I love when people make up facts to support their argument.
Check out
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=148.html (which is well documented and non partisan) to see what the deficit has been since the start of the Reagan years.
I wish the graphs included information from earlier presidencies as well. Unfortunately, there was only one Democrat president during the time shown so you can't really show trends of D vs. R. But what does show there is that Reagan and Bush Sr. both ran greater deficit budgets than dubbya has been running when compared to the national economic output. And Clinton was the only one to run a surplus budget in that time.
These are facts. Anyone can check them from the government records.
Build your arguments as you will.
rarnom Wrote:I understand what you say, but I don't see how it damages my life. You mention how his tax cut does not benefit everyday people? How am I not everyday people?
I already answered that question. ?Our take-home pay by middle class has been the lowest in history (inflation and consumer index adjusted) even with the tax cut.? If that is not a telling stat, I don?t know what it is. You mentioned that your income is 30K. Your income as a teacher is less than what it should be to begin with. Why would an extra $400 tax cut make you happy when in fact, you deserve a lot more than $30K to begin with? Why would a $400 tax cut make you happy when a company executives? tax cut is $ 1 million? Why would you be happy with $400 tax cut when affluent investors gain millions of $ from tax cuts on capital gains and dividends? Yesterday, he signed another tax cut for corporations. It?s mind-boggling.
You want another telling stat? The take-home pay by rich people is the highest in history with the Bush?s tax cut. That means Bush? tax cut created a big gap between high class and poor. That is a sure sign of poor economy and is prevalent in 3rd world country. How will that hurt you personally? The buying power of your $30K will be reduced because the cost for health care, food, gas, etc will likely increase. The end result is that the Bush?s tax cut in fact could have an effect of a pay cut. And the fact is that it has. That?s how it damages your life.
rarnom Wrote:One more point to consider: I got my $400 checks before 9/11. At that point the economy was fine.
Wrong. A lot companies were laying off people before 9/11. US airway and United were already having risks of bankruptcy. Computer and biotech industries were in huge slump. The leading computer company Dell announced a large decrease in profit earnings. They happened all before 9/11.
rarnom Wrote:If you want to think I am narrow minded I really don't mind. Most Liberals think Conservatives are narrow-minded and that is the way it is.
Just because I believe Bush jr is trying to give a free ride to the rich, it doesn?t make me a liberal. I supported Bush? decision to invade Afghanistan. I am independently registered. I voted for Bush sr. I voted for Russ Perot (Remember his famous lecture on the perils of budget deficit?). I would strongly consider John McCain if he was a candidate. In fact, I never voted for Clinton (With hindsight, I would vote for Clinton now). I agree with Democrats on more of their economic policies. I am not enthusiastic about liberals? core issues such as unions, civil rights, immigration policies, etc. I am one of those ?anyone but Bush? voters. He has been a nightmare to our environmental policies. He is an extremist to the conservatives? causes and has proved that he is a champion of the riches and corporations.
The things before anything else that made me distrust and dislike Bush was. Some time back they had a Frontline special on PBS about Bush and how he got their. His military record first and foremost for me. My father was drafted went to Vietnam and I served 4 years in the servce. Bush has trouble even nailing down all the facts about being in the national guard, and come on being a son of a polotician and a member of the skull and cross bones didn't help keep Bush Jr out of Vietnam. The second thing is Bush jr was looking for reasons and making plans and promises to others that as president he would invade Iraq 6 months before he even was president. The last thing is when Bush was first elected congress caught him tring to form a inner circle orginization of Bush jr aids that could do things that would side step the house and senate completely, which was not legal to even do. Their is alot more things that were in the special to. Go to the PBS web site you can order the frontline episode on VHS or DVD it is rather interesting
multipak Wrote:Your income as a teacher is less than what it should be to begin with. Why would an extra $400 tax cut make you happy when in fact, you deserve a lot more than $30K to begin with?
I appreciate that you think teachers should make more.
Actually, Oregon teachers make more than lots of other teachers in other states, I think we are right around the middle. I am only a 3rd year teacher and I do make quite a bit more. As far as damaging me economically, I guess I am living in ignorance because I have never made more money than I do now. My first year as a teacher I made 21K, my second year I made 28K, and this year I make around 33K. I think that is pretty good growth, and I am very happy with my life and feel that I have plenty of money for what I need, but that is just me. Interest rates are also very low and I take that into consideration as well. Maybe taxes were lower, but to a home owner, a low interest rate is worth a whole lot.
I think you make a good case and I also apologize for labeling you as a 'liberal'. What the difference seems to be is that you are "anyone but Bush", and I am "anyone but Kerry". I think Bush has made his share of mistakes, but each person judges them differenty and holds the actions of a president up to a different moral standard. I flat out don't trust Kerry to deliver on all that he promises.
Zagatto Wrote:You've got me very confused here.
What have I said that is hypocritical?
I'm sorry if I'm being slow here but I think I need this one spelled out for me.
I take great pride in never having been in a fight... not even during the summer when I was a bouncer. I have always believed that just about any conflict can be resolved through mediation if approached by all parties in a civilized manner.
If I ever came across in any way as someone who supports violence of any type then I appologize for that misrepresentation. My statement about looking up to world leaders was meant to imply that I DON'T look up to our current world leaders as examples of how I want the world run.
Ya, you go find a member of Al Qaeda and negotiate with him. We'll see how long you think we can negotiate with anyone.
"When trying to settle differences through conflict, the end result is one person claiming to be victorious while the other person cowers away... usually plotting their revenge.
If differences are settled through negotiation or arbirtration then there is a chance that both sides will walk away with a better understanding of their nemesis. This can take much more work and more time to accomplish but in the end, if followed through, can yield the best results."
So are you telling me that you are a total pacifist? There should never be a reason to fight? Not all people are able to be negotiated with. A member from Al Qaeda or an even more obvious example is Hitler. They will not negotiate with you. They will either kill you, rule over you in the case of Hitler (for those Hitler would choose to spare in the first place) or be killed by you.
As for my ban, i'm very upset about it. I don't care if I get banned as you stated I would, but i'm pissed off that pos didn't get banned with me for his comment of pissing in Reagan's dead mouth... I don't fight often. I havn't been in a fight for several years actually. However, had I heard someone say this I would not have been willing to solve our "difference of opinion" through mediation.
"and I am "anyone but Kerry""
I'm an anyone but Kerry, Gore or Kennedy. I wouldn't even care so much if a decent democrat was elected. Lieberman anyone? But I don't want a radical freak like Kerry in the White House. Now it seems he may originally not have been honorably discharged from the military. Of course, Kerry won't sign his 180 so we can find out. (wonder why that is.... hmm...)
I am right with you there about Lieberman. And the fact about Kerry not signing the 180 form is very troubling as well. I mean, even Bush signed his 180 form. Kerry knows he has stuff to hide and that the Swiftboat Vets have too much truth on thier side for him to fight it. If what they say is false then Kerry can prove it, but he hasn't done anything except say 'they are wrong', well, I'd like to see Kerry give us more than just his word, especially since if they were wrong, he could sign the form, get his records examined and end all of this, but he won't.
It's nice to have you back Cidien.
Cidien Wrote:Ya, you go find a member of Al Qaeda and negotiate with him. We'll see how long you think we can negotiate with anyone. //........// Not all people are able to be negotiated with. A member from Al Qaeda or an even more obvious example is Hitler. They will not negotiate with you. They will either kill you, rule over you in the case of Hitler (for those Hitler would choose to spare in the first place) or be killed by you.
You talk like you personally know any of Al Qaeda members. What do you know about them? Do you know why Al Qaeda fights? According to you, they just enjoy killing people. Cidien, you are an incredibly stupid idiot. You put up arguments as you make them up in your head. You resort to comparing Al Qaeda with Hitler. There are plenty of people who compare Bush with Hitler:
http://www.falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html
Of course, those are just partisan rhetoric, but what you are doing isn't any better. Many people say it is impossible to negotiate with Bush, and they have good reasons to be able to say so. As for calling Kerry "radical freak," you seriously need to shut the fuck up. For someone who gets fired up by the name calling of Reagan, you resort to very same thing.
rarnom, I read some of your old posts. A couple of times, you called Cidien, "voice of reasons."
Haha........
It was funny reading two of you commend each other for liking Sean Hannity. Haha....enough said.
Don't tell me you're not a partisan.
Hannity= O'Reilly= Michael Moore = extreme partisan antagonists. I doubt anyone who believes their opinion as truth would be receptive to different ideas.
multipak... I'm still handing out 3 day bans for name calling and personal attacks. You just earned yours.
Cidien, welcome back. I'm sorry to have banned you. My original warning was brought about by certain pissing comments made by one of our younger members. He listened to my warning and has avoided a ban for that reason.
I believe that Al Qaeda has a good reason for attacking the US. I'm sad that they feel that the only way they can be heard globally is through terrorism. If US foreign policy respected more sovereign rights then global antipathy towards our nation (I am still a US citizen and I do vote) would be much less. Too often, the US has applied force in other countries unsanctioned by the UN to serve the political agendas of whatever leader happened to be in office at the time.
The only time I see reason for the use of force is to wipe out a group bent on ethnic cleansing of any type. If a group is founded on hatred for a group of people based on the colour of their skin, what god they worship, or how they practice love then the foundation of that group is flawed and puts them in a position that cannot be negotiated with. Until it is made clear to the world that the position of that group is inflexible in its mandate to cleanse the world of a particular group then negotiations should be attempted.
Hitler and the Nazi party is an excellent example of a group dedicated to the cleansing of "unpure" peoples. I believe a fair amount of time was given to negotiations prior to the Allies joining together to kick the Reich's collective ass. To this day, most Germans live with the shame that their country spawned that particular evil.
In the case of Al Qaeda, they appear to actually be fighting for something. Their case has been distorted by the media and coloured by their poor choice of trying to be heard. I would like a candid conversation with one of them to find out what it is they feel is worth dying for and taking the lives of others in the process. I don't know of any religious text in the world that suggests cleansing the globe of unbelievers.
multipak Wrote:rarnom, I read some of your old posts. A couple of times, you called Cidien, "voice of reasons."
Haha........
It was funny reading two of you commend each other for liking Sean Hannity. Haha....enough said.
Don't tell me you're not a partisan.
When did I say I was not partisian? I have always said that I am a conservative. If you have a problem with that then that is too bad.
If you have a problem with me calling Cidien a 'voice of reason', you really have no idea what you are talking about. I made that comment once and it was out of defence of him because some loud mouth newbie decided that he needed to attack Cidien because Cidien had made a comment that this new guy had disagreed with. I didn't know that Cidien and I shared the same political views up until this past week. That comment was made during a discussion that had nothing to do with politics, so I think it is deceptive to bring that comment and compare it to the current discussion. The only reason you dislike Cidien's comments is because you disagree with them.
And seriously multipak, the second you resort to calling people 'stupid idiots' is the second you show you have lost the debate. If you want to have a real debate about the issues you can talk, but calling people idiots and telling them to 'shut up' is the wrong way to do stuff.
*EDIT* I started this post before Zagatto banned multipak. Good to see the rules enforced!
I don't understand why we are all still debating what both did 30 years ago. One went to Vietnam no matter how short it was he went. The other used the national guard so he would not have to go.
Mantis421 Wrote:I don't understand why we are all still debating what both did 30 years ago. One went to Vietnam no matter how short it was he went. The other used the national guard so he would not have to go.
That is an excellent point.
I think the reason it has become relevant is becuase Kerry always has brought up how he 'defended this country as a young man'. Kerry chose to tout his 4 month tour of duty rather than his 20 year senate career. Bush has rarely, if ever, brought up his guard service as a reason to vote for him exactly because it WAS 30 years ago and really not a big deal. I think it was a mistake of sorts for Kerry to make such a big deal about his Vietnam service. As a voter I would have liked to hear more about his years as a senator because that shows actual involvement in government processes.
And as I understand it, Bush didn't go into Vietnam because by the time he had entered the guard, the war was close to it's end and there was no need to bring in more troops. Isn't Kerry older than Bush? I might be wrong though.
I also think it is silly to be upset that Bush's dad pulled strings for his son. I mean, if my son was faced with serving in a war and I could do things to help keep him alive I would too. Is that fair? Of course not, but parents love their kids and will do things to take special care of them. I am sure MANY kids got out of war service because their parents pulled strings. You shouldn't hate a guy because his dad didn't want him to die.
Bush has been quoted on two things where he said the reason he was AWOL from the base he was stationed at was because the F-111 was near the end of it's operational use and he felt it wasent important to continue training with it and the other time he said since Vietnam was starting to wind down when he was in the service he didn't feel it was important for him to be there. Anybody without family conections would of gotten court marshaled for that. The second was just him setting his own priorites higher then the country. Kerry did only serve in Vietnam for 4 months but the reason he got to leave is a military rule of the time period that stated that any soldier no matter what rank after getting 3 purple hearts could chose any post they wanted. Kerry chose to come home and finish his time here. The reason I don't read to much into this eather way is look how old they both were and look at the confict in question. None of us can say we were 100% straightened out in life yet at that age or were 100% the samrtest people make mistakes, it just depends on how we make up for them later in life.
multipak Wrote:You talk like you personally know any of Al Qaeda members. What do you know about them? Do you know why Al Qaeda fights? According to you, they just enjoy killing people. Cidien, you are an incredibly stupid idiot. You put up arguments as you make them up in your head. You resort to comparing Al Qaeda with Hitler. There are plenty of people who compare Bush with Hitler: http://www.falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html
Of course, those are just partisan rhetoric, but what you are doing isn't any better. Many people say it is impossible to negotiate with Bush, and they have good reasons to be able to say so. As for calling Kerry "radical freak," you seriously need to shut the fuck up. For someone who gets fired up by the name calling of Reagan, you resort to very same thing.
rarnom, I read some of your old posts. A couple of times, you called Cidien, "voice of reasons."
Haha........
It was funny reading two of you commend each other for liking Sean Hannity. Haha....enough said.
Don't tell me you're not a partisan.
Hannity= O'Reilly= Michael Moore = extreme partisan antagonists. I doubt anyone who believes their opinion as truth would be receptive to different ideas.
Naw they just enjoy killing Americans. They are promised virgins in heaven if they do.
Fine Kerry isn't a "radical freak". Kerry is a LIAR. Kerry will lie to anyone about anything if it gives him a political edge. Hell, he's even trying to convince midwest folks he's a down to earth hunter. (which contradicts his anti-gun support, but whatever) The man had to go out and buy camoflauge and asks the person at the counter "Is this where I can get a hunting license?" Sounds like a hunter to me! Not to mention when he was on the firing range shooting he wore no eye or ear protection. Big hunter, big hunter. Then there's his probable staged goose hunt. Saying he and his friend bagged 4 in one hour. Right... he's either the luckiest hunter in the U.S. or there's another lie.
Then there's his accusations against his fellow military personel in Vietnam. He even admits to war crimes himself to prove his point. I personally don't beleive he saw or commit any crimes. He used it only to furthur his political agenda. Almost every "witness" he supported at the time was either found to be a flat out liar or not a very credible person. Kerry never said one word to anyone about any war crimes until he decided he wanted to get into politics.
"It was funny reading two of you commend each other for liking Sean Hannity. Haha....enough said.
Don't tell me you're not a partisan."
To me, the only people who claim not to be partisan are people who are very partisan but are trying to convince others they are not to try to make what they say sound more believable.
This election isn't going to be about who we want in the white house. It's about who we don't want in the white house.
"The only time I see reason for the use of force is to wipe out a group bent on ethnic cleansing of any type. If a group is founded on hatred for a group of people based on the colour of their skin, what god they worship, or how they practice love then the foundation of that group is flawed and puts them in a position that cannot be negotiated with. Until it is made clear to the world that the position of that group is inflexible in its mandate to cleanse the world of a particular group then negotiations should be attempted."
Please explain to me why you think Al Qaeda is different. Most terrorists attack other because of their religion. Al Qaeda is no different. They hate what we are, what we stand for and some of the things we've done in the middle east. They kill us because of their warped religious view. Please tell me how negotiations can take place with Al Qaeda successfully, i'm sure the U.S. government would love to know.
"As a voter I would have liked to hear more about his years as a senator because that shows actual involvement in government processes."
Kerry doesn't want his years as a senator brough up because the way he's acted has a senator has been disgraceful. Has Kerry ever once been on the right side of history? Well, he did vote to go to Iraq (the second time, not the first) but then again he voted not to support the troops while over there. Sure, some of you may buy into his "I actually did vote for it before I voted against it" bit, but Kerry knew if he voted against it the troops would not get the money/equipment needed in time. That's why there were very few democrats with the nerve to vote against it.