Rufio
Member
My bad. I meant to change the quote box to "Dr. John" to save a post but I forgot. Alas it was all for nothing.
Dumb Question- If Bush Could Run Again, Would You Vote For Him?
- Thread starter CrAzyOttER
- Start date
- Status
My bad. I meant to change the quote box to "Dr. John" to save a post but I forgot. Alas it was all for nothing.
rightship3
New member
You are misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed you are an ideologue simply because you are against President Bush.There are many people who are against Bush, on both sides of the political spectrum. Although by and large I am a supporter, he does raise my ire with certain policies like immigration and out of control spending. I am referring to those on the left that constantly bash him regardless of his position. I consider them to be intellectually dishonest...and I also gave an example. These are the same people who now treat politics like a religion. They throw out logic and reason, and replace it with emotion and blind faith. These people probably exist in all political persuasions, but IMHO it is weighted heavily on the liberal side.
rightship3
New member
The Defense Department will always refute facts that get released without their sanitized consent. That is standard protocol. Did you expect them to come out with two thumbs up?
Rufio
Member
Ok, I agree that they exist. This is true for virtually every world leader, or famous person in general for that matter. Certain people just rub others the wrong way.
But your example is invalid for a few reasons:
1. It ignores that the people in Bush's cabinet actively sponsored Saddam's atrocities until his actions threatened the control of oil
2. You haven't addressed the fact that the US embargo killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did
3. There's the fact that the US is still allied with brutal dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, is protecting a major terrorist right now (Luis Posado Carilles), and there's of course the recent veto of a ceasefire resolution which allowed Israel to continue its one-sided slaughter in Gaza
The evidence does not support the idea that the Bush administration is waging this war out of concern for the Iraqi people, or for matters of freedom or fighting terrorism. Looking at their actual track record, it seems far more likely that this is a war to regain control of the oil reserves and the veto power that comes with it.
That's backed up by the fact that Saddam changed Iraq's oil currency from the dollar to the Euro around 2000 IIRC, as well as the fact that both Bush and PNAC (the think tank for Neocons) were talking about invading Iraq (and curiously not talking about terrorism) before 9/11.
Simply put, it takes an ideologue to actually believe that this war is being fought for freedom, democracy, or any kind of humanitarian concern.
I heavily disagree. I see Democrats and Republicans who both fit your description more or less equally.
The WORST offenders though are blind nationalists regardless of their party affiliation. Nationalist pride can get people to completely disregard any facts that paint their leaders in a bad light, and it's what has allowed for some of the greatest atrocities in history. It had a large part in the Nazis coming to power in fact.
Rufio
Member
Did you read the other documents? From what I've read, Hayes is the only person who's read the documents and come to this conclusion. Others who have read the documents almost unanimously say that there's no substantial evidence within them whatsoever. The links you provided were people quoting what Hayes stated under the assumption that Hayes was a sort of authority; not people who'd read the documents themselves.
Now, when several people including the department that released the documents agree that there is no real evidence of this vast conspiracy within them, and there's one lone man who's claiming otherwise, what is the more likely truth? In fact, let's use some common sense here: the Bush administration has been claiming since after 9/11 that there's a connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam without providing any evidence. If some huge amount of reliable evidence had surfaced, why wouldn't they be all over it?
Looking at what's been reported, Heyes based his conclusion on a few reports of Saddam and Osama or other terrorists being in the same area at various times as well as various claims that they wished to be "closer." He NEVER found any direct evidence, but rather tried to "connect the dots" so to spreak.
Please take the time to read Benjamin's article:
Invalid Link Removed
Benjamin is a former Security Council member who already wrote a book reviewing intelligence reports in the 90's which dismissed any connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Hayes' claims quite simply are a jumbling together of circumstantial evidence, and his conclusions have been refuted as far as I know by everyone else who's read these documents.
I do agree that the government lies, although it's difficult to tell in which instances. Here's another example you may want to consider:
Invalid Link Removed
Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power.
Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.
Of course, the CIA claims he's making this up. At the least, I'd rate this on the same level as Hayes' claims are far as reliability is concerned.
Rufio
Member
Actually there are additional people besides Morris who claim the US had a hand in attempting to assassinate Qassim and install Saddam:
Invalid Link Removed
There are a few sources in there with direct ties to intelligence reports, although you always have to take them with a grain of salt of course. The website seems to have a left-wing bias judging by the blogspots, though I doubt it's as bad as FreeRepublic.
Invalid Link Removed
There are a few sources in there with direct ties to intelligence reports, although you always have to take them with a grain of salt of course. The website seems to have a left-wing bias judging by the blogspots, though I doubt it's as bad as FreeRepublic.
Brother
Member
well... it wasnt really advice. it was my view on something thats bad either way you cut it. Its like choosing between gonorrhea and herpes. Some people have views and stand behind them even if they are wrong just so they can feel right. I now refer to that as rightship3 :frustrate
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
The First Amendment...
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...allows for criticisms of the government and the press and religion and individuals, in fact "criticism essentially is "freedom of speech" !
Political commentary is a form of free speech. It is not an attack on the First Amendment.
The First Amendment along with the rest of the BIll of Rights and the US constitution is specifically addressing the government's law making body(congress)
So, by definition it is impossible for Democrats,Republicans or anyone else to attack the First Amendment. You can attack the "rights" of individuals, but you cannot attack the First Amendment or its "power to protect the rights" of any individuals!
Rufio
Member
LOL, who does Ward Churchill "support?" He is not a Democrat in case that's what you're trying to claim. He talks about atrocities commited by both Democrats and Republicans. The fact that you buy into this artificial divide just shows that you are a willingly brainswashed zombie.
Are you f***ing insane??? You're honestly telling me that CNN, Michael Moore, etc. aren't attacked CONSTANTLY?
You've really got a screw loose.
And again, Heyes' conclusion WAS NOT BASED ON DIRECT EVIDENCE. It was not based on any document directly detailing any link between Saddam and terrorists. It was based on documents that Heyes interpretted as putting Saddam and various terrorists in the same place at the same time along with quotes of Saddam and Osama saying how they may want to get "closer" or whatever. His interpretation has been refuted by every other expert who's seen the documents as far as I know.
That you expect people to take Heyes' interpretation as solid, irrefutable evidence is MIND-BOGGLING. Especially considering that you're ignoring things like the voter fraud in Florida and the Latin American genocide in the 80's. Those are things that have a complete documented history with tons of direct evidence which are almost univerally accepted as true.
Every time I read one of your posts in this thread I swear it's like reading 1984 all over again.
Rufio
Member
It is, yes. And often the United States has attacked countries with an extremely minimal threat, which were incapable of fighting back. Maybe one day YOU'LL realize that the majority of world leaders are NOT motivated by actual security or "freedom" but by their quest to retain and expand their POWER. Although, given that you're mentally blocked events like the Latin American genocide and Iran-Contra from your mind, I doubt it.
Speaking of idealism ...
Reality check: Iraq, like many other countries the US and other world powers have devastated, did NOT HAVE THE POWER TO OPPRESS US. If they did, they would've used it during the invasion. Their economy was horrible. The country was starving to death. I support military actions that ACTUALLY keep me secure, like WW2. I do NOT support actions that are blatantly power-hungry acts of greed, sacrificing thousands or millions of lives so that our leaders can horde world power. You are a naive idealogue if you really believe the Neocons you love so much care more about your freedom than their imperial power. Hell, their think tank, PNAC, has directly spelled out their plans for American imperial influence over the entire world.
Yes, and THIS government helped create many of those places, for instance the Shah in Iran and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
US domestic policy is an entirely different matter from US foreign policy.
Which your idol Reagan among others helped to build by supplying him with biological weapons and other resources.
They do not exist for personal freedoms. This is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS. Again, let's look at Saddam:
1. The US attempted to assassinate the former leader and according to some was involved in Hussein's successful coup
2. Reagan's administration (made up of many of the same people in this one) supplied Saddam for many years, never once raising concern over his slaughters
3. When Saddam steps over his boundaries (possibly misinterpretting the statement he got from the US prior to the invastion) and invades Kuwait, threatening the stability of oil in the Middle East, the US finally decides to take action
4. The US allows Saddam to crush a Kurd rebellion and slaughter a massive amount of people, despite their control of the airspace and the fact that they could've stopped this
5. The US embargos Iraq, killing over a million civilians and eventually instituting an "Oil for Food" program which ever so conveniently keeps the oil under control
6. Saddam decides to change Iraq's oil currency from the dollar to the Euro and has some possible oil negotiations in the works with countries other than the US
7. PNAC and Bush talk about invading Iraq before 9/11, and eventually follow through
When you look at the timeline, it's very clear that securing world power has a LOT more to do with this than any humanitarian concern. The same goes for the majority of actions I've mentioned. You are really an idealist if you believe that most US leaders care more about your well being than they do about their power and influence.
And to this, "liberal" and "conservative" are not sides. Neocons are NOT real conservatives in the way the word has been used fr most of history. Not by a long shot. Likewise, Democrats are not real liberals.
Every issue is different and trying to be "liberal" or "conservative" on all of them is stupid. In fact, the military actions that YOU support are very liberal actions, if we're using the traditional usage. About the only wars of the past century that a traditional conservative would likely support are WW 1-2 and possibly the Korean conflict. A traditional conservative would support the restraint and prudence shown during the Cold War (with the exception of some of the wasteful proxy wars like Vietnam). On the flip side, excessively litigious society and political correctness are far from true "liberal" values.
The words liberal and conservative have been badly defamed by Democrats and Republicans.
Rufio
Member
Good post. And to further refute this:
*Rush Limbaugh CONSTANTLY badmouths the ACLU, people who believe in global warming, etc.
*Ann Coulter is ALWAYS whining about "liberals" and wrote a book called "Slander" about when they do the same regarding her. She also participated in "Faranhype 9/11," a film devoted by and large to bad-mouthing Michael Moore
*Bill O' Reilly complains over how overly litigious our society's become, and yet he sued Al Franken over his book, claiming that Fox News has the rights to the phrase "Fair and Balanced." Additionally, he claimed that Jeremy Glick has stated that Bush planned 9/11. Not only was that badmouthing Glick, but it was a COMPLETE LIE.
Hell, I even recall one Democratic senator being compared by a Republican senator to Michael Moore because he was against the war. Dr. John is making some seriously delusional claims. He's basically stating that only Democrats or only countries that aren't US allies do the things that ALL politicians and ALL countries do.
Rufio
Member
Actually, speaking of political mud-slinging, does anyone remember George HW Bush's first presidential campaign? It basically consisted of "the other guy is a L-I-B-E-R-A-L and a card-carrying member of the ACLU" 50 times over. It really is sad that people fall for these "root for your home team" tactics.
MrTotality
Banned
Rufio
Member
Which politicians would those be? And what do you call it when a group of politicians (both Democrat and Republican) petition for Ward Churchill to be removed as a professor because he "supported 9/11" (which he doesn't) ...?
I do know that George W Bush has publicly stated (on the issue of comparisons of US foreign policy to Al Qaeda) that "it is not acceptable to think that way." He has condemned the act of THINKING in a certain way, basically discouraging the empirical method and implying the Orwellian idea of Thought Crime.
What does that have to do with anything? The majority of charges made concerning Bill O' Reilly and Fox News are true, yet you're calling them slander. Saying that someone is a "liberal" and a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" is an appeal to emotion an un-reason. Instead of debating the individual issues, it's the use of certain words to dehumanize the other guy.
Dubyah learned this lesson the hard way when he lost an election back in the day because he was too well-spoken and was painted as a stuck up prep by the other politician. That's why he goes out of the way to sound like an idiot in his speeches now. It's a way of endearing himself to his target voter base.
Exactly how much have the Bushes talked about their association with PNAC or their membership in the Skull 'N Bones Society? It's obvious that you're trying to strictly apply to "liberals" qualities that virtually all politicians exhibit.
Rufio
Member
Actually that was an issue of free speech; not an approval of pedophilia.
Which case are you talking about here?
That's funny given that they've also defended Rush Limbaugh before. Love them or hate them, the ACLU is fairly consistent on the topic of civil rights evenm for those who disagree with them.
Michael Moore is no more of a lying scumbag than Bill 'O Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or most pundits for that matter. Pundits in general are lying scumbags. That's why I deal strictly in the works of actual scholars. You're the one complaining about it being pointed out, though.
Here's a good example of O' Reilly lying for instance:
Invalid Link Removed
Double-standard much? You have repeatedly attacked me with statements like "what color is the sky in your world" and claiming I have a twisted world view for bringing up the documented massive numbers of people killed in Latin America during Reagan's administration.
I do not have a problem with your views differering from mine, but what bothers me is that you don't even address the facts! I list some documented facts to show why I think the way I do, and you don't even acknowledge their existence. That way of politicial thinking was lampooned perfectly in 1984 and it's very scary when I see people ignoring facts rather than considering and/or refuting them.
rightship3
New member
I have no idea why you are so bitter and jump to these far-reaching conclusions, but more power to you.
Nullifidian
Banned
I said that, not him.
Anyway, this is much more fun to sit back and watch than it is to really participate in. Actually, I think I'll try out neocon debate tactics just to see how they feel....
Dr. John, you're not living in reality man. Why do you hate America so much? Your line of thinking supports the terrorists! See, here in this article ---insert Weekly World News type publication--- it proves Bush flew the planes into the World Trade Center himself and then bailed out in brand new stealth glider. I keep posting sources and you just sit there talking rhetoric. When are you going to come down and realise that this is the real world? The terrorists are out to get you man. They don't care what you or me thinks. And you're creating them. You are actively creating terrorists. In a factory in your backyard. With a winch, a piece of dental floss, and some plywood.
Wow, that was fun. It's like surrealist debate or something. I guess it is pretty fun to be a neocon. All you have to do is rant like a loony and chant your standard us vs. them lines over and over.
Last edited:
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
You are a talented politician.
You ask me to define an action that you have already labeled censorship? brilliant!
You combine fact with opinion as if both were facts. brilliant!
You thank me for a review of political science as a reverse definition of my post. brilliant!
How about a review of debate? not as rule but in general it goes like this; point, counterpoint.
The counterpoint can also be a refute of the point asserted by the previous debater.
Obvious obfuscating tactics like twisting the points made by the other debaters to better fit your opposition of the point, will be dismissed as poor reasoning!
Thank you for taking the undesirable position of party line supporter, or as the rest of us like to call the 20%-ers !!!
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Reality is working fine over here, Bro !
The word "opposition" denotes an opinion!
So the "fact" is, it is your "opinion" that the reason they want the show removed from the air waves is because it is the "voice of opposition"!
What if the facts expressed on the FoxNews channel were in reality facts, then other shows would report them as well, even if Fox went off the air another show would just pick up and report these same facts.
...but if in reality the views expressed on FOXnews were just opinions laced in political agenda, then there would be no actual "facts" for another show to pick up and the world would be a better place!
That's just my opinion !
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
You points do not require answers only clarity and justification.
It would be a poor debating tactic to clearly justify your points for you, I mean that's the whole idea, right!
I labeled you a party liner for clarity not to demean you, thanks for being honest.
I will need some more clarity on how voting for George W Bush could save the innocent life of anyone???
Thanks for the religious advice I am sure you mean well!
This is the only country in which I would live, specifically because I have the "right" to point out its flaws and injustices!
MrTotality
Banned
from a party perspective most dems acknowledge their liberal leanings. The ACLU is another issue
Nullifidian
Banned
I smell an upcoming attempt at poisoning the well and appeal to authority.
Dr. John, why do you hate America so much? I'm still waiting for an answer.
Nullifidian
Banned
Cool, you accuse people of irrelevent arguments but then ask what their job is. Funny stuff.
Nice "I know you are but what am I?" quote too.
Anyway, you haven't asnwered my question:
Why do you hate America so much?
MrTotality
Banned
DOnt try to seem witty, it doesnt work for you.
Now, if you have watched any recent debate as an example you would see my reference. However, you sir make very large blanket assumption statements that seem to have no verifiable proof. Please dont quote me another neocon website, unless of course you want to see me chuckle:toofunny:
Rufio
Member
It would be easier if you'd use the quote function instead of "bolding" your responses so that I have to manually include them in my response.
I would argue that the result of the show "To Catch a Predator" is pedophiles learning how to evade traps more easily. That's really beside the point. I disagree with the ACLU's stance on this issue personally, but I can understand their position. They defend EVERYONE'S freedom of speech no matter what they have to say.
Do you mean this?
Invalid Link Removed
I see no mention of the ACLU talking about his "right" to walk around in public without a mask. It looks more like their issue is with his quarantine not meeting the required accomodations.
Here's another source:
Invalid Link Removed
The only thing I see is that the ACLU is pushing for his quarantine conditions to be improved.
The biggest one in my mind would be denying the Native American genocide:
"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of Genocide?"
It's pretty hard to top outright denial of a greater genocide than the Holocaust. I don't have the time to go on and on, but here are some websites detailing Limbaugh's many lies and distortions:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
The same "liberal media" that distorted Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez's anti-militaristic speeches into statements of war against America? I can't get my head around how right-wing nuts think that the majority of the American media is biased against America itself. I don't care WHAT country you go to. The majority of the media in that country is going to be skewed in favor of that country's leaders compared to other countries. There are endless examples proving this.
What about your precious Reagan and Bush Sr. recruting the ACTUAL Mujaihadein (sp?) including Osama Bin Laden who later made up Al Qaeda during the end of the Cold War? You can thank them for giving Osama's people weapons and training.
Your rants about Democrats are really quite comical. What you say about Democrats applies to all politicians.
Did you actually WATCH the video? There is a clip of O' Reilly caliming ON AIR that Glick stated that Bush was behind 9/11. As you can see if you watch the actual tape where Glick is on, he stated no such thing. What he said was the FACT that Bush's administration trained Osama and his guerrillas in the 80's. Glick cited actual facts, and O' Reilly outright LIED about Glick's position right afterward.
Killing mass numbers of people in countries that can't defend themselves to expand world power IS the path toward self destruction. Eventually there will be more world powers. The United States isn't exactly making friends by trying to horde world power.
When did I claim to be an intellectual?
Um, what? That's your argument? "I'm a physician so I can't possibly scew facts." You could be a rocket scientist but it won't change the morality of completely writing off genocide as you've done in this thread.
I have appreciation of US domestic policy, however that doesn't mean that I'm going to fall for whatever BS justifications I hear for genocidal foreign policy. I do my best to remain objective when I'm looking at the motives of world leaders. I don't go out of my way to find ways to justify one leader or another's actions. I use a little thing called the empirical method.
It's a logical failing to only question the motives and integrity of foreign leaders but not your own. The only logical position is to go in with NO preconceived notions about the morality of one leader or another, and from that look at their actions compared to what they say. This applies every bit as much to US Presidents as it does the president of Iran.
You are using an "appeal to emotion" fallacy.
I would argue that the result of the show "To Catch a Predator" is pedophiles learning how to evade traps more easily. That's really beside the point. I disagree with the ACLU's stance on this issue personally, but I can understand their position. They defend EVERYONE'S freedom of speech no matter what they have to say.
Do you mean this?
Invalid Link Removed
I see no mention of the ACLU talking about his "right" to walk around in public without a mask. It looks more like their issue is with his quarantine not meeting the required accomodations.
Here's another source:
Invalid Link Removed
The only thing I see is that the ACLU is pushing for his quarantine conditions to be improved.
The biggest one in my mind would be denying the Native American genocide:
"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of Genocide?"
It's pretty hard to top outright denial of a greater genocide than the Holocaust. I don't have the time to go on and on, but here are some websites detailing Limbaugh's many lies and distortions:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
The same "liberal media" that distorted Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez's anti-militaristic speeches into statements of war against America? I can't get my head around how right-wing nuts think that the majority of the American media is biased against America itself. I don't care WHAT country you go to. The majority of the media in that country is going to be skewed in favor of that country's leaders compared to other countries. There are endless examples proving this.
What about your precious Reagan and Bush Sr. recruting the ACTUAL Mujaihadein (sp?) including Osama Bin Laden who later made up Al Qaeda during the end of the Cold War? You can thank them for giving Osama's people weapons and training.
Your rants about Democrats are really quite comical. What you say about Democrats applies to all politicians.
Did you actually WATCH the video? There is a clip of O' Reilly caliming ON AIR that Glick stated that Bush was behind 9/11. As you can see if you watch the actual tape where Glick is on, he stated no such thing. What he said was the FACT that Bush's administration trained Osama and his guerrillas in the 80's. Glick cited actual facts, and O' Reilly outright LIED about Glick's position right afterward.
Killing mass numbers of people in countries that can't defend themselves to expand world power IS the path toward self destruction. Eventually there will be more world powers. The United States isn't exactly making friends by trying to horde world power.
When did I claim to be an intellectual?
Um, what? That's your argument? "I'm a physician so I can't possibly scew facts." You could be a rocket scientist but it won't change the morality of completely writing off genocide as you've done in this thread.
I have appreciation of US domestic policy, however that doesn't mean that I'm going to fall for whatever BS justifications I hear for genocidal foreign policy. I do my best to remain objective when I'm looking at the motives of world leaders. I don't go out of my way to find ways to justify one leader or another's actions. I use a little thing called the empirical method.
It's a logical failing to only question the motives and integrity of foreign leaders but not your own. The only logical position is to go in with NO preconceived notions about the morality of one leader or another, and from that look at their actions compared to what they say. This applies every bit as much to US Presidents as it does the president of Iran.
You are using an "appeal to emotion" fallacy.
Rufio
Member
Did you read the actual petitions to remove him from his position?
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
This is the first site I found that had the full transcript of the requests asking for him to resign. He was asked to resign because of his position, not because he was "unqualified." The issue about his ethnicity and plagiarism really has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Er, when did Ward Churchill EVER say that? I've read the article he is criticized for and he says NOTHING of the sort. In fact, he's repeatedly reinforced his actual position. The actual message of his essays is this:
*The World Trade Center and Pentagon were essentially military targets, being symbols of US power
*The United States leaders constantly attack similar targets in other countries that they KNOW are filled with innocent people, and the victims are called "collateral damage." Churchill argues that, using the West's own standards, the victims of 9/11 would be considered collateral damage in a military strike. He was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy
*He has several times stated that there WERE plenty of innocent people there who did NOT deserve to die; however he made the point that the same can be said of the endless victims of similar US attacks on other countries
*He rejected the idea that the attacks were unprovoked, citing the large number of Middle Easterners killed by US foreign policy the past 50 years. As he put it, the number of people who died on 9/11 are less than 1% of the children who were killed by the embargo on Iraq alone, notwithstanding the countless other attacks.
(I'm not sure of the validity of this. I've seen reports ranging from 1.3 million people dead from the embargo to 2 million. Ward claims it's around 1.5 million, over a million of which were children)
Do you have a source for the claim that he stated everyone in the WTC deserved to die? I would really be interested in seeing it. It could provide yet another example of lies from those who you believe have never lied.
Rufio
Member
Red herring and an attempt at an attack on character. For the record I'm still in college. I plan to become a lawyer. Regardless, I could be a 5 year old using the public library's computer and it still wouldn't make any difference to this debate. Bringing up what you do for a living is a logical fallacy and a sad debate tactic at that. This is the third time you've done it in this thread.
Rufio
Member
I'm not offended, but it sounds a lot like "I'm a physician! What are you losers? How dare you disagree with someone in my position?" It just comes off as an attempt to create an aura of superiority, is all. If that's not how you meant it then I apologize, but I can't fathom why else it would be brought up in the middle of a political debate.
MrTotality
Banned
I have to agree here, that is where I thought he was going as well.
MrTotality
Banned
wow not too sure what you mean by this. Usually when someone asks for personal information like this they are trying to make a silly, childish attack.
spunkles182
Member
Bush is a smart man when it comes to economics. His tax cuts and proposed health insurance plan were right on.
spunkles182
Member
right on. lower taxes means more money available for savings. more savings means more money available for investment. more money for investment means lower interest rates. lower interest rates lower NPV for projects for comanies which inturns means economic growth which means more jobs and higher tax revenues...
Rufio
Member
I'm not exactly enthusiastic about Bush's Social Security plans. As for taxes, I'm for eliminating wasteful tax programs and of course wasteful spending (which I feel Bush has increased) but I don't buy into the "what's good for businesses is good for the whole country" argument. Reagan's trickle down economics are what lead to taxes having to be raised by Bush Sr.
Tax cuts for today + increased spending = tax raised later on. That's the problem we ended up with in the early 90's. I don't think Democrats or Republicans are very responsible when it comes to this, except regarding their personal wealth and power.
Tax cuts for today + increased spending = tax raised later on. That's the problem we ended up with in the early 90's. I don't think Democrats or Republicans are very responsible when it comes to this, except regarding their personal wealth and power.
MrTotality
Banned
I am thinking you just like hearing yourself talk
spunkles182
Member
what dont you like about his social security plan? im all for it. why should i give the government my money to hold for retirement when i can invest it myself?
Rufio
Member
Enormous cost of conversion
Some studies claim we'd end up worse off period (there seem to bee studies that go both ways about the actual effectiveness)
From what I've read, there are several factors not taken into account from the people claiming "crisis" and the current system is in better shape than it was 30 years ago
The cost of conversion is the biggest issue. I don't think it would benefit the middle and lower class nearly as much as what is claimed, especially not in the short term during the conversion.
Some studies claim we'd end up worse off period (there seem to bee studies that go both ways about the actual effectiveness)
From what I've read, there are several factors not taken into account from the people claiming "crisis" and the current system is in better shape than it was 30 years ago
The cost of conversion is the biggest issue. I don't think it would benefit the middle and lower class nearly as much as what is claimed, especially not in the short term during the conversion.
spunkles182
Member
so? its my money to begin with, i should beable to do what i want with it. we would all get a better return on our money becuase the governement can only invest it in governement securities right now. let me invest it where i want to, its my future, and my responsibility not the governments
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
What if you make bad investments and lose all your money become poor and destitute. You could work at McDonald's at 65, but you would most likely apply for some government assistance(taxes), then you would be even more of a burden on the working man!
If they eliminate Social Security they would also have to eliminate other entitlement programs.
No entitlements means a lot of old people that can't take care of themselves would suffer.
Unless you adopt an "only the strong survive attitude", then who cares about anybody else, weaklings should die, right!
The social Security program was foisted upon the American public back in the 30's in order to condition us for the income tax
that we have removed from our pay.
It was the depression and people were desperate so the congress went for it! It really leads back to the Federal Reserve and the IRS, but that's another thread !
MrTotality
Banned
Hey listen, if you can dish it out make sure you can take it. However, I am going to call this a waste and walk away now and not try to get into your little power struggle.
Enjoy the conversation
spunkles182
Member
If somebody lost all their money to bad investments then they are a moron. diversification can eliminate your non-systematic risk and the only way to lose all your money from systematic risk is if the whole stock market was to crash. and there are other forms of investment besides stock that give a better rate of return with almost the same risk as tBills.
And the bush plan isnt to eliminate social security, its to give the tax money back to us so we are responisible for our own future and not to be so relient on the government.
Nullifidian
Banned
Dude, quit being such a patronizing little asshat.
I think you need a time out, little boy. Daddy is going to take away your bottle and your pacifier until you learn to behave like a good little boy. Now stand in the corner and no sucking on your thumb. Tomorrow we'll start to potty train you.
Tiberius
Member
Whoa you guys take thsi stuff way too seriously.
Wow and it looks like mods here are banhappy.
Look I'm new and I don't want to get banned, so I'm just gonna so "no" to the answer above and leave no reason. Looks like reasons are dangerous round these parts.
... runs away quickly ...
Wow and it looks like mods here are banhappy.
Look I'm new and I don't want to get banned, so I'm just gonna so "no" to the answer above and leave no reason. Looks like reasons are dangerous round these parts.
... runs away quickly ...
joecski
Board Supporter
I think I must have subbed to this thread because I commented on page 4 or something, but after reading the past three pages I want back in. Here goes:
There is no personal responsibility in this country, the government doesn't trust you with your own retirement savings, because the average person can't be trusted and would end up needing government assistance anyway. The people who can be trusted with their own retirement generally max out of the social security plan and contribute greatly to their own savings for retirement. ANYONE who counts on living in any kind of style off of social security is insane.
I'm all for reducing the federal government and increasing state rights, even eliminating programs such as social security and federal 'involvement' in education, but it isn't goingto happen any time soon.
As for the title of this thread, I heard a poll the other day that said an overwhelming majority of people who voted for GWB is 2004 would back him again in 2008 if he could run. The conservative base does not abandon their leaders and is slow to embrace change, a harbinger of things to come in the 2008 election.
Tiberius
Member
Don't hurt me sir. I don't mean any disrespect, sir. Mods can do what they want cus boards aren't a democracy. I know that. Just don't want to get banned is all. And I was talking about that totality guy.
As for that guy calling you a name, I own a medium sized corporation with over a thousand employees and people call me an asshat all the time! LOL. Online is a place where folks can let loose and not be so stiff. Just dont let stuff like that get to you is all. Just increases stress to take things too seriously like that.
I understand here your king and lord and all that. But when folks get uppity just let it roll off ya. Keeps the bp low. Heck youre a doc, you already know that!
rightship3
New member
I see where you are coming from, but the value of these boards goes down dramatically when the discourse turns negative and personal. Sometimes it is necessary to 'thin the herd'...
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Its not up for debate. I frankly do not care what people think about how I run this board. We run it the way I want it run and thats about it. Like it or leave it. The mods volunteer their time to put up with the kiddies and they will not be disrespected here. Follow the rules and you won't have any problems with us. This isn't an attack on you, just the facts. I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to this and its worked extremely well. Closed.
- Status