NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is NOT conservative! He's a big spender, favors big government, is trying to make America a police state, cares nothing for the constitution, is hostile to states' rights, favors the involvement of the federal government in education (his socialistic No Child Left Behind act), has loaded his administration with hundreds of members of the ultra-leftist, pro-communist Council on Foreign Relations, is a member of the subversive Skull and Bones, is pro-UN (regardless of the fact that he allegedly 'defied' it), and once praised Woodrow Wilson. Now, tell me, how does that make him conservative? :roll:

You got that right. And let's not forget, as Texas governor he adamantly supported NAFTA (just like his globalist father did...).

Bush gave us the strongest economy in over 50 years. Unemployment is only 2.1% and inflation has dropped 87% since Bush took office.

Bush gave us the strongest economy in over 50 years. Unemployment is only 2.1% and inflation has dropped 87% since Bush took office.
your obviously too full of stupidity to be kidding

i think you need to get your head out of your ass and check out what reality looks like

If gay marriage was only for the benefits, the majority of conservatives would have helped or at least allowed a form of same sex partnership to go into law so that gays could have all the same privileges. Marriages is a specific thing with a specific definition. Thats whats being defended.

Bush was caught talking about the need to find a way to go in and take Saddam out before 9/11. He's the guy who tried to kill his dad. This war may have done a good thing but it was done for the wrong reasons and those reasons have created backlash. Right now reelecting Bush would be the greatest thing Jihad craving terrorists could hope for. He is the poster child for what people hate about the U.S.

The fabled chain reaction of democracy spreading throughout the countries in 'dire need of our help' exists only as the euphemism for our reeneactment of the crusades. We're destroying and rebuilding in our image, though it may seem like helping. Theres not much good the most well meaning hand can do when violence is what it brings.

The Patriot Act was a huge step in negating our rights. Unwarranted and unapologetic attacks on people who arent white both here and overseas is out of control. Bush has sent many innocent people to their deaths at the hands of the evil he claims to be trying to stop, and I'm not talking about soldiers. He's split up families and thrown people in far away prisons with no charges tagainst them to stew for years while noone knows what happened to them. Innocents are having their belongings and their homes destroyed both here and abroad while they and those around them are being beaten and sometimes killed.

He's turned back on his word on a great many things. He's been caught and he can be plainly seen as evil.
I have to half expect any person in power to do bad things. I hate that I feel better when they dont get caught and exposed. I've seen this man for what he is. He makes me feel shame for both my country and my beliefs. These are things I will not idly be made ashamed of.

I've seen the way numbers were twisted around to make it look like the economy wasnt as bad as it has been under his term. Its easy to see through, and even if you cant you can see the truth on the streets and on the faces of those around you; in their stories and struggles.

1) Don't correct my english! Not my fault that you didn't bother to try to decipher it!

2) Grammer was fine! All the words in the proper tense!

3) I could give a damn about sentence structure. This isn't english class where everything has to be neat and proper!

4) As for the apology taking me out of context is accepted!

1. But I DID try to decipher it. The fact that your sentance was constructed incorrectly, and with bad syntax, led to my misinterpretation of it...I believed I was reading TWO sentances, as demonstrated above...whereas, had you constructed it with the correct syntax, I would have correctly deciphered it.

I'm not trying to pick a nit with your grammar, or spelling here, I am merely explaining what caused me to misinterpret your words. So don't get all touchy here.

It would not be the first, or the last time that someone, somewhere, has misinterpreted someone else's written words due to poor sentance structure or improper syntax.

You, however, immediately flew off the handle, and accused me of intentionally taking your words out of context. I did no such thing. I took your words out of context because of the poor sentence structure and incorrect syntax, and was merely explaining this...in order to defend myself from an unfair attack that I had deliberately taken your words out of context when I did no such thing.

2. I'm not going to do it...I'm tempted, but I wont....

3. If you are going to be taken seriously as a debater, and you wish to correctly articulate your points of argument, then sentance structure and syntax are very important, lest someone extract from your words a different meaning than you intended to ascribe to them. no, it is not English class, and my correcting your syntax was not, in this case, a cheap shot at you...but rather, it was done to demonstrate the way in which I inadvertently extracted a different meaning from your words than you intended. You, however, chose to accuse me of INTENTIONALLY taking your words out of context when I did no such thing...and then are now flying off the handle at my correcting of your syntax, accusing me of taking a cheap shot, which I'm not. I did so, again, as I say, to answer to your charge that I had deliberately taken your words out of context when I did no such thing.

And so you then go and accuse me of taking a cheap shot at your grammar and syntax, and sentance structure...when I was merely pointing out the reason for my misinterpretation of your verbiage.

This speaks volumes about your general attitude. It says that, because I hold different views than you, you expect the worst of intentions in me at all times, when, in fact, I made an honest error of interpretation. And apologized for it, once you pointed out what you'd in fact intended to say.

And for that, I get a second charge levelled at me...that my attempt to correct your syntax was merely a cheap shot...when it wasn't.

Now I'm sorry I apologized the first time, since you do not know how to gracefully accept an apology, instead, you have to accept it, then attack the person who delivered the apology.

Quite frankly, you are not the kind of person I can deal with. I cannot deal with people who always ascribe the very worst of intentions to my every word and deed.

And yes, I am guilty of the same thing at times. For example, I ascribe the very worst of intentions to every word and deed of George W Bush. Because I do not like him, I do not trust him, he stands FOR everything I'm agaist...and AGAINST everything I'm FOR. We are polarized political opposites. And thus it is that I hate him...bitterly.

4. In light of your attacks against me, that apology is formally retracted.

1) Don't correct my english! Not my fault that you didn't bother to try to decipher it!

2) Grammer was fine! All the words in the proper tense!

3) I could give a damn about sentence structure. This isn't english class where everything has to be neat and proper!

4) As for the apology taking me out of context is accepted!

1. But I DID try to decipher it. The fact that your sentance was constructed incorrectly, and with bad syntax, led to my misinterpretation of it...I believed I was reading TWO sentances, as demonstrated above...whereas, had you constructed it with the correct syntax, I would have correctly deciphered it.

I'm not trying to pick a nit with your grammar, or spelling here, I am merely explaining what caused me to misinterpret your words. So don't get all touchy here.

It would not be the first, or the last time that someone, somewhere, has misinterpreted someone else's written words due to poor sentance structure or improper syntax.

You, however, immediately flew off the handle, and accused me of intentionally taking your words out of context. I did no such thing. I took your words out of context because of the poor sentence structure and incorrect syntax, and was merely explaining this...in order to defend myself from an unfair attack that I had deliberately taken your words out of context when I did no such thing.

2. I'm not going to do it...I'm tempted, but I wont....

3. If you are going to be taken seriously as a debater, and you wish to correctly articulate your points of argument, then sentance structure and syntax are very important, lest someone extract from your words a different meaning than you intended to ascribe to them. no, it is not English class, and my correcting your syntax was not, in this case, a cheap shot at you...but rather, it was done to demonstrate the way in which I inadvertently extracted a different meaning from your words than you intended. You, however, chose to accuse me of INTENTIONALLY taking your words out of context when I did no such thing...and then are now flying off the handle at my correcting of your syntax, accusing me of taking a cheap shot, which I'm not. I did so, again, as I say, to answer to your charge that I had deliberately taken your words out of context when I did no such thing.

And so you then go and accuse me of taking a cheap shot at your grammar and syntax, and sentance structure...when I was merely pointing out the reason for my misinterpretation of your verbiage.

This speaks volumes about your general attitude. It says that, because I hold different views than you, you expect the worst of intentions in me at all times, when, in fact, I made an honest error of interpretation. And apologized for it, once you pointed out what you'd in fact intended to say.

And for that, I get a second charge levelled at me...that my attempt to correct your syntax was merely a cheap shot...when it wasn't.

Now I'm sorry I apologized the first time, since you do not know how to gracefully accept an apology, instead, you have to accept it, then attack the person who delivered the apology.

Quite frankly, you are not the kind of person I can deal with. I cannot deal with people who always ascribe the very worst of intentions to my every word and deed.

And yes, I am guilty of the same thing at times. For example, I ascribe the very worst of intentions to every word and deed of George W Bush. Because I do not like him, I do not trust him, he stands FOR everything I'm agaist...and AGAINST everything I'm FOR. We are polarized political opposites. And thus it is that I hate him...bitterly.

4. In light of your attacks against me, that apology is formally retracted.

giggles, I already accepted your apology as such your apology can't be withdrawn. I thought you were a gentleman when you offered that apology! As for my attack, where did I attack you? If I did attack you, it was purely by accident and I apologize for attacking you if I did attack you.

Never did accuse you of taking a cheap shot at me for my third comment. Just stated where I stood on that point. Never attacked you there. I don't know where your getting the part about me taking a cheap shot at you! Never did take a cheap shot in my third part as I stated.

Bush gave us the strongest economy in over 50 years. Unemployment is only 2.1% and inflation has dropped 87% since Bush took office.

Exactly WHERE are you getting this supposed 2.1 % unemployment rate from? Can you source this? Or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
Even the Department of Labor says the unemployment rate is 5.6% And that is a figure which only tells HALF the story since that number does not count "discouraged workers" (those who have stopped looking for work) as unemployeed...nor does it count anyone who worked even one hour a week as unemployed. There are plenty of such people. I, for example, am one. I work temp jobs, newspaper routes, anything I can when not holding a full-time job and drawing unemployment. this is how I extend MY benefits beyond 26 weeks...I collect only PARTIAL unemployment. But I am counted as fully employed when I do this, and in fact, I am not.

Furthermore, the numbers are always "seasonally adjusted" to make them appear lower thatn they in fact are. And, this does not account for all those who are now "underemployed" due to a lack of jobs in certain fields...there are plenty of Microsoft-certified guys out there right now who are asking if you want fries with that, and are therefore in "manufacturing jobs," and are now UNDER-employed.

I'd like to see a TRUE picture. And by that, I mean, what I want to see is What percentage of Americans are employed, full-time, in jobs that are not definable as "underemployment?" I'm betting the numbers come closer to 15 to 20 percent of this nation's workers currently fall into the category of Unemployed, Under-employed, or "Discouraged worker."

That was certainly never the case in the Clinton years!!

He was being sarcastic Labrador!

giggles, I already accepted your apology as such your apology can't be withdrawn. I thought you were a gentleman when you offered that apology! As for my attack, where did I attack you? If I did attack you, it was purely by accident and I apologize for attacking you if I did attack you.

Never did accuse you of taking a cheap shot at me for my third comment. Just stated where I stood on that point. Never attacked you there. I don't know where your getting the part about me taking a cheap shot at you! Never did take a cheap shot in my third part as I stated.

Hmmm...you thought I was a gentleman? And that is why my nation is The Socialist QUEENDOM of Labrador...

I am female, thank you very much.

Lastly, the apolgy I gave was offered in good intentions...you chose to attack me, and thus you threw it back in my face. so even though you SAY you accepted it, the fact is you did not. Because you chose to attack me and my intentions, rather than gracefully accepting the apology. Thus it is I retract it.

Furthermore, The Socialist Queendom of Labrador hereby breaks off any and all diplomatic relations with your nation. Along with all other colonies and territories under the umbrella or control of the Queendom. And there are four of them.

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

Senator Kerry has said that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000, but not the middle-class tax cuts, which he intends to make permanent. (See Table 1.) He also proposes a new refundable tax credit for higher education expenses, and changes to the estate tax.

That would represent a tax hike for those making over $200,000 but it would take their taxes back to where they were before Bush's tax cuts were implimented.

Actually if I was making $200,000 or less in the US, I would be hopping mad that the wealthiest taxpayers (0.004%) were going to get a "tax cut" that was 33 times more money then I would get. $127,000 to $3,825. That is outrageous!!

They pay more taxes so therefore they should get more back think thats fair dont you.

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

Senator Kerry has said that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000, but not the middle-class tax cuts, which he intends to make permanent. (See Table 1.) He also proposes a new refundable tax credit for higher education expenses, and changes to the estate tax.

That would represent a tax hike for those making over $200,000 but it would take their taxes back to where they were before Bush's tax cuts were implimented.

Actually if I was making $200,000 or less in the US, I would be hopping mad that the wealthiest taxpayers (0.004%) were going to get a "tax cut" that was 33 times more money then I would get. $127,000 to $3,825. That is outrageous!!

They pay more taxes so therefore they should get more back think thats fair dont you.
its called trickle down economics, liberal style, the middle class, which are obviously major consumers becuase they arnt rich, get their moeny back so it goes int othe economy, the rich who are making hudnreds of thousands and milliosn a year that dont even need tax cuts get their moeny sent back to the governemtn to fix it and pay for eduication and medical programs, etc

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

Senator Kerry has said that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000, but not the middle-class tax cuts, which he intends to make permanent. (See Table 1.) He also proposes a new refundable tax credit for higher education expenses, and changes to the estate tax.

That would represent a tax hike for those making over $200,000 but it would take their taxes back to where they were before Bush's tax cuts were implimented.

Actually if I was making $200,000 or less in the US, I would be hopping mad that the wealthiest taxpayers (0.004%) were going to get a "tax cut" that was 33 times more money then I would get. $127,000 to $3,825. That is outrageous!!

They pay more taxes so therefore they should get more back think thats fair dont you.No