72 replies to this topic

[Vintage]

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

Who would have dealt with 9/11 better? The guy who sent the military to Afghanistan to disembowel the Taliban? Or how about the guy who would have cowered in the corner of the oval office and paid them off? Or how about the guy who is so militarily involved that he can't decide what he did with all his war medals?

Who would have helped the economy better? This is a silly question, since the President can do next to zilch about it, yet gets all the blame. Congress controls the regulation of the economy, so really all the President can do is make proposals to Congress and veto others. I suppose you all believe that if we were all just taxed more, the economy would be better off?

Who would be responsible for more American deaths in the country right now? The one who wants to abolish the horrible act of killing the unborn child, or the Catholic who wants to reinstate partial birth abortion?

Who would want to put more money into MediCare, the already proven failure? I'll let you figure this one out.

Certainly, since I am more conservative than Bush, I don't believe in his mission to Mars. I think the money could be used elsewhere, or even used to cut back the national debt. When it comes to money matters, Bush spends like a democrat.

What really bugs me is when people equate eloquency with intelligence. Especially since the best speakers are the best liars. Bush and Kerry both went to Yale, both graduated with C's, yet Kerry ridicules Bush's education. It all goes to say that when you can't portray someone as evil, you portray him as stupid. Good luck Kerry.

I said this in another thread, but I sincerely believe what we are doing in Iraq is right. Osama bin Laden released a message to the world promising safety from terrorist attacks, if the countries in Iraq would withdraw and declare war on the USA. This comforts me with the knowledge that there IS an Iraq/Al Qa'ida connection, and that we are doing damage to the terrorist network.

Who was responsible for 9/11? The dems think Bush is. The media repeatedly asked Bush to apologize for the attacks on Sept 11. Democrats are trying their best to convince the population that Bush was piloting the first plane and parachuting out at the last moment. They all will stoop to whatever level to get rid of Bush, and if that means vindicating bin Laden, Heck yea.

There is a good quote (I can't remember who said it) that goes: "If you are not a Democrat by age 20, you have no heart. If you are not a Republican by age 30, you have no brains."

~Vintage

[cxwq]

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

<bookmark>

I'll address this interesting set of viewpoints tomorrow when I have time.

[Famine]

Who would have dealt with 9/11 better?

Exactly, I am sick and tired of people criticizing Bush's capabilities. Who could possibly be better qualified to hunt down and eliminate a threat to our country then the people who were in the very same administration that funded and trained that threat in the first place? Bush has totally put an end to Al-Qaeda.

Or how about the guy who is so militarily involved that he can't decide what he did with all his war medals?

That's what is so fucked up about this election. How can the democrats run a canidate who, recieving 5 medals after volunterring for active duty in Vietnam, comes home and tells everyone the war actually sucks? LOL, if Kerry had just signed up for the National Guard he wouldn't have even had serve the minimum 2 years, Kerry's such a pussy dumb ass.

Who would have helped the economy better? This is a silly question, since the President can do next to zilch about it, yet gets all the blame. Congress controls the regulation of the economy

LOL, I know right? Stop blaming our poor Republican President when it's the stupid Congress' fault. Maybe if we elect more Republicans so that they can have more than just "the majority" they'll finally be able to do their jobs!!

Who would be responsible for more American deaths in the country right now?

If it isn't counted in the National Census and it doesn't have a Social Security Number than it isn't an American. Anyways I believe in the bible and that the taking of life is wrong, but ROCK ON D34TH PENALTY!! Bush should totally fry them all!

Who would want to put more money into MediCare, the already proven failure?

Yeah, it wasn't Bush's idea so why should he have to fix it? If you want a canidate who is going to take care of these stupid drugs for old people then next time vote for a canidate who's platform says he's going to do it.

When it comes to money matters, Bush spends like a democrat.

LOL right? I mean shit, the national budget was totally out of control when Clinton was in office. Clinton was so stupid that he has money left over at the end of the year, Demo-dumbasses is more like it!!

What really bugs me is when people equate eloquency with intelligence.  It all goes to say that when you can't portray someone as evil, you portray him as stupid. Good luck Kerry.

Duh, the President of The United States shouldn't have to sound smart and use fancy english! It pisses me off too when people are like "look at how stupid this guy is"

Or how about the guy who is so militarily involved that he can't decide what he did with all his war medals?

LOL that Kerry is dumbz0rz though!!

This comforts me with the knowledge that there IS an Iraq/Al Qa'ida connection

Oh we're doing damage all right!! They're so st00pid for not wanting us to set up their country, we're so much better at country running than them. LOL, we have 2 months left to kill any of them who don't like us so democracy will rule there!!

~This has been an OOC post by me. I respect the opinions of others but this was just one of the worst arguments I've ever seen for the support of Bush.

[Vintage]

Who could possibly be better qualified to hunt down and eliminate a threat to our country then the people who were in the very same administration that funded and trained that threat in the first place?

Any army adapts to the style of its opponents. To not do so shows disorganization. Obviously Al Qa'ida is an organized threat. Your statement there only proves you don't know war tactics.

How can the democrats run a canidate who, recieving 5 medals after volunterring for active duty in Vietnam, comes home and tells everyone the war actually sucks?

That was not the point of the site. The point was to show that Kerry changed his mind on what he did with his war medals many, many times. Go ahead, read the whole article.

LOL, I know right? Stop blaming our poor Republican President when it's the stupid Congress' fault. Maybe if we elect more Republicans so that they can have more than just "the majority" they'll finally be able to do their jobs!!

I didn't say they haven't tried. Congress does not control the economy, it cannot create a economic "boom." What it can do is regulate it. Doing things like lowering interest rates for loans, giving tax cuts, etc. And no, it can't prevent companies moving overseas, but it can creat higher tariffs. That's something our allying countries hate.

If it isn't counted in the National Census and it doesn't have a Social Security Number than it isn't an American. Anyways I believe in the bible and that the taking of life is wrong

Since when is Life a Social Security number? The whole perversion of abortion is just that argument you have there, Famine. That since his life exists in the mother's body, and isn't yet separated from his mother, his life means nothing.

but ROCK ON D34TH PENALTY!! Bush should totally fry them all!

Face it. Murderers don't respect life. They kill out of a dislike or hatred of their victim. They plan for days and find just the right way to do it. Many do it multiple times. Those ones are called serial killers. But, we out of the bottoms of our hearts, release these lunitics back into the general public, and everyone is shocked when they murder again. Yes the death penalty is right for these people, and yes it is a very humane way to deal with it. Both for the murderer and the general public.

Yeah, it wasn't Bush's idea so why should he have to fix it?

Why should anyone fix it? It eats up more than it dishes out. Whenever the government tries to regulate the savings of hard-working Americans, bureaucracy takes over and ruins the whole thing.

LOL right? I mean shit, the national budget was totally out of control when Clinton was in office. Clinton was so stupid that he has money left over at the end of the year, Demo-dumbasses is more like it!!

Yeah, it was a joke, but you are wrong about Clinton having more money to spend. He did have a surplus at the end of his term, but during his terms, the national debt soared until he finally brought it to a halt at $5,676,989,904,887
Now, its 7,175,520,186,929. Yes, Bush is following Clinton with his money spending.

Oh we're doing damage all right!! They're so st00pid for not wanting us to set up their country, we're so much better at country running than them. LOL, we have 2 months left to kill any of them who don't like us so democracy will rule there!!

Please don't act ignorant of the work we have accomplished in Iraq. You make it sound like either:
1. Democracy is bad.
2. The insurgents we are killing would be better off spreading propaganda, and organizing terrorist attacks.

I am sorry about the long post, and I am sure I didn't do too great of a support for Bush, but your replies were way off base.

~Vintage

[Formerly Sane]

But, we out of the bottoms of our hearts, release these lunitics back into the general public, and everyone is shocked when they murder again.

"We can't believe you murdered someone! Killing people is the worst thing you can do, so we're going to kill you." This is a hard issue, but that doesn't sound like very good logic. And when murderers aren't sentenced to death, they aren't just let back onto the street. They're forced to spend the rest of their lives away from the public and are always watched so its unlikely they can kill again. I think solving the problem by putting someone away is alot better than being a hypocrite and a murderer.

And definately, kill wildlife that has been set aside and saved from the rest of the world. A short term solution to the oil problem is much better than using the money to develop, oh say... fuel efficient, gas-electric, or hydrogen cars.

[Vintage]

"We can't believe you murdered someone! Killing people is the worst thing you can do, so we're going to kill you." This is a hard issue, but that doesn't sound like very good logic. And when murderers aren't sentenced to death, they aren't just let back onto the street. They're forced to spend the rest of their lives away from the public and are always watched so its unlikely they can kill again. I think solving the problem by putting someone away is alot better than being a hypocrite and a murderer.

I totally agree with you that this is a hard issue. But, justice is not murder, and the person who plans the death of someone's life deserves this justice.

Some murderers are kept in jail for their entire life, but many are set free. A good attitude in jail can narrow a life sentence down to 20 years easily. I think it's ridiculous when I hear about someone receiving something like "Three life sentences plus 20 years in jail."

And definately, kill wildlife that has been set aside and saved from the rest of the world. A short term solution to the oil problem is much better than using the money to develop, oh say... fuel efficient, gas-electric, or hydrogen cars.

I assume by that statement you believe drilling for oil negatively affects wildlife? It has been proven in Alaska that animals thrive near pipelines due to the extra warmth. There were no reductions in animal population in Alaska due to oil extraction. Yes, it would be smart to develop cars that don't rely on gasoline, but until we can produce them effectively, I don't see why we can't drill in Alaska.

~Vintage

[LDM]

Face it.  Murderers don't respect life.  They kill out of a dislike or hatred of their victim.  They plan for days and find just the right way to do it.  Many do it multiple times.  Those ones are called serial killers.  But, we out of the bottoms of our hearts, release these lunitics back into the general public, and everyone is shocked when they murder again.  Yes the death penalty is right for these people, and yes it is a very humane way to deal with it.  Both for the murderer and the general public.

Maybe muderers deserve the death penalty, and maybe not. But the innocent definitely do not. Bush has sentenced the death penalty to many people that were innocent.

1.  Democracy is bad.

Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is a terrible form of government. . . . It's just all the others are worse." That quote doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion, but I'm just stating it. For your . . . enjoyment.

[Formerly Sane]

I assume by that statement you believe drilling for oil negatively affects wildlife? It has been proven in Alaska that animals thrive near pipelines due to the extra warmth. There were no reductions in animal population in Alaska due to oil extraction. Yes, it would be smart to develop cars that don't rely on gasoline, but until we can produce them effectively, I don't see why we can't drill in Alaska.

It may be fine, but having it inside a national park somewhat abstructs the beauty of the park. Plus, you have a chance that oil can leak into the ground. I think that the money that is being proposed to be used on that should be put into advanced effieciency car research. Then enviromentalists are happy, the consumer is happy, and the government is happy.

I like to reach agreements instead of break down posts into sentences and point out all the flaws. I would suck if I joined a debate team, but we don't have one. We're all stupid country hicks.

[Vintage]

I like to reach agreements instead of break down posts into sentences and point out all the flaws. I would suck if I joined a debate team, but we don't have one. We're all stupid country hicks.

I like to as well, but my first post had to cover alot. It just kept going after that.

I agree, fuel-efficient cars would be very nice. However, we have to prepare the people for such a transition. No one could sell his old, gasoline car for a new electric one if the gasoline ones cannot be used anymore. I foresee a gradual change, not an immediate one.

Maybe muderers deserve the death penalty, and maybe not. But the innocent definitely do not. Bush has sentenced the death penalty to many people that were innocent.

Here's a site for you.
I understand it says that many of the defence lawyers were not that great, but that doesn't mean they were innocent as you say.

~Vintage

[Hunter]

Maybe muderers deserve the death penalty, and maybe not. But the innocent definitely do not. Bush has sentenced the death penalty to many people that were innocent.

Here's a site for you.
I understand it says that many of the defence lawyers were not that great, but that doesn't mean they were innocent as you say.

Good site.
I am for the death penalty. Too many people think that the death penalty is wrong and that it kills to many innocent people. To quote Socrates, I believe, "We are but grains in the sands of time." Our death matters not. If I die, oh well. What are you going to do about it? People against the death sentence are really fighting against death itself, they worry about themselves. If death penalty means, let's say 5 innocents die in every 100 guilty men, those 5 give up thier lives to make sure 100 "bad" people never kill, attack, or harrass the general public again. What is wrong with that? I would give up my life to kill 20 convicted killers. Alot more people gave up thier lives in Vietnam for a war known for it's pointlessness.

[cxwq]

[quote name='Vintage']Who would have dealt with 9/11 better? The guy who sent the military to Afghanistan to disembowel the Taliban?[/quote]

Yes, if you assume that the proper way to 'deal' with 9/11 is to strip US citizens of their civil liberties and then lie to them about the reasons for bombing and invading a foreign country. What empirical evidence makes you think that war against governments and countries has any effect whatsoever on terrorists?

[quote name='Vintage']Who would have helped the economy better? This is a silly question, since the President can do next to zilch about it, yet gets all the blame. Congress controls the regulation of the economy, so really all the President can do is make proposals to Congress and veto others. I suppose you all believe that if we were all just taxed more, the economy would be better off?[/quote]

As Famine pointed out, the country is a one-party state in the hands of the Republicans. If you want to comment on the economy there is only one place to point. Regarding taxation, the economy has little to do with taxation, despite what Bush would have you believe. The national debt on the other hand, has a whole lot to do with taxation.

[quote name='Vintage']Yeah, it was a joke, but you are wrong about Clinton having more money to spend. He did have a surplus at the end of his term, but during his terms, the national debt soared until he finally brought it to a halt at $5,676,989,904,887 Now, its 7,175,520,186,929. Yes, Bush is following Clinton with his money spending.[/quote]

Well that's fine and dandy but the yearly budget surplus/deficit is the number you want to look at if you are comparing the effects of the two parties and their leaders. This is the number that indicates how much we spent in a given year compared to our revenues and represents the net change in the national debt. A fiscally responsible president and congress will obviously try to make this a positive number.

Year and Surplus or (Deficit) in billions of dollars. 

1979 (40.7)
1980 (73.8)
1981 (79.0)  //Reagan 
1982 (128.0)
1983 (207.8)
1984 (185.4)
1985 (212.3)  //Reagan
1986 (221.2)
1987 (149.7)
1988 (155.2)
1989 (152.5)  //Bush Sr.
1990 (221.2)
1991 (269.3)
1992 (290.4)
1993 (255.1)  //Clinton
1994 (203.3)
1995 (164.0)
1996 (107.5)
1997 (22.0)  //Clinton
1998  69.2
1999  125.6
2000  236.4
2001  127.4  //Bush Sr.
2002 (157.8)
2003 (375.3)
2004 (477.0)  *Projection by the US Budget Office

To summarize:
Reagan was handed a $73.8B yearly deficit and turned it into $155.2B.
Bush Sr. was handed a $155.2B yearly deficit and turned it into $290.4B.
Clinton was handed a $290.4B yearly deficit and turned it into a $236.4B surplus.
Bush Jr. was handed a $236.4B yearly surplus and turned it into an (approximate) $477B deficit.

In four years, Dubya has managed to increase the yearly deficit by over seven hundred billion dollars.

[quote name='Vintage']Who would be responsible for more American deaths in the country right now? The one who wants to abolish the horrible act of killing the unborn child, or the Catholic who wants to reinstate partial birth abortion?[/quote]

You obviously have very strong views about this. Mine are equally strong but I know I can not change your opinion so lets drop this one.

[quote name='Vintage']What really bugs me is when people equate eloquency with intelligence. Especially since the best speakers are the best liars.[/quote]

They don't get any more eloquent than Clinton and he sure did lie about that blowjob. Couldn't be any less eloquent than Dubya and he lied about his reasons for going to war. People don't equate eloquence with intelligence, they equate the adamant refusal to correctly pronounce common words like "nuclear" with a lack of intelligence.

[quote name='Vintage']Osama bin Laden released a message to the world promising safety from terrorist attacks, if the countries in Iraq would withdraw and declare war on the USA. This comforts me with the knowledge that there IS an Iraq/Al Qa'ida connection, and that we are doing damage to the terrorist network.[/quote]

Your logical leap from the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection to us doing damage to the terrorist network is faulty. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is that they both hate the United States. More and more people are becoming linked to Al Qaeda in this way every day thanks to our foreign policy decisions.

[quote name='Vintage']Who was responsible for 9/11? The dems think Bush is. The media repeatedly asked Bush to apologize for the attacks on Sept 11.[/quote]

It seems you've bought in to the whole 'liberal media' thing. Do some research about who owns the media. Do you really believe that multi-billion dollar monopolists are fans of the party that wants to raise taxes on the rich?

When you run the show you need to learn that the shit stops with you. Showing regret for what happened and trying to change things so that we can do more about it next time is not admitting fault, it's owning up to his responsibility for making sure that this doesn't happen again. To fail to apologize is to say that there's not a damn thing we could have done and I just don't buy that shit.

[quote name='Vintage']Why should anyone fix it? It eats up more than it dishes out. Whenever the government tries to regulate the savings of hard-working Americans, bureaucracy takes over and ruins the whole thing.[/quote]

Are you really trying to tell me that you're in favor of kicking old people out of the hospital when their money runs out? Fuck em, they didn't save enough? Or do you think the nice hospitals will just take care of them for free?

[quote name='Vintage'][quote name='Famine']Who could possibly be better qualified to hunt down and eliminate a threat to our country then the people who were in the very same administration that funded and trained that threat in the first place?[/quote]Any army adapts to the style of its opponents. To not do so shows disorganization. Obviously Al Qa'ida is an organized threat. Your statement there only proves you don't know war tactics.[/quote]

Obvious irony. You completely missed his best joke.

[quote name='Vintage']That was not the point of the site. The point was to show that Kerry changed his mind on what he did with his war medals many, many times. Go ahead, read the whole article.[/quote]

Yeah, so what? I read the whole article. Kerry either threw some medals and ribbons back to the government or he threw away the ribbons and gave the medals back or... who gives a shit? He's obviously got the balls to go to war for his country and the brains to know it was a mistake.

You'll never convince people that the Republican party is right until you learn their faults as well as those of the Democrats. If you believe anything in the world is black and white, you haven't looked at it closely enough. I think Winston Churchill (author of your slightly mangled quote) would agree that extremists, whether conservative or liberal, are lacking in wit.



Edit:


[quote name='Vintage']I agree, fuel-efficient cars would be very nice. However, we have to prepare the people for such a transition. No one could sell his old, gasoline car for a new electric one if the gasoline ones cannot be used anymore. I foresee a gradual change, not an immediate one.[/quote]

Yes, they would be very nice. I bought a car in 1993 (Honda Civic VX) that got 50mpg highway. That was over a decade ago so we're doing better now, right? Average fuel economy for all cars and passenger trucks sold in the US last year was 20.8 - 6% less than it was 15 years ago. The auto industry is doing nothing about the environment. Well, with the exception of the Toyota Prius I just ordered which will get my wife 60mpg city. Thanks for nothing, US auto makers.

[Famine]

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to go a bit deeper on the issues here.

1) You originally asked who could be better qualified to deal with 9/11. Since the majority of the American public wanted to see some sort of military action taken I believe it is beneficial to have strong, pro-military President in office such as Bush. What I strongly question though, is the wisdom of allowing an administration which funded, trained, and created these threats in the first place now try to neutrilize them using the same methods of heavy-handed diplomacy and military leverage.

2) The Kerry-medals debacle. Yes, it's humorous. However I don't see how the comments he made over 20 years ago about the details of an anti-war rally he led should illegitimize his nomination. After being wounded three times in four months Kerry came home and denounced the war for the atrocities he witnessed and the motivations of the administration. Whether or not he actually threw his medals, or someone elses, or none at all is irrelevant; it's the symbolism of his actions that is significant. He never changed the "why" of his story, for all we know he could have thrown the medals and then picked them up or had them returned afterwards.

3) On this issue of economy, even with a majority rule in the Senate and House the current administration has done little to help the economic situation in the U.S. Sure, tariff's can be put in place, tax cuts can be given to companies, etc but none of these directly address the problem at hand; manufacturing and mid-level support jobs are leaving the U.S. permanently and we should not be trying to stop it. What the administration should be doing is putting more money into education and more specifically address college tuition regulation. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act has been one of the most inefficient and detrimental changes made to public education in recent history. ALL Americans have to start recieving a more progressive education needed to not only fill direct service positions but also pioneer the creation of new jobs. The cost of basic healthcare and utilities needs to be lowered to raise the standard of living in turn encouraging the growth of luxury services.

4) The paradoxal stance of "Pro-Life" and "Death Penalty" simply confounds me. If one wants to take a religious approach to the subject then all life is sacred and neither should be killed. From a Constitutional stand point both abortion and the death penalty are legal. From my stand point I don't agree with either but I understand the neccessity for both at this point in time, both abortion and the death penalty exist to offer the public a certain level of security. Eventually, neither should be neccessary but we have to make several large steps both culturally and intellectually before we reach that point. Also the sterotypes that you use to dEffeminatet death row inmates is grossly inaccurate.

5) National Healthcare is probably one of THE most important things that needs to be addressed and reformed in this country. For the suppossed greatest nation in the world our healthcare is abysmal. Comparing our Healthcare budget to our Defense budget the two are near identical, should we be spending as much on guns as we are on medicine? But this can't be blamed on Bush alone, but while Clinton sought to downsize the military and increase social care spending Bush is doing the opposite.

6) And Iraq, so far when you get down to it we haven't changed anything there. The fundamental problem is that the people of Iraq neither want nor are culturally ready for a secular democracy. All the other currently successful world democracys underwent similar and deliberate internal changes before adopting a Republic style government. Islamic culture, being the youngest of world religions has yet to reach this stage of development. By continuing to manipulate middle-eastern society we are going to once again cause more harm than good. Before the interference of Europe after the World Wars, the Middle East had enjoyed several hundred years of relative peace and cohabitation. It was only after we began to dictate their state structures and governments that such extreme civil violence began to plague them.

So no, we should not be in Iraq. We should not be proactive in the middle east. These people have to be allowed to make decisions for themselves at their own pace. June is quickly approaching and things aren't looking better there.

[Vintage]

Alright, its 10:30 pm where I am, so I will have to reply tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback, but cxwq, everyone has a worldview, so you can't label someone as seeing "black and white," just because they don't agree with yours.

I believe what I believe because of my worldview. You believe what you believe because of yours.

~Vintage

[Cadmond]

I didn't actually read the whole thing, but I'll try to be fresh and original anyways.

One of the biggest problems with deciding whether the death pentaly, or abortion is the wrong, or right thing to do, is the fact that no one (I'm guessing) has had to deal with either one. The opinions here are biased towards the outside eye, and I'm sure if you had to decide whether to fuck over your life or add another person to our stockpot, I'm sure you'd all have to think about it for a while. The clear cut decisions on abortion that men have, are generally ridiculous. I admit, sometimes they're valid, but c'mon people, lets not pretend to be women. Religion or no religion, you don't really have to decide. I'll stop now.. I'm sounding like a feminist.

The ignorance, and denial flooding through our current administration is probably the worst thing about it. If there are things wrong with the country (that's a yes) then we obviously need to fix them. And to do that, those in power have to realize, or admit the wrongs they have committed, and set out to fix them. We need actual reform, not figures of $ being poured wherever, that are supposed to patch the boat till the next administration comes in to sink it. Bush should go study FDR if he wants to be re-elected.

But I honestly know very little about current politics, so go ahead and trout slap me.

[Vintage]

To help with this debate, I will deal in-depth with only a couple of questions at a time.

Since both Famine and cxwq taked about the war on terror and our healthcare system, I will start there.

Yes, if you assume that the proper way to 'deal' with 9/11 is to strip US citizens of their civil liberties and then lie to them about the reasons for bombing and invading a foreign country. What empirical evidence makes you think that war against governments and countries has any effect whatsoever on terrorists?

You are confusing the reason for war in Afghanistan, and the reason for war in Iraq. By my statement, I was referring to Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan, because we were attacked by the Taliban. Since the Afghanistan government acted powerless against their own terrorist group, we took matters into our own hands to protect our country.

When governments actively support terrorists, yes, attacking the government has a great effect on the terrorists’ funds. No empirical evidence required.

A side note here: The whole reason we have this “9/11 Commission,” is because people believe we could have done something to prevent the attack on our country. Now that we ARE doing something to prevent it from happening again, people get mad. What would you be saying right now, if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, and instead received a very nice, large bomb on the doorsteps of San Francisco (for example)?

What I strongly question though, is the wisdom of allowing an administration which funded, trained, and created these threats in the first place now try to neutrilize them using the same methods of heavy-handed diplomacy and military leverage.

Are you kidding? Bush was in office for half of a year before we were hit by terrorists. How could his administration have trained Al Qa’ida for that time? If the US really did train Al Qa’ida, it must have started before Bush’s term.

Are you really trying to tell me that you're in favor of kicking old people out of the hospital when their money runs out? Fuck em, they didn't save enough? Or do you think the nice hospitals will just take care of them for free?

No I don’t favor kicking old people out of hospitals. But understand this, if the money an elderly person had invested in Medicare (throughout his whole income life) had been invested in a private insurance firm, he would be receiving better benefits, better drug coverage, and a lower co-pay.

I am sure you learned this in school cxwq, but private firms in the US always have competition. They have to strive to make their customers happy, because they would lose them if they don’t. Medicare has no competition. Whereas private insurance firms try their best to please the customer, Medicare has become just another government program that eats taxpayers dollars.

What once was a good idea (the regulated investment of the American people for their retirement) has become something that is a terrible waste of tax dollars, is very limited in its coverage, and tricks people into believing just what you said, cxwq. That there is no other way for the elderly to get medical help. Certainly, the eradication of Medicare would be long and hard. Without a forced tax for medical coverage, the government would need to convince the people that they need to use the money that would have been used for Medicare to buy medical coverage.


Cxwq, your table analysis is pretty, but to see the true economical achievements of an administration, you need to take into account the national debt. Subtract the surplus/add the deficit to the national debt, to compare the differences between administrations.

Suppose the National debt soared 4 trillion during one administration, but that administration had a surplus of 400 billion. The administration did not do a good job.

The opinions here are biased towards the outside eye, and I'm sure if you had to decide whether to fuck over your life or add another person to our stockpot, I'm sure you'd all have to think about it for a while. The clear cut decisions on abortion that men have, are generally ridiculous. I admit, sometimes they're valid, but c'mon people, lets not pretend to be women. Religion or no religion, you don't really have to decide. I'll stop now.. I'm sounding like a feminist.

Sometimes this boils down to the act of sex. What is sex? Is it merely a pleasure or an act of love? Or is it the process of procreation that involves pleasure and love? Animals don't have sex, just to later get an abortion. They have sex in order to reproduce. Humans leave out the procreation part entirely. They have sex merely for pleasure with the mindset that if a "child" happens they can always terminate that "accident."

I do not know about you Cadmond, but I will never put any girl through that dilemma. Marriage is very important to me, and safe sex does not work.

~Vintage

[Cadmond]

If you want to include sex into this abortion bit. I ask you this question

Would we be alive if reproduction wasn't fun? Apply that to animals as well. I'm sure they're a bit more finicky then us.

But anyways, get back to Bush's plans to find the cure for aids on mars. He's got a plan! A plan!

Edited by Cadmond, 28 April 2004 - 06:23 PM.

[Vintage]

Or is it the process of procreation that involves pleasure and love?

That was my quote. I never thought sex wasn't fun. Sex is fun, but it's purpose is not for fun. Sex is for procreation, and it's fun.

~Vintage

Edit:

But anyways, get back to Bush's plans to find the cure for aids on mars. He's got a plan! A plan!

I already expressed my dislike of his space plan.

Edited by Vintage, 28 April 2004 - 06:27 PM.

[cxwq]

Are you kidding? Bush was in office for half of a year before we were hit by terrorists. How could his administration have trained Al Qa’ida for that time? If the US really did train Al Qa’ida, it must have started before Bush’s term.

He was talking about the members of Bush's administration that were around during previous Republican administrations. Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam and offer our friendship and support - mainly because we disliked Iran more than we disliked Iraq at the time. Rumsfeld was actually in Iraq the day the UN scientists announced conclusive evidence that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't actually try to hide the standard munitions and raw chemicals that the US was selling to Iraq at the time. So I guess if anybody had a right to assume that Saddam had WMDs it was the son of the guy who sold them to him.

No I don’t favor kicking old people out of hospitals. But understand this, if the money an elderly person had invested in Medicare (throughout his whole income life) had been invested in a private insurance firm, he would be receiving better benefits, better drug coverage, and a lower co-pay.

I am sure you learned this in school cxwq, but private firms in the US always have competition. They have to strive to make their customers happy, because they would lose them if they don’t. Medicare has no competition. Whereas private insurance firms try their best to please the customer, Medicare has become just another government program that eats taxpayers dollars.

Yeah, they said something about that in school. I've learned that it's a partial truth at best and sometimes a complete sham. Private companies do whatever is necessary to make a profit. If that involves pleasing customers then they please customers. I can tell you for a fact that my HMO, a private health care organization, does not care much about what pleases me. I will accept that they have raised my rates because I understand that the cost of doing business increases from time to time. What I can not accept is that they push doctors to do what is inexpensive rather than what I need. I'm sure your next suggestion will be to change HMOs so I'll go ahead and tell you that I've had 3 of them in 5 years. They are all short-changing their customers in order to make a buck.

What once was a good idea (the regulated investment of the American people for their retirement) has become something that is a terrible waste of tax dollars, is very limited in its coverage, and tricks people into believing just what you said, cxwq. That there is no other way for the elderly to get medical help. Certainly, the eradication of Medicare would be long and hard. Without a forced tax for medical coverage, the government would need to convince the people that they need to use the money that would have been used for Medicare to buy medical coverage.

I'm not entirely certain what you're suggesting here. Phasing out Medicare ending with the people who have yet to pay into it? Slowly decreasing the services offered over the next 80 years while all the people who have paid into it die off? Then just asking everyone to save for their own health care or pay their own health insurance?

Not that this is likely to change your opinion, but public health care saved my life. I was a 23 year-old college student who was no longer covered on either of my parents private insurance plans. They are both teachers and had little money to help me through college so I was working a crappy retail job for my tuition. There's no way in hell I could have afforded any kind of health insurance, I was eating ramen for lunch 5 days a week so I could pay the bills. When I went to my university health center and they told me I had a blood clot running from my right elbow all the way up to my neck and it could break free and hit my lung any time, I had no choice but to go to County USC in downtown LA. The private hospitals won't take someone without insurance unless they are bleeding to death. I waited 14 hours in the ER waiting room because it seems there are a few other people who can't afford medical insurance around here. My hospital stay cost the taxpayers of California $200,000 or about half a cent per resident. I hope some of them feel my life was worth the money.

Cxwq, your table analysis is pretty, but to see the true economical achievements of an administration, you need to take into account the national debt. Subtract the surplus/add the deficit to the national debt, to compare the differences between administrations.

Suppose the National debt soared 4 trillion during one administration, but that administration had a surplus of 400 billion. The administration did not do a good job.

I don't think you quite understand how it works. Every year the administration has a surplus, the national debt does not increase. There were three years in which Clinton paid down the national debt, by $51b, $89b, and $223b. Nobody else had done that in 40+ years. During his 5 years prior to that, the national debt increased each year but the annual increase dropped every year until he reached a surplus and started paying off the debt. To think that he could have reversed the $290.4b deficit handed him by Bush Sr. in a single year is foolish. Congress wouldn't have allowed him to cut that many services or raise taxes that much in a single year.

Bush's budget proposal in 2001 promised to pay down $2 trillion of national debt over the next 10 years. Well, it's 2004 and he will have added nearly a trillian dollars to the national debt by the end of the year. Keep in mind that Clinton left him with a surplus so all he had to do was avoid fucking things up and deal with new challenges in a fiscally responsible way.

Edit: Bush has actually added over a trillian to the national debt in just over 2.5 years. $1,334,966,519,900.55 to be exact.

Humans leave out the procreation part entirely. They have sex merely for pleasure with the mindset that if a "child" happens they can always terminate that "accident."

I don't know anybody who goes around fucking everyone without protection and thinking "hey, there's always abortion". Do you know people like that? I do know lots of people who are stupid or irresponsible and could end up with an unwanted pregnancy because they made a bad decision. Personally I don't think stupid or irresponsible people should have kids but it's not my decision, it's hers.

[merlinski]

Quick facts:
In a study of death-row inmates in Virginia (one southern state, I think it was virginia), it was actually found that a majority of the inmates were innocent.

Whereas the Republicans are criticizing Kerry for his medals, he has people who actually fought with him and remember it. Bush doesn't even have people who remember seeing him in the Air National Guard.

For my full reasons as a democrat, I started a new topic because I felt that it covered different issues than were being discussed here.

[Vintage]

He was talking about the members of Bush's administration that were around during previous Republican administrations. Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam and offer our friendship and support - mainly because we disliked Iran more than we disliked Iraq at the time.

We also have shared secrets with our many other allies, so what is your point here? If France were to turn on us, you could say we helped supply them with weapons against us as well. And no, we did not supply Iraq with plutonium or nuclear devices.

I cannot tell you why we have not found WMD’s in Iraq. But don’t think Bush is the only one who thought they had them. Maybe you forgot that Clinton ordered the attack on Iraq (Desert Fox) after Iraq failed to co-operate with UN inspectors while searching for WMD’s. His speeches were shockingly much like the ones that people hated hearing from Bush. Ex: “Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.” Clinton also believed, up to the capture of Saddam, that Iraq possessed WMD’s. But here’s the bite: Clinton disbanded the CIA force in Iraq. He left us with absolutely no source agents there. Bush had to rebuild the source network in Iraq when he took office. The information the newly built network was relaying to the CIA did tell of Iraq’s nuclear programs. However, due to its youth, the network was unable to fully describe to what extent the programs had evolved.

And to answer some peoples “concerns” that Bush went to war for his father, Bush Sr. opposed any war in Iraq during his term. G. W. did not act aggressively in Iraq, until what the CIA deemed sufficient evidence was placed on his desk.

So I guess if anybody had a right to assume that Saddam had WMDs it was the son of the guy who sold them to him.

cute

I'm not entirely certain what you're suggesting here. Phasing out Medicare ending with the people who have yet to pay into it? Slowly decreasing the services offered over the next 80 years while all the people who have paid into it die off? Then just asking everyone to save for their own health care or pay their own health insurance?

I am not going to pretend to be an economist here, so I can’t really describe how it’s possible to fully eliminate Medicare. Too many people, as you have clearly pointed out, are using this system, and I am not sure if Americans could give it up. But you must clearly see there is a better way.

I don't think you quite understand how it works. Every year the administration has a surplus, the national debt does not increase. There were three years in which Clinton paid down the national debt, by $51b, $89b, and $223b. Nobody else had done that in 40+ years. During his 5 years prior to that, the national debt increased each year but the annual increase dropped every year until he reached a surplus and started paying off the debt.

I received my numbers from the U. S. Treasury website:
http://www.treas.gov...s/fed-debt.html

~$4,002,123,000,000 (Debt when Clinton came into office)
~$5,181,921,000,000 ($1.2 Trillion increase by the end of first term)
~$5,686,338,000,000 ($500 Billion increase by the end of second term)
~$6,033,583,000,000 (Projected $300 Billion increase by the end of Bush’s first term)

Here are your numbers from
http://www.publicdeb...gov/opd/opd.htm

$4,167,872,986,583.67 (Debt when Clinton came into office)
$4,988,799,676,202.14 ($800 Billion increase by the end of first term)
$5,719,452,925,490.54 ($700 Billion increase by end of second term)
$7,142,429,932,100.61 ($1.4 Trillion increase to date)

Obviously, I believe your source is the accurate one (I couldn’t really believe the $300 Billion increase thing for Bush), because the Treasury site only gave projected increases. However, I don’t think the projected number was far off the mark, if we were not funding the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

However, you made the claim that Clinton had paid off some of the national debt. Bill Clinton never did reduce the national debt. Not one, single year. He raised it $800 billion his first term and $700 billion the second. The debt hasn’t been lowered since 1969. (All this info came from your site.)

I don't know anybody who goes around fucking everyone without protection and thinking "hey, there's always abortion". Do you know people like that? I do know lots of people who are stupid or irresponsible and could end up with an unwanted pregnancy because they made a bad decision. Personally I don't think stupid or irresponsible people should have kids but it's not my decision, it's hers.

Maybe you didn’t hear me right. Yes, I was talking about those who “go around fucking everyone,” but it doesn’t matter whether they use “protection.” Safe sex techniques (pills/condoms) don’t always work.

But the point of my statement was to say that these people don’t view sex the way it really is. They see it all as only fun and pleasure. Just take a pill and have fun. If a baby accidentally “happens,” just kill the inconvenience.

Yes, I agree that irresponsible parents should not raise a child, but if they are willing to participate in the act of human procreation, they must realize that pregnancy is a possibility. Those who are not yet responsible for parenthood, must realize the consequences of their actions. Adoption is then the best thing for the child.

~Vintage

[cxwq]

There were three years in which Clinton paid down the national debt, by $51b, $89b, and $223b.

However, you made the claim that Clinton had paid off some of the national debt. Bill Clinton never did reduce the national debt. Not one, single year. He raised it $800 billion his first term and $700 billion the second. The debt hasn’t been lowered since 1969. (All this info came from your site.)

I'll stand by my numbers. He did make payments on the national debt but because previous presidents had allowed it to grow so large, the interest was larger than his payments.

Regarding Reagan and Bush Sr. with Saddam, we knew at the time that he was using WMDs on Iran and the Kurds in Iraq. We still considered him a friend and allowed US firms to sell him chemicals for his weapons. This isn't a case of him turning 'evil' after the fact. Also, he didn't turn on us, we turned on him. He probably feels rather betrayed.

[Vintage]

Actually, I think he expected us to become smart concerning his lies. Why would he not let the UN inspectors do their jobs? If we truly were the ones who gave him the means, he wouldn't be afraid to show them.

~Vintage

[merlinski]

Actually, I think he expected us to become smart concerning his lies. Why would he not let the UN inspectors do their jobs? If we truly were the ones who gave him the means, he wouldn't be afraid to show them.

~Vintage

What I think he means is:
He never lied to us at first. He was open about gassing the Kurds. We gave him the means, and he knew we knew that. He only tried to hide them after we went to war with him, which is what C is referring to when he says "turning on him".