Why Republicans should not vote Bush in 2004

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
joyfulgirl said:
Although I can't say that I even have any conservative friends, I do know that a LOT of my friends' Republican family members will not be voting for Bush again. One of them voted for Bush in 2000 but feels betrayed because the library that he ran was shut down after he refused to turn over records under the Patriot Act--you know, one of those incidents that people say could never happen to them. Well, it happens. :down:

It should have been shut down. He broke the law by not turning over records. End of story. Patriot Act is the law of the land.
 
Headache,
You misunderstood what I said completely.
On November 26, 2001, the National Board of Economic Research officially announced that the recession started in March 2001.

Let's go over this quote bit by bit:
On November 26, 2001,
This means that on this date November 26th...
the National Board of Economic Research officially announced
That means the NBER came out on November 26th and officially announced...
that the recession started in March 2001.
Ok, are we clear now that I never stated that the recession started overnight?

Originally posted by Zoocoustic
1) Pull ourselves out of a recession he inherited from Clinton (recession = 2 consectuive quarters of negative growth, this began in 2000) and into favorable times economically as manufacturing and production are currently skyrocketing.
This was the post I was responding to. Don't you mean to direct your comment about economic downturn to him?
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:


It should have been shut down. He broke the law by not turning over records. End of story. Patriot Act is the law of the land.

He understands that. He understands quite well that Big Brother is watching. And he will never vote for a conservative candidate ever again.
 
[Q]
As I said before, a Democratic president would have reacted in the same way. Afghanistan was the easiest decision for Bush to make because 95% of the people wanted Afghanistan to be taken out. Making no-brainer decisions does not a great leader make, or something.[/Q]

Definitely. Clinton definitely reacted that way after the first bombing of the trade center. The bombing of the cole, the bombing of....ect...Yep He really did a GREAT JOB going after Al-Qaeda. Maybe if he had....instead of Bombing an Asprin factory to take the heat off him during the day his taped deposition came out, we would not have had 9/11. Saying a Democrat would have done the same thing is horse dung. There were 8 years of Democratic evidence that this is not true.



[Q]Joyfulgirl is right: Iraq is no freer now than it was under Hussein. Adding to her remarks, it's a fact that dozens of Iraqi police and officials die every week. Sure, Saddam was evil, but his people are the ones paying for it now. Capturing their dictator = Mission accomplished? I'd say Mission Unnecessary. Better yet, Mission Totally Fabricated.[/Q]

Filling the void of a Despot after 20 + years is never easy. To say the entire mission is fabricated is to ignore the violations of resolutions that have accumulated since the last Gulf War. "Sure Saddam was evil" how flippant of you. To equate the occupation, made LAWFUL by two UN Resolutions, and to equate the occupation as being NO BETTER than Saddam is crap. It is insulting to anyone who serves in the service and is over there doing their job to protect not only their fellow servicemen and women, but Iraqi people as well.

Mission unecessary my ass. Mission fabricated, only if you believe WMD was the only reason for war.

[Q]Also, for us to spend billions of taxpayer money on reconstructing a country that will most likely oppose us in 10 years does not sit well with me. [/B][/QUOTE]

The USA helped to rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII. Apparently Nation Building worked there.
 
Bush & Kerry makes no difference, they are both members of the satanic skull & bones.

If the americans on here still think some guy who apparently lives in a cave masterminded 9/11, you are all mad.

I predict Bin Laden will be paraded some time soon or closer to the election.

If you think the government isnt capable of doing or thinking such a deed may I suggest you do a search online for OPERATION NORTHWOODS CUBA.

Im wide awake , are you?
 
Dreadsox said:

Definitely. Clinton definitely reacted that way after the first bombing of the trade center. The bombing of the cole, the bombing of....ect...Yep He really did a GREAT JOB going after Al-Qaeda. Maybe if he had....instead of Bombing an Asprin factory to take the heat off him during the day his taped deposition came out, we would not have had 9/11. Saying a Democrat would have done the same thing is horse dung. There were 8 years of Democratic evidence that this is not true.

it's posts like this that make you the only red sox fan i actually like :wink:

and yeah celtic... bin laden wasn't the "mastermind" of 9/11 so to speak. khalid shaikh mohammed and ramzi binalshibh planned the attacks, along with help from mohammed atta, while living in hamburg, germany. they were, however, members of the al qaeda network, which is run by that guy in the cave... and that guy in the cave did have prior knowledge to the attacks, even if he wasn't "the mastermind."
 
GibsonExplorer said:

I thought the Constitution is the law of the land.



OK..back to fourth grade....:wink:

The Constitution gave the Congress the power to legislate.
The Congress passed the Patriot Act.

The Contitution gave the President the right to sign it into law, veto it, or not sign it making it law.
The President signed it.

Now, until the Supreme Court takes a case and finds the law in violation of the Constituion.....it is the LAW.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Now you are mistaken... a recession doesn't become a recession overnight... the economic downturn (better wording for ya?) started towards the end of the Clinton years, just like the economic downturn of the early 90s started in the tail end of the reagan years

To be fair on both regards, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton started a long line of deregulation to the point that government has little to do with starting recessions. In fact, the dot-com economy of the 1990s was (and still is) an economy with a false bottom with nothing inside, and, ultimately, showed that "economic prosperity" was really nothing more than investor confidence.

The demise of the windfall profits tax (a heavy tax on excessive corporate profits that was designed to force companies to either reinvest heavily into themselves or to pay their workers a lot to avoid paying the tax) in the 1980s has certainly inflated corporate profits, but ruined the last incentive that business ever had for self-investment or to raise wages. Now it is more profitable to risk bankruptcy, as the lack of self-investment incentive has made companies very apt to be ruined in stock panics.

Now what a government does *during* a recession makes the difference, and, frankly, I don't think Bush has the support. Sure, you will have your die-hard Republicans, and 42% statistically are (just like 42% are statistically Democrats). But looking between the lines, I don't think that most people really are satisfied with his economic performance at all. The usually belligerent Yahoo! forums were nearly unanimous in disgust with comments from Greenspan that the solution was to "reeducate" everyone whose job was shipped abroad. But, when it is jobs that, only a year or two ago, did require higher education (like Information Technology and Computer Science jobs), then what is everyone who is not a billionaire like Bill Gates or has a rich and powerful daddy supposed to do?

And that's where Bush's leadership is lacking. His only response are tax cuts that are directed to the wealthy--and ask the investment world, they're direct enough to tell you that the mega wealthy have done very well during the Bush years, while the rest of us are wondering where the next job is going to come from. I was visionary enough to predict this while getting my college education; basically, any job that isn't creativity-dependent will, inevitably, be shipped abroad, where Americans will never be able to compete with nations that have abominable living standards and low wages.

Melon
 
Dreadsox said:
Now, until the Supreme Court takes a case and finds the law in violation of the Constituion.....it is the LAW.

The Supreme Court is too corrupt to take it on. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever envisioned that the judiciary could be stacked full of partisan ideologues, so as to fully undermine the delicate Separation of Powers that is the only thing that separates us from a faux-democracy like Iran.

I just have to hope that none of the justices retire while Bush is in office, because his choice of judges are terrible.

Melon
 
Last edited:
GibsonExplorer said:

Ok, are we clear now that I never stated that the recession started overnight?

Well, in Headache's defence.....You WERE implying that President Bush is responsible for a Recession that did not happen over night. And the amusing part is, you are implying that somehow he was supposed to stop something that had been steamrolling for two quarters back into the Clinton Administration.

You are ignoring that under CLINTON in the quarter prior to Bush taking over......business investments were on the decline, interest rates were on the rise, oil prices were rising. Throw Sept. 11th into it and there was no coming out of it. It did not matter who was President at that time. We were in it, and stuck in it.

If you wish to criticize the approach to dealing with the economy fine. But to imply, or blame Bush for the recession, is rediculous.
 
melon said:


The Supreme Court is too corrupt to take it on. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever envisioned that the judiciary could be stacked full of partisan ideologues, so as to fully undermine the delicate Separation of Powers that is the only thing that separates us from a faux-democracy like Iran.

I just have to hope that none of the justices retire while Bush is in office, because his choice of judges are terrible.

Melon

That is an opinion. The court was created this way for a reason. If they are corrupt, then there is a process to have them removed. I am sure there were many who felt the court was corrupt when they overturned the laws on segregation ect.
 
melon said:
The Supreme Court is too corrupt to take it on. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever envisioned that the judiciary could be stacked full of partisan ideologues, so as to fully undermine the delicate Separation of Powers that is the only thing that separates us from a faux-democracy like Iran.

Were you thinking of the Warren Court? :sexywink:
 
Dreadsox said:
That is an opinion. The court was created this way for a reason. If they are corrupt, then there is a process to have them removed. I am sure there were many who felt the court was corrupt when they overturned the laws on segregation ect.

Or how about the fact that, for nearly 100 years, they ignored the constitutional amendments that gave blacks equal rights, and, thus, allowed segregation to take place? THAT is the shame of the matter.

If your entire government is corrupt, then there is no one to impeach anyone at all. And, thus, we're back to the same environment that bred Plessy v. Ferguson in 1892.

Melon
 
melon said:


If your entire government is corrupt, then there is no one to impeach anyone at all.

It is the Electorate that has allowed the corruption to occur. They are the ULTIMATE group responsible for putting these people in office.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
GibsonExplorer said:

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.
 
[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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
GibsonExplorer said:
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.
 
Headache and NB:applaud:

And yes, you can go into the USER CP there is an ignore set up.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
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
 
Dreadsox said:
Amazing how quiet a thread can get when facts are displayed...:wink:
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
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
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 :D
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
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


ha, ha boobies:D
:up:
 
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.
 
Zoocoustic said:
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.
 
Dreadsox said:
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.
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.

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?

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.

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?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom