Make your case to the undecided - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-01-2004, 12:11 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:24 AM
No, I think you support Bush and the GOP, because that is the party you grew up supporting, following the example of your parents...am I correct on that assumption? That seems to be the true origin of party allegiance in this country, statistically speaking.

I'm also intrigued by the fact that you only bring up foreign policy points on either Bush or Kerry. I should remind thee that we are electing the President of the United States, not "world policeman." But I'm sure that the GOP "do-nothing" policies would be right up your alley?

(If only they'd actually do nothing; instead, they just craft a series of diversion legislation issues, such as the current "Defense of Marriage" constitutional amendment debate, the flag burning amendment that they tried in the late 1990s, and, of course, the impeachment trials over a blow job. I'm sure that'll go over well in the history books. Now if only they had passed that other diversion legislation issue: the Balanced Budget Amendment. I think G.W. would be up shit creek, if that little GOP diddy ever passed.)

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-01-2004, 01:47 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:24 PM
melon,

"No, I think you support Bush and the GOP, because that is the party you grew up supporting, following the example of your parents...am I correct on that assumption? That seems to be the true origin of party allegiance in this country, statistically speaking."

I'm surprised you would make such a presumptive statement about someone you do not know, especially in light of the fact that I specifically gave my reasons (in detail) for supporting Bush as opposed to Kerry. If you want to know why I support Bush and not Kerry, please read what I posted instead of making some uninformed judgement like that.

"I'm also intrigued by the fact that you only bring up foreign policy points on either Bush or Kerry. I should remind thee that we are electing the President of the United States, not "world policeman." But I'm sure that the GOP "do-nothing" policies would be right up your alley?"

I consider the office of President to be more of a foreign policy position than one on domestic policy, as the office has far more power in regards to foreign policy than domestic policy.

In addition, I consider the issues of National Defense, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, and the economy to be the most important issues. The GOP in general has been doing a far better job on these issues than the Democrats. In light of that, they are indeed at the current time, right up my alley.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-01-2004, 02:23 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm surprised you would make such a presumptive statement about someone you do not know, especially in light of the fact that I specifically gave my reasons (in detail) for supporting Bush as opposed to Kerry. If you want to know why I support Bush and not Kerry, please read what I posted instead of making some uninformed judgement like that.
Actually, I cheated and read another post where you talked about your parents being "big Republicans." It's less presumptous than you think, but I do thank you for making your case in detail.

Quote:
I consider the office of President to be more of a foreign policy position than one on domestic policy, as the office has far more power in regards to foreign policy than domestic policy.

In addition, I consider the issues of National Defense, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, and the economy to be the most important issues. The GOP in general has been doing a far better job on these issues than the Democrats. In light of that, they are indeed at the current time, right up my alley.
In terms of national defense, I'm unimpressed with their performance. It seems as if their entire "War on Terrorism" was taken from the last page of the Clinton Administration, and the administration was more interested in resurrecting the Cold War-era "Star Wars" than dealing with terrorism...that is, until 9/11.

Free trade...Clinton did a better job. He could have killed NAFTA, which was started under the Bush I Administration, but continued forward with it. He also signed onto GATT, which later turned into the WTO. But what is the Bush Administration response to free trade? Protective tariffs that have since been deemed as "illegal" by the WTO, and the EU has been able to levy tariffs and penalties against certain American goods. I would hardly say that Bush II has a great record on free trade, even if I am not the greatest proponent of it either.

And the economy? That's certainly up for debate, but if you consider irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy to be good "economic policy," then I'll be forced to disagree with you. I disagree with "trickle-down economics"; the tax cut would have been better served in promoting the working class to spend money on consumer goods, as it is their spending habits, not Bill Gates' personal wealth, that make-or-break this economy. And, on that front, Bush has been a failure. Anyone with intermediate economic knowledge will know that federal tax cuts, by their design, favor the wealthy. Instead, all Bush did was fatten the pockets of people who already have too much money, and send the states into fiscal irresponsibility, forcing them to either raise taxes or "raise fees," which I see as nothing more than "indirect taxation." Needless to say, Bush left Texas on the brink of bankruptcy, and I'm sure he'll leave the federal government the same way, at this rate.

I know you're an unwavering Republican, but I think that the party would have been better served by McCain. After all, who does it matter who the GOP leader is or believes? He's worshipped as a god within the party regardless.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-01-2004, 08:17 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Re: Re: Make your case to the undecided

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
No other President in history has done more to combat terrorism worldwide than George Bush.
This is only because 9-11 happened on his watch. There is no indication that terrorism has ever been a serious point on his agenda prior to 9-11. In fact, reports suggest his administration largely ignored the terror threat focussing mainly on his Star Wars toy. And don't even get me started on this Iraq debacle. It was an illegal and unneccesary war which turned Iraq into a 'make or break issue' in the War on Terror while before the war, it wasn't an issue at all. Saddam was contained by UN inspections, there were no ties to Al Qaeda and now Iraq has become a shooting range for a relatively small group of Al Qaeda members backed up by Iraqis who want the coalition to get the hell out of their country. Of course I'm not ignoring all the good this coalition has brought to the Iraqi people, but that wasn't supposed to be the objective remember? Or was it? Kinda hard to tell since this administration has has said so many things it's difficult to remember what it was they actually wanted. I guess Wolfowitz said it best when he said bureaucratic reasons determined the official story.

On the economic spectrum he's not doing that well either. I certainly don't have a PhD in Economics, but you don't have to be a Dr. to see that decreasing your income (tax cuts) while increasing your spending isn't a good idea in the long run. Future generations will have to pay for that which is acceptable when you are in desperate need of cash on the shortterm (from a ethical point of view), not when the money is going to the wealthy 'just because'. The economy doesn't care where it's money comes from as long as it keeps flowing, why not spend it on the borrom 5% instead of on the top? Furthermore, you don't get my vote of confidence when on monday you scream "FREE TRADE!!!!!" towards poor countries who are not to keen on opening their borders to you products, and on tuesday you apply your protectionistic agenda. Be it legal (agricultural subsidies) or illegal (steel tarrifs). By the way, did anybody notice how the EU got Bush on his knees in the steel wars by threatening to apply tarrifs to products out of political sensitive (for Bush) states. This guy's a wet blanket if I've ever seen one!

Apart from all this, the guy's a uber-religious fanatic trying to put his religious views into legislation. This faith-based-initiative program must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard together with this 'sanctity of marriage' crap which is just another excuse for denying gay people their rights. And his environmental program (or that of conservative governments in general) is appaling. It's like these people still live in the 50s or something. Climate change is possible a bigger threat to humanity than terrorism and Bush seems to be in a constant state of denial.

Well, I guess I've made my point why I'm not a big fan of Bush. But in all honesty, I don't seem to be able to get excited about Kerry. Maybe it's because, for an outsider, his views don't seem to be that much different from the Bush administration's. I would vote for Kerry because he's the one most likely to get Bush out of office before he gets into uber-religious-fanatical-neoconservative overdrive. I would rather vote for Nader though.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 06-01-2004, 09:06 AM   #35
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:24 PM
he has indeed done more to combat terrorism
but ever since what happened in Madrid I can't help but wonder how much exactly has been achieved

I think the only thing Kerry has going for himself
is that he hasn't had as many opportunities to make an arse out of himself
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is online now  
Old 06-01-2004, 01:18 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
he has indeed done more to combat terrorism
but ever since what happened in Madrid I can't help but wonder how much exactly has been achieved

I think the only thing Kerry has going for himself
is that he hasn't had as many opportunities to make an arse out of himself
A president can do a hell of alot more than a senator can. Basically I think this is correct. An incumbent president can act; a senator can vote and make speeches and come up with ideas, but their opportunities are by definition much more limited.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-01-2004, 05:48 PM   #37
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Kerry plays classical guitar.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 06-06-2004, 03:41 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Melon,

"Actually, I cheated and read another post where you talked about your parents being "big Republicans." It's less presumptous than you think, but I do thank you for making your case in detail."

Could you please show me where this post is, the title and how far back in the list it is?


"In terms of national defense, I'm unimpressed with their performance. It seems as if their entire "War on Terrorism" was taken from the last page of the Clinton Administration, and the administration was more interested in resurrecting the Cold War-era "Star Wars" than dealing with terrorism...that is, until 9/11."

When the Bush administration got into office, they started to craft a plan to "destroy" Al Quada, not simply "roll back" Al Quada which was the Clinton plan.

In addition, you can see the differences in the two administration by what they actually did? Although Clinton had the opportunity to take decisive action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not. The Bush administration has. Clinton left the Presidency with the Taliban still in power and the worlds largest terrorist organization based in Afghanistan. Under the Bush administration, the Taliban are out of power and Al Quada's largest base of operation in Afghanistan has been destroyed.

On Iraq, Clinton kicked the problem of Saddam and his failure to verifiably disarm down the road to the Bush administration. Where Clinton failed to achieve the disarmament of Saddam and compliance with UN resolutions, the Bush administration has succeeded.

Missile Defense is not simply a Cold War Era issue. It is a necessity for the armed forces and the country in order to protect from today's threats. Patriot Missile systems in Kuwait destroyed several incoming missiles from Iraq during the war preventing heavy losses of life. One missile that was intercepted would have destroyed the US Command Center in Kuwait along with several of CENTCOM's top generals.

I remind you that John Kerry was against the deployment of the Patriot Missile System.

"Free trade...Clinton did a better job. He could have killed NAFTA, which was started under the Bush I Administration, but continued forward with it. He also signed onto GATT, which later turned into the WTO. But what is the Bush Administration response to free trade? Protective tariffs that have since been deemed as "illegal" by the WTO, and the EU has been able to levy tariffs and penalties against certain American goods. I would hardly say that Bush II has a great record on free trade, even if I am not the greatest proponent of it either."

Bush has made some mistakes in this area, but he is more committed than John Kerry to supporting and strengthening Free Trade while John Kerry is in bed with every liberal group that is opposed to Free Trade. George Bush is working hard to expand the Free Trade zone of the America's to include all of South and Central America, so the United States and other countries can better compete with the European Union and its large Free Trade zone.


"And the economy? That's certainly up for debate, but if you consider irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy to be good "economic policy," then I'll be forced to disagree with you. I disagree with "trickle-down economics"; the tax cut would have been better served in promoting the working class to spend money on consumer goods, as it is their spending habits, not Bill Gates' personal wealth, that make-or-break this economy. And, on that front, Bush has been a failure. Anyone with intermediate economic knowledge will know that federal tax cuts, by their design, favor the wealthy. Instead, all Bush did was fatten the pockets of people who already have too much money, and send the states into fiscal irresponsibility, forcing them to either raise taxes or "raise fees," which I see as nothing more than "indirect taxation." Needless to say, Bush left Texas on the brink of bankruptcy, and I'm sure he'll leave the federal government the same way, at this rate."

Bush's tax cuts have helped revive the economy and get it out from under the recession that it went into that was started at the end of the Clinton administration. Unemployment has fallen from 6.4% last summer to 5.6% as of April of this year. Economist project unemployment to fall to 5.2% by election time. The current unemployment rate is one of the lowest rates of unemployment over the last 30 years.

The Bush tax cuts have also helped the economy rebound and keep a growth rate of 5% GDP each quarter while Europe muddles along at a 1% rate of growth comparitively. The economy has one of the largest impacts on deficits. By rebuilding the economy, one swells the amount of money the government takes in there by reducing the deficit. As the economy grows and makes more money, the government gets its cut.


"I know you're an unwavering Republican, but I think that the party would have been better served by McCain. After all, who does it matter who the GOP leader is or believes? He's worshipped as a god within the party regardless."

I'm not an unwavering Republican, I'm unwavering supporter of the right policies on National Security, the Military, and the Economy/Trade. If the 2000 Primary had come to my state, I would have worked hard to get McCain a victory here. Unfortunately, the primary was over before that happened. The country was far better served by having Bush as president rather than Gore and it will be far better served by having Bush as President for another four years than a liberal like Kerry.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-06-2004, 04:14 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Could you please show me where this post is, the title and how far back in the list it is?
I'm searching for it, but cannot find it. As such, for lack of evidence, I'll concede and issue an apology. I usually construct my arguments better than that.

Curiously, though, that is quite different from how you react from being proven wrong; you just disappear from the thread. That's often how I know when I've won an argument against you. This is besides my point, though.

Quote:
When the Bush administration got into office, they started to craft a plan to "destroy" Al Quada, not simply "roll back" Al Quada which was the Clinton plan.

In addition, you can see the differences in the two administration by what they actually did? Although Clinton had the opportunity to take decisive action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not. The Bush administration has. Clinton left the Presidency with the Taliban still in power and the worlds largest terrorist organization based in Afghanistan. Under the Bush administration, the Taliban are out of power and Al Quada's largest base of operation in Afghanistan has been destroyed.
Yes, but that's only *after* 9/11 happened. Pretty much all of the legwork and architecture for the "War on Terror" was written during the end of the Clinton Administration, it appears, including Afghanistan. But, prior to 9/11, Bush clearly did not have a problem with the Taliban. Not only did he not take them out, but he also gave them $45 million to reward them for their help on the "war on drugs" in April 2001. Do the math: that's only five months prior to 9/11, so it is pretty damn clear that the Bush Administration was sleeping at the helm, worried more about building a missile shield than combatting terrorism. I'd be curious to see how much of that $45 million went to Al Qaeda. Thanks George!

Quote:
On Iraq, Clinton kicked the problem of Saddam and his failure to verifiably disarm down the road to the Bush administration. Where Clinton failed to achieve the disarmament of Saddam and compliance with UN resolutions, the Bush administration has succeeded.
Iraq has *nothing* to do with terrorism. Repeat after me: "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism." It has already been established that Al Qaeda and Saddam hated each other. There is *no evidence* to link the two together. I'm willing to move past Iraq as some contentious historical issue, and, frankly, I did err towards wanting Saddam removed, as a human rights issue for the people of Iraq. After all, the whole situation had been bungled since Gulf War I, and here we had this nation crumbling as a result of not knowing what to do with the man. But, see, this was not the reason why we went to Iraq. It was for "weapons of mass destruction" and, if we want to listen to Paul Wolfowitz, the real reason was that we wanted to build a military base in Iraq to take pressure off of Saudi Arabia. But WMDs was just something "we could all agree upon." Faith-based wars...that's sort of troublesome, eh?

Quote:
Missile Defense is not simply a Cold War Era issue. It is a necessity for the armed forces and the country in order to protect from today's threats. Patriot Missile systems in Kuwait destroyed several incoming missiles from Iraq during the war preventing heavy losses of life. One missile that was intercepted would have destroyed the US Command Center in Kuwait along with several of CENTCOM's top generals.

I remind you that John Kerry was against the deployment of the Patriot Missile System.
Tell me what these threats are to require an expensive defense shield, in an era of increasing tax cuts and national debt. Osama bin Laden won't be hurling missiles at us, and if the Patriot missiles are working, then what's the point of a shield?

(I say that partially pedantically; the Patriot missiles were more of a hype in Gulf War I, as they did not destroy Iraq's scud missiles, but, in fact, only really bumped them from the skies, only to explode onto the ground. But still...we are the sole superpower now. What nations even remotely pose a threat involving missiles? The Soviet Union is dead.)

Quote:
"Free trade...Clinton did a better job. He could have killed NAFTA, which was started under the Bush I Administration, but continued forward with it. He also signed onto GATT, which later turned into the WTO. But what is the Bush Administration response to free trade? Protective tariffs that have since been deemed as "illegal" by the WTO, and the EU has been able to levy tariffs and penalties against certain American goods. I would hardly say that Bush II has a great record on free trade, even if I am not the greatest proponent of it either."

Bush has made some mistakes in this area, but he is more committed than John Kerry to supporting and strengthening Free Trade while John Kerry is in bed with every liberal group that is opposed to Free Trade. George Bush is working hard to expand the Free Trade zone of the America's to include all of South and Central America, so the United States and other countries can better compete with the European Union and its large Free Trade zone.
I'm torn on the issue of "free trade," admittedly. I believe that the ultimate goals of free trade are honorable, but that, with the way the playing field is currently, it can only hurt Americans. We must ultimately be prepared for a lower quality of life, and, to a degree, we would already have experienced that, had it not been for banks making up for our loss of income through expanded credit.

The solution to these problems is to set ground rules. A global minimum wage, working standards, etc. so that American labor won't have to compete against near slave labor--which we cannot. Lowering our wages to their levels not only would destroy our economy, but no Americans would even be able to buy these goods. After all, lest American corporations forget, if Americans can't afford their products, then all the cheap foreign factories in the world won't matter.


Quote:
Bush's tax cuts have helped revive the economy and get it out from under the recession that it went into that was started at the end of the Clinton administration. Unemployment has fallen from 6.4% last summer to 5.6% as of April of this year. Economist project unemployment to fall to 5.2% by election time. The current unemployment rate is one of the lowest rates of unemployment over the last 30 years.

The Bush tax cuts have also helped the economy rebound and keep a growth rate of 5% GDP each quarter while Europe muddles along at a 1% rate of growth comparitively. The economy has one of the largest impacts on deficits. By rebuilding the economy, one swells the amount of money the government takes in there by reducing the deficit. As the economy grows and makes more money, the government gets its cut.
The sluggish pace of this "growth," which I'm still not incredibly convinced exists, outside of media hype, makes me think that we could have grown regardless. Where I'm concerned is over the fact that taxes are successively lowered with each President, almost as if to play a game of chicken with future presidents. It is not as if taxes are then raised during "prosperous times" and relowered with each recession. Who's going to be forced to give in and raise taxes? It certainly looks as if Dubya raised the stakes; I'm unsure, at this rate, if we'll ever be able to afford lower taxes, let alone be able to afford these current tax rates. While no one likes to pay taxes, and it has almost become a religion in itself to lower taxes recklessly, there comes a point where it just cannot happen further.

Quote:
I'm not an unwavering Republican, I'm unwavering supporter of the right policies on National Security, the Military, and the Economy/Trade. If the 2000 Primary had come to my state, I would have worked hard to get McCain a victory here. Unfortunately, the primary was over before that happened. The country was far better served by having Bush as president rather than Gore and it will be far better served by having Bush as President for another four years than a liberal like Kerry.
It's too bad that McCain didn't become the GOP candidate in 2000. A shame.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-06-2004, 04:22 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:24 PM
DrTeeth,

"This is only because 9-11 happened on his watch. There is no indication that terrorism has ever been a serious point on his agenda prior to 9-11. In fact, reports suggest his administration largely ignored the terror threat focussing mainly on his Star Wars toy. And don't even get me started on this Iraq debacle. It was an illegal and unneccesary war which turned Iraq into a 'make or break issue' in the War on Terror while before the war, it wasn't an issue at all. Saddam was contained by UN inspections, there were no ties to Al Qaeda and now Iraq has become a shooting range for a relatively small group of Al Qaeda members backed up by Iraqis who want the coalition to get the hell out of their country. Of course I'm not ignoring all the good this coalition has brought to the Iraqi people, but that wasn't supposed to be the objective remember? Or was it? Kinda hard to tell since this administration has has said so many things it's difficult to remember what it was they actually wanted. I guess Wolfowitz said it best when he said bureaucratic reasons determined the official story."

The Bush administration was forming a plan to destroy Al Quada rather than simply roll back Al Quada which had been the Clinton administration plan for 8 years which did not succeed.

It is simply a smear campaign by Democrats in a election season that terrorism was not a priorty of the Bush administration. Many liberals hate the idea of missile defense and so naturaly say he was only focused on that which is rubish. The current administration unlike the previous one is focused on all area's of national defense to include terrorism and missile defense. Missile defense is important as any coalition soldier or Kuwaiti citizen in Kuwait can testify to when the Patriot Missile knocked out multiple Iraqi balistic missiles fired at the start of the war last year.

On Saddam, the war was approved by UN security council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. There has never been a war with more resolutions supporting it than this one. The war was necessary to insure that Saddam was verifiably disarmed of all WMD! The international community in 1991 had passed multiple resolutions following the first Gulf War that Saddam "MUST" Verifiably and completely disarm of all WMD in order to insure the safety and security of the region. Saddam had already attacked and invaded 4 countries in the space of 10 years and used WMD more times than any leader in history. Insuring that Saddam was completely disarmed was the minimum that the international community needed to do to secure the region. To not insure the disarmament of Saddam would have been illogical and risked the security of the region along with the global economy.

The inspections process you allude to only works when SADDAM cooperates with it. Inspectors had not been allowed in the country for four years and once let back in, Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspectors by not showing where WMD was or where the remains of the dismantled WMD were. Unarmed inspectors cannot verifiably disarm a dictator with a 400,000 man military who does not want to be disarmed.

The goal of the war which was to insure the verifiable disarmament of Saddam's regime has been achieved. Saddam's regime no longer exist. The goal now is to replace the regime with a stable democratic government that respects its neighbors and has no desire to take them over as Saddam did. In achieving this goal, the original security objectives of the world are still served as well as the well being of the Iraqi people and other people living in the region.


"On the economic spectrum he's not doing that well either. I certainly don't have a PhD in Economics, but you don't have to be a Dr. to see that decreasing your income (tax cuts) while increasing your spending isn't a good idea in the long run. Future generations will have to pay for that which is acceptable when you are in desperate need of cash on the shortterm (from a ethical point of view), not when the money is going to the wealthy 'just because'. The economy doesn't care where it's money comes from as long as it keeps flowing, why not spend it on the borrom 5% instead of on the top? Furthermore, you don't get my vote of confidence when on monday you scream "FREE TRADE!!!!!" towards poor countries who are not to keen on opening their borders to you products, and on tuesday you apply your protectionistic agenda. Be it legal (agricultural subsidies) or illegal (steel tarrifs). By the way, did anybody notice how the EU got Bush on his knees in the steel wars by threatening to apply tarrifs to products out of political sensitive (for Bush) states. This guy's a wet blanket if I've ever seen one!"

The Bush administration has two big goals, fighting the war and reviving the economy. Spending is needed to fight the war, and tax cuts are needed to revive the economy. Tax cuts have revived the economy as current economic growth in the USA stands at 5% and unemployment is only 5.6%. Compare that to the European Union where the economic growth rate is only 1.3% and unemployment is at 9%. Or even more specifically take the Netherlands where unemployment stands at 6.4% and the economic growth rate is a tiny .8%.

By strenthening the US economy, the Bush administration is helping to keep the deficit down because a growing economy brings in more revenue for the government than one that is not growing. The war is necessary and must be fully funded. In the short run, deficits are unavoidable. It would have been impossible for the USA to liberate Western Europe in World War II if it were not allowed to run a deficit. The deficits today are nothing compared to the deficits that were run during World War II.

There is not another country in the World that is more open to international trade than the United States. If you disagree, I suggest you look at the US trade deficit. It is high time Europe and other countries began to lower their barriers to trade although I disagree with some of Bush's strategies in doing that.

"Apart from all this, the guy's a uber-religious fanatic trying to put his religious views into legislation. This faith-based-initiative program must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard together with this 'sanctity of marriage' crap which is just another excuse for denying gay people their rights. And his environmental program (or that of conservative governments in general) is appaling. It's like these people still live in the 50s or something. Climate change is possible a bigger threat to humanity than terrorism and Bush seems to be in a constant state of denial."

I seriously doubt the majority of the victims families of 9/11 would support your view that the environment is a bigger problem than terrorism. The 3,025 people killed on 9/11 were not killed by the environment nor were the 1.7 million people who were murdered by Saddam. There are problems with the environment for sure, but they are not as immediate or dangerous as problems posed by terrorism and rogue states.

If you believe the environment and "Corperate Greed" are the only problems in the world, then I could see why Nadar would be your man for president.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-06-2004, 05:32 PM   #41
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,335
Local Time: 10:24 AM
bush is driving this election... both by his successes and his failures. everyone is talking about bush. his poll numbers are still high enough where it's going to take something more than "vote for kerry because he's not bush" for the esteemed senator from massachusets to actually win this thing.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 06-06-2004, 05:39 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Melon,

"I'm searching for it, but cannot find it. As such, for lack of evidence, I'll concede and issue an apology. I usually construct my arguments better than that."

"Curiously, though, that is quite different from how you react from being proven wrong; you just disappear from the thread. That's often how I know when I've won an argument against you. This is besides my point, though."

Not a big deal at all, I was just curious as to where you saw me post that.

I never presume that when one has disappeared from a thread that they have conceded their arguement unless of course they have stated that.



"Yes, but that's only *after* 9/11 happened. Pretty much all of the legwork and architecture for the "War on Terror" was written during the end of the Clinton Administration, it appears, including Afghanistan. But, prior to 9/11, Bush clearly did not have a problem with the Taliban. Not only did he not take them out, but he also gave them $45 million to reward them for their help on the "war on drugs" in April 2001. Do the math: that's only five months prior to 9/11, so it is pretty damn clear that the Bush Administration was sleeping at the helm, worried more about building a missile shield than combatting terrorism. I'd be curious to see how much of that $45 million went to Al Qaeda. Thanks George!"


The Clinton administrations work on Terror is defined by their actions. The Clinton administration did not take enough action to stop Al Quada. Their goal should have been to destroy Al Quada but instead it was simply of one of roll back, and even there to little was done. The Bush administration was in office 7 months prior to 9/11 and was developing a plan that went far beyond anything the Clinton Administration planned or actually attempted. The Bush administration obviously would have been pleased if they had received more intelligence or cooperation from the Taliban in tracking down Al Quada through the limited use of funds. No one knew at the time just how intertwined both Al Quada and the Taliban were.

The only defense the Clinton administration has offered are these vague plans that they claim resemble everything Bush has done. Nevermind the fact they had 8 years to actually do something about this problem. During the 2000 campaign, the Bush administration often said they were not going to use a million dollar cruise missile to take out a terrorist in a tent, that their response to terrorism would be more sophisticated than that.



"Iraq has *nothing* to do with terrorism. Repeat after me: "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism." It has already been established that Al Qaeda and Saddam hated each other. There is *no evidence* to link the two together. I'm willing to move past Iraq as some contentious historical issue, and, frankly, I did err towards wanting Saddam removed, as a human rights issue for the people of Iraq. After all, the whole situation had been bungled since Gulf War I, and here we had this nation crumbling as a result of not knowing what to do with the man. But, see, this was not the reason why we went to Iraq. It was for "weapons of mass destruction" and, if we want to listen to Paul Wolfowitz, the real reason was that we wanted to build a military base in Iraq to take pressure off of Saudi Arabia. But WMDs was just something "we could all agree upon." Faith-based wars...that's sort of troublesome, eh?"

Iraq has sent funds to a variety of terrorist organizations in Israel/Palestine as well as being engaged in other terror activities against their citizens and neighbors. It is unknown if there were any links to Al Quada except that there were key Al Quada agents in Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. No one can answer this question for sure at the current time.

But, In regards to Iraq, I never once mentioned terrorism. The threat posed by Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm and the resolutions and attempts to contain him were all factors that existed with or without the possibility of Iraqi terrorism. The central case for war against Iraq was laid down in the United Nations Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. The coalition in 2003 enforced those resolutions. Clinton had tried to resolve the situation but did not succeed. Bush took the action that was necessary to resolve that problem and succeeded.

The first Gulf War was not a bungle because most people believed Saddam would not survive the aftermath of such a major defeat and if he did, he would have been willing to comply with every demand made by the international community. The world was a different place in 1990/1991 and Bush I had the best plan given what was known and the circumstances of the time.

Lets not forget that the Democrats including John Kerry voted against the use of military force in the first Gulf War to remove Saddam's illegal unprovoked occupation and rape of Kuwait. They believed "Sanctions" would force Saddam to remove his troops from Kuwait. We all know how laughable that idea was today even if many did not know it then. It is absurd for Democrats to criticize Bush Sr for not going all the way to Baghdad in 1990/1991 when they were not willing to go to war even to remove Saddam from Kuwait in the first place.



"Tell me what these threats are to require an expensive defense shield, in an era of increasing tax cuts and national debt. Osama bin Laden won't be hurling missiles at us, and if the Patriot missiles are working, then what's the point of a shield?"

"(I say that partially pedantically; the Patriot missiles were more of a hype in Gulf War I, as they did not destroy Iraq's scud missiles, but, in fact, only really bumped them from the skies, only to explode onto the ground. But still...we are the sole superpower now. What nations even remotely pose a threat involving missiles? The Soviet Union is dead.)"


In the coming years, rogue States such as Syria and Iran, will aquire the ability to hit the United States with Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles. North Korea already has that capability in addition to having Nuclear Weapons. It would only take 30 minutes for such a missile to hit the USA from the time it was launched. In light of that fact, it would be unwise to have NO capability to stop such a ballistic missile.

The Patriot Missile was originally developed to shoot down aircraft that move much slower. In the first Gulf War it was pushed into use as a way of intercepting Ballistic Missiles although it had not been tested in such a role. The Patriot successfully intercepted the Scuds in the first Gulf War in the same way it would have intercepted enemy aircraft. It was able to protect certain area's or "point defense". The Patriot since then has been modified greatly and is now able to assure the destruction of short range and medium range ballistic missiles upon contact where has before, prevention from landing in a certain area was the only possibility.

The Patriot Missile does not have the capability to intercept an ICBM which is much faster and spends the majority of its flight time in Space before hitting its target.




"I'm torn on the issue of "free trade," admittedly. I believe that the ultimate goals of free trade are honorable, but that, with the way the playing field is currently, it can only hurt Americans. We must ultimately be prepared for a lower quality of life, and, to a degree, we would already have experienced that, had it not been for banks making up for our loss of income through expanded credit."


This is the arguement that many in Europe made that workers in Sweden, Denmark and Germany could not compete with the low wages paid to workers in Portugal, Italy and Spain. We all know how that turned out. Free Trade does cause disruptions and transformation, but overall, all countries involved benefit. Standards of living across the globe have grown over the past century as free trade and globalization have become more the norm.

The USA has the 7th highest standard of living in the world according to the latest figures from the United Nations, so overall Free Trade has helped the USA, not hurt it.


"The solution to these problems is to set ground rules. A global minimum wage, working standards, etc. so that American labor won't have to compete against near slave labor--which we cannot. Lowering our wages to their levels not only would destroy our economy, but no Americans would even be able to buy these goods. After all, lest American corporations forget, if Americans can't afford their products, then all the cheap foreign factories in the world won't matter."

American wages have continued to rise overall. Your more likely to get a bigger pay check in the USA than you are anywhere else in the world. US GDP is 4 times as large as it was 40 years ago adjusting for inflation. That is a massive increase in wealth.

In addition, the United Nations figures show that with the 7th highest standard of living in the world, most Americans have benefited from this huge expansion in wealth.

Many countries in the developed world continue to make huge strides in improving their economies through free trade with the west. Wages in the third world will rise as more people become employed there whether from domestic or foreign employers.

Americans buy more goods and services than any country on earth. The United States is the largest and most lucritive market in the world and free trade is only going to enhance that as well as creating new markets around the world for Americans to sell their services and products to.





"The sluggish pace of this "growth," which I'm still not incredibly convinced exists, outside of media hype, makes me think that we could have grown regardless. Where I'm concerned is over the fact that taxes are successively lowered with each President, almost as if to play a game of chicken with future presidents. It is not as if taxes are then raised during "prosperous times" and relowered with each recession. Who's going to be forced to give in and raise taxes? It certainly looks as if Dubya raised the stakes; I'm unsure, at this rate, if we'll ever be able to afford lower taxes, let alone be able to afford these current tax rates. While no one likes to pay taxes, and it has almost become a religion in itself to lower taxes recklessly, there comes a point where it just cannot happen further."

The current economy is not growing sluggishly. The rate of 5% growth from the first quarter of 2004 is the highest growth rate by far in the Industrialized World. 1% or 2% is sluggish, 5 or 6% is racehorse speed and probably the fastest rate of growth that can be sustained over a long period of time. The 8% growth rate from last year was the highest growth rate for any single quarter in 20 years!

Taxes should be cut in times of recession and held steady in times of prosperity. Cutting taxes in a time of prosperity will only create inflation. Cutting taxes over a period of time during a recession will help the economy get healthy again. Its not a matter of principle, but a tool to be used to keep the economy healthy when need be.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 04:10 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:24 AM
W's campaign is dispicable stooping to all time lows in exploiting Reagan's death and the 2900 victims of 9-11 for politcal gains.

decency demands this be reputiated

Quote:
Reagan's Family Criticizes Use Of Reagan In Anti-Kerry Ad
Family Says Group Does Not Have Permission To Use Reagan's Image
POSTED: 10:28 AM EDT June 16, 2004


WASHINGTON -- Ronald Reagan's family is criticizing the use of the late president's image in a conservative political ad endorsing President George W. Bush.

OK To Use Reagan's Image?Do you think it is OK for a conservative group to be using Ronald Reagan's image in an ad for George W. Bush and against John Kerry?YesNo

The ad comparing Bush's war on terror with Reagan's battle against communism is being run by the conservative interest groupClub for Growth starting Wednesday. It shows footage of Reagan at the Berlin Wall, and Bush at ground zero.


The ad also said Democratic presidential contender John Kerry was "wrong then, wrong now" on national security.


Ad Affect Your Vote?Would seeing this ad make you more likely or less likely to vote for George W. Bush?More likelyLess likelyWould not affect my vote

A Reagan family spokeswoman said the group does not have permission to use Reagan's image in the ad because doing so implies his endorsement.

Club for Growth said it wants to show how similar Bush and Reagan have been "in terms of fighting evil." A Kerry spokesman said it's "pretty sad" that Bush supporters are already politicizing the nation's farewell to Reagan.
Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 05:39 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:24 PM
I'm not surprised that Reagan's family is pissed off at this. I read an article about *many* Republicans being irked at this.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 06:27 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:24 AM
Fringe support groups tend to rub people the wrong way. Move.on has done it best....
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com