Why Republicans should not vote Bush in 2004 - Page 4 - 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 02-27-2004, 12:27 AM   #46
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
If you wish to criticize the approach to dealing with the economy fine. But to imply, or blame Bush for the recession, is rediculous.
I never implied such. I was only stating the fact that the recession officially started in March (based on NBER data). Zoocoustic said the recession began in 2000, which was factually wrong. Then I had to explain to Headache that I never said the recession started overnight. He thought that I said the recession started on November 26, 2001. How does this translate into blaming Bush for the recession? I've already stated that the economy is cyclical, meaning no President is to be blamed entirely for a recession. Must I go back and quote everything I've said so that I can leave no doubt as to what I was talking about?

Let's move on. This argument about who's implying what is really boring. I will ignore any other posts regarding this specific matter.
__________________

__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 12:54 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonExplorer

Let's move on. This argument about who's implying what is really boring. I will ignore any other posts regarding this specific matter.

Clearly, Headache expressed himself perfectly.

Zoocostic is 100% correct that the last two quarters of Clinton left Bush with the start of the recession. Something which he could do nothing about two months into his administration.

If finding the exact date of the start of the recession makes you correct....then fine....

So sorry for boring you...feel free to click the ignore button for my posts.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 01:44 AM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:18 PM
[Q]Military)
1. Anti-veteran: Veterans to lose billions in benefits because of Bush
2. Anti-reservists: Bush sends reservists to extended period of duty. Reservists then come home to find the company they worked for has moved to Indonesia.
3. Anti-personnel: Would rather spend more on weapons programs than increase pay for soldiers [/Q]

#1 Wrong the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, passed in the house 399-0, and in the Senate it also passed without a single dissenting vote. It was signed into law by President Bush. So not a single Senator or Congressman was against this bill, which actually increased benefits, improved the home loans for veterans, increased funding for disabled veterans to purchase vehicles, increased education benefits, helped veterans of the reserves with small businesses, and increased benefits by over $1 Billion over the next ten years.

#2 Reservists signed their names on a dotted line. It was a contract that gives them benefits and requires that they serve when the president calls upon them. NO ONE forced them into the reserves. Having served 8 years in the reserves and been activated in the Gulf War I am more than willing to debate this point with you.

President Bush also passed into law Permanently extending home loan benefits to reservists. Under the prior law this benefit would have run out. It is now a PERMANENT thanks to President Bush.

#3 interesting....but factually wrong Over the past two years military pay has increased by an average of 4%. The president has also proposed up to a 6% raise for members of the military who have served for a longer period of time and sufficient rank to warrent their retention. In addition, the president has INCREASED the money going to servicemembers living off base and cut their out of pocket expenses from 15% of their income to 7.5%. If the presidents budget is approved, by 2005 out of pocket housing expenses will be 0%.

Now if you want to debate the development of weapons programs, the last war has proven that that the better weapons saved many American and civilian lives. The technology that the president is looking to push for will help to save lives as well. Considering that Senator Kerry has voted against a majority of the Bills that gave the military the technology that they used in the last war, I find it hard to say that the development of new technology is a bad thing.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 10:12 AM   #49
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,447
Local Time: 12:18 PM
we have an ignore button???


obviously many reservists do sign up just for the benefits or college money, etc. etc., never expecting to actually fight in a war. but hey guess what... shit happens. like dread said... all reservists no full well that the time may come where they get called into active service. it's a chance they take in return for the benefits. if they didn't want to take that chance, they shouldn't have signed up in the first place.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 10:52 AM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Re: Why Republicans should not vote Bush in 2004

Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonExplorer
Military)

3. Anti-personnel: Would rather spend more on weapons programs than increase pay for soldiers
In addition to the point raised by Dread, the Bush administration has cancelled two high profile, high cost weapons programs (the Crusader artillery project and the Comanche helicopter project) - programs inherited from the previous administration.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:29 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Headache and NB

And yes, you can go into the USER CP there is an ignore set up.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 05:22 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
obviously many reservists do sign up just for the benefits or college money, etc. etc., never expecting to actually fight in a war. but hey guess what... shit happens. like dread said... all reservists no full well that the time may come where they get called into active service. it's a chance they take in return for the benefits. if they didn't want to take that chance, they shouldn't have signed up in the first place.
Well said.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 09:21 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Amazing how quiet a thread can get when facts are displayed...
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 08:49 AM   #54
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,447
Local Time: 12:18 PM
don't you hate when you go back and look at a post you made a day later and realize you made a simple 3rd grade level grammer mistake?

Quote:
all reservists no full well
hooked on phonics worked for me!
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 12:29 PM   #55
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Amazing how quiet a thread can get when facts are displayed...
hmm, I've only read some facts on the military
at least, I assume those are facts since I know near to nothing about the military anyway

the rest seemed to focus on when a recession did or didn't start
which in itself is a bit of a moot point anyway since political influence on the economy isn't that enormous that it can dictate the economy anyway
__________________
“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 offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 12:50 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
don't you hate when you go back and look at a post you made a day later and realize you made a simple 3rd grade level grammer mistake?



hooked on phonics worked for me!
ha, ha boobie
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 01:53 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
don't you hate when you go back and look at a post you made a day later and realize you made a simple 3rd grade level grammer mistake?



hooked on phonics worked for me!

headache,

i saw it, no big deal.

we all knew what you meant.

sometimes posters in here attack a grammer or spelling error as a distraction from the points made in the discussion.


carry on


Quote:
ha, ha boobies
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 03:57 PM   #58
The Fly
 
mortiere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 32
Local Time: 12:18 PM
I have two names for you, Noam Chomsky and Greg Pallast, look into them, you may learn something.
And as for homeland security and terrorists, think of it this way, if Iraq came and took over our government after bombing the hell out of us, wouldn't you fight back and want blood? All these "terrorists" are doing are fighting back after years of oppression thanks to the US government. And I don't want to hear for our freedom and rights bullshit. You go and commit genocide in a country you have no right to be in in the first place, someone is going to want your blood. The US has been terrorizing other countries forever, people are just fighting back. Now don't think I was happy that 9/11 happened. Something like that should never had happened (we later find out that Bush had prior knowledge something like that was going to happen), but holding a whole country accountable is not the way to go. The Patriot Act should be rid of. The govt. has no right to detain innocent people because they seem suspicious. Unless you're not a caucasian American, you really don't know first hand about the prejudices and loss of basic human rights some of us go through every day first hand.
Lastly, Bush can go fuck himself.
__________________
mortiere is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 04:05 PM   #59
The Fly
 
mortiere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 32
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoocoustic
Under Bush we were able to:
.

2) Withstand the face of pure evil we faced during 9/11 and rebuild our countries morale, military, and respond quickly and effectively in Afghanistan.

3) Put an end to another purely evil regime in Iraq by not only freeing an entire people, but also capturing their once-pround dictator.
.
Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were trained and put there BY THE US GOVERNMENT. They were once on the CIA payroll. They over stepped their bounds, made the US Govt. angry, now were spanking them with bombs.
__________________
mortiere is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 06:34 PM   #60
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Amazing how quiet a thread can get when facts are displayed...
I've only been gone a day and I don't intend on being quiet.
Quote:
Originally posted by DreadSox
#1 Wrong the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003.... this bill, which actually increased benefits, improved the home loans for veterans, increased funding for disabled veterans to purchase vehicles, increased education benefits, helped veterans of the reserves with small businesses, and increased benefits by over $1 Billion over the next ten years.
$1 Billion dollars over 10 years!!!! That must sound like a lot to you when that is, in fact, pocket change! Bush's 2005 proposal for increasing the VA funds misses the mark that veteran groups have shown that they needed.
The VA testified last year that it requires an average yearly medical care increase of 12 percent to 14 percent to meet the cost of inflation and mandated salary increases. Bush's proposal only increases VA funds by 1.2%! So this means veterans will actually LOSE benefits in terms of REAL dollars--money adjusted for inflation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
President Bush also passed into law Permanently extending home loan benefits to reservists.
Extended home loan benefits vs. lost income due to extended service....hmmmmm.

Sure, the reservists signed the dotted line. That doesn't mean their families won't feel the resentment when they have to serve for a longer period of duty than expected. And what is Bush going to do about all those reservists quitting once they come back? I guess they're not interested in those extended home-loan benefits, huh?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Over the past two years military pay has increased by an average of 4%.
The pay increases I'm speaking of are increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance. Last year, Pentagon tried to roll back the increases but a huge public outcry reversed the decision. Some say it was liberal media spreading rumors, but the story actually originated from an Army newsletter.

Nothing like a political embarrassment to get Bush's priorities straight. Even so, nuclear programs continued to be funded at the same level as last year, while the U.S. hypocritically calls for non-proliferation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
In addition, the president has INCREASED the money going to servicemembers living off base and cut their out of pocket expenses from 15% of their income to 7.5%.
Bush cut funds for public schools teaching children in off-base military families last year--to the tune of $125 million annually. While this doesn't affect those families' incomes, the drastic reduction of those schools' budgets affect the quality of education for those children. So the increase in pay is negated if those families send their children to private school, doesn't it?
__________________

__________________
GibsonExplorer 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 12:18 PM.


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