Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on October 14, 2004, 07:35:23 PM
-
I was led to believe by a few here that the Bush of the last 4 years wasn't the real Bush, and that the real Bush would emerge during the debates. As if some reptilian portion of his brain, lying dormant in its host, would rise up and show the world who the real Bush was; intelligent, aware of his surroundings, and possessing more than a passing knowledge of how words are formed, assembled and coherently presented.
During the 1st debate we saw a man rattled, confused and completely out of his element. He looked (and there's really no other way to put it) pathological.
During the 2nd debate, we saw a man judo-chopping every point he tried to make, all but leaping across the stage to strangle Charlie Gibson, while the crowd nervously braced themselves as Bush began to morph into a man-sized blister on the verge of exploding wide open.
During the 3rd debate, we saw a combination of both of these characters. Reduced to emphasizing his oft repeated talking points by banging on the podium. Fumbling even on the softballs. And, you might say, a man pleading for his job. Frustrated by the fact that he couldn't explain why he deserved it. Frustrated that he would even be required to explain himself in the first place.
This is the man representing the United States of America? This is the character of a man holding the highest office in the land?
The question is, if the real George Bush didn't materialize during the last two weeks, then when - if ever - will he?
Also, sum up your impressions of the debates overall.
Also, talk about anything ya want to...
-
I like cheese.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/catbutt/carter.bmp)
<<<>>>
-
Ahhh the world acording to Nash..
It could be a sit com.
-
Nash
I picked up several tickets to see Bush next tuesday...your welcome to come along if you'd like! But if not ill take my camera and snap some stills for your collection...
IKON
-
Bush came across as human and likeable. Look at his responses to the personal questions in the last debate.
He was asked about his relationship with his wife. He gave a heartfelt, honest description of his love and respect for his wife and daughter.
What did Kerry say? He said "I married up" then went on to talk about his mother. Very shallow.
The question about "weather you believe homosexuality was a choice" Another golden Bush answer...very honest and heartfelt.
What did Kerry do? Take a cheap shot at Cheney's daughter ( for no reason I could see)
Bush easily comes across as honest and willing to do what he thinks is the right thing to do to protect American interests, regardless of weather or not it is "popular". Bush has proven he has what it takes to lead America, Kerry has not. Bush is a known stong leader, Kerry is not.
Kerry likes to point out all the bad things that have happened "because of Bush" and likes to say he would have done this different or that better, yet what has Kerry ever done?
Bush lead this country through 911 better than anyone I could have imagined in his place.
911 led to almost 2 million jobs lost AFTER having been in a recession before he took office. How would Kerry have changed this?
The airline industry was devastated by 911 and had to be bailed out by the government at the cost of probably billions....what would Kerry have done to prevent this?
The cost of 911...all of them (Homeland security, war, economy, jobs) caused the US to spend our surplus and go into deficit. What would Kerry have done? Spend the money needed and run a deficit as needed? He would ( by his record ) have increased taxes and KILLED our economy.
Inspite of all of this, the US economy has been on the recovery and we got out of the recession in near record time.
Bush is a leader Kerry is a mouse, plain and simple.
-
I find fault with this whole premise.
Debates are no measure of leadership ability. They're no measure of a man's talent for making decisions. They're no measure of aptitude for decisive, logical action. The only thing they measure is the ability of a person to speak, regurgitate previously voiced opinion and consolidate previously established facts into some sort of package that is palatable to the average member of a given audience.
In this sense, yes, J.F. Kerry is better than Bush.
The first debate showed us a G. Bush that was out of his element, but it also showed us a patronizing, smug Senator Kerry that was bold enough to make critical comments that could have as easily been leveled against himself (namely, the military spendings cut).
But in subsequent debates Bush improved, and greatly, in my opinion. He showed an ability to adapt to the tactics of a guy who was far more experienced in the art of voicing politcal rhetoric to a live audience--and please don't make the mistake that these debates were anything greater.
Remember, these debates are also not reflective of either of the men's abilities to think individually. They have countless assistents and spin doctors coaching them... Coaching them on the tactics of looking and sounding better. At the end of the day, we should elect a leader based on his character and his past history, not on how his words come across before an audience. If we chose to look at the latter for insights into a potential leader's character, we shouldn't be electing politicians, we should be electing speech writers.
After the debates, my one belief stands unchanged. I trust Bush moreso than I trust Kerry. I do not particularly care for either, although as I mentioned before, I'd readily get drunk with both of them.
-
Debates are no measure of leadership ability. They're no measure of a man's talent for making decisions. They're no measure of aptitude for decisive, logical action. The only thing they measure is the ability of a person to speak, regurgitate previously voiced opinion and consolidate previously established facts into some sort of package that is palatable to the average member of a given audience.
No debates are not the defacto measure of a leader. Debates are a measure of critical thinking combined with articulation. However it is a skill and it is a valuable skill of a leader as well as decision making which is also important in debates. It does matter and is a measure of some aspect of leadership. All great political leaders (not the napolean type) are great debators and communicate well to the masses.
I hate to say it but your making excuses for his bad performance. Its clear that Kerry out performed him. This is a form of intellectual welfare.
-
Originally posted by montag
No debates are not the defacto measure of a leader. Debates are a measure of critical thinking combined with articulation. However it is a skill and it is a valuable skill of a leader as well as decision making which is also important in debates. It does matter and is a measure of some aspect of leadership. All great political leaders (not the napolean type) are great debaters and communicate well to the masses.
I hate to say it but your making excuses for his bad performance. Its clear that Kerry out performed him. This is a form of intellectual welfare.
Well stated, Mr. Montag. I assent to the fact that these debates are a form of intellectual warfare, but I'm not sure how important this particular form of intelligence, and there are many, this job requires. Plus, as I said before, the words of the candidates, now more than ever, are the products of their support staff. What I am interested in as far as a president goes is not the wordsmiths and speech coaches but the administration itself. To say that a effective debater probably has good leadership abilities is like saying that an effective lawyer is probably a person possessing high morals and ethical purity.
I am biased, but having listened to Kerry's words, I was not once overwhelmed by a sensation that I was getting glimpses of a brighter future. He was not the breath of fresh air that so many claim we need, at least not to me. He was a man pandering to his audience, telling them what they wanted to hear, avoiding specifics and making frequent attacks.
I've said before that I believe that candidates for high office are nothing but 3-dimensional amalgamations of their constituents' needs and insecurities. Never before have I gotten this sense more than from Kerry. Bush, against all odds, came across as emotional, human, even. Perhaps this is nothing but a product of my bias, as he DOES represent my needs and insecurities moreso than his opponent, but the human aspect denotes depth.
But back to the issue of debates... These two men took turns walking down the proverbial political catwalk. I know this because the analysts spent as much time talking about their composure and their facial expressions and their liquid consumption as they did about the depth of the responses. This was a vanity test, which is important in modern politics, but it does nothing to sway my views.
-
Stupid on the stage, smart on strategy, sure.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
To say that a effective debater probably has good leadership abilities is like saying that an effective lawyer is probably a person possessing high morals and ethical purity.
What I said was that good leaders also are able to debate well, communicate well. Its an important skill in dealing with another person or many people. Last part was stereotyping.
I am biased, but having listened to Kerry's words, I was not once overwhelmed by a sensation that I was getting glimpses of a brighter future. He was not the breath of fresh air that so many claim we need, at least not to me. He was a man pandering to his audience, telling them what they wanted to hear, avoiding specifics and making frequent attacks.
Let me ask you something then. Are your own goals in voting for a leader different to the agendas that Kerry has been promoting.
I've said before that I believe that candidates for high office are nothing but 3-dimensional amalgamations of their constituents' needs and insecurities. Never before have I gotten this sense more than from Kerry. Bush, against all odds, came across as emotional, human, even. Perhaps this is nothing but a product of my bias, as he DOES represent my needs and insecurities moreso than his opponent, but the human aspect denotes depth.
I admit that character is hard to judge in an hour of watching someone. There are people who are suppose to good at judging character but I think its difficult due to the complexity of people. Especially two people with long lives and histories as Kerry and Bush. However, forget the swift boats vs kerry thing for a moment. Anyone who was born into a better life and went to a better school then volunteered for service and a second for combat service passes my character test.
But back to the issue of debates... These two men took turns walking down the proverbial political catwalk. I know this because the analysts spent as much time talking about their composure and their facial expressions and their liquid consumption as they did about the depth of the responses. This was a vanity test, which is important in modern politics, but it does nothing to sway my views.
Its showbiz but it still matters.
;)
-
The only thing I REALLY learned about either men in the debates is they both have the equal ability to either understate or overstate the facts depending on what position they are taking.
and Kerry is real good on making promises he cant possibly hope to afford let alone keep
-
(http://www.pollingreport.com/images/0410GEN.GIF)
The "who won" is pretty subjective, I think. Depends on the listener and the listeners preconceptions.
Beyond that, are debates THE factor in the election? Are they even a major factor?
Standby... the only poll that counts is just around the corner.
For now, gaze deeply into this poll summary and devine the truth.
-
What are "trial heats?"
-
I believe that's their way of saying "we asked people who they'd vote for in a multi-candidate race including Bush and Kerry".
-
Ah, so "we asked people who they'd vote for in a multi-candidate race including Bush and Kerry" the day after the debates conclude and to you this poll represents who won the debates.
Two different things. Bush could lose the debates and win - and visa versa.
Yer poll doesn't add to the discussion about the debates, as it or you would seem to indicate.
-
Easy there, big dog.
Read what I wrote, not what you want to argue with me about.
The "who won" is pretty subjective, I think. Depends on the listener and the listeners preconceptions.
Sure doesn't look like I'm calling a winner on the debates at all. I'm saying people see things subjectively and not everyone sees them the same.
My contribution is: did the debates really change anything.
Bush lost a significant lead after the first one. Might have been the debates. Might have been the end of the "convention bounce" too.
Noticeably, the polls have been essentially tied since the first debate. I would then wonder that, given your assertion and fervent belief that Kerry "won them all", the stalemate hasn't budged despite Kerry "winning two more" after the first.
So... if it was the end of "convention bounce" and we went to stalemate right there....... what difference does it make who won all three or split them any which way?
Because nothing has changed in the polls if you draw the line after the first debate.
-
What are the chances that all of the polls are somewhat consistant.
-
The debates certainly had an enormous impact. Bush went from double digit leads down to tied in a matter of two weeks.
But you could chalk it up to the receding of Bush's post-convention bounce. It'd be a little weird, but you could.
However, that aint what I'm talking about.
Where was your guy in the debates? Why couldn't he explain himself?
If you want to post polls, post the polls ABOUT the debates. There's no question Bush lost all of them. Post THOSE polls.
Don't sidetrack with polls that are your way of saying "well gee, it doesn't matter." It aint what I was talking about.
Where was Bush?
-
They didn't invite Michael Badnarik; that's "my guy".
Oh, so this thread was just about you tooting that "your guy" Kerry won all three and that's all that matters?
Whatever.
Congrats, I guess.
BTW, according to ABC "who won" polls.. the only one that did all three debates
1st Bush 36 Kerry 45
2nd Bush 41 Kerry 44
3rd Bush 41 Kerry 42
All but the first essentially like the "who would you vote for polls"; well within anyone's margin of error.
-
You posted a poll as if to say something, but it doesn't say that something.
Totally disconnected. You were trying to suggest something by introducing something irrelevant.
Are you saying that ABC was the only poll that showed Kerry winning all three?
Are you going to tell me right now that Kerry did not win all three?
If so, show me where. If not, perhaps we could move past yer smoke and mirrors show, and you could tell me why it was that the CiC was AWOL.
-
Soon America will have to pick and choose a president for the next four years. Whomever he is, he will the the president they deserve. Thats how I see it now, its so close to the election. I too have voiced my opinions but its their president as well. What ever happens, so be it.
-
I dunno... the difference between Bush in debate #1 and Bush in debate #3 was so striking that I wondered if he was on some sort of stimulant.
-
How about this then Nash....
Nash: "Kerry was just awesome. He totally won all three debates."
Nov 2: Bush wins.
In despair, Nash refers back to Toad's comment in this thread:
Toad: "The "who won" is pretty subjective, I think. Depends on the listener and the listeners preconceptions.
Beyond that, are debates THE factor in the election? Are they even a major factor?"
Got it yet?
But hey, I know the thought that Kerry roxxors just makes you feel all tingly in your special place. So enjoy it.
Kerry might even win it all and then......... woOOOoooHHHHoooHHH!!!
Enjoy!
:p
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Soon America will have to pick and choose a president for the next four years. Whomever he is, he will the the president they deserve. Thats how I see it now, its so close to the election. I too have voiced my opinions but its their president as well. What ever happens, so be it.
Probably the most logical sentiment at this point.
-
Originally posted by montag
Let me ask you something then. Are your own goals in voting for a leader different to the agendas that Kerry has been promoting.
I think so.
These are my individual, purely selfish concerns:
Medmal tort reform--including federally-mandated award caps
Strong support for Israel
End, or significant decrease to estate taxes
No significant military spendings cuts
No tax hikes for the 'rich' (unless you feel good about make a legion of tax-attorneys rich while giving little or no added aid to those who need it)
less of a focus on socialized medicine and more concentration on reforming insurance policies
Streamlined, verses bulked-up social programs
-
Originally posted by Nash
The debates certainly had an enormous impact. Bush went from double digit leads down to tied in a matter of two weeks.
But you could chalk it up to the receding of Bush's post-convention bounce. It'd be a little weird, but you could.
However, that aint what I'm talking about.
Where was your guy in the debates? Why couldn't he explain himself?
If you want to post polls, post the polls ABOUT the debates. There's no question Bush lost all of them. Post THOSE polls.
Don't sidetrack with polls that are your way of saying "well gee, it doesn't matter." It aint what I was talking about.
Where was Bush?
Bush was there on the recieving end of a liberal armed to the teeth with four years of the Bush record to criticize....kinda hard to fight back against someone who has done nothing but posture all of his life.
Unlike you boy Kerry, Bush is not a polished politician.....what is it about this that you find hard to understand?
Bush leads on the job as was shown immediately after 9-11, not on TV trying to define who he is for the American public like Mr. Kerry.....remember, talk is cheap.
BTW....if you want to score the three debates, Bush clearly lost all three....he will not lose the general election.
-
Knowing what a poor speaker Bush is and the fact that he didn't need the public exposure that Kerry did, I figured from before the debates that Bush had nothing to gain by them and that Kerry would. However, Bush did a pretty good job in revealing just how hollow Kerry is, or maybe Kerry did it to himself.
Who won the debates? Like Bush said when asked who won the debates, "I'll let the voters decide on November 2nd", or something like that.
-
I guess it boils down to.... from listening to the debates... who would you rather hang out with?
would you like to listen to kerry sell you insurance all day or get in a taxi with him in black tie and tails to see the opening of a new "artist" who makes sculptures from his own feces while drinking champagn and little unidentifieable sandwiches or...
would you rather go to Bush's ranch and saddle up one of his horses and go for a ride on his ranch with him and maybe get off a shot at a coyote or two.... maybe have an outdoor BBQ later on..
nash likes the first choice... most of the Americans here think the second sounds better.. and...
nash can't vote anyway.
lazs
-
hehe, very colorful lazs :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
would you rather go to Bush's ranch and saddle up one of his horses and go for a ride on his ranch with him and maybe get off a shot at a coyote or two.... maybe have an outdoor BBQ later on..
nash likes the first choice... most of the Americans here think the second sounds better.. and...
nash can't vote anyway.
lazs
You could saddle up a horse but good ole boy GW won't go--he doesn't ride. And those cattle? Not his, but the prior owner. He's what we call an "all hat, no cattle" rancher. But hey, go with the fantasy.
h
-
It is his ranch and I have seen pics of him on a horse. Are you saying he wouldn't be allowed to ride on it? As for cattle.... I would do the same... lotta work.. hire someone else to do it... Like growing nuts... most people that grow don't do the harvest.
lazs
-
Horn, you've never been to Texas, much less seen the ranch but you somehow know that he is an "all hat, no cattle" rancher. Really? Where do you get your wonderous information?
I've seen the ranch, I've seen and read articles about it. As far as I know, he does ride horses and the cattle is all his. Hired hands do the work and if he loses the election he'll come home and be a rancher. Bout how I see it.
-
soo.... my assesment of the debates remains the most inciteful with nash's nothing but an effete artists liberal socialist canadians wishful thinking and demented rambling right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I dunno... the difference between Bush in debate #1 and Bush in debate #3 was so striking that I wondered if he was on some sort of stimulant.
We just upgraded from the economy chip to the performance chip. Several more MHz. Also made some other upgrades, most notably IR vision.
(http://www.kinotv.com/stills/film/8373.jpg)
-
Originally posted by texace
Horn, you've never been to Texas, much less seen the ranch but you somehow know that he is an "all hat, no cattle" rancher. Really? Where do you get your wonderous information?
I've seen the ranch, I've seen and read articles about it. As far as I know, he does ride horses and the cattle is all his. Hired hands do the work and if he loses the election he'll come home and be a rancher. Bout how I see it.
Look it up yourself. He bought it (1600 acres) in 1999, house was finished in Nov 2000--he's got no roots, merely a nice place to run away from DC. He doesn't ride nor does he "ranch." Never did.
How the hell do you know where I have and haven't been you pathetic imbecile? I was raised in Austin and Dallas and went to college at UTA. Wonder where my handle came from? Get a clue.
All hat, no cattle is still the best description for this "average guy" pretender. But, hey, like I said, go with the fantasy if it makes you feel better.
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
He doesn't ride nor does he "ranch." Never did.
I'm almost certain I've seen him riding on TV. Will have to find a pic so you can recant.
Can't find a pic, maybe this joke from Leno will satisfy ya?
"You never see Bush in the Oval Office. He's always playing golf, or he's riding a horse in Texas, or he's playing tennis. You know, I can't tell if he's president or filming a feminine hygiene commercial."
—Jay Leno
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm almost certain I've seen him riding on TV. Will have to find a pic so you can recant.
Please do. Since I wrote the above I went and looked. Can't find a thing--did find *Reagan* on a horse tho from one of his commercials but that's it.
h
edit: I did find this video tho:
http://whitehousewest.com/
-
See my above edit.
I was surprised by the first site google pointed me to when I searched on "(removed to protect the innocent)". Perhaps I shouldn't mention it. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
See my above edit.
I was surprised by the first site google pointed me to when I searched on "(removed to protect the innocent)". Perhaps I shouldn't mention it. ;)
Heh, no, not good enough. Yeah, I didn't think you could. I've found blogs and forums that were looking but no one can come up with a picture tho many "remember" seeing one.
I thought the video was pretty funny tho. Will Farell really has Bush's voice inflections down.
All hat no cattle.
h
-
Well, if yer gonna make me dig be prepared for a big helpin' of crow.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, if yer gonna make me dig be prepared for a big helpin' of crow.
Heh, I'm willin.
I know horses can be intimidating--I've been around 'em since I was a kid. Nothing wrong with being frightened by them, imo. But to put on the homey ranching "act" bugs me.
h
-
You win Horn, I can't find a picture. Though I'm still pretty sure I have seen him riding on television. I did find a picture of his custom saddle but if you won't take Jay Leno's word for it then that likey won't convince you either.
-
Hang on, I found one:
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/gwb.jpg)
:D
-
Originally posted by Horn
I know horses can be intimidating--.
h
And painfull if one fails to wear tight BVDs. Damn ball slapp'n nag, had me walking funny fer a few days.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hang on, I found one:
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/gwb.jpg)
:D
Horse, Mr. Iron. Not pony, HORSE!
On his ranch! As an adult. At least.
And yeah when I was digging I saw pix of the saddle. WAY nice.
h
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is his ranch and I have seen pics of him on a horse. Are you saying he wouldn't be allowed to ride on it? As for cattle.... I would do the same... lotta work.. hire someone else to do it... Like growing nuts... most people that grow don't do the harvest.
lazs
Ever find any of those pics?
-
Originally posted by Horn
How the hell do you know where I have and haven't been you pathetic imbecile?
h
Hehe, Horn, you make a fine debater for the liberal cause. Just come right out swinging :rofl :rolleyes:
FWIW:
Bush calls himself a "Windsheild Cowboy". The kinds that patrols his ranch from his pick up truck, not horseback.
More power to him, horseback riding hurts unless you're doing it daily. ;)
-
Horn might take offence to that remark, being that he's a Republican.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hehe, Horn, you make a fine debater for the liberal cause. Just come right out swinging :rofl :rolleyes:
FWIW:
Bush calls himself a "Windsheild Cowboy". The kinds that patrols his ranch from his pick up truck, not horseback.
More power to him, horseback riding hurts unless you're doing it daily. ;)
You haven't figured it out yet have you Rip?
I'm a Republican that is disgusted with Bush--just not a right wing nut-job like yourself who idolizes all things Bush.
Besides, the idiot was making assumptions about where I'm from. He deserves what he gets. How is that "liberal" in any way? You love Bush--does that make you ghey? See, non sequiturs can work both ways.
I was just trying to illuminate for the great unwashed of GW's propensity for fantasy. You buy into it too--GW has no reason to "patrol" his ranch--for security, the secret service performs that task, further he owns no livestock worthy of being patrolled. Feel free to live your little fantasy tho.
h
heh, Torque beat me to it.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Horn might take offence to that remark, being that he's a Republican.
I always thought that you're a "Republican" only if you contribute to the Republican party or vote Republican. Sounds to me like Horn is a Republican no longer.
-
(http://www.republicanmarket.com/img/prod/m/m21119.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Horn
You haven't figured it out yet have you Rip?
I'm a Republican that is disgusted with Bush--just not a right wing nut-job like yourself who idolizes all things Bush.
heh, Torque beat me to it.
Horn , why are you so disgusted with Bush?
-
Gee, Horn, thanks for informing me of your past in a awy that I can understand. :rolleyes:
I don't know you, I have never met you and I made an assumption based on what I read. Take it for what it is...calling me a pathetic imbicile is just low. I at least tried to keep the personal insults out of my post. What was the deal with you? You can't just politely inform me that you were raised in Austin, oh no. Being a college student, I guess I just don't understand anything if there isn't some stinging remark in it. :o
Just FYI, I'm disgusted with both canidates. I've never voted before and I'm considering not doing it at all. I have found no good reasons for either of these half-wits to run this country. Neither of them are my "poster children," and I don't live in a fantasy world. I retract my statement and apologize, as stated befoer I had no knowledge of your past and I was wrong to make assumptions.
Funny...all of the posts I have ever made here have been ignored and I get to have one of my worst ones brought back and shoved in my face. I feel like a politician. :(
-
Ok horn... I would rather ride in Bush's pickup looking over the ranch than attend the art gallery opening for the feces sculpter with kerrie... happy?
Not about republican or democrat it is about moderate vs liberal socialist to me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I think so.
These are my individual, purely selfish concerns:
Medmal tort reform--including federally-mandated award caps
Strong support for Israel
End, or significant decrease to estate taxes
No significant military spendings cuts
No tax hikes for the 'rich' (unless you feel good about make a legion of tax-attorneys rich while giving little or no added aid to those who need it)
less of a focus on socialized medicine and more concentration on reforming insurance policies
Streamlined, verses bulked-up social programs
Let me see if I get this..
- Medical Lawsuit reform
- support for Isreal
- Cut taxes for the rich
- Keep military spending at a high level
- Cut taxes for the rich
- Drop medicare type crap, let the poor die, it is a waste of my money... I could buy another house with that money.
- Drop any kind of welfare crap, see above.
Well... I'd have to say you'll be voting for Bush on Nov 2nd. He'll definately get behind the last 5, don't know about the first two. I assume after a few months and a few more invasions all the poor people who'd be sucking up your tax money will have been drafted to stand guard in other "dangerous" Islamic countries... I hear Malaysia is quite the terrorists paradise this time of year.
-
urchin... I don't think you got it straight at all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Let me see if I get this..
- Medical Lawsuit reform
- support for Isreal
- Cut taxes for the rich
- Keep military spending at a high level
- Cut taxes for the rich
- Drop medicare type crap, let the poor die, it is a waste of my money... I could buy another house with that money.
- Drop any kind of welfare crap, see above.
Well... I'd have to say you'll be voting for Bush on Nov 2nd. He'll definately get behind the last 5, don't know about the first two. I assume after a few months and a few more invasions all the poor people who'd be sucking up your tax money will have been drafted to stand guard in other "dangerous" Islamic countries... I hear Malaysia is quite the terrorists paradise this time of year.
You see, this is exactly the sort of pre-programmed, wounded, snap reflex defense mentality that makes it difficult to carry on a conversation.
Here goes nothing:
I do not support the end to welfare or medicare, nor do I consider them crap by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that many people deserve both in order to get them by and to hopefully help them along to greener pastures. The single working parents. The sick. The elderly. The disabled. All deserve our help and support.
That being said, I do not think that such programs should exist to perpetuate a 'loafer class' in this nation--a class of that believes in universal entitlement simply by virtue of their ability to subsist on others' hard work. If my 'other' house money is going to a guy who can take care of himself, then yes... You're damn right I'd rather keep it. I think I should have at least a dozen exotic sports cars in a gold-plated garage before I should have to support an able-bodied degenerate. If you want to toss money at the lazy, go ahead. Keep your hands and your ideology off of mine.
I support Israel. Always. I do not care for Sharon, but I do care for the millions of other admirable men and women that have made Israel a great nation in record time. They are our brothers and sisters in ideology, and although they've made mistakes(much like the fathers of this nation made with slavery and the genocide of the native Americans) they've earned the right to prosper. Despite their technical and tactical supremecy, they are on the defensive in their region, and I will gladly support them even if our nation turns away.
I can't believe you even bought into the whole draft re-instatement propeganda Kerry's been tossing around in the last couple days. Do people forget that it was Kerry who spoke of creating a required government service program in the States? Answer me this: If Kerry told you that drinking your own pee was good for your liver, would you stock up on Dixie Cups and bendy straws?
Tax cuts for the rich? Well, How much should the 'rich' be paying? How much punishment is punishment enough for those with the aptitude and elbow grease who make it into this highly diverse, highly misinterpreted group? Personally, I think that a flat tax should exist for anyone beyond a certain income level--say, 100k/year. Otherwise, and I've said this before, you'll only be taxing those on the fringes of the upper bracket. The truly wealthy, the men and women raking in several million a year and more, will always have their tax attorneys to go to. So, basically, your robin hoodesque, bleeding heart tax policies will only serve to funnel money into the pockets of a couple thousand already wealthy lawyers... But who gives a damn, right? The rich only exist to provide people like you with a release valve for your own deep-seated guilt and sense of inferiority, so vote away.
BTW, Shinedown sucks.
-
Here is a true first for me.
Originally posted by Nash
During the 2nd debate, we saw a man judo-chopping every point he tried to make, all but leaping across the stage to strangle Charlie Gibson,
lol nash.
-
Drop medicare type crap, let the poor die, it is a waste of my money... I could buy another house with that money.
Why should I pay for someone else to go to the doctor? If they grew up in the same country, had the same opportunities as me, WHY... WHY should I be held accountable for their lack of success?
Cut taxes for the rich
You seem intelligent.... do you mean this? You have to cut taxes for the rich any time you cut taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S. are paying LESS than 10% of all taxes. How can you cut their taxes significantly further?
-
Steve... that is probably because the bottom 50% of tax payers are already at or below the poverty line. Since you are a fan of random stats though... the wealthiest 10% of Americans own 80% of the assets. I know that probably sounds fair and reasonable to you, but not to me.
As far as paying for someone else going to the doctor, I absolutely think you shouldn't have to. Just remember you'll have to pay to import new Mexicans to work at the Walmart and other corporate plantations you shop at, because the plantation owners sure as hell aren't.
Neubob... your "able-bodied degenerates" are a class that doesn't exist. In the cities, people without health care are either working poor (who's bosses aren't even willing to pay them enough money to live, much less waste a cent on taking care of them), or criminals.. who already make enough money that they don't need your "handouts". In Baltimore, 60% of the homeowners spend more than 50% of their income on their house.. does it sound like they've got lots of discretionary money to use? You think if they get sick they can just call in for a week while they go to the doctor? No, they get fired, then they get kicked out, then you've got more "able-bodied degenerates".
Neu... I guess what I'm trying to say is there isn't a perpetual "loafer class". In America, where you end up is primarily determined by where you start out, so people who are born poor already have two strikes against them. Practically nobody is willing to pay to educate poor children, or ensure employers have to pay a living wage (it would slow the economy!.. yea.. it is in such superb shape already).
You want to end welfare? Take a big chunk out of corporate welfare, i.e. giving corporations massive tax breaks, free land, hell even cash outright while making no provisions for ensuring any of this charity goes to the workers, who still slave away for minimum wage because actually recieving a living wage and healthcare would be bad on the owner's wallet.
Don't take away the services that these people (hell, serfs, wage-slaves, pick your inflammatory term) need to stay alive because their boss (owner, master... etc) isn't willing to cut into his profit margin.
-
Kerry's debate showing not translating to popularity (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/poll.sunday/index.html)
Although Americans think Sen. John Kerry did the best job in the debates, the Democratic nominee appears to have lost some ground to President Bush in the popularity contest, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday.