NationStates Jolt Archive

As hard as it is the get the monkey man out of the oval office (whatever minor slipups - such as lying to nation, he still manages to maintain his position), there are some hard facts that you just cannot explain away. Iraq, of course, is the most popular as it epitomises everything that we feared would happen if a neo-con sympathising group got into power.

But what is often ignored abroad (I live in the UK), is the disastrous effects these far right policies are having on America itself. I am talking about the tax breaks, the public spending cuts, the massive national debt, the job losses, the total disregard for the environment and the pandering to the corporations. The very things that we feared would happen in terms of internal American policy happened, along with the disastrous shift in Foreign Policy - which overshadowed these internal affairs.

The 'Free Enterprise' system (Deregulation e.t.c.), championed by Reagan and Thatcher, allows for short term boosts of impressive economic growth, then an unceremonious crash, as demonstrated in the late 80's, thus the myth of Conservatives being fiscal with the economy ensued as the unvirtous side to this policy crumbled under the weight of Republican propoganda.

I point this out simply because the other myth concerning the economy, that liberals mishandle it, has also grown. Furthered by propoganda such as FOX News, and other unasahamedly bias and racist organisations that use the 'political correctness' buzzword to defend anything that might be construed as bigotted.

Ironically enough under Clinton, America expierienced a long sustained period of economic growth as well as massive job creation. Along with this Clinton championed social policies such as those which led to millions being led over the poverty lines, in direct contrast to the current Bush Administrations lack of social planning when concerning the amount of people who have dropped below the poverty line.

This raises further, much larger questions.

How in the 'World's greatest 'democracy' (and I stretch the definition of the word to allow 'selective electorates in states which you may lose') can the Administration ignore figures like 30 million living below the poverty line, trillions in debt, lack of investment, ever burdgeoning military spending compared to no social policy iniatives e.t.c. But more importantly, how can the general populace ignore this total lack of care that the Government cannot even provide the most basic services for its people.

Call me a 'liberal commie euro', but here in Europe we care for our populace, we have free services such as good healthcare systems, a good education system, a good transport system and above all a general consensus that it isn't "Every man for himself" as one Mr. Birling once pointed out, but that we all share a collective responsibility.

Go and preach your pro corporation bullshit Republicans.

But Democrats, go out and vote in force, if only to get rid of a monkey man who if give another term, will run America into the worst debt a Western country has ever known.

As hard as it is the get the monkey man out of the oval office (whatever minor slipups - such as lying to nation, he still manages to maintain his position), there are some hard facts that you just cannot explain away. Iraq, of course, is the most popular as it epitomises everything that we feared would happen if a neo-con sympathising group got into power.

But what is often ignored abroad (I live in the UK), is the disastrous effects these far right policies are having on America itself. I am talking about the tax breaks, the public spending cuts, the massive national debt, the job losses, the total disregard for the environment and the pandering to the corporations. The very things that we feared would happen in terms of internal American policy happened, along with the disastrous shift in Foreign Policy - which overshadowed these internal affairs.

The 'Free Enterprise' system (Deregulation e.t.c.), championed by Reagan and Thatcher, allows for short term boosts of impressive economic growth, then an unceremonious crash, as demonstrated in the late 80's, thus the myth of Conservatives being fiscal with the economy ensued as the unvirtous side to this policy crumbled under the weight of Republican propoganda.

I point this out simply because the other myth concerning the economy, that liberals mishandle it, has also grown. Furthered by propoganda such as FOX News, and other unasahamedly bias and racist organisations that use the 'political correctness' buzzword to defend anything that might be construed as bigotted.

Ironically enough under Clinton, America expierienced a long sustained period of economic growth as well as massive job creation. Along with this Clinton championed social policies such as those which led to millions being led over the poverty lines, in direct contrast to the current Bush Administrations lack of social planning when concerning the amount of people who have dropped below the poverty line.

This raises further, much larger questions.

How in the 'World's greatest 'democracy' (and I stretch the definition of the word to allow 'selective electorates in states which you may lose') can the Administration ignore figures like 30 million living below the poverty line, trillions in debt, lack of investment, ever burdgeoning military spending compared to no social policy iniatives e.t.c. But more importantly, how can the general populace ignore this total lack of care that the Government cannot even provide the most basic services for its people.

Call me a 'liberal commie euro', but here in Europe we care for our populace, we have free services such as good healthcare systems, a good education system, a good transport system and above all a general consensus that it isn't "Every man for himself" as one Mr. Birling once pointed out, but that we all share a collective responsibility.

Go and preach your pro corporation bullshit Republicans.

But Democrats, go out and vote in force, if only to get rid of a monkey man who if give another term, will run America into the worst debt a Western country has ever known.
Good point--america will never survive another 4 years of the looting monkey

Good point--america will never survive another 4 years of the looting monkey

Uh, as anti-Republican as I am, I have to say that sure it will. Why shouldn't it? It's not like GW has brought the US to its knees or anything. In fact, I'm sat here in the states after almost four years under Bush and living a perfectly normal, perfectly pleasant life.

Why oh why do Democrats feel the need to repeat themselves so much. I've heard it a million times.

Bush lied: no he didn't, all of your Democratic champions believed the CIA intel, and it was the Dems that emasculated the CIA in the first place, and your boy Kerry was in favor of invading Iraq

We need to raise taxes on the rich to pay off the national debt: Nobody's going to pay off the national debt. Recently, the Republican majority passed some new benifits for senior citizens...at the expense of the taxpayers. The Democrats opposed it because the Republicans didn't spend enough. Congress is basically buying votes on credit, knowing they'll be dead before the bill comes. Kerry isn't planning on paying off the national debt, he's proposing a 1 trillion dollar health care reform, thus raising the national debt.

Christian values should be ignored: Over half the country claims to be Christian. You can't ignore half of the voting public. It just doesn't work, not to mention that a lot of the founding fathers were Christian.

I've heard it over and over and over again in a million different places. Either prove I'm wrong or find a different arguement, because the Dems and other liberals are starting to sound like a broken record.

Why oh why do Democrats feel the need to repeat themselves so much. I've heard it a million times.

Bush lied: no he didn't, all of your Democratic champions believed the CIA intel, and it was the Dems that emasculated the CIA in the first place, and your boy Kerry was in favor of invading Iraq

We need to raise taxes on the rich to pay off the national debt: Nobody's going to pay off the national debt. Recently, the Republican majority passed some new benifits for senior citizens...at the expense of the taxpayers. The Democrats opposed it because the Republicans didn't spend enough. Congress is basically buying votes on credit, knowing they'll be dead before the bill comes. Kerry isn't planning on paying off the national debt, he's proposing a 1 trillion dollar health care reform, thus raising the national debt.

Christian values should be ignored: Over half the country claims to be Christian. You can't ignore half of the voting public. It just doesn't work, not to mention that a lot of the founding fathers were Christian.

I've heard it over and over and over again in a million different places. Either prove I'm wrong or find a different arguement, because the Dems and other liberals are starting to sound like a broken record.the reason dems repeat themselfs a million times is because republicans keep repeating the same lies a million times--if you want to hear something different than change your lies

Hey, it's not like we haven't seen people like Dubya before. Presidents will change, policies will change, effects will change, the nation will change, blah blah blah

the reason dems repeat themselfs a million times is because republicans keep repeating the same lies a million times--if you want to hear something different than change your lies

And Democrats have trouble refuting anything I say without just calling me a liar and then ignoring me in the hopes that I'll go away. Now back up your claims with some facts instead of spouting rhetoric as if it was divine knowledge given to you by the Almighty Himself. Just because MoveOn.org said it doesn't make it true. In fact, that usually makes it not true.

I'm lieing. Well, first off, a lie is an false statement made with the intent to decieve. I believe my statements to be true, meaning that I cannot possibly be lieing, since I am not trying to decieve. If you can prove my statements wrong (which I don't think you will. you seem to type just to call somebody a liar over and over again without anything to back it up), then you will prove that I was mistaken, not lieing. Now, if you would care to try to refute my claims, be my guest, but simply calling me (or anyone else, for that matter) a liar without backing it up is insulting and childish, and I'll not stand for it.

Ugh, I apologize for improper spelling and puncuation in the previous post, but I can't find the edit button. Sorry.

And Democrats have trouble refuting anything I say without just calling me a liar and then ignoring me in the hopes that I'll go away. Now back up your claims with some facts instead of spouting rhetoric as if it was divine knowledge given to you by the Almighty Himself. Just because MoveOn.org said it doesn't make it true. In fact, that usually makes it not true.

I'm lieing. Well, first off, a lie is an false statement made with the intent to decieve. I believe my statements to be true, meaning that I cannot possibly be lieing, since I am not trying to decieve. If you can prove my statements wrong (which I don't think you will. you seem to type just to call somebody a liar over and over again without anything to back it up), then you will prove that I was mistaken, not lieing. Now, if you would care to try to refute my claims, be my guest, but simply calling me (or anyone else, for that matter) a liar without backing it up is insulting and childish, and I'll not stand for it.well then say something republican and Ill prove how its a lie but nd post your lies one at a time so I can refute them all --dont post a novel or it wont be read

well then say something republican and Ill prove how its a lie but nd post your lies one at a time so I can refute them all --dont post a novel or it wont be read

No, and for two reasons.

First, if you think that's a novel, then all you're going to accept that you will actually take the time to read is one-line rhetoric, which I think is childish and stupid.

Second, you call them lies without even reading them. You're predisposed to disagree with whatever I say, whether you have anything to back up your claims or not. You're just a rhetoric spouting, liberal zombie who couldn't look at the other sid eof the coin if you tried, and there's no reasoning with people like that.

Now figure out how to read and think on your own. Then we'll talk. Until then, I'm just going to ignore you.

P.S. I've had many intelligent conversations with liberals, and I enjoyed them. It gave me a new perspective on things, so don't accuse me of being closed-minded. Some of my best friends are liberals. The key word is that I've had intelligent conversations, not volleys of rhetoric.

No, and for two reasons.

First, if you think that's a novel, then all you're going to accept that you will actually take the time to read is one-line rhetoric, which I think is childish and stupid.

Second, you call them lies without even reading them. You're predisposed to disagree with whatever I say, whether you have anything to back up your claims or not. You're just a rhetoric spouting, liberal zombie who couldn't look at the other sid eof the coin if you tried, and there's no reasoning with people like that.

Now figure out how to read and think on your own. Then we'll talk. Until then, I'm just going to ignore you.

P.S. I've had many intelligent conversations with liberals, and I enjoyed them. It gave me a new perspective on things, so don't accuse me of being closed-minded. Some of my best friends are liberals. The key word is that I've had intelligent conversations, not volleys of rhetoric.
I accept your defeat

Personaly MK will never ever ever be staisfeid with the real world ever.i read his philoshpey he says(Basicly anyway) that the world should be a peaceful anarchy, he want to many things that me and my conservative fellows will never ever allow. personaly i would like to ask MK how he reach his current level of anarchism.

As hard as it is the get the monkey man out of the oval office (whatever minor slipups - such as lying to nation, he still manages to maintain his position), there are some hard facts that you just cannot explain away. Iraq, of course, is the most popular as it epitomises everything that we feared would happen if a neo-con sympathising group got into power.

But what is often ignored abroad (I live in the UK), is the disastrous effects these far right policies are having on America itself. I am talking about the tax breaks, the public spending cuts, the massive national debt, the job losses, the total disregard for the environment and the pandering to the corporations. The very things that we feared would happen in terms of internal American policy happened, along with the disastrous shift in Foreign Policy - which overshadowed these internal affairs.

The 'Free Enterprise' system (Deregulation e.t.c.), championed by Reagan and Thatcher, allows for short term boosts of impressive economic growth, then an unceremonious crash, as demonstrated in the late 80's, thus the myth of Conservatives being fiscal with the economy ensued as the unvirtous side to this policy crumbled under the weight of Republican propoganda.

I point this out simply because the other myth concerning the economy, that liberals mishandle it, has also grown. Furthered by propoganda such as FOX News, and other unasahamedly bias and racist organisations that use the 'political correctness' buzzword to defend anything that might be construed as bigotted.

Ironically enough under Clinton, America expierienced a long sustained period of economic growth as well as massive job creation. Along with this Clinton championed social policies such as those which led to millions being led over the poverty lines, in direct contrast to the current Bush Administrations lack of social planning when concerning the amount of people who have dropped below the poverty line.

This raises further, much larger questions.

How in the 'World's greatest 'democracy' (and I stretch the definition of the word to allow 'selective electorates in states which you may lose') can the Administration ignore figures like 30 million living below the poverty line, trillions in debt, lack of investment, ever burdgeoning military spending compared to no social policy iniatives e.t.c. But more importantly, how can the general populace ignore this total lack of care that the Government cannot even provide the most basic services for its people.

Call me a 'liberal commie euro', but here in Europe we care for our populace, we have free services such as good healthcare systems, a good education system, a good transport system and above all a general consensus that it isn't "Every man for himself" as one Mr. Birling once pointed out, but that we all share a collective responsibility.

Go and preach your pro corporation bullshit Republicans.

But Democrats, go out and vote in force, if only to get rid of a monkey man who if give another term, will run America into the worst debt a Western country has ever known.

Bush forced through a massive Medicare Bill costing 550 Billion dollars, he's also put more money into education with his No Child Left Behind policy and the school vouchers. The job figures aren't bad either, they've been up for the last 10 months, just not stellar performance. As for pandering to corporations, the democracts do it too.

You attack the Tax-Cut approach to economics, yet, if you look at the states that have a high rate of taxation they perform relatively poorly; France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, etc...There is no magic wand to economics.

Clinton did alot of things right. He also did alot of things wrong, especially the end of his presidency. The misery index under Bush is very close to what Clinton had (Not Kerry's index, he has his own).

The U.S.A. is built on the principle that the people build things for themselves and that the government is supposed to stay out of people's way as much a possible. Liberty and Freedom for whoever is willing to work for it.

As for Europe, I'd like to know then why is England's transportation services in dissaray? France has chronic unemployment as well as constant problems with the unions protesting whatever changes are proposed by the government. The public pension system is also eating away at the public purse in most continental European states. Germany is currently in what looks like a recession, there's a reason why The Economist refers to them as the "Sick Man of Europe". Poland and the new members have collapsing public healthcare systems. Why is it that the UK academias are complaining that they are strapped for cash and that the degrees being issues are worth less? Why is it that the European Union has problems with core members being unable to remain below the 3% deficit figures? Compare GDP growth since 1991; The U.S. had between 20-25,000 per head in 1991 and a bit over 35,000 in 2001. Germany a bit under 20,000 in 1991 and between 20-25,000 in 2001. France had very similar numbers between 1991 and 2001 with a marginal growth. Italy actually lost GDP per head. Only Britain scored an impressive gain going from between 15-20k to just below 25k of GDP per head. All of this is from OECD source and November 14th, 2002 A new king of Solidarity article from The Economist.

I'm born in Europe and I've travelled there almost every year. The grass is not greener on either side of the Atlantic.

As far as I know, there are more Democratic leaning voters in the U.S.A. but the Republican leaning voters go out and vote with more frequency.

Most of what you posted aren't hard facts and merely opinion.

Bush forced through a massive Medicare Bill costing 550 Billion dollars, he's also put more money into education with his No Child Left Behind policy and the school vouchers. The job figures aren't bad either, they've been up for the last 10 months, just not stellar performance. As for pandering to corporations, the democracts do it too.

You attack the Tax-Cut approach to economics, yet, if you look at the states that have a high rate of taxation they perform relatively poorly; France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, etc...There is no magic wand to economics.

Clinton did alot of things right. He also did alot of things wrong, especially the end of his presidency. The misery index under Bush is very close to what Clinton had (Not Kerry's index, he has his own).

The U.S.A. is built on the principle that the people build things for themselves and that the government is supposed to stay out of people's way as much a possible. Liberty and Freedom for whoever is willing to work for it.

As for Europe, I'd like to know then why is England's transportation services in dissaray? France has chronic unemployment as well as constant problems with the unions protesting whatever changes are proposed by the government. The public pension system is also eating away at the public purse in most continental European states. Germany is currently in what looks like a recession, there's a reason why The Economist refers to them as the "Sick Man of Europe". Poland and the new members have collapsing public healthcare systems. Why is it that the UK academias are complaining that they are strapped for cash and that the degrees being issues are worth less? Why is it that the European Union has problems with core members being unable to remain below the 3% deficit figures? Compare GDP growth since 1991; The U.S. had between 20-25,000 per head in 1991 and a bit over 35,000 in 2001. Germany a bit under 20,000 in 1991 and between 20-25,000 in 2001. France had very similar numbers between 1991 and 2001 with a marginal growth. Italy actually lost GDP per head. Only Britain scored an impressive gain going from between 15-20k to just below 25k of GDP per head. All of this is from OECD source and November 14th, 2002 A new king of Solidarity article from The Economist.

I'm born in Europe and I've travelled there almost every year. The grass is not greener on either side of the Atlantic.

As far as I know, there are more Democratic leaning voters in the U.S.A. but the Republican leaning voters go out and vote with more frequency.

Most of what you posted aren't hard facts and merely opinion.Bushs medicare Deform Bill was corporate welfare to the drug companies that own Bush and actually stole affordable drugs out of the hands of seniors on their death beds--Bush also forbade cheaper genetic drugs from being given to aids people in africa who now have an average lifespan of 33 years old and Bush with holds stem cells from people with Alzheimers--not a bad record of kills for a President who practices corporate genocide against the worlds people

Personaly MK will never ever ever be staisfeid with the real world ever.i read his philoshpey he says(Basicly anyway) that the world should be a peaceful anarchy, he want to many things that me and my conservative fellows will never ever allow. personaly i would like to ask MK how he reach his current level of anarchism.
by expanding my consiousness

i am new to nation states and was wondering what is a un delegate, how do i become a un delegate, and what are the advantages of being one?

Bushs medicare Deform Bill was corporate welfare to the drug companies that own Bush and actually stole affordable drugs out of the hands of seniors on their death beds--Bush also forbade cheaper genetic drugs from being given to aids people in africa who now have an average lifespan of 33 years old and Bush with holds stem cells from people with Alzheimers--not a bad record of kills for a President who practices corporate genocide against the worlds people

It did alot more than just hand money over to X drug companies.It created a medicare card for low income families giving a 600 dollars a month for prescription drugs. It does alot of other transfers and changes, not saying their all good, but their a public service sector spending. As for Africa, nobody cares about other countries when your re-designing something within your country. I'm not well versed on all the details of the American health reforms, so I don't know the juicy details.

But in any case, the notion that politics in America will change if Bush loses the presidential election is ridiculous. Troops wil stay in Iraq and the major points of the foreign policy will continue (probably with alot more input from the UN and old WW2 allies). I also seriously doubt Kerry will attempt to reverse the majority of Bush's tax cuts; no one likes having cash taken out of their pockets.

It did alot more than just hand money over to X drug companies.It created a medicare card for low income families giving a 600 dollars a month for prescription drugs. It does alot of other transfers and changes, not saying their all good, but their a public service sector spending. As for Africa, nobody cares about other countries when your re-designing something within your country. I'm not well versed on all the details of the American health reforms, so I don't know the juicy details.

But in any case, the notion that politics in America will change if Bush loses the presidential election is ridiculous. Troops wil stay in Iraq and the major points of the foreign policy will continue (probably with alot more input from the UN and old WW2 allies). I also seriously doubt Kerry will attempt to reverse the majority of Bush's tax cuts; no one likes having cash taken out of their pockets.so what the price gouging drug companies who own Bush did was raise the prices of the drugs then cut them again to give seniors a fake impression that theyre getting a discount--meanwhile seniors are still forced to choose between eating or taking a bus to Canada to get affordable drugs because Bush puts corporate greed above human life--I guess for republicans, life only matters if someone is a fetus

I am not familiar with this bill you are talking about, so I cannot comment. But the basic jist of my argument you seem to have missed is that Bush's internal policies simply aren't working, Poverty and Education being two prime examples, and don't even get me started on his supposedly 'fiscal conservative economic policies'. Its like a wise man once said: "In an idiotic economists World - Tax Cuts equal quick and short term economic growth, in a clever economists World - A long term solution that might not yield as large economic growth in the short term, but is sustainable." Free Enterprise deregulation and tax cuts are not sustainable.

WHERE IN GOD'S NAME DID SOMEBODY ACUTALLY FORMULATE THE MYTH THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE FISCAL WITH THE ECONOMY!!??

Sheesh, doesn't anybody look in front of them? First off medicine costs are not the result of the greed of pharmeceutical companies, they are the result of law suits. I see dozens of commercials everyday encourage people to call a law office and sue a drug company for adverse side effects. The medicare reform has put hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of seniors and the lower class to get them the drugs they need. Socailized health care would cost even more. Unemployment is down, economic growth is up. What more do you want?

Ugh, why am I even arguing? You two remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You ignore the fact that we refute every one of your claims with emperical data from non-biased sources or sources biased towards your cause, much like the knight having his arms and legs hacked off. After your arguments continue to amount to no more than spewing rhetoric, we who desire intelligent conversations and leave, while you declare that we simply couldn't take the heat and retreated, the equivalent of the knight, with all his limbs hacked off calling Arthur a coward for "running away from him." You are legends in your own mind with delusions of adequacy, and I am still trying to figure out why I even feel compelled to respond to you.

Oh, and the stem cell Altzheimer's thing is utter bullcrap. Bush cut federal funding to it, yeah, but he didn't ban it. If it could find a cure for Altzheimer's, they'd have to beat private inverstors off with a stick. Think about it, how much would you pay for an Altzheimer's cure if your parents had it? The spokeman for the cause of embryonic stem cell research (adult stem cell research is still federally funded) publicly admitted that there was an almost nil chance that it could cure Altzheimer's and that he made it up as a "fairy tale" to get people to support federal funding for it.

I see dozens of commercials everyday encourage people to call a law office and sue a drug company for adverse side effects. The medicare reform has put hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of seniors and the lower class to get them the drugs they need. Socailized health care would cost even more. Unemployment is down, economic growth is up. What more do you want?


And your basis for the real cause of high drug costs being law suits is from 'dozens of commercials'? Thats hardly indisputable proof.
As for your other comments, Unemployment has risen since Bush took office, and yes a public health care system would cost more but it would be fulfilling one of the main aims of a Government which is to provide basic services for its people, in this case, a chance that they may have access to good healthcare systems regardless of financial status. And yes, Economic growth is up, but the national debt is massive and this economic growth has come at a cost of billions of tax dollars which equates to massive cuts in public spending and repealling of environmental laws coined as 'deregulation' but really meaning corporations can do whatever the fuck they want concerning emmissions and dumping of waste. And achieving economic growth in a completely Laissez Faire system isn't hard.

Christian values should be ignored: Over half the country claims to be Christian. You can't ignore half of the voting public. It just doesn't work, not to mention that a lot of the founding fathers were Christian.



http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339896

sorry kiddo.