found because they don't exisit.

---

I didn't repeat it as a direct question; I wanted to see how far the hatred for Bush goes. I wanted an honest answer from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

And if I may say, that is the worst way to conduct a rebuttal; asking why we don't pick on the other side as often. Really immature.

---

No, it's not. Gimme a break SC, they're the conservative party. There's no reason to hide that you're ideologically opposed to them on a wide variety of issues; and hence, you wail on them more and protect the liberal democrat side. I highly doubt it's just the "smugness" ;). I find lots of liberals I know to be arrogant and smug, but there's more to it than that. I have no problem being honest about going after the party that I'm ideologically opposed to more than the one I like, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna block any attempts of criticism. You couldn't possibly be claiming that you're "fair and balanced," are you? :) Heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

America's credibility is already shot so I think it would be better for the people to see the truth: There are no secret, hidden weapons of mass-destruction. All that crap about the weapons being 15 min from launch capability was a lie. But no one in the Bush administration wants to take responsibility. It happens with all administrations. As soon as the shit hits the fan, the point the finger at someone else.

---

I think the 15/45-min potential strike was stated by British there, not here (Dunno how they came up with that, but I'd agree with you it's probably bull; no way for me to know though). But anyway, the problem with this is you had the UN with the known unaccounted-for biological/chemical weapons. Clinton made definitive statements about biological/chemical/nuclear to justify the 4 day bombing run... I don't think he did that just for the hell of it. Now, ignoring nuclear capability, the proposition you'd have to accept is that what the UN knew Saddam had between now and '98 was destroyed, and therefore he was WMD-free (Saddam was tellling the truth)... So, I dunno... The idea that he still had what was unaccounted-for didn't come out of a vacuum (we're in the agreement with the UN here, but they wanted inspections to continue). He was never certified as being WMD-free, hence why the sanctions were still in place. But if you believe Clinton destroyed them in '98, that's also another possibility. Only things left are Saddam became a changed man and decided his WMD stash was causing him too much trouble so he destroyed them himself or they're well hidden ;). Even worse is our intel has been wrong for years... Well, I dunno what happened, but I can wait. I don't think the idea was to intentionally destroy our credibility worldwide. Whatever the case, I'd like for them to be found unlike you.

Oh yeah, don't take my word for it :).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ton.iraq.sotu/
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...20030731.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton

There was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for in Iraq. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'

People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

---

Since Clinton was brought up and defended, this came to mind :p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

How is this any different from your hatred of liberals? We have a republican president and a republican congress. How is not "republicans get to do whatever they want"?

---

Not sure about your question of liberals... I'm not hiding that I opposed to 'em from ideological standpoint (which can turn to hate depending on the subject). But, as for congress, it takes two-to-tango... Democrats have filibustering power which they're leveraging on other matters. There's a slim majority of 1 in the senate, but you've had liberal republicans side with dems at times, so it's not a sure thing as you say it is. The tax cut started off at ~720 billion, but due to compromises with dems went down to 300 billion (whatever, somethin' like that). Like it or not, both parties have had to compromise with each other, so it's not like repubs can steam roll any bill thru. But, if we were to get 60 seats in the senate, then I'd agree with you ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Whining is the perfect word to fit your posts in this thread thus far. Get over it. This is how American politics works. Like they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Grow up.

---

Well, hell, you came in whining about your beloved Clinton; and then Melf stereotyped me as being apart of Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy... WTF was that? As if I had something to do with wanting him impeached. I originally stated why I hated liberal democrats and why I'll never vote for that party, I explained further due to Kyo, then you and others went off on why I have no right to be angered cause your anger over Clinton is far more valued (or that situation simply nullifies everything that's happened since 9-11). Shit, I wouldn't have had a reason to respond if you didn't go nuts over it, so telling me to grow up is abit pot, kettle, black. Get over your boy Clinton, then we'll talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

You repeated this twice now. See, the assumption you're making is that the elusive WMD EXIST. If they exist, then, damn, yes I want them to be found. I don't care if Bush is in office or not. If we don't find them, America provides proof to all the anti-American rhetoric that we're big bullies who do what we want. We would have made ourselves an even bigger target than before. Then it will be the French going "NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!" And no one wants that. :) The problem is, if the weapons don't exist, they will never be found. There might be some politicians who are hoping the weapons are never found. There are probably a lot more who believe they won't be found because they don't exisit.

---

I didn't repeat it as a direct question; I wanted to see how far the hatred for Bush goes. I wanted an honest answer from him. And, I don't have a problem with your stated position as it's reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

The idea that there is a massive conspiracy where liberals are praying to their deity of choice that terrorists, dictators, and mustard gas bombs remain hidden to help get Bush our of office is as offensive to me as the existence of it in your mind is to you.

---

I did not state a "massive conspiracy," I tried to be specific. And I was being snide with the use of "pray," hope would be more like it. But, the fact is, if your platform is "Bush can't find Laden/Saddam/WMDs and I'm not Bush," then you need our intelligence services and military to fail in those missions for that criticism to remain valid from now to election time, as well as by liberals in media that press the issue and don't want Bush reelected... At best case, they're taking a political gamble, worst case they're hoping... I find it egregious either way. And I don't find it less egregious simply because Clinton and the blue dress somehow factor into it. If say for Bin Laden, they stated they're willing to send troops over into Pakistan unlike Bush (something, anything that they would've done differently), then I'd be less inclined to attack 'em for it.

It could be that all this liberal backlash against Bush is simply "revenge" for the attempt to impeach Clinton.

Then once the Democrats regain the white house, it will be the repub's turn to have their revenge for all the Bush bashing, etc etc and so on and so forth...it'll never end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

and then Melf stereotyped me as being apart of Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy... WTF was that? As if I had something to do with wanting him impeached

---

I'm sorry. After reading your broad generalizations of the left, I thought you'd be able to see a generalization about the right. :)

I wasn't referring to you in particular nor any "right wing conspiracy." Hell, even Hilalry Clinton admits she fucked up on that one.

I was referring to how you criticize Democrats for complaining about Bush, when Republicans are guilty of whining over things far more trivial over the last decade.