NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.

*Raises glass*

I propose a toast...

k.

I agree about what you said with Bush's tax cuts and the war. The point of lowering taxes is to also lower spending. You can't do one and not the other...and Bush is doing that. Lower taxes and increase spending = Bad.

Bush is NOT a real republican, hes plays on religion and fear.

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.
You would perhaps lend just a tad more credence to your diatribe if you would LEARN HOW TO SPELL, but I doubt it. Go play in traffic, you pathetic twerp.

I think Jesus would not even vote.... no one nowadays really understand what he meant. It's sad to see people like Bush believing they're doing God's will...

Ya know the elections have come and gone about a month ago dude. No use complaining now just makes you look like a complete looser.

Any way where are your sources about this huge "conglomerate meeting"? Have you heard of the tax reform Bush supports? Instead of haveing an income tax, state tax and I believe a few others I cannot remember but this tax is A sales tax which does not discriminate against rich poor or those of us in the middle. Sounds like a good idea to me.

So take a chill pill and move on.

I hate Christianity, hence I don't give a damn who Jesus would vote for.

When you lower taxes on corporations, it puts more money into the economy, hence INDIRECTLY working it's way back to the workers. Yeah, sorry if you don't understand that just because the money doesn't go directly to them it doesn't mean they don't benefit from it.

What's wrong with successful companies talking about making money? Oh right! You'll probably never be able to make it to a position of such great influence and status because you simply aren't good enough! So try to drag down those who are huh?

Intelligence of Bush supporters? Way to generalize. You're probably one of those people who thinks the man who graduated from Yale must be an idiot just because you don't like him aren't you?

Tell me, since you seem to hate big corporations so much, where do you think America would be today in the global economy without large corporations?

Think before you speak (or post in this case)

You would perhaps lend just a tad more credence to your diatribe if you would LEARN HOW TO SPELL, but I doubt it. Go play in traffic, you pathetic twerp.

...

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.


Are you high or something?

If Jesus could vote he would vote Libertarian, obviously. Jesus would definitely NOT vote for the Democrats, as they advocate all sorts of sinning. However, I'm pretty sure Shiva (the Hindu god of destruction) is an ardent Bush supporter, and that Amaterasu would support the Democrats because she obviously supports womens rights.

Hope that helps *snicker*

Bush is NOT a real republican, hes plays on religion and fear.

There are conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans, I favor the moderates.

Ya know the elections have come and gone about a month ago dude. No use complaining now just makes you look like a complete looser.

Any way where are your sources about this huge "conglomerate meeting"? Have you heard of the tax reform Bush supports? Instead of haveing an income tax, state tax and I believe a few others I cannot remember but this tax is A sales tax which does not discriminate against rich poor or those of us in the middle. Sounds like a good idea to me.

So take a chill pill and move on.
Actually a national sales tax is seriously regressive. The poor spend a much larger percentage of their income than the rich. This means the rich would only be taxed on a small percentage of the money they make, the poor would be taxed on all of it, or at least a big majority of it.

Tell me, since you seem to hate big corporations so much, where do you think America would be today in the global economy without large corporations?

The world would me far more free and happy without these bigs corporations... go back to Rousseau. Economy is a burden for humanity.

be careful to avoid flaming on this thread...

You would perhaps lend just a tad more credence to your diatribe if you would LEARN HOW TO SPELL, but I doubt it. Go play in traffic, you pathetic twerp.

That's the way to engage in enlightening debate.

You would perhaps lend just a tad more credence to your diatribe if you would LEARN HOW TO SPELL, but I doubt it. Go play in traffic, you pathetic twerp.

Typical conservative retort. Instead of providing a logical counter argument, they go to personal attacks.

k.

I agree about what you said with Bush's tax cuts and the war. The point of lowering taxes is to also lower spending. You can't do one and not the other...and Bush is doing that. Lower taxes and increase spending = Bad.
indeed. Bush inherited a $10trillion budget surplus and he had turned it into a $10trillion deficit by the time the war started. God knows how bad it is now!
And cutting taxes won't exactly help this... the whole of the US economy is going to pay in the future for Bush's poor economic leadership and the costly Iraq war (which a few corrupt corporations will make a mint out of, yes)

I hate Christianity, hence I don't give a damn who Jesus would vote for.

When you lower taxes on corporations, it puts more money into the economy, hence INDIRECTLY working it's way back to the workers. Yeah, sorry if you don't understand that just because the money doesn't go directly to them it doesn't mean they don't benefit from it.

What's wrong with successful companies talking about making money? Oh right! You'll probably never be able to make it to a position of such great influence and status because you simply aren't good enough! So try to drag down those who are huh?

Intelligence of Bush supporters? Way to generalize. You're probably one of those people who thinks the man who graduated from Yale must be an idiot just because you don't like him aren't you?

Tell me, since you seem to hate big corporations so much, where do you think America would be today in the global economy without large corporations?

Think before you speak (or post in this case)
Major corporations pay a very tiny percentage of their profit in taxes. They could afford to pay more and still grow. That money could be used to improve services and decrease the tax burden on those who need tax cuts. The middle class.

Wow, amazing... another liberal airhead that knows absolutely nothing about conservatism, but still thinks they can attack it! Surprise, surprise!

1. Everything you just said there has to do with Bush's policies, not conservative ideologies.

2. Just because you are conservative doesn't mean you are religious. I am severely reactionary but devoutly atheist.

3. As I said, I am reactionary, but that doesn't mean I support Bush. Yes, he is a fellow conservative, but he is also a stupid fellow conservative. I think the group of people you are talking about are BUSH SUPPORTERS, not conservatives.

Know what you're talking about before you argue it.

I hate Christianity, hence I don't give a damn who Jesus would vote for.

When you lower taxes on corporations, it puts more money into the economy, hence INDIRECTLY working it's way back to the workers. Yeah, sorry if you don't understand that just because the money doesn't go directly to them it doesn't mean they don't benefit from it.

What's wrong with successful companies talking about making money? Oh right! You'll probably never be able to make it to a position of such great influence and status because you simply aren't good enough! So try to drag down those who are huh?

Intelligence of Bush supporters? Way to generalize. You're probably one of those people who thinks the man who graduated from Yale must be an idiot just because you don't like him aren't you?

Tell me, since you seem to hate big corporations so much, where do you think America would be today in the global economy without large corporations?

Think before you speak (or post in this case)

I hope your reading, first off if the corporations have that much money they dont need anymore, they dont need as much money as so they can roll around in it or light up with it. And with the gread of CEOs and other corporate rulers they wont give money back to workers, what are they going to do with the money from Bushs tax break, tell me. also Bush got into Yale because of his dad, Bushs avg. grade was a C. I wish America went back to the way it used too, without the rich poor divides but a Democratic nation, I mean, it is possible, the rich and super rich only got really powerful very recently, and now they can rule the cities, it wasnt always like this, people moved to America to get jobs, not caring about there pay, but at least corperations didnt rule the earth!

I laugh everytime I see this stuff saying OMG KERRY IS EVIL OMG BUSH IS EVIL topics. And every single one has the party of the poster praising them, and the opposite party not changing their point of view at all. There is no point to most of political topics on this board. Your not going to change my mind, so why try.

I laugh everytime I see this stuff saying OMG KERRY IS EVIL OMG BUSH IS EVIL topics. And every single one has the party of the poster praising them, and the opposite party not changing their point of view at all. There is no point to most of political topics on this board. Your not going to change my mind, so why try.

Bah. It doesn't need to be pointed out that Bush is easily the least presentable president in recent american history. However he is a religous zealot, who is turning the country into a one party super capatilist pseudo democracy. The debts I think will go away if we get a proper economy going on again. 20 years of Republican rule and debts was lost in 8 years of Clinton. Bush is a neo conservative who does not use conservative economic plan. What America wil become is a pseudo republic/empire. By using client states like Iraq to create a Massice Economic state and take over the world. Or atleast try to :). If you want to listen to a liberal source try www.airamericaradio.com they have a free streeming service.

You need to fall in a hole and die, you stupid Liberal! What was John Kerry going to do for the economy? I will remind you that he also wanted a tax cut for the middle and lower class. He said that by raising the taxes on the wealthy he would be able to manage the debt, but guess what: IT DOESN'T EVEN OUT! You and your stupid wrong war, wrong place, wrong time hippies. If you were so anti-war, then you wouldn't have been pro-Kerry either if you knew anything, since Kerry was pro-war.
Guess what else? There will always be idiots out there to take advantage of things like wars. Bush had no control over those companies meeting or not-otherwise this would be a socialist country, which is what John Kerry wants this place to be with his government subsidised health care. And Mrs. Kerry is one of the leading people that give out jobs to Southeast Asians instead of American. The war was the right thing, and if you think it wasn't you know nothing of what those people went through. My cousin was in the war and witnessed what the citizens of Baghdad went through under Sadam. You should be ashamed of yourselves, because quite frankly, I am ashamed to know that you are Americans.

You need to fall in a hole and die, you stupid Liberal! What was John Kerry going to do for the economy? I will remind you that he also wanted a tax cut for the middle and lower class. He said that by raising the taxes on the wealthy he would be able to manage the debt, but guess what: IT DOESN'T EVEN OUT! You and your stupid wrong war, wrong place, wrong time hippies. If you were so anti-war, then you wouldn't have been pro-Kerry either if you knew anything, since Kerry was pro-war.
Guess what else? There will always be idiots out there to take advantage of things like wars. Bush had no control over those companies meeting or not-otherwise this would be a socialist country, which is what John Kerry wants this place to be with his government subsidised health care. And Mrs. Kerry is one of the leading people that give out jobs to Southeast Asians instead of American. The war was the right thing, and if you think it wasn't you know nothing of what those people went through. My cousin was in the war and witnessed what the citizens of Baghdad went through under Sadam. You should be ashamed of yourselves, because quite frankly, I am ashamed to know that you are Americans.

Let me remind you that it took a Democrad, Bill Clinton, to eliminate the deficit and start making a surpluss. Let me also remind you that the war in Iraq is costing the US way too much money for any possible benefit it could reap.

Let me remind you that it took a Democrad, Bill Clinton, to eliminate the deficit and start making a surpluss. Let me also remind you that the war in Iraq is costing the US way too much money for any possible benefit it could reap.

What the hell is a Democrad?

I laugh everytime I see this stuff saying OMG KERRY IS EVIL OMG BUSH IS EVIL topics. And every single one has the party of the poster praising them, and the opposite party not changing their point of view at all. There is no point to most of political topics on this board. Your not going to change my mind, so why try.

What the hell is a Democrad?
A democrat who can't spell.

You need to fall in a hole and die, you stupid Liberal! What was John Kerry going to do for the economy? I will remind you that he also wanted a tax cut for the middle and lower class. He said that by raising the taxes on the wealthy he would be able to manage the debt, but guess what: IT DOESN'T EVEN OUT! You and your stupid wrong war, wrong place, wrong time hippies. If you were so anti-war, then you wouldn't have been pro-Kerry either if you knew anything, since Kerry was pro-war.
Guess what else? There will always be idiots out there to take advantage of things like wars. Bush had no control over those companies meeting or not-otherwise this would be a socialist country, which is what John Kerry wants this place to be with his government subsidised health care. And Mrs. Kerry is one of the leading people that give out jobs to Southeast Asians instead of American. The war was the right thing, and if you think it wasn't you know nothing of what those people went through. My cousin was in the war and witnessed what the citizens of Baghdad went through under Sadam. You should be ashamed of yourselves, because quite frankly, I am ashamed to know that you are Americans.


Oh, come on now, that's a little harsh, don't you think?

Besides, having many different views and discourse about different issues strengthens our country. That's why there's a First Amendment, to allow open debate about any topics so that they can be better understood and addressed.

Even you would have to admit that the war in Iraq, whether you support it or not, had a controversial beginning and has not been managed well.

If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.

Oh, for spiritual entity/nonentity of your choice. Don't bring religion into this. It's a whole issue in itself. And the election has (indeed) come and gone, you lost, stop sulking and GET OVER IT. I abstain, because THEY'RE ALL AS C*** AS ONE ANOTHER.

It would be nice if we could all get along, :fluffle: but neither Bush nor Kerry can make that happen. If you wish to arguewith me, you can telegraph me or post here, although either will be as futile as :headbang:, 'cos I'm not listening. Sorry, but I post way too much to read 'em all.

That is all.

You would perhaps lend just a tad more credence to your diatribe if you would LEARN HOW TO SPELL, but I doubt it. Go play in traffic, you pathetic twerp.

That was uncalled for. If you think his argument is stupid, then go for that, rather than making personal attacks. I thought you were above that sort of thing.

You would perhaps lend just a tad more credence to your diatribe if you would LEARN HOW TO SPELL, but I doubt it. Go play in traffic, you pathetic twerp.

*sigh*

What the hell is a Democrad?

And he spelt surplus with two 's's. :D But that's not serious debate, now is it? (can't spell) :p Whosaidthat?

But who's counting?

YOU STUPID LIBERAL! TO BAD YOUR OPINION DOSENT MATTER ANY MORE PRESIDENT BUSH IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 55 TO 45 IN THE CONGRESS AND A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SOON TO BE THE SURPREAME COURT! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH! lISTEN TO 770 WABC RADIO AT 1900 EST OR ONLINE AND WABCRADIO.COM GO GET SOME FREE GOVERNMENT CHESSE!

YOU STUPID LIBERAL! TO BAD YOUR OPINION DOSENT MATTER ANY MORE PRESIDENT BUSH IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 55 TO 45 IN THE CONGRESS AND A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SOON TO BE THE SURPREAME COURT! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH! lISTEN TO 770 WABC RADIO AT 1900 EST OR ONLINE AND WABCRADIO.COM GO GET SOME FREE GOVERNMENT CHESSE!

O_o okaay... CALM down... DEEP breaths... now take your hand AWAY from the caps lock... Good...

YOU STUPID LIBERAL! TO BAD YOUR OPINION DOSENT MATTER ANY MORE PRESIDENT BUSH IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 55 TO 45 IN THE CONGRESS AND A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SOON TO BE THE SURPREAME COURT! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH! lISTEN TO 770 WABC RADIO AT 1900 EST OR ONLINE AND WABCRADIO.COM GO GET SOME FREE GOVERNMENT CHESSE!

Is your keyboard broken?

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.

First off, if Jesus could vote, he wouldn't vote because all politicians (including Bush and Kerry) are scum unless they actually represent the people. No offense to politicians, but I haven't seen a good one run for president in a long time.

Second of all, Bush isn't that conservative. If Bush was conservative, at least he'd listen to the conservatives. He doesn't do a thing about illegal immigration and definately doesn't handle Iraq very well. A true conservative would close our borders and bomb F'allujah. Not like I support any of that, but I'm just saying, Bush isn't that conservative. Enough people liked him enough to vote for him. A true conservative would never be elected because he'd get the minority of the votes.

yay a healing process has accured. everyone wants to hurt the guy who used caps lock!! :D

YOU STUPID LIBERAL! TO BAD YOUR OPINION DOSENT MATTER ANY MORE PRESIDENT BUSH IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 55 TO 45 IN THE CONGRESS AND A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SOON TO BE THE SURPREAME COURT! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH! lISTEN TO 770 WABC RADIO AT 1900 EST OR ONLINE AND WABCRADIO.COM GO GET SOME FREE GOVERNMENT CHESSE!

Don't you think that that's precicely why the check and balance was created. The Father of the Constitution did not want a dictator. They tried as much as they could to separate the powers... but now... USA has a semi-king in place at the right house. And even worse, God is whit him... Democracy is gone, Theocracy is coming ! lol.

A democrat who can't spell.

Man, that's a long slip of the finger to mess that up.

Second of all, Bush isn't that conservative. If Bush was conservative, at least he'd listen to the conservatives. He doesn't do a thing about illegal immigration and definately doesn't handle Iraq very well. A true conservative would close our borders and bomb F'allujah. Not like I support any of that, but I'm just saying, Bush isn't that conservative. Enough people liked him enough to vote for him. A true conservative would never be elected because he'd get the minority of the votes.

and lets not forget to mention that a radical liberal wont get to many votes either.

YOU STUPID LIBERAL! TO BAD YOUR OPINION DOSENT MATTER ANY MORE PRESIDENT BUSH IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 55 TO 45 IN THE CONGRESS AND A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SOON TO BE THE SURPREAME COURT! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH! lISTEN TO 770 WABC RADIO AT 1900 EST OR ONLINE AND WABCRADIO.COM GO GET SOME FREE GOVERNMENT CHESSE!

Christ, people like this give conservatives a bad name. No wonder we've got such a bad reputation when conservatism is taken up by ignorant, inflamatory Americans like this.

Let me remind you that it took a Democrad, Bill Clinton, to eliminate the deficit and start making a surpluss. Let me also remind you that the war in Iraq is costing the US way too much money for any possible benefit it could reap

Just to point out. Clinton did not actually pay off any debt. The debt has always been there and probably always will be. What Clinton did, or I should say claimed to have done, was get a surplus for a single quarter, with no plans to pay off the debt. In reality though, Clinton had pulled an Enron. He did some fancy acounting tricks to make it look like we had more money than we really did. So it seemed liked we had a huge surplus, again only for the quarter, when in reality we were still getting more and more in debt.

Christ, people like this give conservatives a bad name. No wonder we've got such a bad reputation when conservatism is taken up by ignorant, inflamatory Americans like this.

I think the word you're looking for is "moron." "Moron" is a bipartisan word.

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China

Funny. My family's not in the top one percent and certainly not even millionaires and the tax cuts effected us.
And sending jobs abroad like the Heinz corporation does?

and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war.
The President doesn't send any working class person to Iraw to help corporations. That would be the corporation doing that or people volunteering. And they pay pretty damned well for their work too.

And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???
No, however a President that seems like someone you'd actually like to meet, rather than the Kerry cold shoulder, is prefered. That's one of the things that even helped get Clinton elected. He seems like a guy you'd want to hang out with. As a Republican, even I have to admit that he's a guy you would like as a friend. Just don't talk politics.

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
The Government doesn't have a choice in how much they tax? Damn. Those budgets and tax rates are just damned worthless then. Suppose they should be locked into the Constitutuon.

Oh, and Liberalism is delusion. Welcome to Humanity. Your pussyfooting around with PC and believing all humanity wants to help eachother is a pipe dream. Get a grasp on reality.

So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades!
Like we do with Social Security and like we would with national healthcare?

If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.
You know Jesus on a personal basis?
And Kerry going against the Church and basic Christian principles means the Lord Jesus Christ would vote for him? Somehow, I don't think so. No faithful Christian would ever be in favor of abortion.

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.

The Incorporated States of Sunkite Islands agrees with your point, but does not see why you should post a ranting topic about it AFTER the actions have been and gone, and with poor grammar at that. Please make use of the numerous spell/grammar checking programs available today in advance of posting, that those who disagree with you will be more inclined to listen.

Just to point out. Clinton did not actually pay off any debt. The debt has always been there and probably always will be. What Clinton did, or I should say claimed to have done, was get a surplus for a single quarter, with no plans to pay off the debt. In reality though, Clinton had pulled an Enron. He did some fancy acounting tricks to make it look like we had more money than we really did. So it seemed liked we had a huge surplus, again only for the quarter, when in reality we were still getting more and more in debt.

Yeah, Clinton's overrated. Just before he got out of office he proposed a load of new laws preventing business from polluting the environment, increasing working standards, putting money into things like education, etc. He knew that they wouldn't be passed before Bush got into power and he knew that Bush would have to throw all the new legislation out. This of course makes Bush look bad and makes Clinton look like some kind of a saint.

Not that I support Bush, though. I don't like Clinton, but I think Bush in dangerous.

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.
Meanwhile, Kerry was voting to raise taxes on all Americans, not just the rich (a word loophole that he played), more than 300 consecutive times.
Companies can't just 'send' people to Iraq. They can only go through consent, and they get paid about x15 their normal salaries.
No big-time politician is 'in touch' with the common man, including Kerry. That is, unless the average American owns seven mansions worth more than $30 million.
The Jesus comparison is simply useless. I'm not saying that Jesus would like Bush policies. As I Republican, even I don't like most Bush policies. However, I doubt that Jesus would toss his support behind a man that wants to do things like cut 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance and remove religions notation on our heritage symbols and landmarks.
So, keep on complaining; it won't do any good. Kerry has been defeated; end of story.

The Incorporated States of Sunkite Islands would also request that religious debate be temporarily set aside from the Republican/Conservative point, as there are such people that are Christian and Conservative at the same time; the Religious support may be greater behind the Republicans, but nevertheless, it is a wasted argument. Much akin to debating R&B on the Iron Maiden forums, the value of Pop on Eminem's forums, or Devin Townsend on Kylie Minogue's fansites.

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.

Are you so antisocial that you cannot find a conservative in real life instead of reverting to board ranting. Go join a debate club, or something. Until then, you're not worth my time.

Christ, people like this give conservatives a bad name. No wonder we've got such a bad reputation when conservatism is taken up by ignorant, inflamatory Americans like this.
You know, mabye this person was just a bit radical, but you are probably a liberal. Being conservative in this community means nothing. This comment was not ignorant. It was a statement of fact. WABC radio is good, and the conservatives are in almost complete control of the government. Plus, who really cares if people use caps lock. The important thing is that the message gets across, so you should really stop it with the "Calm Down" stuff.

Are you so antisocial that you cannot find a conservative in real life instead of reverting to board ranting. Go join a debate club, or something. Until then, you're not worth my time.

The same could be said to you. Lets face it, you may be a new member but you didn't join purely to tell that guy to join a debate club, did you?

Bah. It doesn't need to be pointed out that Bush is easily the least presentable president in recent american history. However he is a religous zealot, who is turning the country into a one party super capatilist pseudo democracy. The debts I think will go away if we get a proper economy going on again. 20 years of Republican rule and debts was lost in 8 years of Clinton. Bush is a neo conservative who does not use conservative economic plan. What America wil become is a pseudo republic/empire. By using client states like Iraq to create a Massice Economic state and take over the world. Or atleast try to :). If you want to listen to a liberal source try www.airamericaradio.com they have a free streeming service.
And, pray tell, what is so bad about capitalism? I'm sure you and all of your socialist/communist friends want the government to controll everything in this country, but I certainly don't. I do realise that trying to make you people conservative is like trying to get a hawk to be a vegetarian, but I do have to try.

yay a healing process has accured. everyone wants to hurt the guy who used caps lock!! :D
I will remind you that there are still people here that do not share your oppinion. Quite frankly, I think you and all of your communist friends (namely the idiot that started this forum) should be shot, cremated, and have your ashes pissed on. W/e

And, pray tell, what is so bad about capitalism? I'm sure you and all of your socialist/communist friends want the government to controll everything in this country, but I certainly don't. I do realise that trying to make you people conservative is like trying to get a hawk to be a vegetarian, but I do have to try.
Is having the goverment that we ellect controling the economy somehow worse than it being controled by the powerful bussnes tycoons who we didn't. Power currupts even economic power personaly I want a say in who has that power and the ability to take it from them if necessary.

I will remind you that there are still people here that do not share your oppinion. Quite frankly, I think you and all of your communist friends (namely the idiot that started this forum) should be shot, cremated, and have your ashes pissed on. W/e
Wow what a great reresentation of all the reasons I have problems trusting republicans.

And, pray tell, what is so bad about capitalism? I'm sure you and all of your socialist/communist friends want the government to controll everything in this country, but I certainly don't. I do realise that trying to make you people conservative is like trying to get a hawk to be a vegetarian, but I do have to try.

Well, pure free market capitalism is as bad as pure socialism. The best system is one which takes aspects from each ideology.

By the way, you don't HAVE to make us people conservative. We could just 'agree to disagree'.

well i agree with all of ya'll. i am a christain,conservitve republican,and a texan. so i may be your worst enemy when you read the first sentence. but my belief on it is we are screwed either way with either president, only one is the lesser of 2 evils. i do think that some bad stuff is on the way for america and its goin to be bad. and personally if you think i am full of crap so be it i am tired of worring bout everyone else. but anyway either way conservitve/liberal, chirstian/atheist, it dont matter. bad times are comming anyway its just been slowed alittle bit

I will remind you that there are still people here that do not share your oppinion. Quite frankly, I think you and all of your communist friends (namely the idiot that started this forum) should be shot, cremated, and have your ashes pissed on. W/e

Can't we all just be friends?



Do you want a hug?

Let me remind you that it took a Democrad, Bill Clinton, to eliminate the deficit and start making a surpluss. Let me also remind you that the war in Iraq is costing the US way too much money for any possible benefit it could reap.
B.J. Clinton did absolutely nothing! He just sat there and recieved oral sex from a woman that wasn't his wife. Also, how can you not think that gassing Kurds and opressing his people was not enough to go into Iraq. By the way, the people that you see on the news that say that things were better under Sadam are a perfect example of Liberal media bias. A large majority of the Iraqis are thrilled that we overthrough Sadam.

indeed. Bush inherited a $10trillion budget surplus and he had turned it into a $10trillion deficit by the time the war started. God knows how bad it is now!
And cutting taxes won't exactly help this... the whole of the US economy is going to pay in the future for Bush's poor economic leadership and the costly Iraq war (which a few corrupt corporations will make a mint out of, yes)

$10 trillion? Now THAT's exaggeration! There was a little over $2 billion surplus and that was more because Clinton was slashing the military and intelligence over the years until the very last spending bill where they had a miniscule increase leaving the military/intelligence spending much lower than it was when his administration began.

Tax cuts do help the economy, look at it. The market is raging. More people are investing, parents are getting tax cuts of $1000 (per child?), small business are continuing to grow. And before you start saying that Bush lost 3 million jobs, 1 million of that was a direct result of 9/11, still more from the Nasdaq bomb in 2000, and once the Bush tax cuts went into effect the economy turned around. Jobs are growing at a record pace in the last 20 years. (oh, and who was President then? REAGAN WHO ALSO GAVE TAX CUTS!)

As for Iraq.... yeah, rebuilding a country is tough. Especially when you have France, Germany, Russia, Iran, Syria, China and UN officials hounding you for every little damn thing. What makes it harder is they (liberals) accuse us of going to war for oil and our allies like Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, etc are merely the coalition of the coerced and bribed is frustratingly hilarious when it was FRANCE, RUSSIA, GERMANY, CHINA and most notably, UN officials like KOFFI ANNAN AND HIS ILK who were being bought of by Saddam! I am tired of you people spewing conspiracy theories about Halliburton and oil yet ignoring the REAL scandals that were right under you nose!

Sorry to rant... actually, no I'm not. Sorry I got off topic of Bush, but glad I had the chance to fume about the UN and our supposed "allies."

And, pray tell, what is so bad about capitalism? I'm sure you and all of your socialist/communist friends want the government to controll everything in this country, but I certainly don't. I do realise that trying to make you people conservative is like trying to get a hawk to be a vegetarian, but I do have to try.

What? Since when do Republicans believe in true capitalism? They practice a nice form of cronie capitalism, but are desperately afraid of real free trade and free enterprise because they would find thier government protected privelege stripped away from them in an awful hurry.

By the way, you're not a true 'conservative' either. You're a 'neocon'. A true fiscal and philosophical conservative advocates for LESS federal government and MORE individual reponsibility, a true conservative (*ahem* like myself) would never commit our young men and women overseas to protect and enrich the interests of old money elitists like yourself. If you don't know the meaning of a word, either look it up or don't use it, you dolt. :mad:

Is having the goverment that we ellect controling the economy somehow worse than it being controled by the powerful bussnes tycoons who we didn't. Power currupts even economic power personaly I want a say in who has that power and the ability to take it from them if necessary.
Guess what? Powerful buisness tycoons know more about how to manage the economy then politicians. Government run economies don't work. Just look at all of the communist block countries. The Soviet Union's economy sucked, and the rest of the iron curtain's economy wasn't great either. Plus if you don't like the president then you have to wait for the next election which gives him four years to keep on doing what he is doing. Capitalism is just simply the most effective form of economy.

Guess what? Powerful buisness tycoons know more about how to manage the economy then politicians. Government run economies don't work. Just look at all of the communist block countries. The Soviet Union's economy sucked, and the rest of the iron curtain's economy wasn't great either. Plus if you don't like the president then you have to wait for the next election which gives him four years to keep on doing what he is doing. Capitalism is just simply the most effective form of economy.
Which is why you have to make sure the politicians put people in charge of the economy who know what they are doing and can manage it correctly and if they don't don't reelect them.

You people talk about these greedy CEOs but tell me what you would do in their position. Would you want the government to make you give them 30 40 or 50 percent of what you make. They work hard to get where they are and who are we to tell them how to spend there money they made it people where willing to buy what they had to sell and their employees where willing to work for the wages they where making. Just because you don’t have as much money as the do doesn’t mean that they should give you any of theirs. Also there is a common misconception that CEOs don’t do as much work as the people who work for them that is ridicules they have to run a company and to say that it’s easy is stupid. So think of what CEOs have to do before you say that should pay a higher percentage in taxes then the rest of us.

You people talk about these greedy CEOs but tell me what you would do in their position. Would you want the government to make you give them 30 40 or 50 percent of what you make. They work hard to get where they are and who are we to tell them how to spend there money they made it people where willing to buy what they had to sell and their employees where willing to work for the wages they where making. Just because you don’t have as much money as the do doesn’t mean that they should give you any of theirs. Also there is a common misconception that CEOs don’t do as much work as the people who work for them that is ridicules they have to run a company and to say that it’s easy is stupid. So think of what CEOs have to do before you say that should pay a higher percentage in taxes then the rest of us.
My feelings have nothing to do with that I just don't trust power that is under direct regulation by the people.

Oh, come on now, that's a little harsh, don't you think?

Besides, having many different views and discourse about different issues strengthens our country. That's why there's a First Amendment, to allow open debate about any topics so that they can be better understood and addressed.

Even you would have to admit that the war in Iraq, whether you support it or not, had a controversial beginning and has not been managed well.

People can have different points of view and not trash their own country in the process, unlike people like Michael Moore and other fringe leftists. First Amendment? Yeah thats usually touted by liberals unless the one using it is a conservative. Need proof? www.thefire.org They defend people's First Amendment rights and they are actually a liberal group who have mostly conservative clients!

The Iraq war began controversly only because the UN Security Council was being bribed by Saddam. If anything, Bush did the right thing in going to Iraq after waiting 14 months for the UN to "debate" enforcing their own damn resolutions. Bush tried to give the UN some shred of credibility instead of letting them devolve into a useless political body that passe resolutions and does nothing. And what did he get in return? The UN spat in his face and resented the fact that they were held to their word.

Drink that koolaid :D

What? Since when do Republicans believe in true capitalism? They practice a nice form of cronie capitalism, but are desperately afraid of real free trade and free enterprise because they would find thier government protected privelege stripped away from them in an awful hurry.

By the way, you're not a true 'conservative' either. You're a 'neocon'. A true fiscal and philosophical conservative advocates for LESS federal government and MORE individual reponsibility, a true conservative (*ahem* like myself) would never commit our young men and women overseas to protect and enrich the interests of old money elitists like yourself. If you don't know the meaning of a word, either look it up or don't use it, you dolt. :mad:
Ok, the war in Iraq was not about money. It was about getting rid of an opressive regime that gave funding to terrorist organisations. And also, I do support more power in the hands of the people. I never said anything about giving more power to the government in the post that you responded to. If you need verification of this, please re-read my post and tell me the exact phrase that I used to suggest giving more power to the government. Also, please refer to my post made directly after yours. Btw, you need to go fall in a hole and die too.

You people talk about these greedy CEOs but tell me what you would do in their position. Would you want the government to make you give them 30 40 or 50 percent of what you make. They work hard to get where they are and who are we to tell them how to spend there money they made it people where willing to buy what they had to sell and their employees where willing to work for the wages they where making. Just because you don’t have as much money as the do doesn’t mean that they should give you any of theirs. Also there is a common misconception that CEOs don’t do as much work as the people who work for them that is ridicules they have to run a company and to say that it’s easy is stupid. So think of what CEOs have to do before you say that should pay a higher percentage in taxes then the rest of us.

Yeah, but do they deserve the actual wage they get? I'm not sure of the exact figure, but CEOs are meant to make like 500 times what the average American makes, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
They may deserve to make more money but do they deserve to make that much more?

Let me remind you that it took a Democrad, Bill Clinton, to eliminate the deficit and start making a surpluss. Let me also remind you that the war in Iraq is costing the US way too much money for any possible benefit it could reap.
Mind you, a democrat President and a Republican Congress, divided government is the best option.

People can have different points of view and not trash their own country in the process, unlike people like Michael Moore and other fringe leftists. First Amendment? Yeah thats usually touted by liberals unless the one using it is a conservative. Need proof? www.thefire.org They defend people's First Amendment rights and they are actually a liberal group who have mostly conservative clients!

The Iraq war began controversly only because the UN Security Council was being bribed by Saddam. If anything, Bush did the right thing in going to Iraq after waiting 14 months for the UN to "debate" enforcing their own damn resolutions. Bush tried to give the UN some shred of credibility instead of letting them devolve into a useless political body that passe resolutions and does nothing. And what did he get in return? The UN spat in his face and resented the fact that they were held to their word.

Drink that koolaid :D


*ahh* Tasty!

I'm assuming you're referring to the first Bush and the first Gulf War, because this last time, we were clearly told by Don Rumsfeld that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (there weren't by definition, as chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, neither are biological weapons), and the the boogey man, Saddam, was in cahoots w/ Osama (no proof ever found) and we needed to go get him. It turned out to all be bullshit to further the neocon agenda.

I would like to point out that liberal doesn not equal democrat and conservative does not equal republican. Both are equally douches in my opinion.

That's the way to engage in enlightening debate.
"Enlightening" ANYthing is impossible on a thread like this where the original poster starts out with so many derogatory and libelous statements that it's virtually impossible to count the damned things!

EDIT: You Bush-haters are incredible, you know that. You would hate the poor man if he paid your way through graduate school and bought you a free lunch every day. You would hate GWB if he was the second coming of Jesus Christ himself. Your hatred is unreasoning, unbridled and unfounded. You can come up with ten million reasons to justify your hatred, but all you succeed in doing is convincing the rest of us he MUST be a good man if so many friggin' idiots oppose him!

Yeah, but do they deserve the actual wage they get? I'm not sure of the exact figure, but CEOs are meant to make like 500 times what the average American makes, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
They may deserve to make more money but do they deserve to make that much more?
My point is they own the company so they set there own wages and if people really don’t like it they can leave the company and find another job. Furthermore it’s not like all CEOs are bad people many of them give huge sums of money to charity and other worthy causes.
P.S. are you telling me if you where in the position they are you wouldn’t take all of the money they do?

You people talk about these greedy CEOs but tell me what you would do in their position. Would you want the government to make you give them 30 40 or 50 percent of what you make. They work hard to get where they are and who are we to tell them how to spend there money they made it people where willing to buy what they had to sell and their employees where willing to work for the wages they where making. Just because you don’t have as much money as the do doesn’t mean that they should give you any of theirs. Also there is a common misconception that CEOs don’t do as much work as the people who work for them that is ridicules they have to run a company and to say that it’s easy is stupid. So think of what CEOs have to do before you say that should pay a higher percentage in taxes then the rest of us.

Heh, careful they might start debating the current tax system, which is a source of big government's power. This is why I'd rather a national sales tax.

Actually a national sales tax is seriously regressive. The poor spend a much larger percentage of their income than the rich. This means the rich would only be taxed on a small percentage of the money they make, the poor would be taxed on all of it, or at least a big majority of it.

It wouldn't effect anyone more than anyone else because we all buy things. Do the poor buy more stuff than the rich? NO. So they would be affected less than the rich plus be able to keep all the money they earn. You're just giving us the definition of what rich and poor is. Of course the poor spend a larger percentage than the rich, they have less! How can a progressive tax system like the one we have today encourage people to get rich? We are punishing people for being successful! One just assumes to be dirt poor and have a million kids so Uncle Sam taxes everyone else and gives you their money.

The tax system is the only thing that is holding back our economy! We need change!

Mind you, a democrat President and a Republican Congress, divided government is the best option.

Yeah... because precious little gets done because of all the bickering.

Heh, careful they might start debating the current tax system, which is a source of big government's power. This is why I'd rather a national sales tax.



It wouldn't effect anyone more than anyone else because we all buy things. Do the poor buy more stuff than the rich? NO. So they would be affected less than the rich plus be able to keep all the money they earn. You're just giving us the definition of what rich and poor is. Of course the poor spend a larger percentage than the rich, they have less! How can a progressive tax system like the one we have today encourage people to get rich? We are punishing people for being successful! One just assumes to be dirt poor and have a million kids so Uncle Sam taxes everyone else and gives you their money.

The tax system is the only thing that is holding back our economy! We need change!
Yes they would be able to keep every thing they earned and they would need to pay he tax on teh food they need to keep from starving.

My point is they own the company so they set there own wages and if people really don’t like it they can leave the company and find another job. Furthermore it’s not like all CEOs are bad people many of them give huge sums of money to charity and other worthy causes.
P.S. are you telling me if you where in the position they are you wouldn’t take all of the money they do?

Personally, I wouldn't. It's all very well making a lot of money, but I think it's stupid to make more than you can spend/would like to spend. I'd rather put money into paying my workforce more or expanding the company. I would rather be popular among my workforce than have ten swimming pools.

The tax system is the only thing that is holding back our economy! We need change!

This is really ironic when you consider that the creator of NationStates (Max Barry) is also the author of Jennifer Government.

Ok, the war in Iraq was not about money. It was about getting rid of an opressive regime that gave funding to terrorist organisations. And also, I do support more power in the hands of the people. I never said anything about giving more power to the government in the post that you responded to. If you need verification of this, please re-read my post and tell me the exact phrase that I used to suggest giving more power to the government. Also, please refer to my post made directly after yours. Btw, you need to go fall in a hole and die too.

and

B.J. Clinton did absolutely nothing! He just sat there and recieved oral sex from a woman that wasn't his wife.

The fact that you would allow the government to go on a 'moral' crusade at the expense of it's constituents makes me think you are a neocon. The snipe at Bill Clinton for a 'moral' infraction and not some of the actual politcal or econimic screw ups he had makes me think you're a neocon. I think you are a Republican Party line toeing, fundamentalist that was actually dumb enough to believe the lies you were told.

We'll see how conservative you really are: A drugs should be legalized and imminent domain should be immediately abolished. Let's here your statements to those statements and then you can tell us how 'conservative' you really are. I imagine that the thought of true freedom and the individual responsibility that goes along with it is far too much for you to handle.

*ahh* Tasty!

I'm assuming you're referring to the first Bush and the first Gulf War, because this last time, we were clearly told by Don Rumsfeld that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (there weren't by definition, as chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, neither are biological weapons), and the the boogey man, Saddam, was in cahoots w/ Osama (no proof ever found) and we needed to go get him. It turned out to all be bullshit to further the neocon agenda.

I would like to point out that liberal doesn not equal democrat and conservative does not equal republican. Both are equally douches in my opinion.

UN Security Council members were bribed in the first Gulf War? Not to my knowledge.... I was talking about the current Iraq war! lol. The WMD business was proof that our intelligence was bad but also that Saddam was very good at acting like he had WMDs. Even his own generals were suprised to learn that there was no WMD program, just like we were. Saddam was in cahoots w/bin Laden through Zarqawi (spelling?) because they had a mutual enamy: America.

Proof: "Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in the Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [gov't].... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three vistits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -9/11 Commission Staff Statement #15, page 5

See? Check it out at any bookstore. I do find it humorous that you place so much importance with bin Laden when we've basically castrated his organization, wiping out 2/3 of Al Qaeda. Fortunately, bin Laden can only send stupid little tapes to us instead of bombs. Do we need to get bin Laden? Hell yes, his capture/death would be a crippling blow to the Islamofascists.

$10 trillion? Now THAT's exaggeration! There was a little over $2 billion surplus and that was more because Clinton was slashing the military and intelligence over the years until the very last spending bill where they had a miniscule increase leaving the military/intelligence spending much lower than it was when his administration began.

ah perhaps i was a little overzealous. i looked it up again and it was a $236billion surplus which he has now turned into a $500bn deficit(source (http://bushgame.com/g1.html)). I was getting that confused with the $5.6 trillion projected 10 year budget surplus that Bush inherited. Due to his economic policies this projected surplus has turned into a $5.6 trillion projected deficit (source (http://bushgame.com/g2.html) - sources of source (http://bushgame.com/about.html))

This is really ironic when you consider that the creator of NationStates (Max Barry) is also the author of Jennifer Government.

LOL I can already see a new issue being submitted by someone reading this....

I hate Christianity, hence I don't give a damn who Jesus would vote for.

When you lower taxes on corporations, it puts more money into the economy, hence INDIRECTLY working it's way back to the workers. Yeah, sorry if you don't understand that just because the money doesn't go directly to them it doesn't mean they don't benefit from it.

Unless they hoard the extra money. Look at Micro$oft, for example.

Yeah, and Wal-Mart got huge tax breaks too, but I don't see them improving wages and working conditions. :rolleyes:

ah perhaps i was a little overzealous. i looked it up again and it was a $236billion surplus which he has now turned into a $500bn deficit(source (http://bushgame.com/g1.html)). I was getting that confused with the $5.6 trillion projected 10 year budget surplus that Bush inherited. Due to his economic policies this projected surplus has turned into a $5.6 trillion projected deficit (source (http://bushgame.com/g2.html) - sources of source (http://bushgame.com/about.html))

Thanks for giving sources, heh. much more credible. I'm not too worried bc congresional leaders need to keep getting reelected and if Congress doesn't do something about the out of control spending, they won't be there much longer....

Don't worry though, you Democrats wont be back in power, the conservatives in the Republican party will just raise awareness and steer the current Congress back on the right direction. And I do mean right direction. ;)

ah perhaps i was a little overzealous. i looked it up again and it was a $236billion surplus which he has now turned into a $500bn deficit(source (http://bushgame.com/g1.html)). I was getting that confused with the $5.6 trillion projected 10 year budget surplus that Bush inherited. Due to his economic policies this projected surplus has turned into a $5.6 trillion projected deficit (source (http://bushgame.com/g2.html) - sources of source (http://bushgame.com/about.html))
A surplus that is being revised down every month due to the policies of the Bush administration.

UN Security Council members were bribed in the first Gulf War? Not to my knowledge.... I was talking about the current Iraq war! lol. The WMD business was proof that our intelligence was bad but also that Saddam was very good at acting like he had WMDs. Even his own generals were suprised to learn that there was no WMD program, just like we were. Saddam was in cahoots w/bin Laden through Zarqawi (spelling?) because they had a mutual enamy: America.

Well, Hussien did have more money back then.

Proof: "Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in the Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [gov't].... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three vistits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -9/11 Commission Staff Statement #15, page 5

See? Check it out at any bookstore. I do find it humorous that you place so much importance with bin Laden when we've basically castrated his organization, wiping out 2/3 of Al Qaeda. Fortunately, bin Laden can only send stupid little tapes to us instead of bombs. Do we need to get bin Laden? Hell yes, his capture/death would be a crippling blow to the Islamofascists.

I would like to point out that the same government that produced the 9/11 Commision also produced the Warren commision, and we all believed that, right? Furthermore, how do you know we've wiped out 2/3 if we never had a good count of how many there were to begin with? And do you really think that enrollment in Al Queda is down after we've been pissing all over the middle east for the last three years in the name of the 'War on Terror'? Puhlease...

ah perhaps i was a little overzealous. i looked it up again and it was a $236billion surplus which he has now turned into a $500bn deficit(source (http://bushgame.com/g1.html)). I was getting that confused with the $5.6 trillion projected 10 year budget surplus that Bush inherited. Due to his economic policies this projected surplus has turned into a $5.6 trillion projected deficit (source (http://bushgame.com/g2.html) - sources of source (http://bushgame.com/about.html))
A surplus that is being revised down every month due to the policies of the Bush administration.

ah perhaps i was a little overzealous. i looked it up again and it was a $236billion surplus which he has now turned into a $500bn deficit(source (http://bushgame.com/g1.html)). I was getting that confused with the $5.6 trillion projected 10 year budget surplus that Bush inherited. Due to his economic policies this projected surplus has turned into a $5.6 trillion projected deficit (source (http://bushgame.com/g2.html) - sources of source (http://bushgame.com/about.html))


Umm..technically the economy went into its slide before Bush was even elected into office..or are we all forgetting that the stock market bubble burst that summer of the election? Bush was left with an economy on a downward slide which was only made worse on 9/11. Clinton himself found himself fortunate to get elected as the economy started to rebound out of a recession. And for most of the 80s under Reagan the US was experiencing a period of economic boom(even if the defecit was being driven up). Or are we all forgetting how much of a decade of greed the 80s was? But hey..we blame everything on folks we dont like and always ignore the backround information....

You Americans make me laugh!!!! It`s like you live in your own little world...you just don`t care about anything else. What`s important to you is just YOU!!! The entire world was watching your elections and hoping for Kerry to win....And I was one of those who said to people "Don`t worry they will not put Bush back in power....Come on nobody`s that stupid" But once again the american people prove that they don`t think. I would like to say that as individuals americans are really OK!! But has a society it seems to me that they are just plain DUMB!!

"The Iraq war began controversly only because the UN Security Council was being bribed by Saddam. If anything, Bush did the right thing in going to Iraq after waiting 14 months for the UN to "debate" enforcing their own damn resolutions. Bush tried to give the UN some shred of credibility instead of letting them devolve into a useless political body that passe resolutions and does nothing. And what did he get in return? The UN spat in his face and resented the fact that they were held to their word."


Please!!!!!!So basically your saying that practically the whole world was wrong and your right!!! Your country is stuck in a War that she can`t fight if one thing history taught us is that the US army cannot fight Guerilla warfare.You are gonna lose more and more people, for what Oil????


I would like to ask a question to you Americans: Why are you so affraid ??

Anyway...I know I`ll get flamed for this post but I just wanted to give you an impression from outside of your world...




p.s.: You should all watch Fareneiht 9/11....I know it`s all lies!!!! But I dare you to watch it and after forge an opinion on it .

Umm..technically the economy went into its slide before Bush was even elected into office..or are we all forgetting that the stock market bubble burst that summer of the election? Bush was left with an economy on a downward slide which was only made worse on 9/11. Clinton himself found himself fortunate to get elected as the economy started to rebound out of a recession. And for most of the 80s under Reagan the US was experiencing a period of economic boom(even if the defecit was being driven up). Or are we all forgetting how much of a decade of greed the 80s was? But hey..we blame everything on folks we dont like and always ignore the backround information....
how about ignoring ancillary information? It is beyond doubt that the UK's economy is heavily linked to the US economy.
Why, therefore, did the UK not suffer similar economic decline as the US during this time? Continental Europe slipped into a similar economic slump, following the US economy.
The poor economic performance of the USA may have been triggered by exogenous factors, out of Bush's control, but he sure could have done a better job in controlling the downward-spiralling economy; much as Chancellor Brown has in the UK. Bush's policies made things worse.

p.s.: You should all watch Fareneiht 9/11....I know it`s all lies!!!! But I dare you to watch it and after forge an opinion on it .


Been there..seen it..it wasnt in any sense a Documentary..more along the lines of typical Mockumentary that he's well known for. I suggest you go see Farenhype 9/11, the counter-arguement to Michael Moore's statements..but you probably never heard of it huh?

You Americans make me laugh!!!! It`s like you live in your own little world...you just don`t care about anything else. What`s important to you is just YOU!!! The entire world was watching your elections and hoping for Kerry to win....And I was one of those who said to people "Don`t worry they will not put Bush back in power....Come on nobody`s that stupid" But once again the american people prove that they don`t think. I would like to say that as individuals americans are really OK!! But has a society it seems to me that they are just plain DUMB!!

"The Iraq war began controversly only because the UN Security Council was being bribed by Saddam. If anything, Bush did the right thing in going to Iraq after waiting 14 months for the UN to "debate" enforcing their own damn resolutions. Bush tried to give the UN some shred of credibility instead of letting them devolve into a useless political body that passe resolutions and does nothing. And what did he get in return? The UN spat in his face and resented the fact that they were held to their word."


Please!!!!!!So basically your saying that practically the whole world was wrong and your right!!! Your country is stuck in a War that she can`t fight if one thing history taught us is that the US army cannot fight Guerilla warfare.You are gonna lose more and more people, for what Oil????


I would like to ask a question to you Americans: Why are you so affraid ??

Anyway...I know I`ll get flamed for this post but I just wanted to give you an impression from outside of your world...




p.s.: You should all watch Fareneiht 9/11....I know it`s all lies!!!! But I dare you to watch it and after forge an opinion on it .
You should probably say republicans or Buhs supporters instead of americans. Not all Americans voted for Bush or are happy that he won.

how is this thread not locked yet?

Lets get this straight, CLinton WAS a democrat. He did not, however use democratic economic thought. He used CONSERVATIVE economic thought. Also, he did absolutly nothing to help the economy. THe economy helped itself because of the new technological invention, the computer. Only a technological innovation such as this could help the economy. Neither republican nor democrat would have helped the situation more thatn it helped itself. So democrats, please stop praising Clinton.

You know Jesus on a personal basis?
And Kerry going against the Church and basic Christian principles means the Lord Jesus Christ would vote for him? Somehow, I don't think so. No faithful Christian would ever be in favor of abortion.

Nor would a faithful Christian be in favor of proclaiming that abortion is evil while looking the other way when it comes to doing something about it, as Republicans do election after election, in order to 'motivate' voters to the polls. This is deception.

The Lord Jesus Christ, if he were to assume human form today, would probably form a new political party to drive the moneychangers, both Republican and Democrat, from the 'temple' known as the United States government. I could be wrong about the third party, but if Jesus voted for Bush, he would be going against his previous teachings about peace (cf. the Sermon on the Mount), reaching out to others (cf. Matthew 15:21-28), and helping the poor (a theme throughout the Gospels).

What Bush claims to support and what he does are two different things. For the record, I am against abortion, but I am also against 90% of Bush's policies that have nothing to do with abortion. The electorate was given a choice between two inadequate but viable candidicies, and I voted for Kerry, while holding my nose. The alternative for me was a third party with no chance of winning.

My prayer regarding American politics is that the two-party system collapses, so that I don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils every election.

Lets get this straight, CLinton WAS a democrat. He did not, however use democratic economic thought. He used CONSERVATIVE economic thought. Also, he did absolutly nothing to help the economy. THe economy helped itself because of the new technological invention, the computer. Only a technological innovation such as this could help the economy. Neither republican nor democrat would have helped the situation more thatn it helped itself. So democrats, please stop praising Clinton.

As soon as you all stop praising Bush. We'll see how the history books look back on all this.

He managed to balance the budget. Don't make excuses, that's a fact. Prolly 100 years from now, there'll be a little shrine for the budget with Clinton's face and the inscription "This one actually tried"

B.J. Clinton did absolutely nothing! He just sat there and recieved oral sex from a woman that wasn't his wife. Also, how can you not think that gassing Kurds and opressing his people was not enough to go into Iraq. By the way, the people that you see on the news that say that things were better under Sadam are a perfect example of Liberal media bias. A large majority of the Iraqis are thrilled that we overthrough Sadam.

The gassing of Kurds occured before Clinton assumed the presidency, when we were busy playing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. This happened under Reagan and Bush I. But I don't see Republicans rushing to take responsibility for their pre-Gulf war support of Saddam. :rolleyes:

The genocide in Iraq occured 15 years ago, while we were looking the other way. To use this as a justification of war would be like invading Russia to 'liberate' Soviet-era work camps that have long closed.

Edit: Have you polled Iraqis to find out what they think of the American occupation, or are you making that bit up? Source, please.

If Jesus could vote he would vote Libertarian, obviously.
umm... jesus, the guy who advocated helping the poor, woudl vote libertarian?

Jesus would definitely NOT vote for the Democrats, as they advocate all sorts of sinning.
the democrats don't advocate sinning...

and i thought that the libertarians were opposed to social restrictions like anti-gay marriage bills and anti-choice issues... just like the democrats.

The gassing of Kurds occured before Clinton assumed the presidency, when we were busy playing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. This happened under Reagan and Bush I. But I don't see Republicans rushing to take responsibility for their pre-Gulf war support of Saddam. :rolleyes:

The genocide in Iraq occured 15 years ago, while we were looking the other way. To use this as a justification of war would be like invading Russia to 'liberate' Soviet-era work camps that have long closed.

Edit: Have you polled Iraqis to find out what they think of the American occupation, or are you making that bit up? Source, please.

As a Republican I take full responsability for stuff that happened during the Cold War as any republican would..but then again it was a different time and a different circumstance. You analogy also falls short because the Soviets are no longer in power..Saddam was still in power..and there was another round of genocides which occured after the first gulf war. It was promptly ended when the US began enforcing the no-fly zones.

Finally your edit..Iraqis in the north(Kurds) are rather happy..and in the south(Shiites) are also pleased..its the ones in the middle(Sunnis) who are rather ticked off..then again they're no longer in power so they're taking it kinda hard.

UN Security Council members were bribed in the first Gulf War? Not to my knowledge.... I was talking about the current Iraq war! lol. The WMD business was proof that our intelligence was bad but also that Saddam was very good at acting like he had WMDs. Even his own generals were suprised to learn that there was no WMD program, just like we were. Saddam was in cahoots w/bin Laden through Zarqawi (spelling?) because they had a mutual enamy: America.

Proof: "Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in the Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... The Sudanese [gov't].... arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three vistits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..." -9/11 Commission Staff Statement #15, page 5

See? Check it out at any bookstore. I do find it humorous that you place so much importance with bin Laden when we've basically castrated his organization, wiping out 2/3 of Al Qaeda. Fortunately, bin Laden can only send stupid little tapes to us instead of bombs. Do we need to get bin Laden? Hell yes, his capture/death would be a crippling blow to the Islamofascists.

Yeah, but Saddam eventually denied OBL's request, IIRC...your ellipsis is telling. Are you omitting this?

And if Sudan was involved in setting up these meetings, why haven't we invaded them yet? Not enough geopolitical significance, perhaps? :rolleyes:

As a Republican I take full responsability for stuff that happened during the Cold War as any republican would..but then again it was a different time and a different circumstance. You analogy also falls short because the Soviets are no longer in power..Saddam was still in power..and there was another round of genocides which occured after the first gulf war. It was promptly ended when the US began enforcing the no-fly zones.

Finally your edit..Iraqis in the north(Kurds) are rather happy..and in the south(Shiites) are also pleased..its the ones in the middle(Sunnis) who are rather ticked off..then again they're no longer in power so they're taking it kinda hard.

Do you have actual polling data for Iraq? Source, please. Have you taken an opinion poll of Iraqis, lately?

Regarding your complaints about my analogy, the United States effectively ended the post-Gulf I War genocide with the no-fly zones. That genocide is still more than a decade old. Saddam was still in power in early 2003, but he had been boxed in by the no-fly zones and sanctions. Saddam was not able to restore anything resembling a threatening military by bribing UN officials and was internationally impotent. He was not carrying out genocide when we invaded Iraq the second time. We waited ten years after his most recent genocide to actually depose him, so even with the southern genocide, my analogy remains valid.

Yes, he periodically executed political prisoners, but execution of political prisoners does not by itself constitute genocide. If countries that follow these policies should be invaded, we should be at war with half the world right now.

While individual Republicans may take responsibility for the unsavory elements of Cold War foreign policy (and should be applauded for doing so), the party as a whole seems fixated on finding a scapegoat for everything. Now that scapegoat is Clinton. And the task of enforcing the no-fly zones fell on Clinton, and it is a rare sight indeed when I see/hear a Republican give him credit for this without qualifying it with the "wag the dog" theory.

I just want to know where the America I read about in History books went. America was supposed to be the land of the free, where people were supposed to be able to make their own choices about how to live. As long as you didn't hurt anybody else, you were pretty much golden. We went to war only when it was necessary. Revolutionary, Civil, 1812, even Viet Naam, which was started to stop the spread of communism (and this is why we failed, we were unable to stop communism from spreading to southern vietnaam. we actually had the highest kill counts of the three parties there). This Iraq war is an affront to true patriots who love their country because it still does not have a reason. The reason now included after the fact is :we had to oust Sadaam, and the probable reason the Iraqi people cheered for us when we first got there, is because they expected liberators, not destroyers of cities and bombing raids. The civilian casualty count is higher than the american death toll by a huge factor.
On to our rights at home. Why is it that the most offended people and conservative groups are attempting to make the legislation for everybody. This seems like flawed logic in my eyes. For example, this whole thing about gay marriage. If you ask somebody about it, they'll say, "it goes against my beliefs". Problem is, this wouldn't affect them either way, this type of ignorance is appalling. It almost seems as though they need the law to tell them what not to do in addition to whatever deity they follow. If you choose not to marry somebody of the same gender, fine, don't try to legislate that same decision for the person next to you, it should stay a personal decision. (I'm only singling out the gay marriage topic because it represents the greatest instance of bigotry on the floor right now)
Moving on to taxes, the main problem right now with these huge multi-national corporations that make billions of dollars in pure profit "basing" themselves in a US territory like Guam or someplace that's technically U.S. land, but they then get to use that as a loophole to not pay taxes to a country they say they are not a part of, despite where their headquarters is. (John Kerry wanted to make that illegal, George Bush doesn't seem to mind this little maneuver, whatever) What I would like to see is those corporations paying the exact same percentages of taxes that I do. When I worked at my city's housing authority, fully one-sixth was taken out in taxes. If that kind of money was applied to the corporations of america, without loopholes, without exception, we'd have a lot more to work with when legislating environmental laws, and defense budgets. As it is, we're nearing the point of national bankruptcy.

(I wonder what a nation-state that follows all the mandates that America has would look like. Might be interesting to find out what Max Barry' classification would be)

side-point- I would also like to know how some people say that Clinton's economy rise was due to Reagan because of some time delay, and yet Bush has a good economy that he himself made. Another side to this is that Clinton's economy was terrible, and a false surplus. I just want to know how somebody can take both opinions.

(I wonder what a nation-state that follows all the mandates that America has would look like. Might be interesting to find out what Max Barry' classification would be)

I would guess Corporate Bordello. Might move to Iron Fist Consumerists or Corporate Police State in the next four years.

Ok, you think Bush is so special so good for the working man, yeah people who work for the common man give tax cuts to corperate billionaires so they can send their jobs to China, and yeah presidents in it for the working class send people in the working class to Iraq, to help corperations; Halliburton, Microsoft, phone companys, Kleenex companys etc. thats why certain corperations (the first three I listed) had a meating to discuss how much money they could make off of this war. And by saying Kerry wasnt in touch with the common man really is pathetic, do you mean to tell me that the intelligence level of the avg. Bush supporter is so low that they need a guy like BUSH to spell things out for them???

The idea of Conservatives is a dream, they think the government has a choice on how much they can tax people, they dont, Bushs plan to raise money for his wars was by giving all the federal money back to people.
So now were going to be paying for it, and our kids will be paying for it for decades! If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry. Bush going to church means nothing.

What a stupid, incoherent rant.

Companies hire overseas so that they don't have to put up with bullshit such as unions and minimum wage. The orientals appreciate the fact that they at least have jobs, unlike the American working class.

Both sides think that they have the right to decide how much they can tax people, and you know what? Both sides do have that right. Liberals raise taxes to pay for public wellfare. Conservatives lower taxes to give relief to business.

Jesus voting? Give me a break. Even if that was in some way possible and intelligent, why the hell would Jesus support a party that supports murdering unborn babies?

As for someone else, obviously they are upset with occupation. Who wouldn't be? But what those polls fail to ask is, "who would you rather have? americans supporting your or saddam terrorising you?"

Anyone with any pride in his or her nation would not appreciate occupiers. However, it is our job, as the nation who ousted the former regime, to rebuilt Iraq. We would be getting much more flak if we simply pulled out and let extremist groups gain power and all we fought for would be wasted. Rebuilding is the right thing to do.

I for one apologize for my fellow americans in our little revolt back in 1776. If it wouldn't be too much to ask, would it be possible for the blue states to cede the United States and become part of the British Commonwealth again?

In all seriousness, I do wish to apologize for the generally insular views of most Americans who think that since we're the biggest and baddest kid on the block, we can do whatever we want. We've seen to have forgotten about this little thing called leadership and responsibility, but that's endemic through the United States and our leadership reflects it.

For all of those conservatives who keep blabbering on about trickle down economics, ask any serious economist about the effectiveness of such a policy and most people will refer to it as either Reaganomics, or Voodoo Economics. For all of those people who say it isn't fair that the upper classes get taxed more, our tax code is so complex that they're actually taxed much less due to loopholes. If you really want to see rich people scream, institute a flat income tax in which everyone pays say 20 percent of their income with 3 deductions, one for children, and the other for charity work which is computed as 10 dollars * number of hours worked, and the amount you have given to a charity (no trust fund for your own children). Corporations would be taxed at the same rate because technically under law, they should be handled no differently as a small business with one owner.

The entire system is degenerating into something that stratifies the classes in the United States. There's less class mobility than there was say fifty years ago, and that is a bad thing. Look at all thing regulations that the large companies are trying to push through in order to bar competition, all with the willing consent of the Conservative Republican party (which should be against increased regulation). Copyrights and patents should go into the public domain after fifteen years as originally envisioned. Our taxes allow the rich to accumulate wealth significantly faster than the middle class and the poor.

Anyways, a true conservative believes that the Federal Government only has the powers granted to it by the US Constituion, something this current administration doesn't really believe in.

umm... jesus, the guy who advocated helping the poor, woudl vote libertarian?


the democrats don't advocate sinning...

and i thought that the libertarians were opposed to social restrictions like anti-gay marriage bills and anti-choice issues... just like the democrats.

Sorry, this was not meant to be a serious post. And, you're correct in Libertarians not supporting social restrictions such as anti-marriage, anti-choice and anti-drug laws.

I would also like to point out that Libertarians also oppose corporate welfare that arguably creates more problems than they resolve, at least for industrious individuals.

I believe what Ben Franklin had to say: God helps those that help themselves. And I think Libertarian ideals do more for those who are willing to help themselves than either of the Big Two.

Companies hire overseas so that they don't have to put up with bullshit such as unions and minimum wage. The orientals appreciate the fact that they at least have jobs, unlike the American working class.

Would you be willing to take a job for 36 cents an hour? You might want to do some research as to why we have "bullshit" like unions and minimum wage.

Jesus voting? Give me a break. Even if that was in some way possible and intelligent, why the hell would Jesus support a party that supports murdering unborn babies?

My previous statement on this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7601727&postcount=95)

As for someone else, obviously they are upset with occupation. Who wouldn't be? But what those polls fail to ask is, "who would you rather have? americans supporting your or saddam terrorising you?"


At least under Saddam, everyone was guaranteed a food and water ration. Now Iraqis don't even have that.Clicky (http://www.water.org/crisis/hotspots/headiraq.html)

To The Spastically Irate and KillingAllYourFriends:

Hope (http://www.lp.org)

You're not alone. You are patriots that know what America should be all about. You make me happy knowing that you're out there and you don't accept what is presented by the corrupted Republicans and spineless Democrats.

Thank you.

Ya know the elections have come and gone about a month ago dude. No use complaining now just makes you look like a complete looser.

Any way where are your sources about this huge "conglomerate meeting"? Have you heard of the tax reform Bush supports? Instead of haveing an income tax, state tax and I believe a few others I cannot remember but this tax is A sales tax which does not discriminate against rich poor or those of us in the middle. Sounds like a good idea to me.

So take a chill pill and move on.

Now I propose a toast :) the election is over whether you voted for bush or kerry.Get a life and live it instead of complaining.If you really feel so strongly that you cant shut up...run for president.Female right?Make all us females proud.

To The Spastically Irate and KillingAllYourFriends:

Hope (http://www.lp.org)

You're not alone. You are patriots that know what America should be all about. You make me happy knowing that you're out there and you don't accept what is presented by the corrupted Republicans and spineless Democrats.

Thank you.

Thank you. I like the Libertarians a lot more than Republicans (or the current caricature of the Democratic Party), though I take issue with them on little things like preserving the environment. Someone has to do it, and little things like air pollution cannot be addressed by buying land to preserve it. Some problems require regulation to solve, or denial of the problem (the current Republican approach to the environment).

There is hope for this country. Sadly, it might take another Great Depression to bring the majority of the American people to their senses.

You might want to see my previous post on this thread (95, I think, too lazy to link to it ;) ) regarding what Jesus would do with the two party system.

Been there..seen it..it wasnt in any sense a Documentary..more along the lines of typical Mockumentary that he's well known for. I suggest you go see Farenhype 9/11, the counter-arguement to Michael Moore's statements..but you probably never heard of it huh?



Ohhhhhh...Please spare me that argument....I guess they can`t publish it in other country...or it`s only available at the Republican Party office???

Maybe you can help me find it on the internet???


It look pretty much like a Documentary for me and pretty much everybody else I know who watched it.....funny eh!!

But hey!!! Maybe since I not a Republican(and American for that matter) that`s why I saw it as a Documentary and not a Mockumentary.

B.J. Clinton did absolutely nothing! He just sat there and recieved oral sex from a woman that wasn't his wife. Also, how can you not think that gassing Kurds and opressing his people was not enough to go into Iraq. By the way, the people that you see on the news that say that things were better under Sadam are a perfect example of Liberal media bias. A large majority of the Iraqis are thrilled that we overthrough Sadam.

You're argument is flawed.

As far as I'm concerned no country has ever gone to war over something as stupid as trying to stop an 'evil bad man'. The first Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc, whatever, the US has never entered a war over Humanitarian reasons.

You know what? A large majority of the 800,000 Africans would have been enthralled had we gone in and prevented the genocide in 94'. Im sure millions of Cambodians would have been enthralled had we prevented the millions exterminated in the genocides during Polpot.

Saddam gassing the Kurds means shit in global politics and foreign policy.

True there are many people in Iraq that are very happy that Saddam is gone (more are happy than unhappy). However the unhappy ones shoot back. And not only are there unhappy Iraqis there are unhappy Syrians (and others). Unhappy Syrians that are terrorists. Unhappy Syrians that are terrorists that had no connection to Iraq pre-invasion but now do. And they are now in Iraq fighting the US because we are asshats (which now is going to be a very hard image to change.) And now we've turned Iraq into a huge training bed for wanna-be terrorists. Wow, we are so screwed.

Democrats are the most ignorant, pig-headed, whiniest ppl on the planet!
Just b/c u lost the election, doesn't give u an excuse to abandon ur own country.
And it for sure duznt giv u an excuse to pass around petitions about seceding from the US.
Well, I hav news for u guys, we, the Republicans, hav been losing elections for a while now.
U didn't see us going around writing apology notes to other countries about the prez.
U didn't see us whining and complaining to the press.
U didn't see us releasing albums slamming the newly elected president.
Also, seceding from the US? OMG DUMB@$$!
Don't u idiots know that if u secede from the US, u would be very easily invaded by enemy countries? -_-' apparently not.
In conclusion, democrats are nothing but ppl who think they are smarter than every1 else
and that their s*** don't stink!

I hav a message 4 u democrats:
STFU!!! U LOST THE ELECTION FAIR AND SQUARE!!! STOP SAYING
THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED AND JUST GET OVER IT!

----

Actually typed by my friend but thought I show you and watch you freak the fuck out. :-)

Ohhhhhh...Please spare me that argument....I guess they can`t publish it in other country...or it`s only available at the Republican Party office???

Maybe you can help me find it on the internet???


It look pretty much like a Documentary for me and pretty much everybody else I know who watched it.....funny eh!!

But hey!!! Maybe since I not a Republican(and American for that matter) that`s why I saw it as a Documentary and not a Mockumentary.

Since you were to slow to use google...
http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

And it wasnt a documentary..I've seen folks who make documentaries say it wasnt a documentary. I've spoken with film professors who lean to the left and say it isnt a documentary.

Yeah, but Saddam eventually denied OBL's request, IIRC...your ellipsis is telling. Are you omitting this?

He also said he was a benevolent leader or Iraq. You believe him?

And if Sudan was involved in setting up these meetings, why haven't we invaded them yet? Not enough geopolitical significance, perhaps? :rolleyes:

I know if the US did invade them, the UN would condemn us for that too. Nevermind there is a genocide going on there that Koffi Annan has called "disturbing" and done nothing serious about it.

You are close about Iraq's geopolitical significance. It's right in the middle of the Middle East, which is a perfect place for democracy to start. Look at Iran. It's now surrounded by our forces with air bases in Turkey to their north, our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to the southeast and southwest. Think they're feeling a little pressure? Why else would one of their military leaders threaten missle attacks on our forces if we tried to invade them? They're just as scared as Syria.

You Americans make me laugh!!!! It`s like you live in your own little world...you just don`t care about anything else. What`s important to you is just YOU!!! The entire world was watching your elections and hoping for Kerry to win....And I was one of those who said to people "Don`t worry they will not put Bush back in power....Come on nobody`s that stupid" But once again the american people prove that they don`t think. I would like to say that as individuals americans are really OK!! But has a society it seems to me that they are just plain DUMB!!

That's exactly the reason why people like me don't care what you think. You're arrogant enough to think our chosing Bush was an idiotic choice. Most of the world also wanted Reagan defeated becuase they feared he would start WW3 with the Soviet Union. Remember? He won in a landslide and brought the USSR to its knees. Through the UN, most of the world was trying to stop us from going into Iraq and we find out our loudest critics were being bribed! How do you expect us to trust you when you're the ones being bribed with oil?

"The Iraq war began controversly only because the UN Security Council was being bribed by Saddam. If anything, Bush did the right thing in going to Iraq after waiting 14 months for the UN to "debate" enforcing their own damn resolutions. Bush tried to give the UN some shred of credibility instead of letting them devolve into a useless political body that passe resolutions and does nothing. And what did he get in return? The UN spat in his face and resented the fact that they were held to their word."

Please!!!!!!So basically your saying that practically the whole world was wrong and your right!!! Your country is stuck in a War that she can`t fight if one thing history taught us is that the US army cannot fight Guerilla warfare.You are gonna lose more and more people, for what Oil????

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, and many of our true friends recognized the danger Saddam posed and tried calling attention to it and all the UN could do was give another resolution. That's progress? Endless debate gets nothing done. Nothing. Period. Our army has Iraq under control except for a few small points. During the US Civil War, we had a presidential election and Lincoln won. That was with half of the country not participating and STILL it was a legit election. Compared to that, Iraq is pretty good shape for being freed from Saddam only 2 years ago. 15 of the 18 provinces will hold elections peacefully, that's good but we can do better.

What history has taught us from Vietnam is not to let beurocrats run our military. And we have learned. Washington isn't micromanaging our forces and because of that we took out the 4th largest army in the world with a little over 100k troops. We've lost about 1500 troops, sadly, but that is a miniscule fraction of our forces there. We are winning the battle.


I would like to ask a question to you Americans: Why are you so affraid ??
Actually, you're the one who sounds more afraid of Bush and what he might do and seem to be flabbergasted because he won the election by 3.5 million votes. We are confident that America will succeed and we are more determined than say...Spain to win this war.

Anyway...I know I`ll get flamed for this post but I just wanted to give you an impression from outside of your world...
I hope I didn't sound like I was flaming, just trying to put some historical perspective on what you were saying. Your opinion is valued but don't worry, America is standing in front of everyone else so we're your best defense from these bastard terrorists. Make no mistake, these people are after Western civilization, not just America.


p.s.: You should all watch Fareneiht 9/11....I know it`s all lies!!!! But I dare you to watch it and after forge an opinion on it .
I have seen it at a liberal friends house and I just want to say I liked it. It was hilarious! Almost as good as "The Day After Tomorrow." The conspiracy theories were humorous and the satire was even better! Them calling it a documentary was great! lol!

to happy landers ... the beer flows free and there are plenty of places to dump your stuff and party! move in and have fun!

I hate Christianity, hence I don't give a damn who Jesus would vote for.

good for you.i dislike most christians but respect jesus.


When you lower taxes on corporations, it puts more money into the economy, hence INDIRECTLY working it's way back to the workers. Yeah, sorry if you don't understand that just because the money doesn't go directly to them it doesn't mean they don't benefit from it.

you dont know much about economy do you?the purpose of large corporations is to make the people who own them richer.now if they are richer there not actully going to SPEND that money.thus it never goes to the poor.have you seen peoples salary going up because of the tax cuts?


What's wrong with successful companies talking about making money? Oh right! You'll probably never be able to make it to a position of such great influence and status because you simply aren't good enough! So try to drag down those who are huh?

according to this you arent good enough either.because as our neo feudilistic system dictakes.you are either born rich,or die poor.


Intelligence of Bush supporters? Way to generalize. You're probably one of those people who thinks the man who graduated from Yale must be an idiot just because you don't like him aren't you?

bush isnt very bright.he graduated with a C incase you didnt know,and had his way BOUGHT though.as for you,since you dont understand the basics of the economy or the human mind at least your education is questionable.


Tell me, since you seem to hate big corporations so much, where do you think America would be today in the global economy without large corporations?

i hate them because they exist to abuse the middle class man to increase there pockets.ever heard about all the unethical and immoral practices of large corporations?they do these because they are in nearly all respects above the law.a system of rich and poor is NOT good for the economy and if that gap widens the system is clearly failing.

Bush is NOT a real republican, hes plays on religion and fear.
He is a real Republican. Most people in the Republican party agree with him. I would say, however, that he is a phoney conservative.

Ohhhhhh...Please spare me that argument....I guess they can`t publish it in other country...or it`s only available at the Republican Party office???......It look pretty much like a Documentary for me and pretty much everybody else I know who watched it.....funny eh!....that`s why I saw it as a Documentary and not a Mockumentary.

Are you French?

Because the one thing I think all American's; Republican Democrat or Libertarian or Green, can all agree on, is that Jesus would definitely hate the French.

I see someone already posted the feirnhype website so I don't have to. The reality is that both sides propagandize or "spin" the truth in an effort to accomplish what they believe in. It has been a long time since there was a politician worthy of being elected and, as a result, most of us in Rio Linda have been voting for the lesser of two evils for most of our lives.

If you believe that the war on terror is just some Christian President's power trip, you are gravely mistaken. If you believe that it is morally correct to be pre-emptive, you are also gravely mistaken. Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam. No, Bush had no idea what he was getting into. He essentially opened up a country to suffer from ongoing civil war for the forseeable future and is putting American lives between the three opposing sides. Don't know that there is much choice at this point, but it was short sighted to think this was going to be solved by a Jan. election and we could get out. We'll be there for a long time if there is ever going to be peace.

As for the original comments about Bush not being in touch with the general public, the reality is that the number of politicians who are are very few and far between. Free trade is hurting us working class stiffs, but it is also necessary to our existance as a nation. Our labor market cannot live in isolation for eternity as survive. The taxes and the responsibility to pay for the services rendered by the gov. is everyone's responsibility, not just that of the rich. Yes, the rich have a responsibility to the poor, but it is a moral one, not a governmental one. None of us has the right to forceably take from someone who has more than us simply because we out number those who have more. That is called stealing last time I checked. So, yes, I'm in favor of us all being taxed equal to what we get in services out of the government. Unfortunately, I'm definitely not getting what I paid for and as a result I'm all for tax cuts of just about any kind.

Gov. is almost always the least efficient spender of money known to man!!! The less money in the beauracracy's hands the better. Oh, by the way, I am a social worker, gov. employee and I'm still saying this. And, in case it wasn't obvious yet, I do believe GW was the lesser of two evils, but not by much.

Are you French?

Because the one thing I think all American's; Republican Democrat or Libertarian or Green, can all agree on, is that Jesus would definitely hate the French.


Hahaha...No I`m not French....well sort of....but No.....Well...ummm it hard to explain....I`m French but not from France......Do you know where I`m from now???




Yes, that's what I'm saying. Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, and many of our true friends recognized the danger Saddam posed and tried calling attention to it and all the UN could do was give another resolution.

Ok...Then explain to me why your greatess ally is not participating in the War and I mean Canada in case you don`t know who your greatess ally is. And don`t tell me because they`re pussies....they did go in Afgannistan for the war on terror after 9/11 but they refuse to go because nobody believed that Saddam was a danger to the Western world.

America is standing in front of everyone else so we're your best defense from these bastard terrorists. Make no mistake, these people are after Western civilization, not just America.

See that`s the point we don`t want you to defend us from those terrorists. I don`t feel the need to be defended...my country was never attacked by those "terrorists". I accept the fact that`s you guys were attacked and totally agree with Afgannistan...but Iraq is not a war on terror.

Anyway it`s fun seeing your points of vue from you guys....

Ok...Then explain to me why your greatess ally is not participating in the War and I mean Canada in case you don`t know who your greatess ally is. And don`t tell me because they`re pussies....they did go in Afgannistan for the war on terror after 9/11 but they refuse to go because nobody believed that Saddam was a danger to the Western world.

....

This is slightly less than accurate. The world believed Saddam was a threat and that he had WMD's. The disagreement was on the subject of the efficacy and morality of pre-emptive strikes.

Well, if pre-emptive is wrong, and most people seem to think that reactive is at least OK, then I believe that the US should in future respond to terrorist attacks of a WMD nature by using WMD against all nations that harbor those terrorists.

The US shouldn't have to police the world - the world is by default saying that things will be ok - you don't have to pre-empt anything. Just wait until you're attacked.

Well then. The world should then accept whatever we decide to dish out in immediate retaliation. And it won't be conventional.

Yes, the punishment should fit the crime. If WMD's are used it is reasonable to retaliate with comparable force if necessary to remove the threat.

Even you would have to admit that the war in Iraq, whether you support it or not, had a controversial beginning and has not been managed well.

Okay, now something about the war that most people don't realize is that other countries in the Middle East weren't going to help us find Osama because they were afraid of Sadam (House of Saud). Bush realized that the only thing holding us back from getting their help was Sadam. Also, the UN Security Council agreed that something needed to be done about Sadam's nuclear arsenal, which turned out to be nothing. Bush put the two together and killed two birds with one stone. Now, I'm not aware if the House of Saud is helping us now due to some problems they're having, but Sadam is no longer in power and they're now more afraid of us than they used to be of him.

Also, it's good when someone else is scared of you. Hell, take AMF in the RP boards as an example. When someone he doesn't have good relations with (not a n00b looking for recognition, but a good RPer) gets in his way, he obliterates them. This is why you don't see many older nations fighting with AMF, because they are frightened by his ruthlessness.

I believe that John Kerry would've been a major disaster in the area of defense. I mean, come on, we're talking about someone who voted against many military vehicles, including the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, while he was in the Senate. Not to mention, he never would've decided what to do. First he would pull troops out, then put them back in, then so on and so forth. We would've lost many more men this way.

The best strategy in a war is to not dig in. General George S. Patton told his men to never dig in, but to keep overunning the enemy. Kerry would not have been able to decide what to do, thus more time spent in Iraqi cities, which means more soldiers would've died. I do respect Kerry for being in the service, but I do not respect him for the way he conducted himself while in the service. I might type out some more later, but I'm done for now.

Hahaha...No I`m not French....well sort of....but No.....Well...ummm it hard to explain....I`m French but not from France......Do you know where I`m from now???

I knew it. I could smell the cheese and hear the whining from here.

but Iraq is not a war on terror.

Agreed. There were no WMD's in Iraq, and they weren't threat to us.

Chemicla and biological weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, no matter what Don Rumsfeld says.

Sadam's nuclear arsenal

Didn't exist. Next.

Also, it's good when someone else is scared of you. Hell, take AMF in the RP boards as an example. When someone he doesn't have good relations with (not a n00b looking for recognition, but a good RPer) gets in his way, he obliterates them. This is why you don't see many older nations fighting with AMF, because they are frightened by his ruthlessness.

Did you really just compare a roll playing game with the actualities of sending kids off to war?

Not to mention, he never would've decided what to do. First he would pull troops out, then put them back in, then so on and so forth. We would've lost many more men this way.

That's highly speculative. Hopefully he would have decided against this reckless policy of 'pre-emtion' and 'war on terror'. You can't fight a tactic. When the Japanese attacked on Dec 7, 1941, we declared war on Japan not 'early morning surpise attacks'.

The best strategy in a war is to not dig in. General George S. Patton told his men to never dig in, but to keep overunning the enemy.

Machiavelli and Sun Tzu said the best tactic is not to go to war in the first place.

I do respect Kerry for being in the service, but I do not respect him for the way he conducted himself while in the service. I might type out some more later, but I'm done for now.

Wha? They don't give out Siver Stars for having the neatest footlocker, or best typing.

Because the one thing I think all American's; Republican Democrat or Libertarian or Green, can all agree on, is that Jesus would definitely hate the French.

Uh, no. I'm American, and I don't see any reason why Jesus would hate the French. He would probably reach out to them. cf. Mark 7:24-30

Uh, no. I'm American, and I don't see any reason why Jesus would hate the French. He would probably reach out to them. cf. Mark 7:24-30

I disagree, we'll ask Mark when he gets here between 7:24-30. Is that AM or PM?

I disagree, we'll ask Mark when he gets here between 7:24-30. Is that AM or PM?
He means the bible :P

I love how some Americans hold it against the French that they wouldn't help fight a war they had nothing to do with.

I mean seriously if some dude down the street stole your neighbors girlfriend, would you go kick the guy down the streets ass for your neighbor?

Are you high or something?

If Jesus could vote he would vote Libertarian, obviously. Jesus would definitely NOT vote for the Democrats, as they advocate all sorts of sinning. However, I'm pretty sure Shiva (the Hindu god of destruction) is an ardent Bush supporter, and that Amaterasu would support the Democrats because she obviously supports womens rights.

Hope that helps *snicker*

Are YOU high or something, I specifically said the two LEADING partys.

I love how some Americans hold it against the French that they wouldn't help fight a war they had nothing to do with.


Like...Vietnam?

Are YOU high or something, I specifically said the two LEADING partys.

I'm sorry, leading in which regard? I'm assuming you're talking about the major political parties here in the US.

I would say the the Republicans are definitely leading the way in forging new forms of government and corporate corruption, and I would say that the Democrats are leaders placating divergent special interest groups while maintaining a meaningless middle-of-the-road approach that serves only to satisfy the interests of weathly and celebrity campaign contributors.

So, uh, which one of those parties would Jesus vote for? How the hell should I know?

[QUOTE=Roach Cliffs]I knew it. I could smell the cheese and hear the whining from here.QUOTE]


But you still don`t know where I`m from do you?? You probably don`t know where there is french people otherwise than France......Anyway I don`t see why you have to use this kind of argument....You don`t see me say : Hey look fat people!!!! There Americans for sure!!!

Juste pour toi mon cher ami je te dit ceci.Du Fromage c BON!!!

[QUOTE=Roach Cliffs]I knew it. I could smell the cheese and hear the whining from here.QUOTE]


But you still don`t know where I`m from do you?? You probably don`t know where there is french people otherwise than France......Anyway I don`t see why you have to use this kind of argument....You don`t see me say : Hey look fat people!!!! There Americans for sure!!!

Juste pour toi mon cher ami je te dit ceci.Du Fromage c BON!!!

Quebec perhaps?

If Jesus could vote guess who he would vote for out of the leading two parties? John Forbes Kerry.

That's like saying that if Jesus had a choice between brutally murdering Mother Theresa and Gandhi, he'd kill Gandhi. It might or might not be true, but the premise is so absurd that it renders the statement meaningless.

Quebec perhaps?


And we have a WINNER!!!!!!!!

And we have a WINNER!!!!!!!!


Visited about eight years ago...pretty nice ( a bit cold though). And thank you for the Expos.

Major corporations pay a very tiny percentage of their profit in taxes. They could afford to pay more and still grow. That money could be used to improve services and decrease the tax burden on those who need tax cuts. The middle class.

Corporations pass taxes on to the consumer--like every other cost of doing business. Since those taxes end up hidden in the cost of products and services, people don't see them and (usually) don't realize they are paying for them. Corporate income taxes actually end up being quite regressive (much as a sales tax is) as people "pay" their share of them based on how much they consume, rather than how much they make.

Visited about eight years ago...pretty nice ( a bit cold though). And thank you for the Expos.


Yeah it is cold....And your welcome for the Expos....Nobody was going there anymore...in Montreal it`s more Hockey that is popular.

I`m a Redsox fan anyway!!!! go every year to see them!!

Corporations pass taxes on to the consumer--like every other cost of doing business. Since those taxes end up hidden in the cost of products and services, people don't see them and (usually) don't realize they are paying for them. Corporate income taxes actually end up being quite regressive (much as a sales tax is) as people "pay" their share of them based on how much they consume, rather than how much they make.

Demand dictates price, not taxes.

Demand is determined, and then the cost of goods sold (plus overhead). If the latter is less than the former, they will make the product.

Or are you talking about a VAT?

That's like saying that if Jesus had a choice between brutally murdering Mother Theresa and Gandhi, he'd kill Gandhi. It might or might not be true, but the premise is so absurd that it renders the statement meaningless.

Yes.
Has anyone heard that god should not be mentioned in earthly affairs?
Also Jesus Christ said that no rich person will ever, possibly, be able to, have a chance to, go to heaven. Christianity was against the rich and for the poor when it was first founded. And as poor people never become elected into high government positions, Jesus Christ would be against the whole system. Just to clear to you where Jesus Christ, the man, would stand.

You know, mabye this person was just a bit radical, but you are probably a liberal. Being conservative in this community means nothing. This comment was not ignorant. It was a statement of fact. WABC radio is good, and the conservatives are in almost complete control of the government. Plus, who really cares if people use caps lock. The important thing is that the message gets across, so you should really stop it with the "Calm Down" stuff.

Actually, no, I'm a reactionary, like I said earlier, so I'm significantly more conservative than you are. I was taking offense because us conservatives and reactionaries have bad names, and it is people like you and this guy that give us that bad name with emotionally charged, moronic statements. I hate communists passionately too, and I dislike strong liberalism, but I don't argue by saying things like:

U ALL SHOULD DIE STOOPID LIBERALS N COMMIES

It is unintelligent, and it brings no credance to your argument. Think before you type.

indeed. Bush inherited a $10trillion budget surplus and he had turned it into a $10trillion deficit by the time the war started. God knows how bad it is now!

Either think you are confusing "billion" with "trillion" (a factor of 1000 difference) or you are talking about the National Debt rather than the Budget Deficit. The National Debt is total of all funds borrowed over time by the US government. The Budget Deficit is the annual shortfall between the amount spent by the government and the revenue taken in.

If you meant "billion" rather than "trillion," you are way off, too. $10 billion is small change. The projected 2004 budget deficit is 422 billion dollars (574 billion, if you ignore off-budget items) according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (see: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0 )

The annual budget deficit did decline during the Clinton presidency. According to CBO numbers ( see: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 ), in 1993, the deficit was 255.1 billion; when he left office, the government had a surplus of 236.4 billion. A caveat, though: those figures do not include "off-budget" items (see above). Social Security is the big "off-budget" item, and the funds collected from Social Security taxes are added to the general revenue. (BTW--the "Social Security Trust Fund" is invested in US Treasury securities.) The actual figures for Clinton's term range from a 300.4 billion deficit (in 1993) to 86.6 billion surplus in 2000. Pretty good, all things considered.

However when you look at the National Debt, things don't look quite as good. At the end of 1993, the Debt was 3,248.4 billion (~3.25 trillion); when Clinton left office, it was 3,319.6 billion (~3.3 trillion), having come down from a high of 3,772.3 billion (~3.8 trillion) in 1997. The CBO projects a 2004 National Debt of 4,334 billion (~4.3 trillion), meaning that the Debt has gone up about one trillion dollars during Bush's first term. Not so good, Bush did have a recession and war to deal with--an excuse for some deficits, but nowhere near the level that were actually run.

None of the above is anywhere near the numbers you were throwing about.

Of course ascribing any budget numbers to "Clinton" or "Bush" is more than a bit inaccurate itself; Congress originates and passes all spending bills; the president can only suggest, and as a last resort--veto.

Hahaha...No I`m not French....well sort of....but No.....Well...ummm it hard to explain....I`m French but not from France......Do you know where I`m from now???




Yes, that's what I'm saying. Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, and many of our true friends recognized the danger Saddam posed and tried calling attention to it and all the UN could do was give another resolution.

Ok...Then explain to me why your greatess ally is not participating in the War and I mean Canada in case you don`t know who your greatess ally is. And don`t tell me because they`re pussies....they did go in Afgannistan for the war on terror after 9/11 but they refuse to go because nobody believed that Saddam was a danger to the Western world.

America is standing in front of everyone else so we're your best defense from these bastard terrorists. Make no mistake, these people are after Western civilization, not just America.

See that`s the point we don`t want you to defend us from those terrorists. I don`t feel the need to be defended...my country was never attacked by those "terrorists". I accept the fact that`s you guys were attacked and totally agree with Afgannistan...but Iraq is not a war on terror.

Anyway it`s fun seeing your points of vue from you guys....

Why isn't Canada joining the fight against us? Probably bc they dont like premption? It's just speculation on my part.

As to the Iraq war not being a part of the War on Terror... it is. We are fighting terrorists and a few local insurgents who are afraid of democracy because they used to be in power and know that once democracy is there, they won't have the influence they had under Saddam.

Remember after 9/11 when the whole world rallied behind us in our time of need? Everyone said that on that day we were all Americans. You were there to support us and we're grateful for that. The reality is that Canada is protected by the US whether they like it or not and they always will be. The fact that we're neighbors basically guarantees your safelty as well as the safetly of all of the Americas. You can thank the Monroe Doctrine for that. America doesn't mind being the shield of the world. We're going to protect you no matter what because we recognize the responsibility that comes with being the last remaining superpower.

Demand dictates price, not taxes. Demand is determined, and then the cost of goods sold (plus overhead). If the latter is less than the former, they will make the product.

I never said taxes dictate prices. I said that corporate income taxes ultimately get passed on to the end consumer. Those taxes are part of the "overhead" you mentioned above.

I never said taxes dictate prices. I said that corporate income taxes ultimately get passed on to the end consumer. Those taxes are part of the "overhead" you mentioned above.


Overhead and taxes are two different things. They do not get lumped together.

Overhead and taxes are two different things. They do not get lumped together.

You are quibbling over definitions, while ignoring my point.

Corporations pass on their costs to the end consumer. The cost of taxes is built into the price of whatever a company makes--just like the costs of wages, packaging, manufacturing equipment, office space, etc. Ultimately the end consumer of the goods or services produced by a corporation pays those taxes.

Look at it this way: the money that a corporation uses to pay its income taxes (or any other taxes) comes out of that corporation's revenues. Where do those revenues come from? From money paid by the consumers of that corporation's goods or services.

Corporate taxation is an illusion that politicians use to hide the true rate of taxation from the people who pay taxes.

Ya know the elections have come and gone about a month ago dude. No use complaining now just makes you look like a complete looser.



Ya know I was gonna read through all ten pages of posts on this thread, but I just had to respond to this one from waaay back on page one first.

Funny how (some of) the conservative folks out there say "just get over it, already", but I don't remember them just getting over it during the years from '92 to '00 when Clinton was president. I'm not making a judgement here about Clinton vs. Bush as presidents or men, just how members of both sides of the political isle don't seem to be able and/or willing to get over it when their side isn't in power. So if folks on the liberal/democratic/left side of the isle keep hammering on this subject for another four years, get used to it folks on the conservative/republican/right side. It appears to be in both your political human natures, and both sides are to blame - including me.

Now, back to page three...

Ya know I was gonna read through all ten pages of posts on this thread, but I just had to respond to this one from waaay back on page one first.

Funny how (some of) the conservative folks out there say "just get over it, already", but I don't remember them just getting over it during the years from '92 to '00 when Clinton was president. I'm not making a judgement here about Clinton vs. Bush as presidents or men, just how members of both sides of the political isle don't seem to be able and/or willing to get over it when their side isn't in power. So if folks on the liberal/democratic/left side of the isle keep hammering on this subject for another four years, get used to it folks on the conservative/republican/right side. It appears to be in both your political human natures, and both sides are to blame - including me.

Now, back to page three...


I am of the opinion that anybody in power should be watched like a hawk. If Clinton was raping little children or something, I would've had a problem with it, but what he did was infidelity. It's really not our business to take him away from his job for something like that, it was political bullsh*t. And now we have a president that is suspected of being in the pockets of large corporations. I think this is something that should be monitored, especially since other countries (and many americans) view the current administration as corrupt. President Bush also has the standing of a potential war criminal in certain countries, including Canada. The checks and balances that ensure a just system have been ravaged by party lines, and frankly, that's one of the worst things I have known.

I am of the opinion that anybody in power should be watched like a hawk. If Clinton was raping little children or something, I would've had a problem with it, but what he did was infidelity. It's really not our business to take him away from his job for something like that, it was political bullsh*t.

Agreed w/you all the way up to the last sentence. Conservatives don't like Clinton bc he was so successful as posing as a centrist when he was obviously liberal. To be fair, Clinton did have two achievements during his presidency: Welfare Reform (which was long overdue, thank you Republican Congress too!) and NAFTA (ty Republicans again!)

And now we have a president that is suspected of being in the pockets of large corporations. I think this is something that should be monitored, especially since other countries (and many americans) view the current administration as corrupt.
Don't worry about him being watched, about 90% of the media despises Dubya so he won't get away with anything. And if there is anything small that looks remotely suspicious (i.e. Halliburton), the media will blow it way out of proportion. Go to www.factcheck.org and see how they explained the Halliburton connection and also Teresa Heintz-Kerry's connection to Heintz Ketchup. Neither is dubious, so everyone should just drop it.

Oh, and Clinton had some definate problems with campaign contributions among other things, he just had the media to help bury it in the news.


President Bush also has the standing of a potential war criminal in certain countries, including Canada. The checks and balances that ensure a just system have been ravaged by party lines, and frankly, that's one of the worst things I have known.
Bush being seen as a war criminal in most countries is because few other countries have two media sources like in the US (and recently Canada w/FOX). Look at France, the UK, Germany, China (heh, there having one news is kind of compulsory...Commie bastards), Russia, etc. They all have left-wing news organizations that dominate the news. No other side of the news is covered except the parts that they want. Any good news out of Iraq is stifled and the fact that the US has stopped on average one terrorist plot per day somewhere in the world is lost on most people.

One thing about partisanship though: I like it. I like seeing people taking strong stands for the things they believe in. The fact that it has spread from Congress and all across America means that most people will be debating what is best for our country and usually (not as often as I'd like though) try to be informed.

Didn't exist. Next.



Did you really just compare a roll playing game with the actualities of sending kids off to war?



That's highly speculative. Hopefully he would have decided against this reckless policy of 'pre-emtion' and 'war on terror'. You can't fight a tactic. When the Japanese attacked on Dec 7, 1941, we declared war on Japan not 'early morning surpise attacks'.



Machiavelli and Sun Tzu said the best tactic is not to go to war in the first place.



Wha? They don't give out Siver Stars for having the neatest footlocker, or best typing.

You obviously don't comprehend what I was trying to get across... you kinda agreed with me...

bump

Agreed w/you all the way up to the last sentence. Conservatives don't like Clinton bc he was so successful as posing as a centrist when he was obviously liberal. To be fair, Clinton did have two achievements during his presidency: Welfare Reform (which was long overdue, thank you Republican Congress too!) and NAFTA (ty Republicans again!)

Oh, and Clinton had some definate problems with campaign contributions among other things, he just had the media to help bury it in the news.

I just wanted to address these two points, and only very briefly. You give far too much credit to the Republican congress for welfare reform and NAFTA. Neither would have happened without Clinton--NAFTA was a bi-partisan passage although most of the support came from the Republican side of the Congress, and the same was the case with welfare reform. Had Clinton been opposed to either, he could have vetoed them and Congress could never have overridden him.

And as to campaign contributions--the whole system is corrupt, and both parties are befouled by it. Nobody is clean in that cesspool, and it stays out of the media because everyone on both sides knows that if it all came out, they's all be hung equally. Don't act like Clinton is alone in that nasty mess, or even act like the Republicans have any claim to moral superiority in the matter.

To blame the reason jobs are being exported to China and India based on Bush's job as president is a JOKE.

Clinton is the one who got us stuck in the big tech bubble in the first place, the bubble had to pop sometime and he knew that, but he let it grow out of control!

Then when other countries sprout their own tech bubbles in the lack of ours ( India and China ) it's the Presidents fault?

You realize, the same thing that happened in the US will happen in India and China, the jobs will come back.

Bush has a done a lot for this nation and I fully endorse the war, but you cannot call it Bush's war. It's a war that has been raging since Vietnam, the war for Oil. China will overtake the US demand for oil in 20 years, and will stop at nothing to feed itself, even if it means bargining with evil tyrants and corrupt leaders. Thats why the US needs to free the oil before this happens.

I just wanted to address these two points, and only very briefly. You give far too much credit to the Republican congress for welfare reform and NAFTA. Neither would have happened without Clinton--NAFTA was a bi-partisan passage although most of the support came from the Republican side of the Congress, and the same was the case with welfare reform. Had Clinton been opposed to either, he could have vetoed them and Congress could never have overridden him.
Clinton did veto welfare reform, twice.

I think Jesus would not even vote.... no one nowadays really understand what he meant. It's sad to see people like Bush believing they're doing God's will...

You don't think it's sad that Muslims think it's "God's" will by killing "infidels?" It's part of their teachings. That is their religion, to kill all who don't believe. Granted I know all of them don't act on it, but you guys seem to like having the ones who do stick around.