Printable View
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Thanks, guns are not my thing.Quote:
Originally posted by wolfpits:
Nice debates. By the way, 2 drinks, our soldiers do not have AK's (unless they collect war trophies)
<font color="#FFFF00"><font size="1">[ November 10, 2004 03:14 AM: Message edited by: wolfpits ]</font></font>
A few points for consideration:
FDR was the founding father of most of our social programs. They were born to bring our country out of the depression. The class gap was too high. The balance between social programs and true capitalism is what has made this country strong.
Do people take advantage of social programs? Some do. Do wealthy people take advantage of tax cuts? Some do. But what was this country like before social programs?
Average family unit- wife, husband, couple of kids. Husband dies. Would you want to deny the widow welfare to raise her children on her own? Without social programs the children would wind up in an orphanage, loosing both parents.
I play the market- sometimes my stocks go up, sometimes my stocks go down. If we privatized social security and the stock market crashed, as it has done, what then? What happens to the people who need social security- what happens to the elderly who can no longer support themselves and have family that cannot or will not care for them, or have no family left at all?
I put money away every year should I make it to old age. Because I do this, I get a deduction on my taxes. If you fund your child's education instead of public schools, you get a break in your taxes- for nearly everything in life you do to stand on your own to feet and not sponge off the government- the government recognizes it you when you pay your taxes. So financially what is there to complain about our current system of social programs?
Higher taxes for higher income brackets makes sense. Creating additional breaks for the upper class has been proven time and time again not to work. When you raise the income on the poverty line, the economy goes up because these people spend it. The wealthy aren't using the money from these new tax breaks to create new jobs, they're outsourcing our jobs overseas. They aren't even investing the majority of it in the market as it's been so unstable.
Where are our troops better put to use? Joining the UN and ending the genocide in Sudan where hundreds of people get hacked to death by machete on a daily basis, or forcibly "liberating" the people of Iraq- bombing entire cities filled with innocent people to avoid urban warfare with insurgents? Saddam was no picnic, but the majority of his war crimes were committed before the first gulf war- against Iran- and we provided weapons for both sides. Our ammunitions kill more innocent people on a daily basis than ever occurred during his regime.
I could go on forever- so for now just one more note- the fine for contributing to terrorist organizations when Clinton was in the white house was $50k- during this administration and the "war on terror"- it's been dropped to 16. The majority of Al Queda's financial backing comes from Saudi Arabia. Draw your own conclusion.
I'll give you 10 of these Shelly, right on. Well I was going to give you 10, but looks like i'm only allowed 6.
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Not true. Bush isn't for privitization so much as he is for ownership of all the resources and wealth by a few people (his friends). Remember, go by what they do, and the effects of their actions, not by what they say.Quote:
bush is privitization and kerry is socialization so i go bush when it comes between bush or kerry.
Nor is Kerry a socialist. He isn't even, despite what Bush would have you believe, a liberal. He's barely a moderate, and I read somewhere an analysis of his policies which puts him somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon. Which tells you how much the radical right has shifted the goal posts.
And let me tell you a little bit about socialism. It is one of those words like "liberal" which has come to be used as a push button by the radical right. They don't actually want you to understand what such words mean, so they twist them around until they control the language. Then they can push your button with it, and you'll respond accordingly.
We have some socialism in America. I'll give you an example. Do you own a car? Do you ever drive on a road or walk on a sidewalk? If you do, you use our socialist transportation system. Paid for by the combined efforts of our citizens, for the joint use of all citizens, no matter how much or how little they contributed to the actual construction. You know, when the interstate highway system was designed, you weren't even born. But I'll bet you've used it before.
How would you like to change that, so that a different company owns every block or every mile, so that you have to stop and pay "whatever the market will bear"? Does that sound like a good way to do it? Or do you prefer the current way? If you selected the current way, better turn yourself into the Ann Coulter School of Cultural Brainwashing. You just selected Socialism.
Furthermore, although I'm from Tennessee and got to see my vote for Kerry wasted there in the last election, I live in Japan and partake in the National Health System here. Bush told you in one of the debates that people who are on National Health in other countries would love to have the U.S. system. Not true. I would like to tell you a little bit about the awful, awful medical system here. When my son was four, he exhibited signs of deafness. We took him to the hospital. On that morning, he saw three specialists, including an ENT. He had an x-ray. The doctors identified the cause of the problem (excessive ear wax), treated it, and gave him a course of antibiotics. The entire cost: $14. The difference between the U.S. and Japan: we had to take a number at the clinic instead of making an appointment (but after our number was called, we saw all three specialists without further waiting). I can give you more examples if you like.
My point is that it is not necessarily "socialism" that is a bad thing. A dictatorship is far worse. Socialism gave the Russians universal education and health care. A dictatorship gave them the Stalinist regime of terror, no free press, and a destroyed environment. Learn what things actually mean, not what Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly tell you they mean.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Would you be less offended if that list had been compiled by Rush Limbaugh? Would it be alright to remember the dead if any member of the right wing press asked you to? What if Bush, who lied in order to send those people to their deaths, asked you to remember them? Would that be okay? If so, your protests ring hollow.Quote:
That list compiled by Michael moore of all the fallen soldiers kinda pissed me off.
Soldiers have no choices. They follow orders. If they don't, they get court-martialed. For that reason, we must be very, very careful when we ask them to risk their lives. Because they can't speak for themselves, we citizens must be willing to speak up for them. They defend our lives with their lives. We must be willing to stand up for them if the power over them is abused, as it has been in this case. If we refuse to defend them as they have defended us, if we say our government is infallible and can do no wrong and whatever it says goes, we have failed those men and women who were willing to give their lives for us.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Thanks mainliner!Quote:
Originally posted by MainlinerFan:
I'll give you 10 of these Shelly, right on. Well I was going to give you 10, but looks like i'm only allowed 6.
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
Miss Jones, I would be equally as offended no matter who wrote that article. You quote one line from my entire post and then respond to it. I clearly stated why i was offended in that post. It was because after listing 6 or 7 paragraphs full of names of fallen soldiers, he ads that sly little remark at the end "I hope someday they will forgive us". That is what pissed me off.
Im sure there is a segment of soldiers serving in Iraq who do not want to be there, think we shouldnt be there, and resent our president for invading Iraq. However, there is also a segment of soldiers who support every military action in Iraq and who believe they are fighting (and dying) for a very noble and justifiable cause. Mr Moore tarnishes the names of all of the fallen soldiers by assuming they all died with the belief that the war was wrong.
As for looking out for their interests because they cant. That is a wide misconception that you oversimplify. You said we must stand up for them if the powers above them is abused? Really? According to the results of the last election, 51% of america believe the "powers above them" was not abused otherwise President Bush would not have been re-elected. I got news for you Miss Jones, the comander in chief calls the shots. If you, or any other US citizen believes those shots are wrong, or immoral, the only way you can stand up for those soldiers is to elect a different leader.
I can generally speak for every one of those soldiers on one aspect only. I served in the Marines from 1989-1993. When i enlisted, i took an oath that i would follow the orders of all superior officers including our commander in chief so help me god. That means that my duties to the president and to the United states stood above any of my personal beliefs as to justification and morality. If i didnt agree to this, then there is no point in serving. Period.
For every person who says we shouldnt be in Iraq, there is another who says we should. All I was saying is leave that debate out of this. Dont assume every fallen soldier died for an unjust cause. I can assure you there is a significant amount of soldiers who are very proud and supportive of US military action.
steve
I think it's funny that the first thing on someone's mind when they started a thread about politics is Mike Ness's opinion. People have a right to speak their mind. For or against. 51% isn't bragging rights. These close elections are a sign of a contry divided. Many of people were undecided until they made their march to the voting booth. What happens when these people change their minds? If half of all the undecided voters who went Bush the last second regret it a week a day or a month later that flips it and maybe we can impeach this bastard.
"Broken Never Beat"- Hoods
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">I grab one quote because I don't know how much bandwidth KOF has and I don't want to use it up unnecessarily. See, you knew who I was responding too, right?Quote:
You quote one line from my entire post and then respond to it
Just because 51% of the voters wanted Bush doesn't mean I give up my right to free speech, no matter how many of them would like to kiss off the Bill of Rights. I'm an American.
When you were a Marine I would have felt it was my duty to stand up for you just as I feel it is mine to stand up for those who are now serving. I know you wouldn't have been able speak for yourself. It didn't matter what your political views were or that I didn't know you. It is the duty of citizens to stay informed and protest if the military is being misused. Your life is too precious and so is the life of all of those who serve to risk it for no good reason. There are plenty of good reasons to fight. The wisdom is knowing the difference between when to fight and when not to fight. Bush may be the commander in chief but he shows an astonishing lack of wisdom.
Now I understand better what offends you and I'm glad that you would feel equally offended no matter who is asking you to do the remembering. At least you think no one has the right to do that rather than just some.
I think it is more offensive to forget them. Of course I can't speak for Michael Moore but I don't think he was claiming to speak for those people. If you watched 9-11 and I think you said earlier that you did, you would see that he is angered by the abuse of the poor. In fact, 9-11 is more about the class warfare of the very rich against the poor and middle classes than it is about anything else.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">My liberal college going brother tried to claim that the election was close. I'm not buying that nearly 4,000,000 votes is close. The percentages don't tell the real story. If you haven't already, take a look at the county by county across the united states there's alot more than 51% that went red. Then if you break it down even further (precinct by precinct) within a state it's even more embarassing for Kerry. And then that last part where you say that if people voted for Bush at the last second live to regret it "...a day or a month later that flips it and maybe we can impeach this bastard".Quote:
Originally posted by BtchCalledHope:
I think it's funny that the first thing on someone's mind when they started a thread about politics is Mike Ness's opinion. People have a right to speak their mind. For or against. 51% isn't bragging rights. These close elections are a sign of a contry divided. Many of people were undecided until they made their march to the voting booth. What happens when these people change their minds? If half of all the undecided voters who went Bush the last second regret it a week a day or a month later that flips it and maybe we can impeach this bastard.
"Broken Never Beat"- Hoods
Why specifically do you think they'd regret it? Oh would it be because we met some resistance against insurgents in Iraq and as a result some soldiers ended up dying? Or maybe because Bush appointed a Supreme Court Justice who wouldn't make law from the bench and was deemed "too conservative" from the Democrats.
Anyone who voted for Bush had plenty of time to educate themselves on these two issues as well as any others. Supporters of Bush know that when the going gets tough the tough get going. What they don't do is tell Diane Sawyer (in response to whether or not the war in Iraq is a mistake) that "it depends on the outcome".
Additionally, I'd like to commend you and some of your hate spewing allies for continuing to speak of the President as a "bastard" and other names. It's interesting to hear how they've come to this conclusion (perhaps you can enlighten us). I have no-doubts that as long as the Democrats and their affiliates continue to display such a hatred for Bush and the Republicans, the Republicans will continue to hold the majority in the House and Senate.
So again...Thank you.
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ November 12, 2004 09:30 AM: Message edited by: hoodoo voodoo ]</font>