Guys....I am not gong to jump in on your political discussion...most of you know where I stand.....
but one thing I do want to say....I have read the whole thread, and I want to complement you all on having a fair debate....and backing up your points solidly.....with out resourting to personal attacks on each other....Politics are difficult to debate that way....and you have managed to do a very good job of it...
Kerry on......I mean carry on....
[b]Useless Trivia of the day[/b]
England's Worcester Canoe Club set the world record for paddling a hand-propelled bathtub. The 25 man team covered a distance of 55 miles, 425 yards in 24 hours on September 28 and 29, 1979.
The lower levels were not decreased further in the '03 acceleration of the '01 tax cut because, as I said earlier, they had already hit their new levels by '03. If anything, Bush's tax cut favored them because their tax rates were lowered more quickly. And let's not forget what those two lowest brackets are: 10% and 15%. That's it. Meanwhile, the middle class are paying around 25% - 30% and the wealthy are paying as much as 35%. How much lower should we cut the taxes on low income? All the way to zero? This topic brings me to one of my gripes. The dems promote themselves as the advocates for the middle class (where most Americans reside) but more often than not they seem more preocupied with the poor. Then the liberals paint us conservatives as cold apologists for the rich. We just recognize the power of the individual to make success happen for himself. Liberals like to make a lot of excuses for the lazy.
What was Saddam doing? I'd point to what he was NOT doing which was complying with the terms of his surrender. In my eyes the UN has completely embarrassed itself by it's refusal to enforce its own resolutions. What kind of example does this give to the next Saddam Hussein type? It tells him that the UN is an irrelevant body that does is a whole lot more bark than bite. And how much longer do you propose we should have waited (also nic ethat you have the benefit of hindsight)? France/Germany/Russia/etc. simply were not going to support removing Saddam no matter how much more we talked it to death and France was going to veto any resolution for UN involvement after a possible US/Great Britain led operation. The situation was the very definition of a stalemate, something the UN is good at. So our president did what he thought was best for this country and helped form a coalition with the countries that chose to support us. Were some bought/co-erced? I don't know about that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We both know that those are tools of diplomacy so no value in selectively sticking our heads in the sand in some cases and crying foul in others. If you want to talk about shady dealings, I can start bringing up France's dirty connections with Saddam Hussein's regime even though they were supposedly on board with the UN restrictions from '91.
You keep bringing up how America is perceived abroad. What would you really expect? We are BY FAR the richest, most powerful country on the planet, probably in the history of mankind. It's natural to be envious of someone who has it better. A lot of people on the left would have us weaken America to alleviate some of the resentment. I am first and foremost an American and I make absolutely no apologies for it. I know that we are the strongest; I know that we are the richest. I could look up numbers but suffice it to say we are a relative small % of the world population and we control a huge chunk of the pie in terms of wealth and resources. I resent the liberal mentality for a more (socialistic) even distribution of that wealth. Where is their priority? This country? Or all the others? You can bet that the other countries will be watching out for #1 first. You can also bet there will be no complaints from these envious whiners the next time we bail one of them out with relief aid, or send our soldiers to die in the next Bosnia/Somalia/etc. humanitarian crisis.
Bases in Iraq? yea, I hope we build a great big one and why shouldn't we? We've paid a steep price over there and the least the liberated Iraq can do is allow us a strategic presence. I also disagree strongly with the accusation that we're installing a puppet government. We've been working with the interim government there to prepare for general elections and to create a constitution that fosters a good democracy, not something that persecutes based on religion, and not something that refuses to give women the equal rights they deserve. And then there's my favorite liberal anti-war gripe about our obsession with the oil fields....how the first thing we did after ousting Saddam was position our troops around the oil fields. We did this because we knew that Saddam would try to destroy them to cripple the economy of post-war Iraq and he managed to do just that to a couple of them. Seeing as the hapless UN wanted no part of enforcing their own resolutions, we get to foot the bill for their repairs so protecting them was imperative. But the liberal spin machine never fails to come up with some sort of ulterior motive, in this case that we had our eyes set on taking the Iraqi oil for ourselves. Simply put, it's basically the only export Iraq has to rebuild their shattered economy and we've done our best to protect it from Saddam and terrorists afterward.
Fixing the criminal justice system isn't going to happen overnight or even in one presidential term. I'm confident than when he had the opportunity Bush has selected federal judges that were conservative and tough on crime. If a Supreme Court justice dies or retires, I believe he will do the same in that selection. That's a really big deal and I think a lot of people tend to overlook it. Those guys are in there for life. Give Mr. #1 liberal a shot at 4 years and if we're unfortunate to have a couple of them pass away, what kind of judge is he going to select to follow up that perfect 138-for-138 liberal voting record on social issues? They're going to be soft on crime, maybe even anti-death penalty. They're going to be in favor of affirmative action.
As far as the issue of whether or not the mass media has been liberal over the years, it really is fairly obvious. I'm not complaining. I accept it as just the nature of things and I don't really expect it to change any time soon. The same goes for professors in our colleges and universities. For whatever reason, a majority of people in those professions are liberals (often it's as obvious as the way Hollywood leans left and I know you're NOT going to deny that!!) But to deny it in purported studies that were obviously written by liberals themselves or point the finger at the one network that may lean the other way is extremely hypocritical.
sorry to crash in on you guys political debate, but why is being "liberal" or "conservative" a bad thing? why can't you think with your own head and be "yourself".... also i think all of politics is pretty cheap.... i mean in the election campaigns, they make promises they cant fulfil and they try to malign their opponent... they try to twist facts cos a lot of us dont even have the background to objectively look at them see their plans for what they are. i just dont see what the freakin point is ??? also every single politician reads from like a script written by some really smart dude... shouldnt they be intelligent enough to speak for themselves ???
POLY-TICKS most of the time is a big
[size=10]Manny Ramirez....$20 million
Pedro Martinez....$17.5 million
Curt Schilling...$12 million (and a $2 million bonus)
Never hearing a Yankee fan chant 1918 again...priceless. [/size]
thetongueofire wrote:sorry to crash in on you guys political debate, but why is being "liberal" or "conservative" a bad thing? why can't you think with your own head and be "yourself".... also i think all of politics is pretty cheap.... i mean in the election campaigns, they make promises they cant fulfil and they try to malign their opponent... they try to twist facts cos a lot of us dont even have the background to objectively look at them see their plans for what they are. i just dont see what the freakin point is ??? also every single politician reads from like a script written by some really smart dude... shouldnt they be intelligent enough to speak for themselves ???
POLY-TICKS most of the time is a big
i have to very much agree w/ everything thetongueofire has said.
George Bush: Ted Williams: steady, good for the game
George W Bush: Ted Williams Jr. draw your own conclusions... drugs, liquor. never really broke into the big-leagues.
on a separate note, I think you would find it real hard to get any politicians to play RF or LF ... you'd just get a bunch of inadequate CF.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll drown because you forgot to teach him to swim.
[url=http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html]Invaluable Fantasy Baseball Resource[/url]
okay, first of all....tax cuts for the rich increase an inequality in income... they basically give rich people money to make more money.... and even though their individual taxes decrease, the number of rich people grow, and as a group they pay a larger share of all taxes paid.... sounds good so far, right? but, this expanding group of newly rich people does not expand beyond the richest 1 percent - which is too few to benefit most Americans.... furthermore, their increased share of the national income represents a decrease for the poor.... In relative terms, the poor pay less taxes because they make less income, and at the same time more people are becoming poor.... how can this be good for anyone but those making more money? and like i've said before, how can bush go around pimping his 2003 cuts or acceleration or whatever label he wants to put on it, as a cut for everyone... it just doesn't fly... he gave the BIGGEST CUTS to the rich, plain and simple, therefore, he CUTS TAXES MORE FOR THE RICH, all while trying to screw the rest of us for more and more money for his little war... that's all i've been saying... secondly, you act as if all rich people worked their asses off for what they have now and that "liberals" want to take that away... well, how many "rich"(and i mean those 1% rich) people do you know that didn't inherit most of their worth? your feerless and brainless leader himself has been handed everything he has had and wasted in his life, including the presidency... every damn job he's had, someone else has paid the price for it... his daddy and some other investors put up the cash for his, what was it, 1, 2% ownership in the rangers... he wasted how much money in his failed oil companies? do you think he went out and earned that money? hell no, someone put it on the table for him and he lost it... what in the world makes you people think this guy is trustworthy and honorable? so when you say that "liberals" are all about redistributing wealth, look at your guys, because they're working damn hard to make sure you or i or anyone else that is in the shrinking middle class never gets a whiff of that upper echelon of wealth... as far as the assertion that democrats say they're for the middle, but are preoccupied by the poor, how would you rather have it? like the republicans? who say they're for the middle, but screw them with their outsourcing of jobs, garbage medicare and precription drug plans, cutting of education funding, and cutting of funding for local government programs in their preoccupation with the rich... hell they don't even address the poor... yeah, that works! let me ask you a question... seriously... how many poor people do you know? and how many of those poor people, i'm talking project living, food stamp getting, no health insurance, no car, no HOPE poor... how many of them do you know? now how many of them are there because they are lazy? and how in the hell do you know that anyway? and how in the hell can you go around calling someone lazy because they're poor? this is just one exaple of the complete smugness and condescention that runs rampant among republicans.... "SCREW THE POOR, THEY'RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF LAZY ASSES ANYWAY" sorry, liberals don't make excuses for the poor, we just have compassion for someone less well off than us...
as far as saddam, i knew on 9/11 we were going to war with him whether he had anything to do with it or not... and like i said before, bush has set a scary precident here, he went in preemptively and said screw our allies, i'll do whatever the hell i want... he's like a damn spoiled little kid that's going to get his way and no matter what kind of spin he tried to put on it: wmd's, saddams ruthless, he'll attack us, he's got ties to osama... whatever, it all a line of bulls@#t... saddam was nowhere near getting a nuke, he was nowhere as far as al qaeda was concerned, he was nowhere as far as being as large a threat to us as iran or north korea... but he was an "imminent threat"... whatever george.... yeah, i've got the benefit of hindsight, but what i'm saying is nothing different than what the intelligence sector told bush in the first place... hell, the least he could have done was create an exit strategy BEFORE going in... he could have at least lobbied the un for help AFTER he went in, saying to the effect, "hey, we're going to go in and kick some ass, would you all come in afterward and take over the peacekeeping duties, our troops aren't cops, they're asskickers" how hard would that have been? but no, he simply decided to say screw you if you're not with us on this invasion... and what is he dealing with now? soldiers being court marshaled because they were improperly posted as prison guards, something they'd never been trained to do... granted, they're jackasses themselves, but this is something that could have easily avoided if bush had shelved his wannabe cowboy image for just a little diplomacy....
just a question, what kind of deals did france, france now, not french companies, have with saddam?
nobody is talking about weakening america, were we weaker when clinton was prez? hell no, the world loved him... no one wants a weaker america, just a president that isn't such an idiot that he would go around trumpeting national security when he's making us weaker in the long run... in his view and yours apparently, we don't need allies, all we need is an army... nice
we're not installing a puppet government in iraq? are you kidding me? i resent the accusation that you think these people that will be running iraq have been chosen by the people of iraq... it's just like the contractors doing work over there... all handpicked by this white house... if they weren't, iraq would be soon taken over by the extremists from iran, because that is who would be elected... the funny thing is that when saddam was in power, iraq was a secular country, saddam wasn't a religious nut, didn't oppress women like the taliban... now that we've taken over, these extremists are gaining more and more power... (just a little side note here, but your comment about women and equal rights in iraq seems kind of odd considering your stance on affirmative action)
your argument about the oil fields doesn't really hold water either... to say that destroying the oil fields would cripple the economy of iraq, is simply wrong... first off, they don't need an economy with the cash that bush is sending in there... secondly... what do you think halliburton is doing there right now? rebuilding the oil fields... first of all, you can't destroy the oil, it's a few hundred feet underground... you can blow up a well or two, which would probably actually help halliburton out considering just about every single oil well in iraq was going to have to be rebuilt or refurbished... they were outdated junk and were operating with ridiculously low efficiency... yeah, we get to foot the bill, but what did bush say? he said that their oil would pay for all of this... right... we see were that's gotten us... hey, iraq sell us your oil, we'll give you cash to rebuild your country... i don't have a problem with that, why would i or anyone else, i mean how much is a gallon of gas where you live?
anyway, that's enough for now... i'll get into the whole liberal media lie later... it's time for bed...
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: somewhere in the hillbilly land of southwest Virginia
I think you guys are both giving Bush too much credit and too much blame. Just because he is the President, doesn't mean he's the one who is actually making all of these decisions. 9 times out of 10, he does what his party wants him to do. That's the way pretty much every President has been, and every President will be....so narrowing the blame for Iraq or the blame for tax cuts on Bush is not necessarily accurate IMO. Do you honestly think that Bush is smart enough to draft up a tax plan? Are you kidding? I am a strong Republican, but even I know his limits...someone else writes up the details, and he puts his signature on it and calls it his.
Yes he endorses it, but I would be surprised if he knows how it actually works, beyond what he is told about it anyways.
I'm sure many of these same things could be said about Clinton too though....the bottom line is that the Presidential office isn't as big of a deal as we think...especially if Congress is dominated by the opposite party, in which case everything usually stalls.
Edit: Forgot to mention though, that the next President could be considered historically relevant, because numerous Supreme Court resignations are coming, and only the President can nominate. Now in this area, yes I do think the President's opinions are vitally important to all of us...afterall, the SC interprets our laws (and in the case of judicial activism, makes them).