I hate to say it, but it has been speculated that the Clinton-Gore Administration was somewhat jealous because 9/11 didn't happen under their watch. If Kerry is elected: A massive protest from the far-left but more as a rude good bye present to the President....talk about sore losers. [/b]
Henry as usual you fail to identify you sources. "it has been speculated", by whom Henry? Is this why you usually get into arguments with "leftist" professors? They don't let you "make up" sources?
Quote:
Originally posted by Henry L.:
Bush is re-elected: Democrats will aid al-Qaeda by trying to impeach the President. Like Alexander at Guagamela and Issus: defeat the enemy by striking the Head of the miliary. The Democrats in this case are the point of the spear. . [/b]
Hey Henry, Is that what the Republicans did to Bill clinton during his second term, impeach him to help al Qaeda? "Like Alexander and Issus", no, more like Bob Barr and Henry Hyde. Henry, you just indicted your very own republicans, make me laugh.
#397533 - 10/11/0401:43 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by Val: For long 4 years he agonized on who to vote for. He chose to vote for Bush because Kerry voted against the Gulf war 13 years ago . Kerry 'flip-flopped' on the Gulf War. What horror! That one mistake by Kerry sealed CWP's vote. He made this choice against this background: the Bush mess in Iraq (more than 1000 dead), the first net loss of jobs since the Great Depression, the country which is deeply divided by the Bush policies of cultural warfare. No matter that Bush took the country to the brink of the economic, political and social self-destruction.
nu2salt,
As you say, CWP is entitled to his opinion. It's his constitutional right. I am questioning his opinion because it just does not make sense. Then again, in our surreal Kafkaesque 1984 BUSHWORLD voicing any opinion for Bush makes you a stand up citizen. The less sane is an opinion the more they repeat it.
For example: The the Duelfer report says, that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. or any other country. So Bush-Cheney (one could think of it as a single person) replies: 'So much more reason to have invaded Iraq.' It drives me nuts. So should I lay off of them because they are entitled to their opinion?
The labor department reports a dismal job creation numbers. Bush-Cheney spin: 'Great. The tax cuts work.' Another opinion I should respect?
I fully expect some Rush wannabee replying with a perfectly sane explanation of this insanity. Your turn.
#397534 - 10/11/0402:11 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Baitrunner
Member
Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 1366
Henri', your predictions seem quite logical, and more than a little plausible. Mon ami, you are wise beyond your years, you lil' "goose-stepper", you! (But watch your twenty, le Icebuster is closing in on you!) Please, don't let the naysayers get ya' down, they're merely flustered; dazzeled by the bright, shining light of a valid point of view. (That, or blinded by the reflective glare upon their "hammers and sickles".) :p
Icebuster, I really enjoyed your point concerning archaic business falling by the wayside. Pity the same practice does'nt apply to government bureaucracy! Duplication, nay, triplication, and the increased expenses borne by us, the taxpayers, for such redundancy.
IB, I grasp, and accept, your point, although it might be a tad bit over simplified, as to causation. (Over-regulation, excessive litigation , high labor/energy costs, taxes, (multiple levels of federal, state, and local), et al.) A solution to the dilemma of out-sourcing is in the long term best interest of the American economy, and its middle class. Both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to give quite a bit here, to preserve whats left of our industrial base.
It is quite possible, that it is, as you've stated, a transitory period, (albeit a painful one), between one industrial era to another. (As the 1st industrial revolution was, transforming a rural, agrarian economy to an urban, industrial one.) But the devolution of our middle-class does not bode well for our immediate future, or the prospects for government reforms to tax code/structure. This old, dinosaur still shudders at the prospect of the new, so-called "service economy".
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
Some things everyone in this thread has said doesnt make sense, or even apply to the topic "political discussion". It's the smaller man that will lower themselves to a point where anything they have said loses credibility over a pointless personal jab or two. I wasnt looking to get into a pissing match with you Val, but for some reason you took it upon yourself to tear apart a guy who has apparently posted only ONCE stating why he will make his vote. I'm out here to mostly glean what little real unbiased info i can. I suppose it's your right to rip these folks a new ******* over what candidate replulses you the least, but was there a real need to ?? Sure, i think nu2salt is crazy as a shithouse rat , but i got to meet him and many others at CTF outings (try one, you may like it), so i know who is posting what for the most part.
Henry,Do actually believe or expect anyone to believe your last post?Clinton jealous that thousands wer'nt killed on his watch?Thats very very fringe.If florida is a mess again bush has no one to blame but his brother for it.He's had 4 years to correct the problems.
I agree with val that 1 issue voters are very dangerous,maybe more so than non voters.Unfortunatly both parties pander to the 1 issue people to get candidates elected.
#397537 - 10/11/0403:50 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Val,
I just re read your reply to CWP, and in your defense there was no "diatribe of death".
There was just a certain tone in your post, even though I definitely agree with what you're saying, that made me kinda sympathetic to him. Like GM said, he only posted once, briefly, and did not try to engage or attack anyone, or debate anything else they said.
I guess that's the liberal in me, always trying to protect others and defend their rights. It must be nice to be on the other side, where all they worry about is themselves and their wallets, eh?
Again, I agree with you about single issue voters, and also that his rationale doesn't make any sense to me either! But it doesn't have to, does it? Obviously neither you or I or Spin or Spun, et al, are making any sense to our counterparts on the right, are we? Still, we can't resist trying to enlighten them a little. Hope springs eternal!
It just occurred to me, why Mitch and some others were getting on me about being long winded and wordy. Republicans can't follow a lengthy, complex, involved discussion. Which is why His Most High Honorable Mr. President George W. Bush appeals to them all so much. He uses small words and short sentences, so he's easier to understand!
Anything too much longer or more complicated than that, and their eyes start to glaze over and they start looking at their watches like His Most High Honorable Mr. President George H. W. Bush did when he debated Clinton and Perot back in 1992. They just don't have the time and attention span for more complexities, because they gotta get back to chasin' that almighty dollar. Time is Money ya know! :p
Henry as usual you fail to identify you sources. "it has been speculated", by whom Henry? Is this why you usually get into arguments with "leftist" professors? They don't let you "make up" sources?
Spin: That is the second or third time you have accused me of "making something up." Whenever I do cite a web site or book source you say nothing. Whenever I post something from hearsay, or from something I read at one point, or just something I believe in, I can't cite it. Instead of claiming I am making it up, why not just challenge it? Spun and Nu2Salt disagree with me but don't say I am inventing all of this up.
As for anything I have cited thus far, it is absolutely true and stand by it. I am so confident that I would cancel my CTF membership if wrong. I don't believe in not backing up information . You know me better than that Spin.
As for what you stated before, regarding Clinton's impeachment, no we weren't doing al-Qaeda's footwork, because Clinton regarded terrorism not as an act of war during the impeachment issue (which I opposed). It had been internationalized...just yet.
My Liberal professors are the one's who don't research their facts. I have had 2 big debates with 2 different Professors on campus: one over Iraq, the other over Israel. With the first issue, I was mentioning various terrorist organizations, dates, statistics, and books from where I gathered this info, proving that Iraq had ties to terrorism. ALL my professor could do was tell me I was wrong and nothing else. No back-up. No info. As for the second debate, the professor is a Pro-Palestinian Jew , go figure, but he debated extremely well, and although we read the same books and material we had varying opinions and I felt he won the argument.
Flag-Up: I didn't mean that Clinton wanted 9/11 to happen. I was saying that the opportunity to fight terrorism on the scale similar to post-9/11 had not occurred during his Presidency.
#397540 - 10/11/0404:20 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Baitrunner
Member
Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 1366
BUC, Did I ever tell you your my hero? I'm beginning to feel like a paleo-con, (if I may borrow that wonderful phrase from KevinB) slacker compared to some of you guys! Keep up the good work, whilst I continue to slack!
(Or perhaps, like the mighty Cougar, I just bide my time; waiting to POUNCE with my very own "October Surprise"!)
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
#397541 - 10/11/0404:24 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBusteR:
I is an amusement.
Yes, you is! :p
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBusteR:
How can you be taken seriously?
I guess you're right, I can't be taken seriously. (I guess that's why you keep replying to me!)
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBusteR:
On the second poit, "cutting the deficit" you agree with me again.
Not remotely!! I guess my remark about "Read my Lips, no new taxes" was lost on you! I agree that due to the horrible mess Kerry will inherit from Mr. President Mr. George W. Bush, (despite the generous surplus he inherited from Mr. Clinton) keeping his promise to only raise taxes on those earning over $200K may prove difficult, and that he would have been better off had he not made that promise, since none of us are "sooth sayers", except of course Henry. But I am confident that he will start there and do his best to spare the other 99% of us for as long as possible, which is as it should be, all things considered.
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBusteR:
On the third point, "taxes et al" I thought I made it clear that my biggest personal issue is taxes. The national one is clearly security. soory if you got confused by that.
Yes, I was confused by that. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I asked you which one of these three things is most important to you:
A. Taxes B. The Economy C. Internal Security and the safety of your children
Now, you have unequivocally stated that your answer is A. Taxes.
I'm sure that under any other circumstances it would be C. Internal Security and the safety of your children, but it's just too expensive, and you can't afford to pay the taxes required to fund it; and you wouldn't DREAM! of asking the wealthy, who got that HUGE tax cut, to pony up to help cover the cost of protecting your children, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBusteR: Then in the very last sentence you blow me away when you say this,but we should really start taking a little of the cake away from those who have by far the biggest pieces, wouldn't you agree?"
I most certainly do not agree. redistribution of wealth is something I greatly oppose!
I wasn't referring to redistribution of wealth, I was referring to paying for C. Internal Security and the safety of our children. I was also referring to paying down the deficit created by the upwards redistribution of wealth which has occurred under Mr. President Mr. George W. Bush, through his tax cuts, loopholes, corporate welfare, and the profiteering from his little financial/political venture in Iraq.
For someone who is opposed to the redistribution of wealth you don't seem to pay attention very well when it is being redistributed to the wealthy, only when it is being redistributed to the middle class and the working poor.
(Isn't it ironic how in the last four years, the wealthy have gotten much wealthier, while our country has gone into deep, deep, debt? Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd swear that all that money went right from Uncle Sam straight into their already bulging pockets! NAAAAH!! It must just be a coincidence! I'm sure that the reason the wealthy got wealthier, while the rest of us stagnated or fell behind, is just because, dawgaunit, they just work harder, and the rest of us just don't work hard enough! YEAH! That's it, that's the ticket!)
Redistribution of wealth is accomplished by a tax structure which helps the middle class and working poor to keep pace with the prosperity enjoyed by the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth does not mean handouts, welfare, socialism, or communism. I'm sorry if I confused you.
Which is why His Most High Honorable Mr. President George W. Bush appeals to them all so much. He uses small words and short sentences, so he's easier to understand!
. You know me better than that Spin.
I'm beginning to feel like a paleo-con, (if I may borrow that wonderful phrase from KevinB) slacker compared to some of you guys! Keep up the good work, whilst I continue to slack!
Previous Topic
Index