Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Bush or the other guy?Follow

#1 May 01 2004 at 7:07 AM Rating: Decent
**
646 posts
Hello.
Who do you think should win? Pres. Bush. Or the other guy, what was his name though?
I say the other guy.
#2 May 01 2004 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
While i can understand your reasoning for not voting for an individual, don't you think that at least knowing the 'Other guy's' name is at least the bare minimum of your knowlage of his policies before you reach the ballot box.

/em counts to 10 slowly........

Voting is extremely important and policy is more important than personality.

GWB didn't make the appauling discision on his lonesome, he had a dozen other people advising him to do it.

I surgest that you get hold of a copy of the manefesto of both parties and inwardly digest the infomation pertaining to issues that are important to you and your husband before commiting to either cause.
____________________________
[wowsig]2213854[/wowsig]
Jarkeld Hammerhiem Lvl 36 Paladin/Lvl 30 Armourer
Lestril Hammerhiem Lvl 40 Monk/Lvl 28 Provisioner Blackburrow server
Iaedian Tailchaser lvl 60 Fury/36 Jeweler. Proud member of <Bane> Crushbone server

Your mind is like a Parachute, it only works if it's open.
#3 May 01 2004 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
**
646 posts
It is not that i dispise GWB. I just like "the other guy":)
#4 May 01 2004 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
I think that my post was far to complex for you to understand, i appologise.

I shall keep away from any other threads that you begin.

Have a nice day and say hi to your other half i am sure he's a nice guy.

Oh and post one for the team on the Lasttm Thread, community spirit is everything. Smiley: grin
____________________________
[wowsig]2213854[/wowsig]
Jarkeld Hammerhiem Lvl 36 Paladin/Lvl 30 Armourer
Lestril Hammerhiem Lvl 40 Monk/Lvl 28 Provisioner Blackburrow server
Iaedian Tailchaser lvl 60 Fury/36 Jeweler. Proud member of <Bane> Crushbone server

Your mind is like a Parachute, it only works if it's open.
#5 May 01 2004 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
*
193 posts
Just so you know, the other guy is John Kerry. I personally will never vote for our current President. I despise the decisions he's made (or the decisions his advisers made for him). I also will not vote for Sen. John Kerry. His ideal are against some of mine. He will have to make a major turn around before i vote for him. So, unless the President makes me so angry that I will vote for anyone over him, and he does have plenty of time, I would rather not vote.
#6 May 03 2004 at 6:55 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
25 posts
I'm a Libertarian, so if the election will not be close in my state I'll vote for whomever runs for the Libertarian party. But if it's going to be close I'll vote for Bush again.

I'm not crazy about everything he's done, but I think he's done enough right to get my vote. I generally vote for Republicans over Democrats because I consider them the lesser of two evils.
#7 May 03 2004 at 7:40 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,624 posts
Okay so. I'm a Republican. BUT Kerry is my senator. Bad position I'm in. Right now I really dont like Kerry but since my state (Massachusetts) always ends up giving their electoral votes to the Democrat I was thinking I might vote for Kerry anyway. Popular votes really dont mean much.

I really DO hate Kerry though.
#8 May 03 2004 at 9:56 AM Rating: Decent
*****
15,963 posts
Alfred E. Neuman for President.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#9 May 03 2004 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
*****
15,963 posts
Man, let me just say that it's all a crock...


People are generally imbeciles taht understand ****.
So essentially it is ALL jsut a popularity contest... sure the candidates have to appease some of the people who are actaully listening so they do get called on it...... but really now..

How many "typical" Americans really understand waht the **** is going on?? ANd these are the people in Control.

It's be just as accurate if the candidates played one on one frickin basket ball and people voted based on thier performance.

It's whoever performs better for the drooling masses... whoever can give enough of a bell and whistle speech or attiude that get people votes more than 'policy'.


I'm not against Democracy, I'm against Morons being in control.
GO out and Vote? . for waht? should I chose to be shot in the left temple, or the right?

the only thing that will bring this country togehter is a large scale natural disaster.. or Rapture.. or somthing...
until that day we are winging it on a tight rope walk.. trying to scrape some sense of peace in the oceans of chaos that we have created as humans on this Earth.

ok loveyou bye bye
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#10 May 03 2004 at 10:06 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,747 posts
Not to go off on a tangent of bitterness and despair but it won't matter who you vote for because George W. Moron will get reelected irregardless of who wins the popular (or if your really cynical) the electoral vote.

I mean he didn't actually win LAST time and we just all sat on our asses and picked our noses while he ran off with the presidency and a kilo of white powder.

Hmm, I am probably going to get put on a list for this but I don't care.

Now everyone vote because its all about going through the motions.

Quote:
the only thing that will bring this country togehter is a large scale natural disaster.. or Rapture.. or somthing..


Precisely!

Edited for agreement purposes

Edited, Mon May 3 11:08:18 2004 by sheebasaurusrex
#11 May 03 2004 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,055 posts
/sigh

Where's Totem and Moe when you really need them?

Quote:
the only thing that will bring this country togehter is a large scale natural disaster.. or Rapture.. or somthing...

Were you born yesterday? No? Well then you might remember a certain incident that happened on September 11, 2001. Yeah, that little thing. Do you honestly think that we need another one of those to be a united country? Boy, you're a sadistic one, aren't you?
Quote:
George W. Moron will get reelected irregardless of who wins the popular (or if your really cynical) the electoral vote.

How do you figure he'll win without the majority of the electoral votes? Please explain exactly how that is possible, because I'm very confused now. I thought that was how the Presidency was decided. Maybe I'm the ignorant one here, though.

I expect a 1000 word essay by tomorrow. Chop chop!

Twiztid
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#12 May 03 2004 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,747 posts
TwiztedSamurai wrote:
How do you figure he'll win without the majority of the electoral votes?


Technically speaking this is impossible. The idea behind electoral votes is that the candidates are granted the State based on the popular vote in that state. The electoral votes each state has are based on population. The larger the number of people, the more electoral votes.

However, in the last election, as I am sure you already know, the Popular vote was not reflected in the results of the electoral college. Al Gore actually received more votes in his favor than President Moron. While this is disturbing in and of itself, what is even more disturbing is the way in which the current leader won the state of Florida.

Aside from the ridiculous news coverage regarding hannging chads and so forth, the truth of the matter was that voters were turned away from the poll places in primarily Democratic counties due to supposed 'mix-ups' regarding voter registration and the tracking of 'felons' in the state. Apparently perfectly innocent citizens had been recorded as 'felons' (a large number of these people were African American residents of primarily democratic counties) and were turned away from the polls...by order of the Governer of the state...the moron's brother.

My comment regarding the possibility of the current president gaining another 4 years in office irregardless of the results is based mostly on cynicism and a complete lack of faith in the electoral process and the american populace.

Not sure if this is 1000 words but it is definitely too long for a forum.

Thank you. Smiley: ducttape won't fix this problem.

Edit: Because spelling is important!


Edited, Mon May 3 12:22:56 2004 by sheebasaurusrex
#13 May 03 2004 at 11:41 AM Rating: Decent
*****
15,963 posts
Quote:
Were you born yesterday? No? Well then you might remember a certain incident that happened on September 11, 2001. Yeah, that little thing. Do you honestly think that we need another one of those to be a united country? Boy, you're a sadistic one, aren't you?


I said "Natural Disaster".

Although I could argue as to the philosophcal way that 9\11 Was a Natural disaster.. I'll keep it simple.

9\ll was a disaster taht did bring some people together.... but is kind of gets watered down by all of the politcal molestation <-- (word inspired by another recent thread ^^) done in the name of 9/11... It becomes another tool. It's like going to war in the name of Christ.

A natural disaster would not be able to be used in this convention. Or the Rapture.... then again.. I guess we'd find a way somehow..

Sadistic? I'm a Realist.

Edited, Mon May 3 12:41:31 2004 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 May 03 2004 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
He was implying the Bush would rig the election you slow sons of ****

Fantastic job by the eight of you explaining the elctoral process though. I can just picture it.

"Oh OH!!! SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING THAT I LEARNED ABOUT IN HISTORY CLASS!! I KIN PROOVE EMWRONG...OHHH OHH AHH!!!"

Mr. Kottttahh!!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 May 03 2004 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
My comment regarding the possibility of the current president gaining another 4 years in office irregardless of the results is based mostly on cynicism and a complete lack of faith in the electoral process and the american populace.
And a wink-wink-thank-you to Diebold, makers of crappy voting machines and financial supporters of the Republican party to the tune of $200k+.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 May 03 2004 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,747 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Fantastic job by the eight of you explaining the elctoral process though. I can just picture it.


Er, there was only one of me.

And its this inability to count that resulted in the election going south four years ago.
#17 May 03 2004 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,055 posts
Hey, don't blame us for the election. Blame the jews. It's sooooo much easier!

And republicans don't classify blacks as felons so they can't vote. We'd rather have dead people vote in mass numbers to rig our elections.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#18 May 03 2004 at 12:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
47 posts
Up until this election, I thought that there is sufficiently little difference between the presidential candidates of the two major parties that voting was not an issue.

However, the direction that this country is heading right now is not where I want it to be going. It is clear that the people making the decisions in government right now feel that since we have a strong military, we should be using it as a tool of diplomacy.

The old saying is "In order to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs."

My response would be "If your eggs were PEOPLE, don't be making omelettes!!"

The current administration has been able to spin public opinion so far as to make criticism of the government appear Un-American. This is not right. Criticism of the government is not only a right, but the DUTY of an American Citizen.

Democracy is frequently a choice of lesser of two evils. Don't let that prevent you from voting.

---

this message brought to you by Bastokan Friends of John Kerry
#19 May 03 2004 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
And republicans don't classify blacks as felons so they can't vote. We'd rather have dead people vote in mass numbers to rig our elections
Apparently you're doing it wrong since the dead people keep voting Daley in Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 May 03 2004 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

And its this inability to count that resulted in the election going south four years ago.

Yeah, whatever, Horshack.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 May 03 2004 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,699 posts
Kerry. Kerry's economic policy will benefit you unless you are making scads of money (six figures minimum) or most all of your income is from long term capital gains or you plan to die very soon (before Bush's mounting debt has to be repaid) and don't give a dingo's kidney about how much your survivers (if any) have to pay for this wild orgy of defecit spending.

Despite supporting Kerry, and having seen Gore loose because of Nader, I still want to point out this race is *not* just between Bush and Kerry.

People who are allowed to should vote. If you honestly don't think either Bush or Kerry represents you interests and you just can't bring yourself to vote for the lesser of two evils, there are third parties. Or you can write in Mickey Mouse. Thousands do it every cycle.

We should all open the book of Simpson to the election chapter. When Dole was running against Clinton, The Simpsons (popular television show, animated) ran the following storyline:

Homer finds out both Clinton and Dole are space aliens intent on enslaving Earth and unmasks them at a debate. The aliens chortle and say "what are you going to do? Its a two party system." To which someone (Lisa?) says effectively "but there are third parties" yet someone in the audience says "ya but in the two party system, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote".

Cut to after the election. One of the aliens wins. All Earth is enslaved. Homer is mining, I don't know, salt or something. He is being whipped by some faceless alien. Someone complains about it and Homer says "don't blame me I voted for the other guy." (The other alien - the one that didn't win).

In a really great year, half the registered voters in the US vote, and about half of the people who are eligable actually register at all. Thus about 25% of the people decide for all. Not only does your vote count, it is likely to effectively count for four people - and that doesn't include all those ineligable to vote who live here.

Why is social security (a welfare/retirement plan for the elderly in the US) such a sacred cow? The old people vote. They register. If you don't you're consenting to bend over and take it up the rear from both sides.

That's why in my state (California) student tuition for university and college increases whenever the economy so much as hiccups. Students don't vote, and since many move right at the times our elections are held (Fall and Spring) it is not so easy to re-register in time for them. An accident? Maybe.

...and don't get me started about jury duty.

Back on topic: there are well known differences between Kerry and Bush. I'm biased so I won't say anything more here right now since the other side is not really making much of a showing. But I'd say find out from somewhere - and if you like neither find a third party. There are many: Green, Libretarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, Natural Law...significant numbers of votes to third parties will sway party policies to some extent.
____________________________
Do the right thing.
#22 May 03 2004 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,747 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, whatever, Horshack.


How eloquent.
#23 May 03 2004 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,747 posts
I broke it.

Edited, Mon May 3 17:10:36 2004 by sheebasaurusrex
#24 May 03 2004 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,785 posts
Abbay wrote:
Hello.
Who do you think should win? Pres. Bush. Or the other guy, what was his name though?
I say the other guy.


right now its no better then the last seveal elections. its a choice of evil or evil, or if you prefer bad or bad. neither are good, but at least with the one in office now you know what he will do.

as for the other guy (whom ever it ends up being) you have no idea. one of them is Mr. flipflop, the others are just screwed in the head worse then the guy in office now.

there has not been a real 2 party election since back to ford and carter, or heck even further back if you really want to get into it. by that i mean that both canidates had more then 1 thing going for them in the possitive way of running the country. now you just have stupid ppl owned by big business, or wanting to give more money to big gov. and both are just bad for everyone around.
____________________________
BANNED
#25 May 03 2004 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,570 posts

Actually, you CAN be elected without a majority of the Electoral votes.

There are currently 538 electoral votes, 270 are needed to win.

If nobody gets 270, the House of Representatives votes for President.

This could happen in two ways:

- Kerry & Bush have a 269-269 tie

or

- If a third-party candidate receives at least one vote. For example, if Kerry got 269, Bush 266, and Nader 3.

In either case, the currently Republican House could likely elect Bush president.



____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#26 May 03 2004 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Homer finds out both Clinton and Dole are space aliens intent on enslaving Earth and unmasks them at a debate. The aliens chortle and say "what are you going to do? Its a two party system." To which someone (Lisa?) says effectively "but there are third parties" yet someone in the audience says "ya but in the two party system, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote".

Cut to after the election. One of the aliens wins. All Earth is enslaved. Homer is mining, I don't know, salt or something. He is being whipped by some faceless alien. Someone complains about it and Homer says "don't blame me I voted for the other guy." (The other alien - the one that didn't win).
Actually, someone says "I'll vote for a third party!" and Kang says "Go ahead! Throw your vote away! Hahaha!" and then they show Ross Perot get all mad and punch his fist through his hat.

It's a gag. A joke. Not a comment on American politics that both of the main parties are evil monsters and we should all vote libertarian. People who try to find philosophy in the Simpsons worry me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 May 03 2004 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
23 posts
for those of you who have posted meaningful insight: good job for being valuable citizens in this increasingly depressing political situation. for those of you adding pointless drivel to up your number of posts, go away.
if your still here, i thought i would post some information on the libertarian party since it seemed to be a recurring term.
the libertarian party is essentially a party that believes that the federal government should return to its constitutional functions, and stop putting its nose in places it shouldnt. the libertarian party has social views generally in line with the democratic party, while its economic/fiscal/tax views are more in line with the republicans. the libertarian party is currently the leading 3rd party in the United States (not like that means it could actually get a president elected in the next 20-100 years). you might want to check it out...
____________________________
"TF_MMO_Quest1" "You must kill %s1 %s2 to complete this quest."
#28 May 03 2004 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

How eloquent.

I tend not waste eloquence on those who are so stunningly ignorant that can't decipher something said in jest from the literal meaning. It would be for naught.

Edited, Mon May 3 18:03:10 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 May 03 2004 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

the libertarian party is essentially a party that believes that the federal government should return to its constitutional functions, and stop putting its nose in places it shouldnt. the libertarian party has social views generally in line with the democratic party, while its economic/fiscal/tax views are more in line with the republicans. the libertarian party is currently the leading 3rd party in the United States (not like that means it could actually get a president elected in the next 20-100 years). you might want to check it out...

The libertarian party is a joke. It's the Republican Party without the social agenda. Libertarians vote Republican, give moeny to the RNc, and act in every way like Republicans. Don't waste your time with the front.

The Libertarian party is rarely the "leading third party" in any election of consequence, particularly Presidential elections. The Green party was the leading third party famously in the last election, and there's often other random third parties that massively out poll Libertarian party candidates.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#30 May 03 2004 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
It's a gag. A joke. Not a comment on American politics that both of the main parties are evil monsters and we should all vote libertarian. People who try to find philosophy in the Simpsons worry me.


Let me direct you to years and years of art/satire/theatre/music that was and is politically and philosphically relevent.

You could throw a dart blindfolded in the hallway OUTSIDE a library and still hit something in this vein.

Eb
#31 May 03 2004 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
*
121 posts
Kerry.
#32 May 03 2004 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Hmmm... couple points:

yossarian wrote:
Kerry. Kerry's economic policy will benefit you unless you are making scads of money (six figures minimum) or most all of your income is from long term capital gains or you plan to die very soon (before Bush's mounting debt has to be repaid) and don't give a dingo's kidney about how much your survivers (if any) have to pay for this wild orgy of defecit spending.


Not realy accurate. You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that). Um... And the "hidden" issue is that the Republican plan is designed to increase the numbers of people who get jobs and make good salaries. It's very wrong to look at what you're making today and make a judgement. It's much more accurate to say that your odds of making more money, or having a better job several years down the line is vastly increased if Rep economic policies are followed.


It's much more accurate to say that Kerry's economic plan will benefit you if you are currently recieving some form of public assistance, make less then 20k a year, and either assume you will never have a better job, or actively intend to avoid doing so. You are essentially working to guarantee that those who don't get good jobs will still have luxuries, but all at the expense of good jobs. Wouldn't you rather have the job that pays 40+k a year, instead of getting public assistance that makes your 25k a year job *seem* like it's 40k? I would... Because I don't like my government deciding how to spend my money. But that's just me...


Quote:
That's why in my state (California) student tuition for university and college increases whenever the economy so much as hiccups. Students don't vote, and since many move right at the times our elections are held (Fall and Spring) it is not so easy to re-register in time for them. An accident? Maybe.


Hmmm... Part of that is apathy on the part of students, but a good part is the scam artists that pass for ballot measure takers and "student registration" at local campuses. I take classes at a local university on occasion. I moved from my last address about 5 years ago. I never re-registered myself to my new address (like at the post office or DMV). I have, however, entered my updated address at every single one of those little booths that are usually at local universities (and grocery stores and malls). I am still officially registered at my old address (which fortunately is closer to my work then were I'm at now, so it's not a big deal to just drive there to vote).

Could it be that most students *think* they are being registered, but since most of those booths only really care about collecting names for their ballot measures, and never seem to actually send in the registration information, that they're ending up not getting registered (and perhaps having no idea why)? Dunno. Maybe I've just been amazingly unlucky. But I'd estimate that between campus, mall, and grocery store booths, I've probably provided my current address at least a dozen times in the last 5 years, and not one of those got to the registrar's office...


Coincidence? I think not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 May 03 2004 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that).

Hahahahahahah 50k

Ahhahahaha.

Sorry, **** myself laughing there, I need to go clean up. 50k. Funny.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 May 03 2004 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
*****
15,963 posts
Quote:
good job for being valuable citizens in this increasingly depressing political situation




Hail Caesar!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#35 May 03 2004 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,747 posts
Quote:
Not realy accurate. You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that). Um... And the "hidden" issue is that the Republican plan is designed to increase the numbers of people who get jobs and make good salaries. It's very wrong to look at what you're making today and make a judgement. It's much more accurate to say that your odds of making more money, or having a better job several years down the line is vastly increased if Rep economic policies are followed.


Riiiiight. Because unemployment under the regime of Bush hasn't skyrocketed. And the tax cuts have affected everyone not just those earning the top 1% in income...And do you have any idea how many people make less than 50k a year? Check on some statistics and get back to me.

And god forbid we talk about the human rights issues! No doubt bringing up the 'A' word will get this nuked...But separation of church and state is just a cliche I suppose, not something that is actually necessary for the survival of a secular democracy! Cause I want to live in a theocracy!

I have to go home now.

#36 May 03 2004 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,561 posts
Democracies fall when the elected leaders try to buy the most votes with popularity instead of doing what's right. I like Bush. He's unpolitically correct and the rest of the world fears us as long as we put people like him at the head of the Executive Branch. I don't think we need to put the most intellectual person at the head of the military just someone who can act at the right time. The deal breaker for me was when Kerry stated that he would not "classify us as at war with terroism." Sorry but these people have been at war with us since the nineties it's only now that we go to war with them. September Eleventh was the culmination of years of turning your back to a serious problem. I may not like Bush but at least he knows we're at war.
____________________________
Blah
#37 May 03 2004 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,561 posts
Here's a thought: Six digit salaries don't make you rich! If you overtax someone at this bracket then you hurt a potential entrepreneur. It's pure lunacy to say that just because you make over 200K that you deserve to bear a huge burden of taxation. Say whatever you want to say but not only are most businesses in Ameica under private ownership there are even bigger fiscal realities running the econmy in a free market system. Those who make the most spend the most. If someone didnt have the money to buy Mercedes SUVs then people in Alabama would lose their jobs. Class warfare only serves to tear down the best economic system the world has. When you raise taxes everybody pays the price.
____________________________
Blah
#38 May 03 2004 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

Democracies fall when the elected leaders try to buy the most votes with popularity instead of doing what's right.

What? I'm not sure I understand this. Are you implying that Democracies fail when the elected leaders try to win votes with...popularity? I'm not even going to bother. Re-write that as something other than gibberish.

Quote:

I like Bush. He's unpolitically correct and the rest of the world fears us as long as we put people like him at the head of the Executive Branch.

Firstly, Bush is entirely politically correct. He's run completely by poll numbers. He's the definition of politically correct. Unless be politically incorrect you mean "not liberal", in which case there aren't going to be any Republican's who are poltically correct.


Quote:

I don't think we need to put the most intellectual person at the head of the military just someone who can act at the right time. The deal breaker for me was when Kerry stated that he would not "classify us as at war with terroism."

Yeah, who wants the smart guy in charge of people's lives. Let's go with the guy that looks best in a cowboy hat. YEHHAW!!
Look, you can't be "at war" with a methodology. It's like declaring war on Haiku. It's an assanine concept.


Quote:

Sorry but these people have been at war with us since the nineties it's only now that we go to war with them. September Eleventh was the culmination of years of turning your back to a serious problem. I may not like Bush but at least he knows we're at war.

At war with Iraq...who had what to do with 9-11 again?

Edited, Mon May 3 19:10:04 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#39 May 03 2004 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,570 posts

Well I'm gonna declare war on Haiku.

Its rigid syllabic structure is stunting my creative development.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#40 May 03 2004 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,455 posts
Trickybeck the sly,
you have a very small mind,
what's wrong with poems?!?!

Edited, Mon May 3 19:25:55 2004 by Altaramere
____________________________
Bloodhoof PvE Server.
- Dieter 57 Night Elf Rogue
#41 May 03 2004 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Let me direct you to years and years of art/satire/theatre/music that was and is politically and philosphically relevent
Let me direct you to the idea of the throw-away gag. Just because you think you've found deep meaning in a Tom & Jerry cartoon doesn't mean it's there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 May 03 2004 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Contractions violate the structure of a Haiku.

For future refrence.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 May 03 2004 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
sheebasaurusrex wrote:
Quote:
Not realy accurate. You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that). Um... And the "hidden" issue is that the Republican plan is designed to increase the numbers of people who get jobs and make good salaries. It's very wrong to look at what you're making today and make a judgement. It's much more accurate to say that your odds of making more money, or having a better job several years down the line is vastly increased if Rep economic policies are followed.


Riiiiight. Because unemployment under the regime of Bush hasn't skyrocketed.


Are you asking? Or telling? Or just implying? Do you actually know the unemployment figures for the last 5 years or so? Or are you just parroting what you've heard, from other people who think they know something?

List the unemployement rates for the last 5 or 6 years, then show me a "skyrocketing" unemployment rate. Shouldn't be hard if it's true...

Quote:
And the tax cuts have affected everyone not just those earning the top 1% in income...


Really? Did you pay more or less taxes in relation to your total income this year compared to say 4 or 5 years ago? I'm betting less. So yeah. Those "tiny" tax cuts did help you. Maybe not a lot, but they did.

Um... And who the **** do you think hires people? Yup. The same "top 1%". A tax break for them means more money for them to hire people and/or expand businesses. All of which results in more jobs, higher salaries, and lower relative prices at the markets. So yes. You do benefit from tax cuts even when they don't cut them for you specifically.


Quote:
And do you have any idea how many people make less than 50k a year? Check on some statistics and get back to me.


Sure lots. I'd guesstimate about 80% make less then that number. There'd be a lot less if we didn't cripple businesses with taxes so we can toss money at entitlement programs. The exact dollar amounts aren't that significant (money is all relative after all). It's what you can buy with that money that does. In every way, leaving as much money as possible in the hands of those who actually hire people and make products results in the most people having the most prosperity across the board.

Even for those who actually get more out of their tax dollars then they put in, it's a deal with the devil really. You are essentialy giving the government some of your money (and some of the money you might have made!), which you could have chosen to spend in any way you wanted, and in return the government gives you a service. Essentially, the government is deciding how to spend a portion of your income.


Taxes under Clinton were the highest in relation to GNP that they have ever been (Ok, since 1962, which is as far as the CBO online tables go). Taxes under GWB are the lowest they've been during that same time period. Whether you like that or not is dependant on your thought about taxation. But don't imply that Bush has been a **** up domestically. He's actually done quite well considereing he was handed an ecnomoy in steep recession.



Quote:
And god forbid we talk about the human rights issues! No doubt bringing up the 'A' word will get this nuked...But separation of church and state is just a cliche I suppose, not something that is actually necessary for the survival of a secular democracy! Cause I want to live in a theocracy!



No you live in a republic. Which means that everyone (yes. Including the religious nutcases) has a right to attempt to pass any law(s) they want. Doesn't mean they'll succeed. There is nothing "evil" about the attempt either. Just becasue you and I disagree with the Religious Right's goals does not mean that are wrong for having them. That attitude is more un-american then theirs is...


Oh. And since when was separation of church and state a human rights issue? I guess if you're talking about abortion, sure. But that's just one part of the cookie...

I have to go home now.[/quote]
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 May 03 2004 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,699 posts
Jophiel wrote:
[/quote]Actually, someone says "I'll vote for a third party!" and Kang says "Go ahead! Throw your vote away! Hahaha!" and then they show Ross Perot get all mad and punch his fist through his hat.

It's a gag. A joke. Not a comment on American politics that both of the main parties are evil monsters and we should all vote libertarian. People who try to find philosophy in the Simpsons worry me.


I completely agree. All I'm saying is, *if* you think both parties are horrible, vote anyhow. I'm very comfortably for one of the major parties. People don't vote anyhow. Why not? I don't know - but I think they should. My only point.
____________________________
Do the right thing.
#45 May 03 2004 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

Really? Did you pay more or less taxes in relation to your total income this year compared to say 4 or 5 years ago? I'm betting less. So yeah. Those "tiny" tax cuts did help you. Maybe not a lot, but they did.

I don't want to get into the wall of **** here, besides it's other people's turn to kick the mental cripple, but I have one question.

Assuming you're right, and the middle class paid less total taxes, who's going to pay for the $7 Trillion National Debit?

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "cut taxes, increase spending" economic policy in play. Can you explain to me how the billion dollar a day defecit that causes get's paid for again? Is it voodoo?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 May 03 2004 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
I have no idea who's gonna win. Bush has a lot against him because Kerry is able to because people have seen him in action. When Kerry started critizinsing the AWOL though, that's when it looks like he's gettin a bit desperate. The army would've cauten it by now. Plus, one of the biggest elections of our time, Bush and Gore, NOTHING was mentioned of this. I'm for Bush, but it's up to the rest of you to decide.
____________________________
Feel the anger, Feel the burn.
#47 May 03 2004 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

When Kerry started critizinsing the AWOL though, that's when it looks like he's gettin a bit desperate.

Yeah, nothing's more desperate than attacking someone who didn't show up for being AWOL.

Well, attacking a guy who won a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for not being sensative to veteran's issues I suppose, but that's so ludicrously and transparently desperate I'm sure it would never happen.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 May 03 2004 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,570 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... And who the **** do you think hires people? Yup. The same "top 1%". A tax break for them means more money for them to hire people and/or expand businesses. All of which results in more jobs, higher salaries, and lower relative prices at the markets. So yes. You do benefit from tax cuts even when they don't cut them for you specifically.

Sounds like trickle-down economics, which led us to our previous recession.
gbaji wrote:
Even for those who actually get more out of their tax dollars then they put in, it's a deal with the devil really. You are essentialy giving the government some of your money (and some of the money you might have made!), which you could have chosen to spend in any way you wanted, and in return the government gives you a service. Essentially, the government is deciding how to spend a portion of your income.

If the government didn't decide how to spend some of our income, nobody would give ANY money to government programs, and you'd spend all yours on porno and beer.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#49 May 03 2004 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Quote:

Sounds like trickle-down economics, which led us to our previous recession.

No, no trickle down economics is a sound, and really the *only* effective economic theory. The last recession was caused by the Democratic controlled congress putting the breaks on the fantastic economy.

Wait and see...
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#50 May 03 2004 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,699 posts
gbaji wrote:
Hmmm... couple points:


Not realy accurate. You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that). Um... And the "hidden" issue is that the Republican plan is designed to increase the numbers of people who get jobs and make good salaries. It's very wrong to look at what you're making today and make a judgement. It's much more accurate to say that your odds of making more money, or having a better job several years down the line is vastly increased if Rep economic policies are followed.
...
I've probably provided my current address at least a dozen times in the last 5 years, and not one of those got to the registrar's office...


Coincidence? I think not.


Argument! Yay!

If Rep policies work the economy should grow - I assume gbaji is referring to the Laffer curve? Low taxes -> high economic growth? That and the Easter bunny have equal emperical evidence. Look historically. Maximum tax rates - in fact virtually all tax rates - have fallen dramatically since the inception of income taxes in the US and there is no correlation to growth. Correlation to defecit is obvious.

Republican policies are the same as Democrat policies: to get them elected. Someone is going to pay that enormous defecit that occurs every time the Republicans cut taxes (Reagan and Bush, Jr.) and by shifting the burdon onto the less well off, you **** over everyone but the ultrarich who reap enormous benefits. Sure, I'm saving money right now. Go me! But my share of the debt is rising and guess who's going to pay later? Consider even now: we are all paying interest right now and we'll be paying a lot more. Interest on worthey expences like perhaps educating the population will return rewards later whereas giving the ultra rich enormous tax breaks has absolutly no proven value.

The argument is that they will work harder? More will aspire to become ultra rich? I'm trying to help the other side out here with any kind of logical reason. Surely people have some argument for this but I'm not sure what. In the era of raging capatilism, the highest marginal income tax rate was 90% and we did just fine. Many people still wanted to become rich then. Why, exactly, didn't we have economic collapse then? Further, it just isn't logical people will try harder to get rich when the tax burdon shifts onto them. Sure, it lessens the odds you'll make it because you have to pay more taxes in contrast to the ultra rich - perhaps the argument could be the ultra rich will become lazy with their newfound wealth and stop working so that the rest of us have a better chance?

Sure, cutting taxes is popular and it should gain Bush his second term as he brandishes the "new tax" deamon at Kerry, but socilized health care would be a far larger boon to new businesses then lower personal income taxes on the highest income individuals, and a slight decrease for the rest. It is incredably hard and expensive to pay health care for all your employees - further exhasperated by the byzantine jungle of forms and offers. Further it is hard to lure good employees away from other jobs because their doctor may not follow into a new health plan. Gaps in coverage occur between jobs presenting a huge barrier to changing jobs. There are laws (so called "COBRA" in California, or is it Federal? I think it is state) which do help, but my state law could not extend my coverage from University to job because my student health insurance was - get this - not an actual health insurance policy covering me. I joined a small startup company anyways and ran out and got and paid for personal coverage until they could enroll me, but I almost did not go because they could not cover me and my family for something like three to four months.

Single payer health care is cheaper and better in virtually any first world nation on Earth then the insane system we have in America. Look at any objective statistic, like cost per person per year or rate of surgical errors, rate of a preventable disease like RSI or adult onset diabeties, look at early treatment of cancers - basically you name it and we're paying for a front row seat and we're not in the stadium to paraphrase Ross Perot. And it would lower barriers to changing jobs and entering the market working for small startups. We have a far greater chance of this under Kerry then Bush.

The child care tax credit was a boon to business that Bush eliminated. Used to be able to write off some (all?) child daycare expenses making it easier for both parents to work. Restoring this would help business, as would socilizing daycare (by using a voucher system for private institutions or following the public school/US post office style system or other means). Many businesses run their own daycare centers. This is both expensive and inefficient. I'm not a big fan of child daycare and my wife and I don't plan to use it but I still think it would increase the efficiency of our economy by making it easier for all people to work who want to. And I'm willing to help pay for it.

Simplifying the tax code would save people tons of money and time otherwise wasted and reduce the IRS workforce saving money there.

Any pro-business party should have at least some plan for these areas of federal law. There are proven, working solutions to these problems in other countries - why don't we follow them?

In the mid-Clinton years we had two years of Democrat control of both elected branches of federal government in the US and now we are nearing the end of two years with total Republican control. Neither group adequately address any of these problems.

Voting:
If you have ever been registered in the state of California, you can walk up and do a provisional ballet at any polling location. No, they probably won't count your ballet unless the race is really close but them's the breaks. IIRC you do have to provide something like: (a) present address and former, registered address, and (b) some documentation that you live at your current address. This is California, so your state may vary.
____________________________
Do the right thing.
#51 May 03 2004 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
*****
15,963 posts
*takes notes*
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
TeresaKFarmer, Anonymous Guests (50)