- Time
- Post link
Bush won a large mock election!!
My Generation Rocks!!
Bush won a large mock election!!
- Time
- Post link
lol
they havent the slightest clue what they're voting for...
- Time
- Post link
They guy has about as much foundation as a snowman. He is going to MELT in the polls.
I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently.
- Time
- Post link
how in hell did that happen?
- Time
- Post link
This sounds almost like paranoia from the days of Cold War, when communist regime leaders had to be loved and whoever stated something else from what gov. said, was considered as enemy - just as now when opposing Bush Jr is called unpatriotic by his supporters and the officials. This whole debate taking place on this (and other forums) is pathetic, no matter how many facts and arguments anti-Bushists present to Bushist, the latter will always repeat the same song: "It's all Clinton's fault. Kerry is a jackass. Our Texan President is a Great Leader sent to us from Heaven. Let's nuke France". A flock of sheep.
There are (now-funny) names that were given to Stalin or Caucescu or Castro... they were to show the endless love and admiration people felt towards them. I can show you some links, you can just swap the names and use them in relation to your fav celeb - Dubya.
Bear in mind that in my country I consider myself as right-winger, so don't you dare to call me "pinko commie" for being agains Dubya, my fellow pro-Bush forum members.
It's always the political activists who stirr the trouble - usually young, angry and naive.
How did I accomplish that (considering my age) is my secret...
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: RRS-1980
Yeah, that's true, Kerry looses in terms of "cult of the person" thingie, as neo-cons/reps simply love&adore their leader. There are few anti-Bush or even pro-Kerry people on this forum. Have you ever hear them praise Kerry so much, to such extent as you do? Admit it Darth Chaltab, you even said once that Bush is more handsome than Kerry! LOL I'll bet there will be a long line of butt-kissers standing outside White House if the Bush wins.
I never remember saying that Bush was more handsome than Kerry. I thought I was the one that said appearances were less important than content of a campaing message and a moral compass.
The only remark I ever made about Kerry's appearance was that he looks like a corpse because the Botox makes his face stiff, which was just in reply to someone else's (Rebel Rouser, I think) comment that Bush looked like a "chimp." I wasn't even being all that serious.
So, know that I am not "praising" Bush. There are quite a few of his policies that I disagree with, such as the ease of outsourcing jobs, but I also believe that Kerry's economic policies would be far more disasterous than any thing in Bush's plan, and that the War against Terrorism is more important than anything else Kerry is complaining about. All presidents have strengths and weaknesses... except Reagan and Lincoln, who are unfortunately no longer with us.
I just tend to support the cantidate I think will be a better president.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
It's always the political activists who stirr the trouble - usually young, angry and naive.
I dont consider myself an activist. I mean, I suppose some of my views would be similar to theirs. And I dont generally consider myself naive or angry. I cant control my age...
Im not arguing you directly, I dont think you were being entirely serious.
I think some polls are underestimating the number of first time voters. As we all know polls are not entirely comprehensive. Im not saying who is going to win...I think that regardless of who wins, about half the voters are going to be shocked. People on both sides of the coin are really convinced their candidate will win. Its peculiar to me that both sides feel like "how the hell can anyone support that guy?" Peculiar like most of life.
EDIT - I dunno why thats in italics, something weird happened when I was quoting.
- Time
- Post link
QuoteWell, perhaps the under-voting-age kids that were involved in the polling decided to vote with their hearts because they don't think they have the proper knowledge.
Originally posted by: Warbler
Bush won a mock election?
how in hell did that happen?
They didn't pick Kerry because they know he is, as Chaltab said, basically a corpse and thus has no heart.
I was just thinking...
Any issue that anyone wishes to bring up about Kerry/Bush can be debated intelligently and logically (i.e. botox comments and monkey faces aren't exactly intelligent). There are times when I wonder if we should do that here, since we end up talking politics so much. Just start a bunch of threads and talk about issues seperately. Not that I expect any of us will change our minds, but it would be an interesting exercise nonetheless.
Would anyone be interested??
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: RRS-1980
This sounds almost like paranoia from the days of Cold War, when communist regime leaders had to be loved and whoever stated something else from what gov. said, was considered as enemy - just as now when opposing Bush Jr is called unpatriotic by his supporters and the officials. This whole debate taking place on this (and other forums) is pathetic, no matter how many facts and arguments anti-Bushists present to Bushist, the latter will always repeat the same song: "It's all Clinton's fault. Kerry is a jackass. Our Texan President is a Great Leader sent to us from Heaven. Let's nuke France". A flock of sheep.
There are (now-funny) names that were given to Stalin or Caucescu or Castro... they were to show the endless love and admiration people felt towards them. I can show you some links, you can just swap the names and use them in relation to your fav celeb - Dubya.
.
What a load of blankity blank blank. It funny how you paint the picture of bush supporter roaming about with a finger in their nose and drool coming out of there mouth. For every so called fact presented there have been or a possible solid counter point/fact that could have been presented. There are, believe it or not, people who support Bush that are educated and have factual grounds to stand on when discussing political issues, just like there are Kerry supporters that do the same. Further more there is a whole slue of people, whose brains are equally unplugged to blind bush supporters, that are anti bush and couldnt give you one solid sentence to why they think what they do. Sheep as you call them come are on everyones farms, not just conservatives. In the end, whether you choose to except it or not, it boils down to fundamental difference in philosohpical thinking. But you should stick with your oversimplified, over generalized thought process. You should start making race based remarks next, cause they are as equally founded as your remarks above...
- Time
- Post link
Of course, I don't mean ANYONE here. People here (except someone who has been banned recently) are political active and know what their saying. And if I offended anyone, well, I meant to offend republicans AND democrats equally.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Of course, I don't mean ANYONE here. People here (except someone who has been banned recently) are political active and know what their saying. And if I offended anyone, well, I meant to offend republicans AND democrats equally.
lol. I appreciate your post ric. I definitely agree with you. I honestly think that the majority of voters in America are relatively uninformed. Im shocked sometimes at the number of people who vote down party lines without regard to actual policy or representation.
EDIT - A note to Bossk: I started a thread on Nuclear Proliferation that has stayed amazingly civil. I think that things have toned down a bit. I, for one, would appreciate any participation in that discussion, as well as any others that it spawns. If its not your cup of tea thats alright - just thought id put that out there for your consideration.
-Lethe
- Time
- Post link
I try to hear all the facts, I really do. I just feel that Bush's methods of doing things will have a better long-term outcome than what Kerry wants to do.
I see Bush trying to put more power in the hands of the people when it concerns our own lives.
(ex. Bush tax cuts let us spend more of our own money, Bush medical savings accounts helps supplement insurance costs)
I see Kerry trying to use the government to take control over our lives.
(ex. Kerry wants to have this massive governmental medical insurance program. He'll need money to pay for it, so he raises taxes. We have less control over what our money is used for, and less control over how we get medical help.)
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Please do excuse me if I'm wrong here, I might be, but it seems to me that americans are too hipocrite when they talk about politics. They yell out their extreme-hardcore-right or their centered-right position (there are no strong left-wing parties in america), and oh boy, they'll run over whoever disagrees! Michael Moore will ignore the guy who made "M.M. hates america" and deny any interviews as he was some sort of god; Bill O'Reily will avoid any confrontation, tell his oponents to shut up, and when they have a point against him, he'll cut their microphones out. Everyone has a position on this, sometimes unjustified: sometimes someone is a republican because he's family and fox news told him so, sometimes someone will be a democrat because the internet and liberal newspapers told him so. There are no real concearn on the issues, it's mostly allegorical: "oh, I'll vote for Kerry because he supports the medicare reform, I have NO idea what that means and I've not been to a hospital in years as I'm rich and can afford my own doctors, but I'll vote for him", or "I'll vote for Bush because he freed Iraq, I had NO IDEA what or where Iraq was before 9/11 and I don't understand the middle east politics, but he did one hell of a good job". And then, as the election comes, it's one big parade, one big joke. People don't care to vote, people don't care to know more about their candidates, they don't care if the voting system is horribly corrupt or insanely inefficient. It's one big TV reality show, and everyone is invited to be a part of it.
Of course, I don't mean ANYONE here. People here (except someone who has been banned recently) are political active and know what their saying. And if I offended anyone, well, I meant to offend republicans AND democrats equally.
You arent from america are you?
michael moore has a huge following, and the democratic party has an expansive section that is very much left. Hil Clinton is actually a socialist, not that this is bad or good, but it is a fact. And facts be known Bill O'rielly has only told people to shut up 6 times in the last 2 years, four of which were in jest. You ever actually listened to /watched his show or you just going with the internet flow? Cause i have listened to/watched his show many times, and i have seen none of this. Further more there are lots of very "liberal" people in america, and polaticians that they support.
but you are right about the parades. people on both sides are ignorant to most reasons behind politics. sad but true.
This discussion reminds me of a question that has come to mind over several internet discussions. What type of new coverage do people in foreign nations get? I dont mean that in any deragatory way i am just curious. I also find it interesting how many foriegn cable companies wont carry fox news, but will carry al jazera...
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
You do make an excellent point Ric. A lot of people "blindly" support one side or the other without knowing all the facts.
I try to hear all the facts, I really do. I just feel that Bush's methods of doing things will have a better long-term outcome than what Kerry wants to do.
I see Bush trying to put more power in the hands of the people when it concerns our own lives.
(ex. Bush tax cuts let us spend more of our own money, Bush medical savings accounts helps supplement insurance costs)
I see Kerry trying to use the government to take control over our lives.
(ex. Kerry wants to have this massive governmental medical insurance program. He'll need money to pay for it, so he raises taxes. We have less control over what our money is used for, and less control over how we get medical help.)
I dont want to turn this into a squabble. I just want to put some thoughts out here.
First, the government runs on tax money. I dont want to give up my money any more than you, but I do understand that if I want the government to function it needs funding.
Also in the realm of taxation is this major difference. Kerry is in support of stricter taxation on large corporations. He proposes eliminating loopholes for US companies established outside the US territory (this would be major discouragement for outsourcing). As far as I can tell (pure opinion) Bush is far more concerned with taking care of his base.
Second, I think that Kerry's medical insurance plan is far less intrusive in daily life then Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment. I mean, if a person's significant other cannot pass them property, money, etc. nor visit them in the hospital with the freedom of a spouse, nor approve medical procedures with the freedom of a spouse, and so on and so fourth. Im not even saying you have to be "for" or "against" gay marriage. Im just saying that people deserve rights, and nobody in America should be denied rights because of a non-intrusive choice in their lifestyle.
I guess I just fail to understand how Kerry's government would control people's lives. As far as he has tried to present it, people will be able to make choices for themselves...the same cant be said for all of Bush's stances.
Im really not trying to debate, and these are not personal attacks. Merely, im offering another perspective.
We should all welcome differences of opinions. What is the worth of a conviction that has never been challenged?
- Time
- Post link
It seams to many--I am not saying that this is fact--that the Democrat party in America, the far-"left" as they are called in the news are totally obsessed with power and control. The leftists seem to want a welfare state, where money is redistributed rather than earned. If you tax the rich and give to the poor continually, then you'll eventually end up with nothing, because you take away the incentive to make money, which is essentially Communism.
Again, this could be largely exagerated. But it is fact that the government as an abysmal track-record at dealing with social issues. You can't simply throw money at a problem to solve it. It doesn't work that way. If you are moved by a problem, then give to a charity--one you know has a good record at fixng things. The problem with liberalism that I see is that it wants to make everybody depentent on the government for their day to day existence; conservatives belive that the government shold make laws, enforce them, and provide for national services and defense, but not provide for the people.
- Time
- Post link
I understand that the government needs tax money. Bush, however, is using a different method for increasing the revenue the government gains.
I also understand you're offering your perspective and not trying to attack me personally.
Basic Economics: There are 2 ways to get money. Charge a high price and sell few items or charge a low price and sell many items.
There is a tricky midpoint where the 2 intersect, maximizing profit.
Or, if I could use an alternate example:
Ever play SimCity 2000? What happens when you raise taxes too high? Businesses move out. People leave and revenue drops. What happens when you decrease taxes? Well, if you go too low, you cannot pay your operating costs. If you find a middle point, you maximize income.
Sometimes, you have to decrease your taxes too much to encourage growth. You may have some losses in the short-term, but long-term, you're city is growing and you may be able to raise taxes a point ot 2 without them getting mad and leaving.
As far as outsourcing is concerned, let me ask you...no, I think challenge you would be a better wording, to find out how many jobs have been insourced.
How many Honda and Toyota plants are in the US? What about Daimler-Chryster? Those are 3 major foreign companies that employ thousands of Americans.
It could be tough, and I'm not going to say that there are MORE insourced than outsourced, but it should be something worth looking at.
While you're looking, see how many Heinz factories are outside the US.
As for the rest, about corporations in general.
Let's say we have a Company. The numbers are completely made up.
This company employs 100 union workers at a cost of $300 per person per week. $30,000 per week.
This company has an income of $35,000 per week, pays $1500 in taxes per week, and wishes to maintain a 10% profit, $3500 per week.
Now, Kerry comes along and raises taxes for them. They now pay $3000 in taxes, double what they payed before.
They have several options:
1. they could reduce their profit margin to $2000 per week
2. they could cut salaries across the board by $15 per week (to $285)
3. they could cut staff by 5 people.
Now, Option 1 hurts the company's ability to expand, to make capital improvements if necessary, and survive if something causes their business to drop. Options 2 hurts all the workers and option 3 hurts 5 workers.
Which is the best option?
By keeping taxes low, you encourage companies to grow, become better, employ more people, and ultimately, that helps the worker and the consumer.
Rights:
Alright. I agree that people deserve rights...but what about the polgamist in Utah? He's gotten in trouble because of his lifestyle, but he should be protected, right?
If 2 men or 2 women can get married, why not 1 man and 5 women? What about 2 men and 1 woman? What about a boy and his dog? A middle-aged woman and a banana (sorry for the mental picture).
Welcome to Pandora's box.
Now, the last time I heard anything, and I don't know if this is 100% fact or not, the consitutional amendment would say Marriage is between a man and a woman, but would leave it to the states to decide on civil unions, which, from what I understand, grant many of the privileges that you brought up.
Health Care: Little personal history about myself. I have not, in 6 years working here at the library, missed a day because I was sick. In 4.5 years of college, I missed maybe 2-3 days for medical reasons...wisdom teeth surgically removed. After I got out of college and before I was put on full-time at the library, I was paying $50 per month for coverage that I ended up never using.
I can only go on what I have heard for my opinions. What I've heard is:
1. the health system Kerry wants is similar to that of Canada.
1a. In Canada, the average time waiting for hip replacement surgery is 52 weeks...or 22 weeks if you go to a back-alley clinic. I heard this stat on the radio this morning. If you do a search for 'canada hip replacement surgery waiting time' on Google, you can find some sites that coroborate.
2. That Kerry's plan will cost several trillion dollars over the next 10 years. That money doesn't grow n trees, so Kerry has to raise taxes to get it. See the information above for tax discussion.
3. Bush's plan gives the people an option, using those medical savings accounts.
Why do premiums go up? Because insurance companies have to be paying out so much.
What if you pay cash for some of your medical visits? Insurance companies DON'T have to pay out, so premiums don't go up...or at least don't go up as fast (and you never know, they might go down).
On a related note to the health issue is the medical malpractice issue. Bush wants to put caps on malpractice settlements, which will in turn help to reduce malpractice insurance, which will lower doctors costs, hence lowers their fees, which reduces how much insurance companies have to pay out, which may lower premiums and that helps the average man.
- Time
- Post link
Also with the medical plan Kerry proposes, i am just extremely weiry of the whole thing. Google canada and medical waiting list, scary things will happen. 17.9 week waiting list for hospitals right now. This is what, again imo, will happen if the US federal Gov. is given charge over the medical system. the power should be in the hands of the people not the GOV. Besides all the GOV does is efe stuff up, more paper work, more buracracy, more morass is the plan with the gov. I know i work for them
.Sure the federal Gov. needs money, but not as much as one would think. The us, imo, should throw out the IRS and adopt a consumption based tax coupled with a flat tax. China and russia have implemented this system and there economies are booming. Besides the power should be in the hands of the people not big brother. And as far as social aid goes, the gov should provide a safety net, not provide. There is a problem when you can make more from welfare than by working a full time job. Further more, social outreach programs should be run by the community, not the gov. Private run operations are far supprior to gov run one. They have to balance a budget and be effecient to exist, the gov, just runs in the red. More importantly, the people running the outreachs in the community want to be there, it is their passion, where as most gov programs are there, cause it pays.
DC dont kid yourself, the far right is just as bad as the far left. they are all blind idiolauge quacks...
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama<br.
DC dont kid yourself, the far right is just as bad as the far left. they are all blind idiolauge quacks...
What are you talking about? How am I kidding myself? I know there are crazies on both sides of the "political spectrum." I was just making the general assesment that the far left controls--or at least seem to think that they do--the Democrat party. The far right--the term, I think is "Neo-facist"--doesn't really control the Republican party.
I'm not blindly following any idealogues.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
What a load of blankity blank blank. [...] But you should stick with your oversimplified, over generalized thought process. You should start making race based remarks next, cause they are as equally founded as your remarks above...
My dear junior forum member, I will forgive you this unfair comment towards me (which I find greatly disturbing), because you don't know how can I feel after writing many eloquent posts in Bush Jr/9-11/Iraq related threads... Most of replies made by Bush supporters could be shortly summed up as "You're plain wrong, Dubya is the best, he has great strategery". That's it, no detailed descriptions and analysis of current gov. policies, no extrapolations on what may happen in the future given that US will follow the present way.... just plain old stubbornness and blind faith in The Leader. (although I admit the main culprit was jimbo and not Darth Chaltab)
I - on the other hand - can sometimes understand Republicans & Bush supporters and even agree with them "from a certain point of view" on particular issues. What I observed, is that they are less likely do a similar thing: to think for a moment, what would it be to be in Democrats' shoes.
This is why I wrote this exaggerated post, because I was too tired to pick up the glove and start yet another, pointless debate - pointless, because the other side won't change its mind. Period. After all, this is what we call them conservatives, right?
How did I accomplish that (considering my age) is my secret...
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
You arent from america are you?
I'm from south america. Is it close enough?
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
michael moore has a huge following, and the democratic party has an expansive section that is very much left. Hil Clinton is actually a socialist, not that this is bad or good, but it is a fact.
Yes, Michael Moore has a huge following, and...?
Hilarry Clinton is a socialist? Well I knew I had spotted her waving the red book of comrade chairman Mao! Oh COME ON, you guys KNOW that democrats are a right-centered party! Just because they are usually compared to the republicans, it makes then look like left-winged. Democrats are more right-winged than most right-wing parties here in south america!
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
And facts be known Bill O'rielly has only told people to shut up 6 times in the last 2 years, four of which were in jest. You ever actually listened to /watched his show or you just going with the internet flow? Cause i have listened to/watched his show many times, and i have seen none of this. Further more there are lots of very "liberal" people in america, and polaticians that they support.
Bill O'Reilly only told six people to shut up? Geez... I wonder how many other SERIOUS newscasters had told anyone to shut up on TV. Not even the guys who cover wrestling matches do it! I get both CNN and fox news here, and I did used to watch Bill O'Reilly, you know, for a laugh. It's not that his views are distorted or anything like it, it's just that he is a sorry excuse for a news show host, you don't have to be a liberal to see this...
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
but you are right about the parades. people on both sides are ignorant to most reasons behind politics. sad but true.
Yep.
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
This discussion reminds me of a question that has come to mind over several internet discussions. What type of new coverage do people in foreign nations get? I dont mean that in any deragatory way i am just curious. I also find it interesting how many foriegn cable companies wont carry fox news, but will carry al jazera...
I do get Fox News in all it's glory, but I don't get Al Jazeera - and I don't want to. Over here we get news you guys usually don't, like the frauds in the elections. And buckle up guys, it's going to happen again. But of course, you'll only know it when it's safe to do so.
OK, seriously speaking: over here the news about north american politics are pretty much condensed and not very deep. They report only the UsofA foreign affairs, or when it envolves our own countries. It's well balanced, yet there is a slight liberal disbalance - which is now fading because our government now is from majorly a left-wing party, and the media usually play devil's advocate. Here in Brazil, with few exceptions, it's absolutely anti-Castro, neutral but almost opposed to the Iraq invasion, neutral to the elections. It's pretty much like CNN covers europe, you know? Bleak, neutral way.
OK, somehow I feel some people will get angry at me... Geez I promised to get away from political discussions, but they pull me back again!
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK, somehow I feel some people will get angry at me... Geez I promised to get away from political discussions, but they pull me back again!
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" - Michael Corleone
Here in Oz we get loads of American news in our nightly newsbroadcasts, you know being a contender for the 51st state and all.
The thing that surprises me is the disparity of information between OUR reports of an event and the NBC news or CNN news reports or other reports of the same events. On our ABC and SBS the reporting is far more detailed than the reports from Americas own stations which will usually only have a portion of a soundbyte whereas our reports will include said soundbyte in context.
I used to be annoyed at how much focus some other country got in our news but I guess it is important seeing as how he who controls Rome controls the world. It's a pity then that the rest of the world has no say in your elections which end up impacting our lives.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.