Well... unfortionatly, even with Moot's best efforts, I can already see a thread full of "omg bush suxorz..." ect.
Well, for once, I'm going to head it all off. Since this place is SO new, I'm going to do something unheard of... I'm making this a Pro Bush thread.
Yes, you heard me right. I voted for Bush. I am 19 years old, and I am very aware of the issues. I plan to vote all my life. Bush's tax cuts helped my family and partially allowed me to go to college. I wish he would drop the whole "amnisty for illegals", but, I doubt he will. I think he handled Sept 11th with a quiet grace. While I know he is prone to make mestakes when speaking, I'd like to see someone who hasn't. The fact that he is so soft spoke, yet so smart, greatly impresses me. He served his country, in a different way that Kerry. However, he did more than Clinton did, so he gets points with me.
So... I could continue listing things that make me like thus guy, but frankly, I'd like to find some people who agree with me. Yes yes, I know people exist who's life goal has been to humiliate the man, but lets hear from the people who actually like him. Obviously, more than half the country does...
Anyway, I don't know if I should be bold enough to keep this a pro bush thread, or give in to the fact that probably, this thread will turn into a mix of good and bad. But just, try to keep it civil.
And... no talk of killing him. As much as you hate the guy, there is no reason to want to kill him. Don't use that type of anger here.
-Tarage
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-24 5:33
I am just going to hop in and say that voting down party lines is retarded. Vote circumstantially.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-24 6:07
Yeah and lets just forget that a hundred thousand civilians were killed in Iraq in an illegitimate conflict started by Bush over oil (and other things) and only allowed because the euros are too pussy to attack the USA.
Iraq had nothing to do with the 11-9-2001 attack. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden was not hiding in Iraq. Iraq allowed the UN inspections.
Bush lied and continues to do so regularly, and no matter what facts come out, which links are proven and how many people die he still got more than half the votes thanks to his "redneck"-like speach mannerism.
I say give the man an award, he's a goddamn political genious.
Name:
CV2004-12-24 6:17
You'll find few people to agree with you and I think you opinion is borne of some ignorance. Every dollar of tax cuts is a dollar of government benefit cuts (or a dollar of added defecit, which is worse). You mention college, but the cost of college has spiraled out of control because of a lack of federal funding. Pel grants haven't kept up with the increase so it's actually more likely you'd lose the ability to attend college because of Bush.
These tax cuts that have "helped" people are only on loan, they'll have to be paid back with interest in the future and the massive debt hanging over our economy is devaluing the dollar and endangering international and domestic money markets. We gain little competitive advange from a weak dollar since China and other nations peg their exchange rate to the dollar. The Chinese yuan is massively undervalued right now because of the dollar's slide, but they're not going to let the market decide the value because that would be bad for China's massive export industry. Ironically enough, China holds a great deal of America's public debt.
Bush's greatest achievement is to put off all his greatest failures until after being re-elected. Iraq is going to continue to get worse. Capturing Saddam didn't put an end to the war, taking over Fallujah didn't put an end to it. No one in their right mind can claim elections will either. New prisoner abuse evidence is uncovered every day and, as it turns out, it was under executive order not just some reservists acting on their own.
Within the next year we will see an economic reckoning as either interest rates go up to ward of inflation and keep people buying our debt or inflation will destroy all our economic progress and plunge us into a depression. But raising interest rates will have the effect of popping the real estate bubble, which is actually the only real bright spot in a still sagging economy. It will raise the incentive to save rather than spend, further cooling the economy. So the options are recession or depression and more defecit spending can't pull us out of this one.
Fortunately, Bush's political capital dried up very quickly as he continues to back the incredibly unpopular Rumsfeld. He can't get rid of him because that would be admitting he was wrong about Iraq, but he can't keep him because he's lost so much political clout that he can't be an effective leader of the military any longer. With all the political capital spent, there's no room for stupid ideas like social security "reform" or tax "reform" or tort "reform", all of which are actually hand-outs to various special interests (investment bankers, the wealthy in general and the insurance industry, respectively). Bush is a lame duck and he hasn't even been sworn in for his second term yet.
Name:
Tarage2004-12-24 6:22
No, it was not over oil. You are buying into the propaganda. Thats like saying Clinton went into the White House just to get a BJ... Its nice to think, but it ain't true.
And to say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... you honestly think that Sadam wasn't happy it happened? While it can be debated if he actually had a hand in it, we know terrorists were in Iraq. Hell, the guy killed off his own people in very gruesome ways. He got what he earned.
And yeah, Iraq was NOT letting the UN do any inspections. And when they did, it was obvious anything important had been moved out while the idiots were held back. The Oil for Food scandal should have shaken your trust in the UN to do anything, but obviously, you don't want to belive it.
You claim these facts, yet I bet 100% of them come from liberal propaganda machines. And, you claim he was elected thanks to his "redneck" mannerisms... Do you realize how insulting that is to the MAJORITY of people why voted and voted for Bush? You lost. The majority doesn't agree with you. GET OVER IT.
Finially, though this probably doesn't mean much, concidering its 4chan, you decided to use an Anonymous nick... What this says about your argument is left up to interpitation.
I was asking for you to be civil. Obviously, you decided you can't handle that, concidering you felt the need to insult everyone who voted for him in such a manner...
I'm really quite sad that people like you can't just sit on their hands and let people with valid, non offensive, oppinions speak. My fault I suppose... I expected too much.
-Tarage
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-24 6:52
Saddam was allowing inspectors access to most things they wanted. As it turned out, there were no WMD. That isn't even disputable because we've been over the whole country and found nothing. The intelligence was wrong or falsified.
"Gassed his own people" is a twist of the facts. He gassed Kurds, they are not "his people" just because they live within the internationally recognized borders of Iraq. Kurdistan is not a recognized nation, but it is semi-autonomous from both Iraq and Turkey. Also, this gassing took place during the reagan/bush administration and it was using serin gas the US had supplied to Iraq to help fight the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam was our friend then and we did not invade to disarm him because he gassed the Kurds.
Saddam being happy or not about 9/11 is no justification to go to war. There is no longer any justification for the war because the ideas the administration had going in all turned out wrong. We stay there now because failure is not an option. But we have already failed in that we're far worse off than when we began. Invading Iraq has spawned a new jihadist movement in the region. Not the stability neocons invisioned, but a new vicious hatred for America among even moderate muslims.
Name:
Abe!M0Mn8Yr5XY2004-12-24 9:16
>>"Gassed his own people" is a twist of the facts. He gassed Kurds, they are not "his people" just because they live within the internationally recognized borders of Iraq. Kurdistan is not a recognized nation, but it is semi-autonomous from both Iraq and Turkey.
SIGNED. I keep telling people this, but no one appears to care. It's very disappointing. Perhaps it is just semantics. "He gassed those poor innocent Kurds!" sounds bad, but "He gassed his own people" sounds worse.
Name:
HFOX2004-12-24 9:37
"No, it was not over oil."
must be an coincident that there are so many people in the Bush administration connected to oil business and that most US interventions are in areas with crisis AND oil
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-24 11:35
you know, if we were only going to war to get more oil, wouldn't it have made more since to invade venezuela? they have the oil we crave, and during the run-up to the war, they were in the midst of a civil war. i bet we could have invaded under the subdifuge of peace keeping and sucked the place dry.
also, i voted for bush.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-24 11:42
>>"Gassed his own people" is a twist of the facts. He gassed Kurds, they are not "his people" just because they live within the internationally recognized borders of Iraq. Kurdistan is not a recognized nation, but it is semi-autonomous from both Iraq and Turkey.
Hitler gassed Jews and they are not his people and didn't have a reconized nation (AFAIK) but yet, those event are considered horrendeous(sp?)
Name:
HFOX2004-12-24 11:43
>>11
a quick google for "US Venezueala" has brought up an articel about covert operations there on the first page
US administrations tend to prefere these thing if they want to achieve something in South America
>>5
You're being too defensive. You won't get much intelligent discussion with an attitude like that I'm afraid.
Anyway, no, the war wasn't about oil. Sure, the oil may be a nice bonus for Bush's cronies, but that's all.
Name:
DrmChsr0!HG6fkGXhas2004-12-24 12:59
Well, it's over. Bush won, and you Yankees get stuck with this liar for another 4 years. Here's hoping he lies his ass for another term, and I'll laugh at your retardedness.
The people in the West sure like to trust liars, doesn't it? IN Australia, Howard lied and won. In Britain, Blair lied and won. In the US, Bush lied and won. Yup, happy misery, Westerners.
Name:
Man of Wax2004-12-24 13:39
>>5
You asked to keep it civil, yet you're the only one in this thread making ad homonym attacks. Cool your attitude before you ruin your own thread.
I'd like to address a few things quickly. First, the fact that the kurds were not "hit own people" is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't change the nature of what he did, nor does it provide any more or less justification for this misguided and poorly executed war.
Second, Bush did not get the majority of the American public to vote for him. He received the vote of a bit more than half of roughly half the voting age public. That means he has, at best, 30% of the country behind him. If this were a "real" democracy we'd have no president. I'm not suggesting that we should go that way, but to say that he has the support of the majority of Americans thanks to the result of the most recent election is false.
Although I am 100% to this war and believe it would be in our best interests to pull out right now, I'm not going to play the oil card either. This war was much bigger than oil. The war is an attempt to foist a whole new idealism on the American people and the world at large. Dubya is doing what his father couldn't. He is creating the New World Order that George H. W. spoke of. The goal of the neo-conservative doctrine is hegemony through democracy. It is steeped in democratic peace theory – the notion that democracies do not go to war. If we force democracy on every other country on earth while we're at the top then no challenges could possibly exist. There is no opposition left.
The first step is creating an ideological enemy. There is no communism to fight any more. Sure, there is North Korea and Vietnam and Cuba, but they're small fry. China is hardly communist and we don't get in ideological tussles with them anymore. International terrorism is the new communism. Bush's neo-con friends are creating an enemy that can't be defeated, one that can be fought in perpetuity so that we can always have a clear foreign policy directive. We can always have the rhetoric of freedom. In keeping with its replacement of communism, terrorism is now the anti-freedom where socialism once held that role.
No, this war is not about oil. It is about hegemony and the perpetual enemy by which we define ourself. What no one stopped to think about at first was whether this was a good idea. What does it mean to be the hegemon? It's not just a walk in the park where we point the gun at any old country and they do what we say. As hegemon we would eliminate all other governments on earth. We would be responsible for the local administration of every country. What's the point of talking to your governor or voting for your president when there is always a higher authority? I oppose this war and the administration that instigated it because it aims to lead us in that unenviable direction. Utter dominance is not in our national interest.
In regard to domestic policy, Bush has shown nothing but contempt for intelligent economics (if such a thing exists). I think CV hit all of the major points (although I don't think it's reasonable to assume that people will respond as expected to interest rate hikes), but I would like to point out that reliance on tax cuts to spur the economy is not only costly, but fallacious. There is no macroeconomic (or even econometric) evidence to suggest that tax cuts or a persistently low tax rate results in increased economic growth. The US already has the lowest taxes of any industrialized nation but we've never grown at the rate that Sweden or Japan have in the past. Both of those countries have significantly higher tax rates. Furthermore, tax cuts when directed primarily at the wealthy do practically nothing for the economy in the short term and only have negative effects down the road as aptly explained by CV. Rich people don't need the money. It's not a matter of fairness. They have a lower marginal propensity to consume (see, I'm bringing out the big words) which means they spend less of that tax cut. If you give the tax cut to the poor they'll spend it because they need it for subsistence.
The same theory applies to social security which Bush also wants to butcher. Social security is not about fairness or caring for the elderly. It is about providing spendable income to people who don't have any and reaping the benefits of the multiplier effect. Old people with no money will spend government transfers with abandon. That money then goes into the pockets of businesses and not only improves the economy in real terms but gives the perception of rosy conditions. What follows is increased investment. If you want a more thorough and difficult to read account of how this concept works read John Maynard Keynes, the guy who came up with it.
What about the rest of it? Health care - 42 million Americans are without and surely won't be getting it from Bush. Education? Stop giving us the "No Child Left Behind" act. It's a paper tiger. It has no money and no effect and exists only so that Bush can say it does. "Values" issues? These shouldn't be issues, but apparently in his religious fervor and unending hubris Bush thinks they are. We are the worse for it. Environment? He wants to make it easier to destroy our natural resources by increasing logging in National Forests, which, by the way, we all own and don't get a penny from when the timber industry goes and makes its millions. The Clear Skies Act is an attempt to emaciate the Clean Air Act and actually results in a less stringent regulatory environment. I could go on and on, but what it comes down to is that people don't make it their life's goal to simply humiliate Bush. There are real and pressing reasons to oppose essentially all his policies.
And don't tell me anything about propaganda. You're not hearing anyone, liberal or conservative, talk about this stuff in the news.
Name:
Roll Fizzlebeef!8vysj/UILk2004-12-24 15:04
>"Values" issues? These shouldn't be issues, but apparently in his religious fervor and unending hubris Bush thinks they are.
Now, now, that sounds like something one of those dirty LIBERALS would say! Stop trying to destroy our values and promote your crazy, hedonistic anarchy!
>The people in the West sure like to trust liars, doesn't it?
I wonder how true this is. As easy as it is for people unsatisfied with the election to wave it off with a statement like, "Everyone who voted for Bush must've been stupid religious types who can't see past tomorrow," I've met plenty of people who did vote for him, and if they're ignorant, it would be only on issues where the public discourse has been so thoroughly ravaged by spin doctors that deciding which position is actually correct is a task for which normal people just don't have the time and resources.
I was stuck listening to Rush Limbaugh theother week on a long drive, and although I generally find his opinions ridiculous, he did underscore a large part of the problem: The Oil-for-Food program should have been all over the news, but what was making headlines? The New York chief of police's infidelities. Nobody has the attention span to care about international issues for more than a few minutes, and the media has not helped one bit to remind people of the rapidly spreading stage we're dealing with now. I didn't hear a peep for over a year from the nightly news about Afghanistan until speculation started over whether they'd be able to pull off their election. Everyone had simply forgotten about that nation we invaded a few years ago.
I got a little off-track there, but it ties into my thoughts about the election: I know many people who made at least offhanded comments about Bush being the "moral" candidate, but I also know several people who didn't seem convinced that Kerry could do anything. Whatever Kerry's real policy may have turned out to be, his campaiging sounded suspiciously like, "Bush did everything wrong, so I'll do exactly the same, only I'll do it right!" Just by watching the news, nobody could figure out which issues were important and which were smokescreens, let alone which candidate would actually fulfill his promises about them.
Name:
Asmodi2004-12-24 15:33
I'm a socialist and an agnosticist and I live in Canada, and Bush quite frankly scares me. I respect a wide variety of religions, but the fact that Bush makes little effort to separate church and state is very unappealing. Holding prayer sessions in the White House? Banning gay marriage in the US constitution? These are not the acts of a man who lives in a multicultural society.
Here in Canada, our PM Paul Martin is Catholic. He speaks fluent English and French and I rather like him. In several provinces now, gay marriage is legal. There is a planned vote in parliament to legalize it nationally, which is expected to pass.
What I think it boils down to is the fundamental concept of multiculturalism. In the US, this concept means a melting pot of cultures, which are meant to eventually all become the same culture. In Canada, it means a patchwork society where all cultures are celebrated and accepted equally.
Is the US truly one nation under God? I fear the answer is yes.
Name:
2004-12-24 15:46(capped)
>>19
"In the US, this concept means a melting pot of cultures, which are meant to eventually all become the same culture. In Canada, it means a patchwork society where all cultures are celebrated and accepted equally."
This really depends who you ask. In the past it was quite clear. Part of the American ideal was that everyone could be American and this was something different from whatever one started out as (i.e. Irish, Mexican, Italian, etc.). These days though there is much more tolerance for and celebration of differences, at least in urban areas. I would be wary of applying that generalization to the US as a whole, just as I doubt that the idea of a "patchwork society" is anywhere near universal in Canada. Still more, don't assume it's always a good thing. A large percentage of Quebec thinks its so different from the rest of Canada that it doesn't even want to be a part of the same country.
Name:
Fnordulicious2004-12-24 16:58
I want an ignore feature so I can collapse this thread into nothingness and pretend it doesn't exist.
Name:
Kay2004-12-24 17:06
#17 This is the second time I "hear" someone speak out the name of John Maynard Keynes apart from my politics-lessons. So hail, friend. ^_-
I fully agree in all points, but I think you have to make a difference between Keynes' theories and Bush's economy-programs.
First of all it should be clear that the United States have a huge poverty-scale, more than any other "Western" country (afaik). Lower taxes do not help as we see, but they CAN have a positive influence on the economy when it is needed. "Rich people don't need the money." So they can be more or less excluded from this! Also the theory says that those taxes may raise again when the economy has recoverd for it is just a program for longer periods of lower growth. But taxes alone does not make it better...
The other point is the deficit spending! Yes, Bush does a lot of it, but not the way it was ment. Depts should help to replace the missing demand and charge to capacity. Now the money flows nowhere an with nowhere I mean the Iraq-war. Billions of dollars are spend and the only winner is the weapon manufacturer, but to make sence you mustn't buy a tank but build a school or homes for old people so you have a lasting effort and the profit goes to those who have a use of it (middle class companies etc.). These are just simple examples, of course. It's not Keynes' logic that fail, but Bush's interpretation.
~Just my 2cents and I hope no misunderstandings will be born out of my bad English. >_<
On one hand, the US has such an overwhelming population of Christian white males that radical ideas of Star Wars and banning gay marriage is second nature to the majority. The idea of a patchwork society would be to satisfy all demographics, but in this case only the biggest demographic gets its way. Although women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, atheists, and gays all voted in favour of Kerry last election, the middle-aged white Protestant/Catholic man prevailed. The melting pot is overwhelmed by a single ingredient.
On the other hand, the patchwork society, albeit not perfect, is relatively successful. Politicians are always wary as to what they say and who they represent when they say it. Quebec separatists are not ignored because they are a minority. They have their own political party and are represented in parliament.
The Quebec situation in Canada is an unfortunate juxtaposition, but considering the alternative of "one nation under God", I'd call it a bargain.
Name:
2004-12-24 18:01(capped)
>>23
My point was that Keynes is right and what Bush is doing is nothing like what he suggested. Sorry if that wasn't clear. So, of course it's not a failure of Keynes' logic, but Bush's practice. I think we agree on this.
Name:
Svartvit2004-12-24 18:23 (sage)
Despite my leftist (left as in socialistic, not liberal which is a right wing concept) opinions and philosophies, I'm not very scared by the United States. The US is still a young nation, this kind of cultural diseases always strikes in this state followed by some sort of revolution. Right now, there's definitly a cultural revolution in the process, it's just a matter of time and generation switches before things work better.
Name:
Blah2004-12-24 18:24
The fish was delish, and according to US secretary generals, made quite a dish.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-25 2:38
>>24
If you think that /all/ "women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, atheists, and gays all voted in favour of Kerry," you are ignorant beyond words.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-25 2:42
>>26
Yeah. Maybe someday we'll have an inefficient, red tape-plagued, money-wasting, socialized health care system, a military unable to defend the country, repression of the majority's beliefs/values in the name of "tolerance", and thoughtcrime laws. I can't wait until the socialist utopia is realized in the United States!
Name:
Asmodi2004-12-25 2:44
>>28
I said "voted -in favour of-". Learn to read, plz.
Name:
HFOX2004-12-25 6:18
>>29
Defend the country against WHO? Mexico? Canada? The USofA have been under attack FOUR times in history, counting 9/11, where military wasn't of much use anyway.
besides, socialist has a wide variety of meanings. My experience is that Americans tend to view things as leftist that would be considered right-wing or conservative in other parts of the world. And I don't mean Cuba.I'm talking about, i.e. Germany or France (whose Socialists are socialist either, more like social-democratic).
Name:
Kay2004-12-25 9:31
>>25
Well, glad to hear that. Maybe it was just my fault.
>>28
Noone thiks this, but you better learn to deal with exaggerations, because they MAY contain some truth. ^_~
>>29
Well I never believed those American-comunist-paranoia-stories. No I tend to do. Sure, health-care is comunism. Equal chances is communism. Social-market economy is comunism. All this leads to crime, oppresion, purge. Thank you for this lesson!
Name:
Deadly Joe2004-12-25 15:16
Just two things: I agree with Man of Wax and it is nice to see someone on the internet who talks politics with knowing more than a little about history and government.
Second I think it was mentioned once in this thread but if I have to hear the phrase 'liberal propaganda media/machines' or just liberal as a derogative one more time I am seriously going to start working really hard at university and actually do something worthwhile to re educate people.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-25 15:45
the money, we keep raising caps on to spend... is borrowed from china, they are by far the largest foreign holder of our long-term bonds 30s and 10s
japan is by far the largest foreign holder of our currency, they can move it at will
the growth center of the world has shifted from north america to asia pacific
we should be mindful of larger balance-of-power dynamics...
while we are so seemingly distracted with the currently amplified israel-arab noise in the middle east
growth requires energy, sources of energy are: coal(china has tons) lng(china has plenty) oil(overhyped distraction)
and these are all finite sources..
lets get moving energy sciences... see if we cant fix all this bickering
Name:
lavkian!mK1UTrGBh.2004-12-26 1:00
"No, it was not over oil. You are buying into the propaganda. Thats like saying Clinton went into the White House just to get a BJ... Its nice to think, but it ain't true."
No, but I can assure you the real reasons (revenge for daddy amongst others) were equally trite, retarded and overall fucking dumb.
"And to say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... you honestly think that Sadam wasn't happy it happened? While it can be debated if he actually had a hand in it, we know terrorists were in Iraq. Hell, the guy killed off his own people in very gruesome ways. He got what he earned."
Let me give you some real, unbiased info.
Saddam GASSED the Kurds. Not very gruesome, and quite effective for mass murder.
Now why did he do that? Easy. They were directly threatening his leadership status, and nobody would stand for that. I wouldn't know, but whether or not Saddam tried to "work it out" with them before killing them, I don't care.
Yes, Saddam ruled with an iron fist. I assure you this was MORE than required for ANY chance of peace in the middle east. I will save you all the essay; if anyone wants to know my gatherings on the events, feel free to IM me.
"And yeah, Iraq was NOT letting the UN do any inspections. And when they did, it was obvious anything important had been moved out while the idiots were held back. The Oil for Food scandal should have shaken your trust in the UN to do anything, but obviously, you don't want to belive it."
Uh, let's see here.
Most non-chemical weapons are large, and most of the factories are larger. One cannot simply MOVE these weapons completely undetected; and I assure you it WOULD have been detected.
Most chemical weapons leave tons of traces. The inspectors were allowed to search many dozens of facilities at some point, and if weapons were there, THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN.
Lastly, it was not only impossible for the U.N. inspectors to know about the Oil for Food scam, IT WASN'T IN THEIR FUCKING FIELD OF INVESTIGATION. Jesus Christ.
Name:
lavkian!mK1UTrGBh.2004-12-26 1:14
I would just like to add that, upon reading this thread in full, I have fallen in love with Man of Wax.
Please, have my babies. Even though I'm a guy. We'll figure it out.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-26 13:46
>>19
I live in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Cleveland was (and somewhat still is) known for its diversity. The interesting thing about Cleveland's history is that the city was indeed a patchwork of ethnicities. Part of that still remains today, however it is greatly dimished. My understanding is that many cities were like this at one point as well. What I am trying to say is that the ideal of a true mixing pot seems to be more of a modern fabrication. I wonder if it was truly the goals of our ancestors to create a completely mixed society. Perhaps it was more like how you describe Canada.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-28 13:28
>>17 >> Rich people don't need the money. It's not a matter of fairness. They have a lower marginal propensity to consume (see, I'm bringing out the big words) which means they spend less of that tax cut. If you give the tax cut to the poor they'll spend it because they need it for subsistence.
Ok. Here's the problem. Taxing so far has only targeted people high income. What does this mean? Sure it mans celebrities who get paid the most get taxed the most. But here's the killer. for all the upper middle class people who work all their damn life, they won't ever attain 'wealthy' with a fixed high income because the taxes target high income. People like Bill Gates won't ever be taxed with the current system because he put all of his money in stocks and then donated it
to a charitable trust fund. Sure charity is great, but if he's donating 5 billion dollars worth of shares to his own damned trust fund and he has control of it, and then just pays out enough money to keep it as a nontaxeable charity, then how are we taxing the non-income wealthy? We aren't. We're keeping high-income workers down. So the incentive to receive an income isn't that great anymore. Sure let's laze on welfare because we can do that and complain when they take our money away until they give it back (I'm only talking about Louisiana, when referring to the welfare program. )
Well not only is the US debt causing an inflation of the dollar, it's also the ill-conceived notion that if we keep the rate of inflation slightly higher than 0 indefinitely it will stop depression and all the other nasties of bad economy~! Yippie. I'm thrilled.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-03 13:28
If you had real reasons to vote for Shrub, I have no problem with it. I'll disagree with many points, but I won't have any particular problem with it. It's the people that go "he'll kick those towlhead's asses and put them homos in their place" that are the problem with him as a leader, since he represents those ideas.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-04 22:46 (sage)
Rich people don't need the money. It's not a matter of fairness. They have a lower marginal propensity to consume (see, I'm bringing out the big words) which means they spend less of that tax cut. If you give the tax cut to the poor they'll spend it because they need it for subsistence.
Bullshit. If you give the tax out to the poor they'll spend it on booze and drugs.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-05 14:48
At least alcohol and cigarrets are good for the economy... well, yes, you're talking bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-05 14:55
If you give the tax out to the poor they'll spend it on booze and drugs.
Sure, but if you stick it to the rich too much, they'll leave, and take their investing elsewhere. Then how will great ideas be realized?
Not that I like the rich or anything...
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-20 23:37
Rich have great ideas? Where?
Of course I agree the rich shouldn't be given a raw deal, but I think some people give them too much credit as well. What do you think is more productive, a division of 66 engineers or Carly Fiorina?
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-22 8:32
>>47
46 means that without money from angel investors, we'd see less great ideas being realised. Not that the rich people have the great ideas - but that they have the money to make them possible.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-22 22:23 (sage)
That may be true, although if the rich didn't have the majority of wealth that would mean everyone else would have it. But that doesn't answer the question either, does it?
What do you think is more productive, a division of 66 engineers or Carly Fiorina?
i have yet to see anyone sensibly argue pro-bush without resorting to "OMG! you LIBERAL o.O" style-responses to any arguments brought against what they said.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-27 12:04
>>50
This is true, but then again, American politics is about 95% name-calling and only about 5% actual issues, ne? Not that America is unique in this regard.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-01 0:44 (sage)
INTERNET ARGUMENT!!!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-22 1:01 ID:+cARcRyj
Somehow I get the idea that someone just bumped this thread to make the point that he hasn't read SICP.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-22 1:10 ID:honCeeB+
we WON!!
yay
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-22 2:52 ID:bCevlOEd
>>11
read "The Grand Chessboard" and you'll understand why the middle east instead of venezuela (check torrentspy for a book torrent)
also find out who the author of that book is, what his career has been, and what his connections are
wow, thank you whoever brought this thing back from the memory hole so we can examine how frightfully duped we've been.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-22 12:03 ID:lN1BrYt7
ITT we remember a time in which /pol wasn't full of "LOL NIGGER" posts.
Oh wait...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-22 18:32 ID:2qVD7y/f
>>40
Could that have been possibly any more biased? I don't believe so..
What about all of the families that are working 60+ hours a week to feed their family? I am working my way through college, and I am in debut up to my ears to make it through medical school.. am I not spending my money wisely or am I going to go spend it on alcohol because I would technically considered next to poor? I think not... think before you speak.
>>40
First, simply living is hard for the poor. Sure, some of them are lazy, but most rich asses who were born into wealth are just as bad. To help, welfare should only be available upon passing a urine test for illegal drugs. If they want to spend their cash on booze, I have no problems with that.
Second, shifting taxes away from low income, towards the super-high income, would drastically improve the lives of millions in this country. Especially if the tax money were spend on funding education and conservation, rather than militaristic endeavors to further fill the pockets of the policy-makers.
>>40
Considering that money is the main issue, why not:
>eliminate money
>use the internet to control the flow of goods and services (users can order what ever product or service they want, and it will be linked to their online account(s) and delivered to centralized/personal locations (depends on the nature of the product or service)
>automate the production and distribution process completely
>work will now not consist of repetitive grinding tasks, but more rather creative/information and idea sharing based tasks (Renaissance style)
>people will be encouraged to travel and explore. necessary transportation services will be provided free of charge
>adopt hydrogen fuel cell technology and hemp to its full extent.
>legalize weed
>build underwater cities and go to space
>Venus Project (with some added details)
>????
>profit!
tl;dr : smoke weed, go to space and explore the world and share thoughts and ideas with everyone over the internet for free
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-04 10:47
Romney can make this country what it once was: a barren wasteland devoid of life.