NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not old enough to vote, and I live in America. I've been brought up in a liberal household, so, naturally, I have liberal views. Now I just have a few questions for and about Republicans. I don't want anybody but conservatives to reply to this, and I don't want to mock conservatives or anything, but there are some things I don't understand. If this offends you, I apologize, and don't respond. I REALLY don't want this to be offensive.

No Republican president has ever helped the economy since the second world war. So why is it that we continually hear about how good Reaganomics is for the economy, when it's been proven that it doesn't work? I don't see how deluding oneself can continue like this on such a grand scale.

How do tax cuts for the rich help the economy? My parents are pretty fortunate, and so am I, I guess, and I'm grateful. But it was all thanks to Clinton. (We went from a rather poor family to a mid to upper middle-class family during his presidency.) Anyway, we benefit from these tax cuts, but it doesn't help the economy any. The economy tanked when Bush took office, (BEFORE the 9/11 attacks, please don't try that lie with me. I'm tired of it.) and still hasn't recovered.

Why is President Bush a good leader, when he sends our men and women out to die in Iraq for something that doesn't exist? Did we invade the wrong country? (Most of the terrorist-linked guys are our allies, I suppose) There are no links between Iraq and Terrorists. There are no WMD's in Iraq. So why is Bush a better leader than John Kerry, an anti-war activist, who wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq unless there was conclusive proof, instead of fabricated evidence, of these links?

Bush's stance on the economy is bad, at best, IMO. He advocates cutting down trees in forests to thin them out and prevent forest fires. Is he aware that certain trees actually NEED forest fires in order to reproduce? Is anyone else? Also, thinning the trees damages the quality of the soil, and consequently more trees die, and we have entire forests disappearing.

Why is the Constitution an outdated document? Doesn't the Constitution entitle us to such freedoms as freedom of speech? And howsabout need for warrants? So why is it that nowadays the police can do just about anything, and all they have to do is say they suspected the victim of being a terrorist without supplying any evidence? I thought Conservatives were supposed to, by definition, try to keep things the way they were? Or is it that they want control of the Presidency forever? (President Clark has signed a decree today declaring martial law.... Never mind.)

Why is a woman's right to choose unlawful? If a woman chooses not to allow a group of cells to turn into a baby, is this bad? Okay, most people will say yes. I'm not sure about it myself. But what about a fourteen year old girl who was raped? Shouldn't she have the right not to become a mother at that age? It's not the victims fault in these cases, is it?

And how about John Ashcroft? Is it just me, or is he the embodiment of pure evil? I don't know what it is, but whenever I see him on TV, I always remember him as having little horns poking out of the top of his head. Maybe it's because of the disgusting anti-american jargon he's spewing. Don't get me wrong, I love America, but something tells me that he doesn't give a rat's ass about it. It seems all he cares about it himself. I just want to hear a conservative's opinion on this.

Again, liberals, DON'T respond to this thread. I don't want this to be a hostile place to Conservatives.

Conservatives, please remain respectful, and refrain from flaming. If I'm wrong (in your opinion) please tell me why, nothing more. Don't accuse me of being un-american, or anything like that, because I'm more American than the Governer of California. I'm a patriot, just in my own way. You go on being patriots in yours. I'm here for a friendly discussion. If I get some answers, I'll ask some more questions.

And Liberals, if you're still reading this, you shouldn't be. Please leave the thread alone! If you want to impress these guys, follow instructions from one of your own. (UN DELEGATE TO AREA 51, AND A LIBERAL. LOOK IT UP.)

for your Informations my Family was friggin poor under clinton becasue we have quite a bit of pride my grandfather had to come over every weak so we chould eat he was and is a multi-millionair, right at the end we were lower middle class, we were lower middle class thru both Reagan and Greoge Senior explain how taxs realy helps the needy who don't even have enough money to buy a car who got it from their grandparents it was friggin out dates I mean you could hear it weeze but that put us in lower middle class during those years and friggin bastard clinton right when we would have been middle class and we got drop from middle to lower by the taxs and I telll you it friggin sucked the whole way thru and now we are uper midlle class so you. I know their was lack of grammer in that

No Republican president has ever helped the economy since the second world war. So why is it that we continually hear about how good Reaganomics is for the economy, when it's been proven that it doesn't work? I don't see how deluding oneself can continue like this on such a grand scale.

How do tax cuts for the rich help the economy? My parents are pretty fortunate, and so am I, I guess, and I'm grateful. But it was all thanks to Clinton. (We went from a rather poor family to a mid to upper middle-class family during his presidency.) Anyway, we benefit from these tax cuts, but it doesn't help the economy any. The economy tanked when Bush took office, (BEFORE the 9/11 attacks, please don't try that lie with me. I'm tired of it.) and still hasn't recovered.

Why is President Bush a good leader, when he sends our men and women out to die in Iraq for something that doesn't exist? Did we invade the wrong country? (Most of the terrorist-linked guys are our allies, I suppose) There are no links between Iraq and Terrorists. There are no WMD's in Iraq. So why is Bush a better leader than John Kerry, an anti-war activist, who wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq unless there was conclusive proof, instead of fabricated evidence, of these links?)
1. Tax cuts help upper middle class most actually It took us from lower middle to Upper middle which heled put me thru college ijust started so yes most of the tax cuts
2. Are we or are we not under attack by people who use the same tatics as terrorist huh? do we face death incarnate from afghanistan who where terrorist as no one doubts they where building them and no one wants to be on the butt end of nuclear war

Bush's stance on the economy is bad, at best, IMO. He advocates cutting down trees in forests to thin them out and prevent forest fires. Is he aware that certain trees actually NEED forest fires in order to reproduce? Is anyone else? Also, thinning the trees damages the quality of the soil, and consequently more trees die, and we have entire forests disappearing.

Why is the Constitution an outdated document? Doesn't the Constitution entitle us to such freedoms as freedom of speech? And howsabout need for warrants? So why is it that nowadays the police can do just about anything, and all they have to do is say they suspected the victim of being a terrorist without supplying any evidence? I thought Conservatives were supposed to, by definition, try to keep things the way they were? Or is it that they want control of the Presidency forever? (President Clark has signed a decree today declaring martial law.... Never mind.)

Why is a woman's right to choose unlawful? If a woman chooses not to allow a group of cells to turn into a baby, is this bad? Okay, most people will say yes. I'm not sure about it myself. But what about a fourteen year old girl who was raped? Shouldn't she have the right not to become a mother at that age? It's not the victims fault in these cases, is it?

1. Thats the enviorment dudfus yes he probably is but you see what houseing is doing to the place I live that isn't his fault.
2.WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU THAT! I NEED TO SPEAK TO THEM!
3. under those circumstances if its done early yes, whishy washy wait until last second no.

First Irinistan, Republican does not equal Conservative.
You are speaking in the genralizing sound bites of the last few years, not decades just a handful of years of popculture phrases.
Equally Liberal does not equal Democrat, though they would like you think so.
So are you Liberal? Or Democrat?
Or both?
First figure out what you are before you go preaching who did what.
If your parents have convinced you that you are a Liberal because you are a Democrat then they do not understand the political structure of this country either.
Second you have not clearly defined what "Good For The Country" is.
I am a father of 4, I have voted, and like the above poster I made far less money under Clinton then Bush, and my Family prospered under Reagan(and no, none of us were ever close to millionaires, and many of my very Democratic family consider prosperity under Reagan to be a fluke).
While my financial prosperity is important, Bush is not a Fiscal conservative, if you knew what conservative meant you would know that.
Morally I must also Vote Against Bush because as A Christian he is in a word, wrong.
Per his policies on the war on terror the Strategy is good, the tactics blundered and foolish at best.
Your child like desire to fit Repulicans/Conservatives, Democrats/Liberals into some neat little package is on the surface amuzing, at the core it is disturbing that sound bites and crib sheet political education have replaced good old fashioned research and studying.
I hope you are not highschool age, I hope you are a very advanced middleschooler curious about our system of government.
If you are highschool age, I suggest you slap your American Governemnt teacher.
I am not flaming you, I am challenging you to go a look up first what it means to be a Republican and Democrat, as well as the Classical Theories of Conservatism and Liberalism as both have tremendous merit, nd it will take both schools of thought to really repair this nation.
You might surprise yourself, and find you are of the Liberatarian school of thought(not the party, the political philosophy), or that you truly are a Liberal(not really any good Liberals left in politics these days)
But make your desire for knowing something true and not this obvious barb at those whom you presume to understand.
Educate yourself beyond what you are told to expect.
Expect yourself to go beyond what you are told.

Well, I am European, and I will try to tell you things as I see them.

In Europe, we pay a lot of taxes, but that tax is also returned to the taxpayers again by government policy.
In that way, we have a sound social system, very good education aamong other things.
Americans pay far less taxes. And they get far less money back from the administration.
It's just what you choose.
If I was American I wouldn't vote for Bush or Kerry, they are part of the same system. I probably would vote Nader.

Republicans and Democrats are a bunch of UPO's if you ask me ;)
Unpredictable Political Oranizations...
In Europe we see with somewhat mixed feelings the changing of the administration in the USA every four years.
European governments usually only change their ministers, not the staff on the ministeries. That gives a lot more political stability.
On the other hand, political changes are more difficult to take place.
That is the consequence of a stable political system.

Bush has made himself the laughing stock of Europe with a lot of blunt actions from his side towards Europe.
Never believe any stories about Europeans hating Americans!
That's crap! Europe is a bit sad to see such a dumbass as president of the USA. We don't blame the American citizens for that!

But we are not very fond of the neo-conservatives.
A lot of hoohaa is produced by this lobby of big oil companies and other main American industries and media giants.

All I can say is.. Take back your flag!

My family was poor under Reagan, poor under Bush, poor under Clinton, and still poor under Bush jr.

*shrug*

I might qualify that by saying poor economically ... none of us really feel poor ... we have all we need and then some, but if you looked at our income, you'd laugh and wonder how.

I have noticed, however, that prices tend to go up whenever a Republican is in office.

No Republican president has ever helped the economy since the second world war. So why is it that we continually hear about how good Reaganomics is for the economy, when it's been proven that it doesn't work? I don't see how deluding oneself can continue like this on such a grand scale.

Without any facts or quotes to back up this statement, there is not much to debate against. I will however use the recent past to discredit this statement at least some. Since Bush's Tax Cuts went into effect, the tax revenue that the federal gov't recieves has increased. Sadly so has the federal spending. It also increased under Regan (who admittedly raised it again later) and under JFK (A Democrat no less!) who also cut taxes. The Stock Market has reached the 10,000 mark and while it has been moving up and down around that point, that is to be expected when you have only just reached that point. A look at the Stock Market ofer the years will show a steady increase consisting of several rises and dips. In addition, Unemployment, while not the lowest it has ever been, is still rather low. Don't look at the number of people not working. That will go up as the population continues to go up. Instead look at the precentages. I remember when we had double digit (before the decimal point) Unemployment. In addition, the numbers of people working could be skewed depending on which Department of Labor Survey you look at. The one most reported by the Media (Note that I didn't say Liberal Media or Conservative Media) polls corporations to determine their numbers. The other polls households, which will account for those people who work from home or own small businesses, which is on the rise.

How do tax cuts for the rich help the economy? My parents are pretty fortunate, and so am I, I guess, and I'm grateful. But it was all thanks to Clinton. (We went from a rather poor family to a mid to upper middle-class family during his presidency.) Anyway, we benefit from these tax cuts, but it doesn't help the economy any. The economy tanked when Bush took office, (BEFORE the 9/11 attacks, please don't try that lie with me. I'm tired of it.) and still hasn't recovered.

First of all 9/11 occured only 9 months after Bush took office. There is no way for an economy to drop that rapidly. There are too many safeguards in place that came out of the Great Depression to prevent another crash from having that effect again. So any drop in the economy had to start prior to Bush taking office. Tax cuts help the economy by putting more money back into the publics pocket for them to either invest or spend, thus providing more economic stimulation. People have both risen and fallen in "class" status during every President's term. The President doesn't determine your success, you do. If you study and work hard and learn a marketable skill, especially one that is in demand, then you will have work and be successful. We are more than fully recovered. The economic levels are above those we had just prior to 9/11. While I will agree that the levels were going down prior to 9/11, the attack caused them to drop even harder.

Why is President Bush a good leader, when he sends our men and women out to die in Iraq for something that doesn't exist? Did we invade the wrong country? (Most of the terrorist-linked guys are our allies, I suppose) There are no links between Iraq and Terrorists. There are no WMD's in Iraq. So why is Bush a better leader than John Kerry, an anti-war activist, who wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq unless there was conclusive proof, instead of fabricated evidence, of these links?

The 9/11 Commission, Britian, and even FRANCE all agreed that there are links between Saddam and Terrorsim. The is NO evidance, nor has there ever been any claim, that Saddam had links to the specific 9/11 attack (save maybe money, equipment or services he gave terrorist were used but that was general aid and not given specifically for the purpose of the 9/11 attacks). If Iraq never had WMD then why did CNN.com post this story:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/


Bush's stance on the economy is bad, at best, IMO. He advocates cutting down trees in forests to thin them out and prevent forest fires. Is he aware that certain trees actually NEED forest fires in order to reproduce? Is anyone else? Also, thinning the trees damages the quality of the soil, and consequently more trees die, and we have entire forests disappearing.

How about this view? How much federal money is being spent fighting these fires and given away in disater relief? In addition, many of these fires are in areas with endangered species. What is the cost of losing them? Now compare that to the cost of thining, yes the tress to some extent, to make for fire breaks, but also the underbrush which is where the main focus of such plans are. It is the Envromentalist Wackos (as opposed to Envromentalist) who focus only on the tress. BTW according to the Records of the Dept of the Interior (Note: I may have mixed up my depts) there are more trees now than there were when the colonies were here. The Lumber industry replants so they will not run out of business.

Why is the Constitution an outdated document? Doesn't the Constitution entitle us to such freedoms as freedom of speech? And howsabout need for warrants? So why is it that nowadays the police can do just about anything, and all they have to do is say they suspected the victim of being a terrorist without supplying any evidence? I thought Conservatives were supposed to, by definition, try to keep things the way they were? Or is it that they want control of the Presidency forever? (President Clark has signed a decree today declaring martial law.... Never mind.)

Where did this one come from? On a little side note, this is defantly one area (and there are many) where I disagree with Bush. He wants the Constitutional Amendment defining "marriage". Reguardless of my stance on what marriage is, the constitution was never meant to be used as a Dictionary. The warrents are still in effect. A diffrent court issues them. And like the one person implied, Politically Conservative has noting to do with the dictionary definition of "conservative", at least not any more.

Why is a woman's right to choose unlawful? If a woman chooses not to allow a group of cells to turn into a baby, is this bad? Okay, most people will say yes. I'm not sure about it myself. But what about a fourteen year old girl who was raped? Shouldn't she have the right not to become a mother at that age? It's not the victims fault in these cases, is it?

This is a debate that does not have only 2 sides, and I don't necessarily see it as applicable here since there are splits within all areas of the political spectrum. There are Conservatives out there that would allow for abortions in the case of rape, or where, as in the case of a small girl, birthing the baby could result in the death of the mother. Others are hard line against any kind of abortion (usually religious extremeist). On the other side of the coin there are Liberals that don't want to see abortion used as birth control, even as they fight to keep it a right. These people usually push for making those wanting to chose abortion go through classes and disclosures on what actually happens during an abortion.

And how about John Ashcroft? Is it just me, or is he the embodiment of pure evil? I don't know what it is, but whenever I see him on TV, I always remember him as having little horns poking out of the top of his head. Maybe it's because of the disgusting anti-american jargon he's spewing. Don't get me wrong, I love America, but something tells me that he doesn't give a rat's ass about it. It seems all he cares about it himself. I just want to hear a conservative's opinion on this.

Can't really comment much on this, I've not really paid much attention to Ashcroft, one way or the other.