Democrats linked to Adolf Hitler

[Seadog]

From Fox News
Adolf Hitler once observed that it was easier to convince people of a "big lie" repeated often enough than it was to deceive them with a lot of small ones.
In their frenzied bid to displace President Bush in 2004, leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists.
It is ironic that the big lie now being disseminated with increasing frequency from Democratic political podiums across the country is that George W. Bush is a liar. Specifically, the charge is that he dissembled, misled, prevaricated and even lied about the justification for going to war with Iraq earlier this year.
Just yesterday, variations on this theme were pronounced by two prominent Democratic partisans -- the party's 2000 standard-bearer, former Vice President Al Gore, and a leading contender to become its next nominee, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
The former enumerated a list of false "impressions" President Bush and his subordinates used to justify going to war and to allay concerns about the repercussions of doing so.
Mr. Gore contended that the Bush team had misrepresented the danger Saddam posed, exaggerating the imminence of the threat, making false claims of ties between the Al Qaeda network that attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 and offering pollyannish assessments of the welcome we would receive from the Iraqi people and the support we would enjoy from the rest of the world once Iraq was liberated. He told a gathering of the anti-war activist group MoveOn.org, "Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong."
Gov. Dean was even more strident in a speech he delivered last night in Iowa. As part of a wide-ranging critique of the Bush presidency, he enumerated what he described as a number of administration statements concerning the need for military action against Iraq that "turned out not to be true." Then he pledged that, if elected president, he would "never send our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our sisters and our parents to a foreign country to die without being truthful with the American people about why they're going there."
There is just one problem with such charges. They are not true.
Don't you just love politics. :)

[Dave C]

I think Mao said that. A lie told enough times eventually becomes the truth.
He also said that its OK to kill 1000 innocent people so that you make sure that you get that 1 guilty person.
Or is it, shot one person, scare 1000 people.... I forget?!!........

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually the "Big Lie Theory" was first documented (or at least best explained) by the great historian/statesman Niccolo Machiavelli. When he wrote the first objective annalysis of the methods by which power is obtained and kept. Macchiavelli wrote about these things as a historian to expose such tecniques, but unfortunatly, many have used his work as a how too. Gore uses it more than most. Thank goodness he is such an inept stiff or he'd probably be more effective in achieving his goals. :p
[ August 11, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[ratso]

Ah yes, the "Big Lie Theory", kind of like "The check is in the mail" and "I promise not to come in your mouth".

[Catmando]

That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about Iraq's WMD
Lie about Dubya's drug use
Lie about protecting the environment
Lie about Iraq being responsible for 9/11
Lie about protecting our borders
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Oh BTW, the Unelected White House Occupant's grandfather was up to his Nazi-loving neck in the 30s with Hitler. So f**k off with Dems using Nazi tactics. burningm

[Dave C]

lies.
Lets see we found 2 of the big 3 WMD already and we are still looking. (good enough for me)
"War for oil" huh? Our armies occupied all that oil in '91, but then we gave it back. If this, 2003, was a "just a "war for oil" as you say, why didn't we just keep that territory that we captured in 91???.... (failure of logic)
Plus what did we gain? Not oil, Iraq sold us 8% of our oil before the war, which they will sell after the war. What we did was interrupt Iraq's oil supply for several months.

[AzDon]

Bush's first big lie, repeated every fifteen minutes for six weeks on MSNBC and Fox News Channel was that he won the election! LIKE IT OR NOT, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT THAT HE DID NOT WIN THE ELECTION AND WAS SEATED BY A SINGLE PARTISAN VOTE OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE! THE GUY IS A PUPPET, A MORON, AND HAS A DOCUMENTED PAST THAT MAKES CLINTON LOOK LIKE MOTHER THERESA!
Furthermore, fascism (Nazism) is a right-wing form of totalinarianism, which had a policy of "survival of the (government endorsed) fittest" and death to everybody else! Not too much different than the morally bankrupt meanness of popular Republican thought!
[ August 11, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[Mrs Big Boy Toys]

Democrat's don't know how to tell the truth....And the poor suckers that believe them well one day hopefully you will see the light. For those that don't God help you... Democrats only know how to spend our hard earned money and lie about where it's going,take Gray out Davis he signed a bill tripling our car tax which we the people voted against, And he signed that energy contracts which was very illegal seeing how he owned stock in the energy companies he signed the contracts with.
[ August 11, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Mrs Big Boy Toys ]

[058]

Catmando:
That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about Iraq's WMD
Lie about Dubya's drug use
Lie about protecting the environment
Lie about Iraq being responsible for 9/11
Lie about protecting our borders
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Oh BTW, the Unelected White House Occupant's grandfather was up to his Nazi-loving neck in the 30s with Hitler. So f**k off with Dems using Nazi tactics. burningm Figures.....someone turned over enough rocks and out slithers Catmando...Can ya please cover him back up he's done blathering, we wouldn't want his scales to dry out in the hot sun.
:D

[058]

Fascism [fash'iz em]n. A governmential system marked by a centralized dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls, and often belligerent nationalism.......sounds just like what the Democratic party aspires to be but not smart enough to acheve it. :D

[HOSS]

Didn`t find WMD? Who gives a ****! He threatenned the life (and put a bounty on MY Commander-in-Chief`s head) of Bush Sr. If he was my dad and I had the US military at my disposal,,,,that fat **** wouldn`t found out about an invasion on CNN. CNN would have reported his death by the US military and what the **** is anyone gonna do about it? Hate us? Good.
My reply would be, "Good luck selling your shit to some other country.".
**** the French! **** `em all! And if you don`t see it my way, **** You Too! :mad:

[AzDon]

Mrs Big Boy Toys:
Democrats only know how to spend our hard earned money and lie about where it's goingALL politicians are out to spend middle-class constituents money: Democrats want to spend it on programs benefitting people and Republicans want to give it all to billionaire industrialists and buy expensive weapons and warmonger. If it's going to be taken anyway, I know where I'd prefer it be spent!

[N:ck]

058:
...sounds just like what the Democratic party aspires to be but not smart enough to acheve it. :D This coming from the guy who can't spell achieve... :D Just messin' with ya, Bob. I'm not in the mood to think tonight, so I thought I'd pick at your spelling. Oh, God, I must have grown up and become a Republican! Next I'll be saying that you're too old to have an opinion or that you are a big fat liar!
* Needs therapy. *
[ August 11, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[058]

N:ck:
058:
...sounds just like what the Democratic party aspires to be but not smart enough to acheve it. :D This coming from the guy who can't spell achieve... :D Just messin' with ya, Bob. I'm not in the mood to think tonight, so I thought I'd pick at your spelling. Oh, God, I must have grown up and become a Republican! Yeah.....I know my spelling isn't the greatest but I wish your dad spelled "fascism" correct...I had a hellofatime finding it in the Dictionary. :D :D :D

[AzDon]

How about we abolish ALL personal income tax and place a 5% tax on the worldwide gross (not profit) of every business choosing to do business here? Think Mr. Bush would go for that?

[N:ck]

058:
Yeah.....I know my spelling isn't the greatest but I wish your dad spelled "fascism" correct...I had a hellofatime finding it in the Dictionary. :D :D :D Well, what can you expect? We're dumb Liberals who don't know anything, after all. wink (Yes, this is sarcastic.)

[058]

N:ck:
058:
Yeah.....I know my spelling isn't the greatest but I wish your dad spelled "fascism" correct...I had a hellofatime finding it in the Dictionary. :D :D :D Well, what can you expect? We're dumb Liberals who don't know anything, after all. wink (Yes, this is sarcastic.) Yeah...thats ok...I still like you guys anyway :D

[mickeyfinn]

058:
Catmando:
That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about Iraq's WMD
Lie about Dubya's drug use
Lie about protecting the environment
Lie about Iraq being responsible for 9/11
Lie about protecting our borders
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Oh BTW, the Unelected White House Occupant's grandfather was up to his Nazi-loving neck in the 30s with Hitler. So f**k off with Dems using Nazi tactics. burningm Figures.....someone turned over enough rocks and out slithers Catmando...Can ya please cover him back up he's done blathering, we wouldn't want his scales to dry out in the hot sun.
:D When you find that rock how about digging a large enough hole under it for azdon and nick too. Get so tired of the endless babble they continue to spout with nothing to back it up with. The more they talk the more they prove the theory that democrats believe that if you tell a lie often enough it will become fact.

[summerlove]

I'm sure you guys know where I stand on this one. Go Don, Go! I'm with you. Fight the battle! You're 100% F'ing correct. And who the hell said we found 2 of 3 WMD's??? HUH? Last time I heard "W"'s boys Rumsey and Cheney were still looking for WMD's while at the same time giving million's to Cheyney's "business interests"/cronies. Sure, I wanted Saddam gone, but at what expense? How many more body bags need to come home from IRAQ before we say enough! Ever heard of - Viet Nam? Give me a f'n break. This was revenge for Jr. to make him look good in Papa's eyes! He did the same thing Sr. did - HE DIDN'T GET THE JOB DONE!!! And, we (D)lie? I don't think so! Can you say plutonium from Liberia? Bush ate his words on that one last week didn't he kids.
Now, I'm off my soap box and ready for a trip to the river. Who's coming along....

[summerlove]

Oh yea, one more thing...
Do not, and I mean, do not, EVER, link anyone to Hitler. It is an insult and not right. Just because I'm a Dem doesn't make me prone to Hitler like tactics. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it!

[AzDon]

Hey Rick-
Looked at your website today (as well as Steve Sipes'site) got all excited when I saw a v-drive link and clicked it:(CVDCOA?...where's the love?!) I'm going to post links to your site now that I'm aware of it! Maybe see you at the Campbell Regatta

[058]

summerlove:
Oh yea, one more thing...
Do not, and I mean, do not, EVER, link anyone to Hitler. It is an insult and not right. Just because I'm a Dem doesn't make me prone to Hitler like tactics. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it! The liberals are trying to link Aaaa-nold and his father to Hitler and the Nazis but I guess thats ok because he's a Republican.

[AzDon]

None of you Republican fanatics like my idea to abolish personal income tax? Why am I not surprised?

[058]

AzDon:
None of you Republican fanatics like my idea to abolish personal income tax? Why am I not surprised? I'm in favor of abolishing almost all taxes....Hows that??? I guess that makes me an Official Republican Fanatic. I'm so proud :D

[AzDon]

Arnold as your governor? What a joke! You Californians petitioned for a $40 million circus, and now the clowns are arriving by the truckloads, looking for work!!
How about if you Republicans try something patriotic and democratic like abiding by the results of an election!!

[Mrs Big Boy Toys]

AzDon:
Mrs Big Boy Toys:
Democrats only know how to spend our hard earned money and lie about where it's goingALL politicians are out to spend middle-class constituents money: Democrats want to spend it on programs benefitting people and Republicans want to give it all to billionaire industrialists and buy expensive weapons and warmonger. If it's going to be taken anyway, I know where I'd prefer it be spent! Democrats want a bigger governments so they can control you more. as far as programs yea right...thats funny. studies on which pickle taste the best. Republicans want to lower taxes have a smaller government. Democrats are out for them selfs. republicans are out for the people and businesses.
[ August 11, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Mrs Big Boy Toys ]

[twistedpair]

AzDon:
Arnold as your governor? What a joke! You Californians petitioned for a $40 million circus, and now the clowns are arriving by the truckloads, looking for work!!
How about if you Republicans try something patriotic and democratic like abiding by the results of an election!! Or let's just call out all our big gun lawyer buddies after we lose. :rolleyes:
Oh wait, I forgot, the dumbocrats have all the trial lawyers in their pocket.

[summerlove]

AzDon:
Hey Rick-
Looked at your website today (as well as Steve Sipes'site) got all excited when I saw a v-drive link and clicked it:(CVDCOA?...where's the love?!) I'm going to post links to your site now that I'm aware of it! Maybe see you at the Campbell Regatta Hey Don - I lost your link a while back - I do need to update. I'll add your's next time out...Sorry for the "unintentional dis" - I'll make it up to you. BTW, loved the Lebel at 90...what a ride that must have been!
Re the Arnold is like Hitler - I'm not voting for him, nbut I absolutely do not think that he deserves that label at all. It is such BS, regardless of party! It's this "in your face" BS that I hate about politics. Can't we just all gewt along??? :D

[Napanutt]

Well,this one is getting good and I can't pass up...ALL polititians are liars to a certain extent,the nature of the game...I don't like the government taking our hard earned money and giving it to illegals and crack addicts spitting out babies by the handful (the more babies the more welfare each month).How many of those crack addict babies will ever be contributing members of society (instead of a burden)...

[BigBoyToys]

AzDon:
How about if you Republicans try something patriotic and democratic like abiding by the results of an election!! Patriotic and Democratic? :confused: :confused: WTF do you think the RECALL Process is! You can sit over there in AZ all ya want and talk $hit, but unless you live here and live with the $9b surplus to $38b deficit that Davis has taken us into......
I also kinda find it ironic that in a recent Time/CNN poll (slanted to the Democrats of course), even their poll showed that 40% of the Democrats polled showed that they favor a recall! I really don't care at this point who gets in there....I just want that MORON Davis out! My 13yo son could handle money better than Davis can! No wonder people are leaving California in masses....

[N:ck]

Mrs Big Boy Toys:
Democrats are out for them selfs. republicans are out for the people and businesses. idea
[ August 11, 2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[Napanutt]

Also,the dems spend so much time trying to protect us from ourselves...it's the guns fault not the mother****er shooting it...

[N:ck]

Napanutt:
Well,this one is getting good and I can't pass up...ALL polititians are liars to a certain extent,the nature of the game...I don't like the government taking our hard earned money and giving it to illegals and crack addicts spitting out babies by the handful (the more babies the more welfare each month).How many of those crack addict babies will ever be contributing members of society (instead of a burden)... One word: Stereotypes.

[AzDon]

I don't like the government taking our hard earned money and giving it to illegals and crack addicts spitting out babies by the handful (the more babies the more welfare each month).How many of those crack addict babies will ever be contributing members of society (instead of a burden)... [/QB]I completely agree with you! I think the underemployed should be shipped to retraining camps (think boot camps!) that provide a humane but tough living environment along with classes in life mangement as well as classes teaching skills that would result in living-wage jobs. Those that refuse to benefit from this program could choose to starve or be leased out to pick lettuce!

[CA Stu]

AzDon:
How about if you Republicans try something patriotic and democratic like abiding by the results of an election!! Electoral college says Bush won. That is the result of our election. Like it or not, that's the fact.
It is divisive, untrue, and IMHO unAmerican for you to post his silly kind of garbage.
Why don't you try to promote your agenda in a political arena, rather than just whining, namecalling, and pointing fingers at people? It's pathetic and just plain annoying.
CA Stu AKA Sleepy Stu

[CA Stu]

PS I agree that comparing anyone to Hitler is sophomoric and way out of line.
Lying to the public, no matter how bad, isn't even on the same planet as genocide. Pull your head out of your buttocks.
Thanks
CA Stu

[Catmando]

HOSS:
Didn`t find WMD? Who gives a ****! He threatenned the life (and put a bounty on MY Commander-in-Chief`s head) of Bush Sr. If he was my dad and I had the US military at my disposal,,,,that fat **** wouldn`t found out about an invasion on CNN. CNN would have reported his death by the US military and what the **** is anyone gonna do about it? Hate us? Good.
My reply would be, "Good luck selling your shit to some other country.".
**** the French! **** `em all! And if you don`t see it my way, **** You Too! :mad: Awww...him so mad! argue :D

[Rexone]

Oh goodie, another political thread. These are so cool..
http://www.kurts-smilies.de/huepf.gif

[058]

Abiding by election results????? Now that IS a laugh, You have to remember the Daly political machine in Chigago where they voted early and often and the only place on earth where dead people voted. That bastard knew every trick in the book to steal an election, including what went on in Fla. where the Demo. mantra was "Keep counting 'em until we get the count we want." And whats this all about where the Demos didn't want the military vote counted? I guess they don't need to vote 'cause Clinton "loathed" the military. And for the record Bush won by 530 votes in Fla. even after the Demos fondled, mulitated and molested the ballots. [and still couldn't get the vote they wanted]

[AzDon]

Florida was hopelessly deadlocked AFTER every dirty election trick under the sun had failed to provide the results that GWB had been promised by his brother. Florida should have been declared a tie and excluded from the Electoral College, but guess what? There's a one vote Republican majority on the Supreme Court! Bush wins by one vote! The Supreme court has lost my trust and confidence by their un-impartial behavior!

[058]

GWB still had 530 more votes than Algore :D

[twistedpair]

Boy, how can a Supreme Court Justice sleep at night, knowing he has lost the 'trust and confidence' of the esteemed AZDon. :rolleyes: wink

[AzDon]

CA Stu:
Electoral college says Bush won. That is the result of our election. Like it or not, that's the fact. So how about we do the Republican thing: have a big government investigation along with a witch hunt that includes hiring a "special prosecutor" after spending tens of millions of dollars, we'll dip the guy Impeach ice cream and then we'll hold a $40 million dollar recall election, because the voters were too stupid to vote the election properly!
That Florida's Electoral votes were awarded to Bush was simply the Supreme Court mooning the voters of this country. Whoever says that influence peddling can't buy a politician the office he seeks learned nothing from the counterfeit results of 2000!
P.S. 530 votes?1 is that all? I've talked to several black folks from florida that claim that thousands were denied their ballots on election day! How do you think they would have voted?
[ August 11, 2003, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[N:ck]

058:
GWB still had 530 more votes than Algore :D Going back to "grown-up" mode, who (or what) is Algore? Could you use that in another sentence, or provide a definition?

[rrrr]

Don, I don't know what story you read about the election but those ain't the facts.
News organizations paid for a full recount, and by several methods of counting Bush won.
"Dimpled chads" my ass. I have been voting with puchcard ballots in Texas for over twenty years, and all I can say is that if you are too ****ing stupid to push a pin through paper then stay home.
Same thing with "overvotes" and "undervotes". Your vote is serious business, and the election workers can answer any and all questions.
And don't even start about the "70,000 disenfranchised black voters". That's a lot of steaming shit shoveled by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
This little factual moment was brought to you by:
rrrr<----------radical right wing asshole
MIAMI Associated Press -
A newspaper review of Florida's "undervote" ballots concludes
that President Bush would almost certainly still have won the state had the
U.S. Supreme Court allowed a hand recount to be completed.
The Miami Herald and USA Today reported in Wednesday's editions that Bush
would have expanded his 537-vote victory to a 1,665 margin if the recount
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead under the most inclusive
standards, where even partial punches and dimples are counted as votes.
When the process was stopped, recounts using a variety of standards had
already had been completed in seven counties - Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward,
Hamilton, Manatee, Escambia and Madison - and in 139 Miami-Dade County
precincts.
The newspapers' calculations were based on the assumption that those numbers
would stand, but that in all the rest of the state the most generous
standards would be applied. On that theory, Bush's margin would have
increased, the newspapers said.
But the Herald reported that the balance would have tipped to Gore if a
recount of the undervotes had been started from scratch in all 67 Florida
counties using the most inclusive standards. Under that hypothetical recount,
free from the fragmented chronology of the post-election contest, Gore would
have won the White House, the paper found, but with an even narrower margin
of victory than Bush - only 393 votes.
An undervote is a ballot on which no preference for president registered; an
overvote is a ballot on which more than one preference registered.
USA Today's analysis focused exclusively on what might have happened if the
recount had been allowed to continue.
The results bucked the expectations of both the Democratic and Republican
teams during the Florida recount contest, finding that the more inclusive
recount standards sought by Gore would have helped Bush. And the strictest
standard sought by Republicans - that only clean ballot punches be counted -
would have given Gore an extremely narrow three-vote victory. USA Today said
that was too close to withstand the possibility of errors.
``Many Americans were asking the question 'What would the result be if the
Florida Supreme Court's order to conduct hand recounts in all 67 counties
were carried out?''' Martin Baron, the Herald's executive editor, said
Tuesday. ``We felt it was our responsibility to answer questions that so many
people had.''
The review of 61,190 undervotes did not examine so-called overvotes,
approximately 110,000 ballots cast for more than one candidate. Both papers
are planning a separate analysis of the overvote next month.
A group consisting of The Associated Press, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, CNN, The Palm Beach Post, St. Petersburg Times, The Wall
Street Journal and Tribune Publishing, which owns the Orlando Sentinel and
the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, is analyzing all uncounted presidential
ballots cast in the Florida election, including overvotes.
That ballot review, which is being conducted by the Chicago-based National
Opinion Research Center, is expected to be released next month.
The Florida Supreme Court order to conduct the hand counts specified only
undervotes should be counted. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decision
halting the recount noted that overvotes were being excluded.
Gore supporters were quick to interpret the newspaper findings as evidence
that the vice president should have won the election - and thus Florida' 25
electoral votes and the presidency.
``What this shows is that if you count the voter's intent, Gore wins. If you
look for excuses not to count votes, Bush does better,'' said Doug Hattaway,
Gore's national campaign spokesman, now working as a Democratic consultant in
Boston.
But White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said the 537-vote victory is the
correct tally.
``The law of the land are those rules that were in place on Election Day.
Using that standard, President Bush won on Election Day,'' he said.
While media reviews of the election are interesting, they do not answer the
question of what constitutes a vote, said Philip Zelikow of the Miller Center
of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, who is helping craft a
federal commission on election reform.
``The problem the Supreme Court found was that there was no consistent
standard and no time to devise and fully apply one. So newspapers are now
answering the 'What if?' questions without having to settle any of the
problems the Supreme Court confronted,'' he said.
The analysis found that, regardless of the undervote reviews, only one thing
is truly clear: Precise numbers released on election night mask a world of
imprecision and chaos.
The Herald and USA Today said only eight Florida counties were able to
produce for inspection the exact number of undercount ballots they reported
on election night.
And the Herald noted that mistakes occurred both in machine and hand counts.
It said Pasco County had acknowledged that multiple machine recounts produced
a different number of undervotes - 1,776 on Nov. 8, 1,712 on Dec. 9 and 1,744
on Feb 5. And Duval County, which reported 4,967 undervotes on election
night, ended up delivering 5,106 such ballots for inspection by the Herald
after a hand recount.
The Herald and USA Today hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to
conduct the review. At least two people - a reporter and a BDO Seidman
auditor - looked at each undervote and recorded what they saw, including
dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads on punch-card ballots and all
discernible markings on optical scan ballots.
The reporter and the auditor did not discuss findings or share notes.
BDO then entered the results into a computer database and tabulated the
different markings for each candidate. The Herald tabulated reporters'
findings to look for statistical variations, but said it did not use those
counts in its analysis.
``We wanted an organization that would be viewed as impartial and that would
be professional and careful and deliberate and accurate,'' Baron said.
The study cost more than $500,000 and employed 27 accountants, in addition to
reporters from several newspapers.
[ August 11, 2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: rrrr ]

[MagicMtnDan]

Don, N:ck, Catmandoody - it's time you guys learned a new trick - that Republican/Bush-bashing, anti-American drivel needs a vacation as do the rest of us fiscal conservatives. I'm glad you work to feed the illegals and those who don't want to work but when you reach into my wallet I'm going to break your friggin' hands
http://images.allposters.com/images/52/017_pe1116.jpg

[AzDon]

A black guy goes to the poll with his white wife and he's denied while she votes. I spoke with a guy that this happened to. Were Florida citizens whose registrations were "misplaced" on election day offerred the chance to vote in the days after the election? Hell No! What your post about post-election analysis indicates is that Florida was a statistical deadlock which should have excluded their electoral votes from the tally...Gore wins! Or how about splitting them and even giving Bush the odd vote...Gore still wins! The will of the people was...Gore wins...Get it??

[BigBoyToys]

[ August 11, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: BigBoyToys ]

[twistedpair]

Yeah, and I've talked to people who have seen Elvis at Krispy Kreme, does'nt mean it happened. Gore LOST, deal with it and move on. Try to get a better candidate next time, although from what I've seen of your offerings thus far, I think you'll lose again.

[AzDon]

MagicMtnDan:
[b]Don, N:ck, Catmandoody - it's time you guys learned a new trick - that Republican/Bush-bashing, anti-American drivel needs a vacation as do the rest of us fiscal conservatives. I'm glad you work to feed the illegals and those who don't want to work but when you reach into my wallet I'm going to break your friggin' hands.jpg[/IMG] I'm a fiscal conservative, I know what the policies of a fiscal conservative would look like, and any of you that claim Bush is a fiscal conservative are exhibiting blind allegiance to a deficit-spending madman! He's giving away the store to his megabucks political supporters at the expense of the middle-class taxpayer and programs that benefit people. If you are in the top 10% that's getting 95% of the tax cut, I'm sorry, but I DO feel that your share of the American Dream should cost you a little more! For the rest of you, I'd suggest you wake up and see that those at the top of your party consider you as nothing more than a commodity on election day. The rest of the time, you are on your own!

[AzDon]

I'm glad you work to feed the illegals and those who don't want to work but when you reach into my wallet I'm going to break your friggin' hands[/b] [/QB]I hate the stereotypical deadbeats and illegals as much as anybody and I've never said otherwise, So WHERE THE HELL DID THAT COME FROM?? Some of you RAT BASTARDS are so hooked on your stereotypes, it makes me wonder if all Republicans don't struggle to find intelligence as much as your leader, Mr Bush does!
I'm outta here, I gotta get up early to go boating tomorrow!
[ August 11, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[twistedpair]

AzDon:
those at the top of your party consider you as nothing more than a commodity on election day. The rest of the time, you are on your own! And that differs from the democrats how?

[N:ck]

twistedpair:
AzDon:
those at the top of your party consider you as nothing more than a commodity on election day. The rest of the time, you are on your own! And that differs from the democrats how? It differs from us Democrats in that those at the top of our party care about the people, and their policies reflect that!
[ August 11, 2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[Seadog]

AHDon and Nuck, We had to put up with eight years of a rapist and pervert cheating on his wife and country, while listening to his liberal cheering squad throw all their so-called principles out the window to endorse the butthead. I may not agree with all of Bush's policies, but the only idiots saying he was not elected are those brain dead jackasses that cheered willie on as he was porking Miss Piggy.
Fox News is where the article was copied and it went into detailed about how the Democrats are lying out their puckerhole to discredit the White House. It is obvious that the Democrats are more interested in taking over the country than they are supporting our country. The Democrats/liberals are running scared because the public is recognizing them for what they are, a bunch of cowardly opportunists that pander so much to special interest groups that they have no concept what Americans want.
I do not know about the rest of you, but I get so tired of being caught in the middle between the left and right wings. The extremists on both sides are full of it. The Republicans are more to the center than the democrats, but it varies with each location.
BTW, don't criticize if I am a point or two off, but a recent study showed that over 90% of Republican donations were under $100 and that 64% of Democrat donations were over $1,000,000. For the AhDons, that means more rich cat lawyers are paying for the Democrat candidates and more regular joes are paying for the Republican candidates.

[beached 1]

Catmando:
That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about Iraq's WMD
Lie about Dubya's drug use
Lie about protecting the environment
Lie about Iraq being responsible for 9/11
Lie about protecting our borders
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Yawn..
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:
Please be seated. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.
Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being here and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.
I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.
I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.
I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.
Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.
Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.
So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.
This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.
But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.
We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?
And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.
Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.
The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.
And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.
Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.
For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.
Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.
This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.
Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.
By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.
The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.
It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.
But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.
I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.
That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.
I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.
And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.
The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.
Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.
We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.
Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.
You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.
No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.
When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.
When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.
When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.
But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.
But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.
In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.
If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
Thank you very much.
Tuesday February 17, 1998
:rolleyes:

[HOSS]

That has to be the longest post ever on ***boat.

[beached 1]

OK how about this
:D
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program........................................... ..................teeth...teeth, there you go baby."
:D

[beached 1]

I spared you the long winded details this time. :D
from the Senate Committee on Armed Services to President Bill Clinton on October 9, 1998. It reminds the president of the February resolution authorizing military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions "concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
The letter concludes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." You can see who signed the letter in the attacked copy, but among them are the following Senate Democrats: Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry.

[bigq]

Oh good another thread of "YOUR GUYS SUCK, NO YOUR GUYS SUCK!" :D
Hey AZDon, What do ya think about a flat tax? or national consumption tax?

[Seadog]

The politicians under Bill Clinton had no interest in taking on Iraq because they were aware how hard a sell it would be internationally. Clinton was too much the political opportunist to make a gutsy play.
I doubt if Bush would have attacked Iraq if it were not for 9/11. He as many americans did, realized that diplomacy would not work. There is a good chance that even the deadhead gore would have made the same decision. Despite all the debates and arguments, our experts on both sides realized that the lunies in the middle east threaten our country. The problem is where to start. The whole area is a powder keg, even when they have strong governments allied with us.
What I fear is that no matter what we do, we will be involved in another major international war. We are facing a show down between the european cultures and the african cultures. If a force ever unites the arabs and black tribes, it will be a blood bath. What is going to be worse is an ongoing war of attrition where we control the land, but experience daily denial of peace like we are seeing in Iraq.
Our best hope is to do what has been done in Afganistan and Iraq, support a legitimate government and hope that they can develop a long term control over their land. The problem is that once Liberia was a beacon of democracy in Africa and for the past couple decades have become just another war ground.

[rrrr]

AzDon:
A black guy goes to the poll with his white wife and he's denied while she votes. I spoke with a guy that this happened to. Were Florida citizens whose registrations were "misplaced" on election day offerred the chance to vote in the days after the election? Hell No! What your post about post-election analysis indicates is that Florida was a statistical deadlock which should have excluded their electoral votes from the tally...Gore wins! Or how about splitting them and even giving Bush the odd vote...Gore still wins! The will of the people was...Gore wins...Get it?? Nothing but unproven anecdotal bullshit. I'll kiss your ass if any of that shit really happened.
Bush won Florida...Get it? I love this. Proof right in front of your face that Gore lost so now you say Florida should have been excluded? Splitting them evenly? What provision is there in the Constitution to do that? Or is this just the same old Democrat bullshit of make up rules to fit the situation?
You are flat out amazing.

[N:ck]

Seadog:
AHDon and Nuck, We had to put up with eight years of a rapist and pervert cheating on his wife and country, while listening to his liberal cheering squad throw all their so-called principles out the window to endorse the butthead. I may not agree with all of Bush's policies, but the only idiots saying he was not elected are those brain dead jackasses that cheered willie on as he was porking Miss Piggy.I didn't cheer Bill on for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but I'm one of those people who believes that his sex life is none of my business. As for the rapist comment, I wasn't aware that Bill ever raped anyone. :confused: Actually, the way I remember it, Monica propositioned Bill, not the other way around!
George W. Bush was not elected by people's votes. He was elected by a single Supreme Court vote because Florida was too screwed up to fix.
Seadog:
Fox News is where the article was copied and it went into detailed about how the Democrats are lying out their puckerhole to discredit the White House.Indeed, Fox News is the home of "fair and balanced news" and Bill O'Reilly. Seems kinda ironic to me. I won't deny that when W. screws up, the Democrats talk about it; however, it's not nearly as bad as the Republicans exposing Bill Clinton's sex life (which I must remind you had nothing to do with his ability to do his job well). Talk about out of ammo!
Seadog:
It is obvious that the Democrats are more interested in taking over the country than they are supporting our country. The Democrats/liberals are running scared because the public is recognizing them for what they are, a bunch of cowardly opportunists that pander so much to special interest groups that they have no concept what Americans want.LOL! George Bush is the king of pandering. Where do you think he raises all that money from?
Seadog:
BTW, don't criticize if I am a point or two off, but a recent study showed that over 90% of Republican donations were under $100 and that 64% of Democrat donations were over $1,000,000. For the AhDons, that means more rich cat lawyers are paying for the Democrat candidates and more regular joes are paying for the Republican candidates. Are you saying that rich Republicans are cheapskates, or are you saying that rich Democrats care enough about their causes to support them? Either way, I don't know why you would want to make a point for me.

[N:ck]

BUSH WON, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! BUSH WON, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! GET IT?! BUSH WON, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! BUSH WON, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! GET IT?! BUSH WON, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! BUSH WON, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! GET IT?!
You guys are just silly. Y'all kinda remind me of W in late 2000 when they were trying to clean this whole mess up, and he was interfering with their efforts. Seems to me that one would want to know for sure that he really won an election if he wasn't interested only in "taking over the country", as Seadog put it.
[ August 12, 2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[Dave C]

Thanks for making that point rrrr.
AZDon is dead wrong on this account. So this is all a moot point so get over it and move on with your life.
According to the consitution Bush would have won anyway. If the election was deadlocked in Florida, the congress would have picked the President. (i.e. Bush would have won)
In regards to the counting. I don't know if you have ever been to Florida but the counties in question were all counted by Democrats. Plus a liberal paper, Miami Herald, held that Bush won in their recount.
Your claims of voter fraud are nonsense. What about the Dems trying to keep the military ballots out of the recount? (try to keep the double standard to a minimum here)

[beer hunter]

AzDon:
Arnold as your governor? What a joke! You Californians petitioned for a $40 million circus, and now the clowns are arriving by the truckloads, looking for work!!
How about if you Republicans try something patriotic and democratic like abiding by the results of an election!! A joke??? Under Joe Davis' poor leadership we are over 30 BILLION in the hole burningm If left in office this tax and spend liberal will throwaway alot more than 40 million. If I remember correctly it was Al Gore (and the Democrats) who couldn't accept the results of a recent election so they drug it through the legal system in an attempt to get the result they wanted :mad:

[eliminatedsprinter]

AzDon:
None of you Republican fanatics like my idea to abolish personal income tax? Why am I not surprised? I'm not a republican, or a fanatic. But I love the idea abolishing income tax. However, I would not replace it with a gross recipts tax. We have one of those here in L.A. and it has been nothing short of a disaster.
A federal sales tax makes more sense to me.
P.S. Why the name calling again?

[summerlove]

WOW - What a topic! I can't even imagine the point-counterpoint if this were on live TV!
I'm sorry guys, (and gals), but I have to go with N:ck on this one. His last post was perfect!
The only reason Bush won the election was because, and I admit it, Gore is a BORE! If Clinton was able to run for a 3rd term, he would have won HANDS DOWN! In spite of his sexual escapades! Did he lie to the American people, about having sex with Monica - hell yes he did! Was it right? No, it wasn't. But if you cheated on your wife and hoped to get away with it, I'd bet you'd lie to save your ass as well. Now, "W" has not been the "prophet" every right winger had hoped he'd be. In fact, his approval rating is now lower than that of his father! Hey Prez, it the economy stupid! He's forgotten the economy post 9/11. I can't even imagine being in his shoes after that dreadful day - but he's done nothing domestically to right the ship - it's sinking and he's going down with it. Has he done a good job internationally, IMHO, a little better than here at home. Afganistan has been successful, Iraq has been a complete failure, at least until the WMD are discoverd and Saddam himself is captured.
"W" needs to grow up and not be 100% influenced by Rumsey - he's a scary dude! He also needs to learn from the mistakes of those who went before him, especially his dad, and, most importantly, he needs to stop using terms like, "we're gonna rat him out of his hole" - sounds so Presidential doesn't it?
The democrats problem is unity - right now they don't have it. I don't think the reps do either, and what's gonna happen when "W" puts that 51% aproval rating on the line next year? Personally, I think he's lose. To whom, I'm not sure. We may see the first woman in the Oval Office! Who knows, we've got a liar there right now! BTW, what did "W" do for a living before becoming Pres? BFD - Gov of Texas??? That's a part time job and a ceremonial post at best. Before that - his old man's contacts had him as an owner of the Texas ranger, and he traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs! Yea, good decision there (20/20 is great). Before that, an alcoholic and womanizer who has admitted not beiong totally faithful to his wife. Sounds familar...At least my guy did a good job while in office.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

AzDon:
Those that refuse to benefit from this program could choose to starve or be leased out to pick lettuce! Now THAT is comedy right there! That is one of the funniest things I have ever read!
BTW, the FRB and Greenspan control the economy along with congress.
[ August 12, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Havasu_Dreamin ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

AzDon:
Mrs Big Boy Toys:
Democrats only know how to spend our hard earned money and lie about where it's goingALL politicians are out to spend middle-class constituents money: Democrats want to spend it on programs benefitting people and Republicans want to give it all to billionaire industrialists and buy expensive weapons and warmonger. If it's going to be taken anyway, I know where I'd prefer it be spent! Come on now, lets's get real. Dems are every bit as beholding to billionares etc as Reps are. The main differance as I see it is that the Reps are for a slightly less regulated society. I personally distrust authoritarian government far more than I distrust big biz. Just look at the horrific toll authoritarian states have inflicted on this world. When I vote, I listen to the candidates carefully and I go back and look at their track records. I then vote for the least authoritarian choice. Out here in CA that is never the dem. Sorry if that bothers you. But I am a big believer in individual freedom.

[Dave C]

Changing actual facts because you disagree with them or they don’t suit your purposes, equals “your opinion” (aka propaganda)
For example:
1) Bush won the 2000 election <---actual fact
2) Saying Bush lost because you don’t like the fact that he won fair and square <--- your opinion

[Dave C]

Lets not kid ourselves here, politicians from both parties are beholden to special interest money.
It comes down to whether you agree with the “message” of the special interest or not.
My trade group lobbies congress and I agree with most of what they say but depending on your point of view, you may not agree with them.

[eliminatedsprinter]

AzDon:
Bush's first big lie, repeated every fifteen minutes for six weeks on MSNBC and Fox News Channel was that he won the election! LIKE IT OR NOT, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT THAT HE DID NOT WIN THE ELECTION AND WAS SEATED BY A SINGLE PARTISAN VOTE OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE! THE GUY IS A PUPPET, A MORON, AND HAS A DOCUMENTED PAST THAT MAKES CLINTON LOOK LIKE MOTHER THERESA!
Furthermore, fascism (Nazism) is a right-wing form of totalinarianism, which had a policy of "survival of the (government endorsed) fittest" and death to everybody else! Not too much different than the morally bankrupt meanness of popular Republican thought! I suggest you read up a little on the history of Fascism and Nazism (National Socalist Party etc).
If you do, you will find that it was sold to the public as a compromise between Capitolism and Communism/Socialism. In which private property rights were supposedly retained, but all industry and commerce were under strict central gov control. In fact, the main reason Fascists hated Communists and Socialists so much was because they saw them as direct compitition for the same types of idealogical minds.
[ August 12, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[Dave C]

I like the flat tax idea (i.e. you have 10 times more income than I, you pay 10 times more tax than I). Rather than the progressive system we have (you have 10 times more income, you pay 30 times more tax).
This would never happen because it is politically unpopular. It would require a constitutional amendment, kind of like proposition 13 in California, which “fixed” property taxes.
Why? One word - Financial Intermediation. (Fiance 101) Lower taxes would free up substantial investment capital for use in business. Money (capital) flows through the economy in a circular way between households & business’ in the form of consumption and investment capital (without the government siphon). The more investment in business then the better growth in the “economy.” Business’ employ most of the people in this country and our jobs are dependent on business growth.
The government siphons off capital via taxes and spends it on inefficient consumption, which reduces investment in business and therefore growth. Consumption although vital to the equation does not replace investment. Governments don’t create or make anything.
This is a fundamental question here. Who do you think deserves to use capital in our system, business that create jobs or government that spends on consumption?
(BTW, I don’t care if you don’t like what I said. It’s a fact and I profit from it, therefore, I will remain rich and if you don’t listen, you will remain poor.)

[Seadog]

N:ck, as usual you are ignorant of the facts. Probably due to the poor influences in your life.
posted August 12, 2003 10:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Seadog:
AHDon and Nuck, We had to put up with eight years of a rapist and pervert cheating on his wife and country, while listening to his liberal cheering squad throw all their so-called principles out the window to endorse the butthead. I may not agree with all of Bush's policies, but the only idiots saying he was not elected are those brain dead jackasses that cheered willie on as he was porking Miss Piggy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't cheer Bill on for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but I'm one of those people who believes that his sex life is none of my business. It is not his sex life that he was impeached for, it was lying about it in court. He was tried and convicted of that As for the rapist comment, I wasn't aware that Bill ever raped anyone. As Attorney General of Arkansas, BC raped a woman. He would have been arrested and convicted, but he used his office and connections to pressure the woman and her family. All the facts and evidence were shown on NBC. Actually, the way I remember it, Monica propositioned Bill, not the other way around!
George W. Bush was not elected by people's votes. He was elected by a single Supreme Court vote because Florida was too screwed up to fix. The vote was screwed up because the Democrats in Florida kept trying to fix the numbers. They brought in the state supreme court, which is well noted for its liberal leanings, and they started demanding a long recount that did not not follow state law. The state supreme court created a constitional crises which could had dire consequnces. The federal supreme court stepped in to allow a president to be sworn in according to the constitution. If they had not stepped in, we could have been months without an elected president and his staff. All the irregularities in vote counts that were exposed, were pro Democrat voting.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Seadog:
Fox News is where the article was copied and it went into detailed about how the Democrats are lying out their puckerhole to discredit the White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Fox News is the home of "fair and balanced news" and Bill O'Reilly. Seems kinda ironic to me. I won't deny that when W. screws up, the Democrats talk about it; however, it's not nearly as bad as the Republicans exposing Bill Clinton's sex life (which I must remind you had nothing to do with his ability to do his job well). Talk about out of ammo! What is out of ammo is whenever people complain about BC, the democrats whine about his being impeached for his sex life. As above, it wasn't his sex life that got him impeached. He disgraced the office which is repugnant, but then he lied about it in court. Hell, GW did not issue one lie about WMD and the democrats are trying to impeach him. He told the truth as it was known at the time. Most of what he said was the same as what BC said a few years earlier. In fact, most of the data used that got GW in trouble was from the BC White House period. And GW had the balls to get up and say that mistakes were made in what they expected to find. And they may still find it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Seadog:
It is obvious that the Democrats are more interested in taking over the country than they are supporting our country. The Democrats/liberals are running scared because the public is recognizing them for what they are, a bunch of cowardly opportunists that pander so much to special interest groups that they have no concept what Americans want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! George Bush is the king of pandering. Where do you think he raises all that money from? He raises the money from hard working people that are tired of being ripped off by special interest groups being supported by the Democrats.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Seadog:
BTW, don't criticize if I am a point or two off, but a recent study showed that over 90% of Republican donations were under $100 and that 64% of Democrat donations were over $1,000,000. For the AhDons, that means more rich cat lawyers are paying for the Democrat candidates and more regular joes are paying for the Republican candidates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that rich Republicans are cheapskates, or are you saying that rich Democrats care enough about their causes to support them? Either way, I don't know why you would want to make a point for me. This is what I mean about liberals distorting the truth. Years and years of claims that the Republicans are the pawns of rich industrialists. Now there is evidence that the general public is supporting the Republicans and the special interest groups are buying the Democrats. You cannot have it both ways, no matter how much you avoid the truth. The Democrats are beholding to a few powerful groups and the Republicans are beholding to the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ August 12, 2003, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Seadog ]

[Schiada76]

Nice work Seadog but it won't do any good. Truth and facts are like kryptonite to liberals. devil

[eliminatedsprinter]

Catmando:
That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Cat
Please don't mention Veteran's Benefits after Al Gore's "Seven year plan to re-invent the VA" was so completly sucsessfull in slashing services and benefits during the late 90s.
In 1993 Mr Gore was givin the task of "re-inventing the VA". He got absolutly everything he wanted and you can see the results.
In 1993 one of their first steps was to order strict enforcement of idiotic elegibility codes (first cooked up by the Reagan admin). This resulted in an immediate 50% reduction of Vets eligible for free services. The next step was to convert most VA medical centers into outpatient abmulatory care centers. Then he (Mr Gore) had them merged (administratively) into the few remaining medical centers. That was followed by orders to "eliminate redundant services". This ment the closing of programs all over the nation and resulted in vets often having to travel very long distances and waiting months for services that used to be immediatly available to them at their local VA.
Here is a statistic sited by Hershal Gober (outgoing Sec of Vetrans Affairs under Clinton/Gore) in 2000. "In 1993 over 70% of all VA's were full service medical centers. Now, over 90% of all VAs are outpatient ambulatory care centers". This was his answer in an interview when asked what was the biggest achievement of the Clinon/ Gore administration with respect to the VA. The irony of all of this is that during this period of such extreme cuts in services the VA budget went up every year, even after being adjusted for inflation. So not only did the Vets get screwed big time by Clinton/Gore, so did the taxpayers.
The only thing Clinton/Gore gave our Nation's Vets were, confsion, massive waste, and huge cuts in services.

[TahitiSteve]

I like the flat tax idea (i.e. you have 10 times more income than I, you pay 10 times more tax than I). Rather than the progressive system we have (you have 10 times more income, you pay 30 times more tax).
I agree that a flat % tax is better than the status quo, but a better (more fair not to mention economically stimulating) but even more less likely would be a true flat fee tax.
That is it costs the same amount for your federal (military) right protection whether you are a billionaire or a hundredaire. Why not charge everyone the same flat $ fee for the same service. A rich guy doesn't pay more for a dozen eggs than a poor guy, why should he pay hundreds of times more for federal right protection?
The cost of state and local level protection may differ between the rich guy and the poor guy (i.e. more property to police) but federal protection is the same.
However the ever increasing scope of government is built into the system. With the federal government taking the lions share of taxation, and the states all fighting for handouts from it, it will continue to grow and grow. Even better than the above plan would be a system where the localities collect all the taxes, then they pay the states, and the states pay for the federal government. This would reverse the incentive for government to incessantly grow

[TahitiSteve]

Furthermore, fascism (Nazism) is a right-wing form of totalinarianism, which had a policy of "survival of the (government endorsed) fittest" and death to everybody else! Not too much different than the morally bankrupt meanness of popular Republican thought! Sprinter is correct above, but to take it a little further look at the Nazi Party Platform:
"We demand that the state must make its 1st duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens(sound like a planned economy?) We demand an end to the power of the financial interests...we demand profit sharing in industry, employee participation in management, and an end to unemployment. The selfish scoundrel who conducts his business in an inhuman exploiting way misuses the national labor force and makes millions off its sweat...We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders....Land reform, confiscation without compensation of land for common purposes, abolition of interests on and loans, and the prevention of speculation in land. Common criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers etc. must be punished with death...."
"The Nazi Party is convinced that our nation can only achieve health from within on the principle; THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF." Communism is public ownership of the means of production, Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Fascism is private ownership of the means of production with public (government) control of those means. But ownership and control are 2 ways of saying the same thing. Whoever has control is the de facto owner. Fascism is just a form of Communism which attempts to retain a facade of Capitalism.
To quote Hitler - "I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what those pen pushers and peddalers have timidly begun. I had only to develop logically what social democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

[eliminatedsprinter]

AzDon
eliminatedsprinter [/qb]I suggest you read up a little on the history of Fascism and Nazism (National Socalist Party etc).
If you do, you will find that it was sold to the public as a compromise between Capitolism and Communism/Socialism. In which private property rights were supposedly retained, but all industry and commerce were under strict central gov control. In fact, the main reason Fascists hated Communists and Socialists so much was because they saw them as direct compitition for the same types of idealogical minds. [/QB][/QUOTE]
[ August 12, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[N:ck]

"Fanatic" is not necessarily a derogatory term, and to say that it qualifies as name-calling is a major stretch. On behalf of my dad, I apologize for any offense.
Anyway, I have to agree with Rick on this one. I'm right! :p
Because you've flooded us with all kinds of posts, I decided to pick one and respond. It's just because I don't have the time to get to them all. (That's OK, though, as most wouldn't be worth my time anyway!)
Dave C:
Changing actual facts because you disagree with them or they don’t suit your purposes, equals “your opinion” (aka propaganda)
For example:
1) Bush won the 2000 election <---actual fact
2) Saying Bush lost because you don’t like the fact that he won fair and square <--- your opinion We are not saying that Bush didn't win the 2000 "election". What we are saying is that he didn't win it legitimately because he halted any efforts to make sure of his victory. If he was truly secure about the results, why wouldn't he have allowed the recounts to continue? It's not like we were pressed for time--the election is in early November, and the President doesn't take office until late January. That's plenty of time to get to the bottom of things, and if I recall correctly the recount was stopped in late November or early December--still waaay ahead of the January inauguration.
Bush did not win fair and square because he chose not to! It's funny (actually, it's not funny--just ironic) how you call our statements propaganda when it is classicly (at least in the case of every Republican I've talked to personally or on these boards) the Republicans who use the tactics of beating false statements into the ground and taking advantage of their numbers when possible until people grow tired of arguing and give in. Have you heard about the cases where innocent people were coerced into false confessions because of psychological games that interrogators have played on them? It's the same thing--the interrogators just don't take "I didn't do it!" for an answer!
Now, I'm going to check back every thirty minutes or so for the next four hours. If you guys really care and are willing to go one or two at a time (not five), I will try to respond to every post.
[ August 12, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

TahitiSteve:


Good points Tahiti :D :D Well said. :cool:

[summerlove]

Private Message to Tahiti Steve and SeaDog:
Just because someone has a different political view than you doesn't make you right - so don't be so damn righteous!
This country has the best political system in the world, and here we are fighting about who's "this" and who's "that". Drop it. I, for one, am very happy with the system we have. While I do not agree with everything our government does, I'd take it any day over, say, Iraq!
The two-party system works, like it or not. The balance between the democrats and republicans allows for compromise, and therefore not one party can control everything. The separation of powers is the most important division between the President, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court.
The mere fact that I'm a democrat, also doesn't necessairly make me poor. To the contrary, I contribute more of my tax dollars than I venture to imagine, but I also do it willingly. I do it so that I can continue to receive the services that I have become accostomed, (police, fire, other municipal services, highways, defense department, social programs for the needy.
Just because I feel that way and you do not doesn't make you right or me wrong, it's our right to have a difference of opinion. Just don't try and force your opinions (or anything else :D ) down my throat, and I won't try and force mine down your's. That, I'm certain, we can all agree upon.
And remember, this is what Dave C said..."(BTW, I don’t care if you don’t like what I said. It’s a fact and I profit from it, therefore, I will remain rich and if you don’t listen, you will remain poor."
Mr. C: I can assure you I am not poor by any means and your attitude of I'm right and you're wrong is the reason why I continue to be a proud member of the Democratic Party. How righteous are you?

[OGShocker]

Catmando:
That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about Iraq's WMD
Lie about Dubya's drug use
Lie about protecting the environment
Lie about Iraq being responsible for 9/11
Lie about protecting our borders
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Oh BTW, the Unelected White House Occupant's grandfather was up to his Nazi-loving neck in the 30s with Hitler. So f**k off with Dems using Nazi tactics. burningm I think you spun a gasket there Cat. You accuse the President of the United States of
mighty damning things. I ask first.
What proof do you have of the lies you perport the president has told.
Next you talk down on "W" for "Dubya's drug use". Yet in your own bio here in Hot Boat says "Boats, Babes, Billiards, Sex, Drugs, Rock 'n' Roll"
Nothing in there talks about how you became the most honorable and intelligent person in the Forum. Did you just leave that little tidbit out of your profile?
I would resort to calling you names but that would insult the very thing I might call you.
Oh, by the way? What kind of alternitive fuel do you folks in Arlington burn in your boats? I trust you would not use an oil based product.
M.02

[eliminatedsprinter]

AzDon
[/QB]I hate the stereotypical deadbeats and illegals as much as anybody and I've never said otherwise, So WHERE THE HELL DID THAT COME FROM?? Some of you RAT BASTARDS are so hooked on your stereotypes, it makes me wonder if all Republicans don't struggle to find intelligence as much as your leader, Mr Bush does!
I'm outta here, I gotta get up early to go boating tomorrow! [/QB][/QUOTE]
jawdrop
N:ck (since your answering for AzDon)
If you don't think fanatic is a derogitory term or name (and I still do) what do you classify calling people "RAT BASTARDS" as. And who are "some of you". If I used such a negitive term to discribe a fellow user of these boards (and I never have) I would be very specific and call them out by name. This is because I would not want to hurt the feelings of or insult those who might share some commen views with them.
I like debating this kind of stuff and please don't think that just because I disagree with you and your dad on many point that I don't like you as people. After all, how could we even have a lively debate if we all agreed on everything and didn't have differing points of view. wink :cool:
P.S. The apology (accepted of course) was a nice touch, but not needed, all I ask for is a clarification.
P.P.S. Don't stop backing up your dad. Fathers and sons should always stick together. However, when you are old enough to vote??Who will know wink .
[ August 12, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[summerlove]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO!

[OGShocker]

summerlove:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO! How to freak out the LEFTIES! http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif

[summerlove]

OGShocker:
summerlove:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO!
How to freak out the LEFTIES! If he were sooo very popular, why is his approval rating the worst of ANY first term president - what's it at, 51%??? Impressive! When I was in school (I didn't get very far - BA/MA) a 51% was a FAILURE! Yea, OGShocker, I guess it is that Black and White for me - I absolutely, will not, be voting for him, so I guess, you're right! Thanks! wink

[Seadog]

N:ck - How could Bush steal the election? He did not hold office then, that was Clinton. Congress did not get involved with theelectionin any legal way. It was the Democrats that sent the high powered lawyers to the state supreme court. It was the heavy democratic areas that made the claims that kept the recounts going.
Summerlove - If demanding the truth is being righteous, then I am guilty. I do not like liars in any way. I have found the democrats and liberals, as a party, to treat the truth as a variable, which is not unusual considering how much they are controlled by the lawyers. Come to thnk of it, the definition of righteous: godly, upright, just, fair, honest, virtuous. Thank you Summerlove, I would like to think that that describes me.

[OGShocker]

summerlove:
OGShocker:
summerlove:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO!
How to freak out the LEFTIES! If he were sooo very popular, why is his approval rating the worst of ANY first term president - what's it at, 51%??? Impressive! When I was in school (I didn't get very far - BA/MA) a 51% was a FAILURE! Yea, OGShocker, I guess it is that Black and White for me - I absolutely, will not, be voting for him, so I guess, you're right! Thanks! wink Bubba was sitting 20 points lower than W during the same time period in his first term.
If you wage a battle of wits,,,, BRING SOME AMMO!

[bigq]

summerlove:
OGShocker:
summerlove:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO!
How to freak out the LEFTIES! If he were sooo very popular, why is his approval rating the worst of ANY first term president - what's it at, 51%??? Impressive! When I was in school (I didn't get very far - BA/MA) a 51% was a FAILURE! Yea, OGShocker, I guess it is that Black and White for me - I absolutely, will not, be voting for him, so I guess, you're right! Thanks! wink Actually I saw a poll the other day that had him up some at 65%, forget where, maybe CNN. If he comes up with anymore social programs I won't be voting for him either. :rolleyes:

[summerlove]

OGShocker:
summerlove:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by OGShocker:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by summerlove
[qb] http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO!
Bubba was sitting 20 points lower than W during the same time period in his first term.
And Ronald Reagan was at 40%, so I guess you're right. I just haven't been too impressed with "W", and many other Americans feel the same way. This is a story from Reuters:
WASHINGTON, Jul. 22 - President George W. Bush's public approval rating has dipped under a barrage of Democratic criticism over Iraq, soaring deficits and rising joblessness, but remains high more than 15 months before the 2004 election.
The slide, which pushed Bush back to the popularity levels he registered before the Iraq war, has encouraged Democrats and punctured the sense of inevitability about the president's re-election, analysts said, but hardly delivered a lethal blow to the White House.
"Bush clearly has things to worry about, but he has lots of maneuvering room left," said Karlyn Bowman, who analyzes public opinion polls for the American Enterprise Institute.
A handful of new polls in the last five days have shown Bush's approval rating slumping, to as low as 53 percent in one poll, down from the more than 70 percent approval ratings he scored during the Iraq war.
Those highs were well short of the 90 percent ratings Bush's father earned after the Gulf War in 1991, but a variety of analysts including White House pollster Matthew Dowd had predicted they would tumble this year to more realistic levels.
"The fact that his rating is back where it started is certainly not unusual," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief for the Gallup Poll. "What you don't know is how much the Democratic pounding of Bush has accelerated his fall."
With Bush expected to cast himself in 2004 as a strong leader in the face of serious security threats, Democrats have leaped to hammer his credibility on Iraq. They have questioned the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the continued U.S. deaths amid the post-war chaos and Bush's disputed claims Iraq was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons.
But after weeks of controversy about the unsubstantiated uranium claim in his State of the Union speech, most Americans still think Bush was telling the truth about the evidence for war, polls show.
"It doesn't look like he is taking major hits on that so far," said Newport, whose most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found the number of Americans who thought he deliberately misled the public on Iraq climbed only from 37 percent to 39 percent since late June.
Democrats also have criticized Bush on the slumping economy as the jobless rate hit a nine-year high and projections showed the federal budget deficit climbing to a record $455 billion.
Polls indicate the lagging economy remains the No. 1 concern for Americans, and the latest Gallup poll found only 45 percent thought Bush was doing a good job there.
"The confluence of issues is not very helpful to Bush right now," said Gary Jacobsen, a professor at the University of California-San Diego, adding that if the economy does not turn around soon "it's going to be a big problem."
Bush, who still has huge fund-raising advantages and near universal Republican support in a race where an approval rating in the mid-50s would translate to a big win, might have gotten good news on Tuesday with the possible deaths of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay.
But Democrats have been energized by the recent sight of a White House on the defensive and sliding in the polls.
"This all suggests that Bush's armor is not impregnable," Jacobsen said. "This is not a Teflon president where nothing he does will ever hurt his image."
Good and bad, I'd say...
If you wage a battle of wits,,,, BRING SOME AMMO! I don't need any ammo - bring it on wink

[OGShocker]

summerlove:
OGShocker:
summerlove:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by OGShocker:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by summerlove
[qb] http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/bwsquare.gif
NO!
Bubba was sitting 20 points lower than W during the same time period in his first term.
And Ronald Reagan was at 40%, so I guess you're right. I just haven't been too impressed with "W", and many other Americans feel the same way. This is a story from Reuters:
WASHINGTON, Jul. 22 - President George W. Bush's public approval rating has dipped under a barrage of Democratic criticism over Iraq, soaring deficits and rising joblessness, but remains high more than 15 months before the 2004 election.
The slide, which pushed Bush back to the popularity levels he registered before the Iraq war, has encouraged Democrats and punctured the sense of inevitability about the president's re-election, analysts said, but hardly delivered a lethal blow to the White House.
"Bush clearly has things to worry about, but he has lots of maneuvering room left," said Karlyn Bowman, who analyzes public opinion polls for the American Enterprise Institute.
A handful of new polls in the last five days have shown Bush's approval rating slumping, to as low as 53 percent in one poll, down from the more than 70 percent approval ratings he scored during the Iraq war.
Those highs were well short of the 90 percent ratings Bush's father earned after the Gulf War in 1991, but a variety of analysts including White House pollster Matthew Dowd had predicted they would tumble this year to more realistic levels.
"The fact that his rating is back where it started is certainly not unusual," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief for the Gallup Poll. "What you don't know is how much the Democratic pounding of Bush has accelerated his fall."
With Bush expected to cast himself in 2004 as a strong leader in the face of serious security threats, Democrats have leaped to hammer his credibility on Iraq. They have questioned the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the continued U.S. deaths amid the post-war chaos and Bush's disputed claims Iraq was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons.
But after weeks of controversy about the unsubstantiated uranium claim in his State of the Union speech, most Americans still think Bush was telling the truth about the evidence for war, polls show.
"It doesn't look like he is taking major hits on that so far," said Newport, whose most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found the number of Americans who thought he deliberately misled the public on Iraq climbed only from 37 percent to 39 percent since late June.
Democrats also have criticized Bush on the slumping economy as the jobless rate hit a nine-year high and projections showed the federal budget deficit climbing to a record $455 billion.
Polls indicate the lagging economy remains the No. 1 concern for Americans, and the latest Gallup poll found only 45 percent thought Bush was doing a good job there.
"The confluence of issues is not very helpful to Bush right now," said Gary Jacobsen, a professor at the University of California-San Diego, adding that if the economy does not turn around soon "it's going to be a big problem."
Bush, who still has huge fund-raising advantages and near universal Republican support in a race where an approval rating in the mid-50s would translate to a big win, might have gotten good news on Tuesday with the possible deaths of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay.
But Democrats have been energized by the recent sight of a White House on the defensive and sliding in the polls.
"This all suggests that Bush's armor is not impregnable," Jacobsen said. "This is not a Teflon president where nothing he does will ever hurt his image."
Good and bad, I'd say...
If you wage a battle of wits,,,, BRING SOME AMMO! I don't need any ammo - bring it on wink THE CUT and PASTE QUEEN everyone!!!!
You win! I am out. I lose!
The Queen pulled out Reagan!
You are the best!

[TahitiSteve]

I don’t see where I was “so damn Righteous” I agree that the ideals our country was rooted in are far superiour to any other country that I know of, but we are straying further and further from them with every election. In the past century we went from all levels of government costing less than 10% of each persons income on average to well over 60% once you figure in all the ways we are taxed both as individuals and businesses (business taxes are just hidden individual taxation). If people do not fight to stop our country from doing the wrong things, there will no longer be anything to love it for.
Just because I feel that way and you do not doesn't make you right or me wrong, it's our right to have a difference of opinion. Just don't try and force your opinions (or anything else ) down my throat, and I won't try and force mine down your's. That, I'm certain, we can all agree upon. I agree completely, that's why I'm a libertarian, I don't believe in forcing ANYTHING down peoples throats, the only force I strongly uphold is in the reciprocal, against one who initiates force.
Unfortunately I have not found a perfect plan for funding government in the complete absence of force, so I concede that a small amount is necessary to fund right protection, but that must be held to the barest minimum. Anything beyond basic right protection IS upholding force, whether it is government charity, in the form of unemployment, social security, national health care, national drug plan, international aid, etc. People should be free to make their own decisions, on anything given those decisions do not forcibly or fraudulently violate another.
Everything government does IS force even my upholding of a government for protection from those who use force and fraud is funded by force. But its absence would lead to a larger amount of anarchic force, making it a necessary evil.

[OGShocker]

TahitiSteve:
I don’t see where I was “so damn Righteous” I agree that the ideals our country was rooted in are far superiour to any other country that I know of, but we are straying further and further from them with every election. In the past century we went from all levels of government costing less than 10% of each persons income on average to well over 60% once you figure in all the ways we are taxed both as individuals and businesses (business taxes are just hidden individual taxation). If people do not fight to stop our country from doing the wrong things, there will no longer be anything to love it for.
Just because I feel that way and you do not doesn't make you right or me wrong, it's our right to have a difference of opinion. Just don't try and force your opinions (or anything else ) down my throat, and I won't try and force mine down your's. That, I'm certain, we can all agree upon. I agree completely, that's why I'm a libertarian, I don't believe in forcing ANYTHING down peoples throats, the only force I strongly uphold is in the reciprocal, against one who initiates force.
Unfortunately I have not found a perfect plan for funding government in the complete absence of force, so I concede that a small amount is necessary to fund right protection, but that must be held to the barest minimum. Anything beyond basic right protection IS upholding force, whether it is government charity, in the form of unemployment, social security, national health care, national drug plan, international aid, etc. People should be free to make their own decisions, on anything given those decisions do not forcibly or fraudulently violate another.
Everything government does IS force even my upholding of a government for protection from those who use force and fraud is funded by force. But its absence would lead to a larger amount of anarchic force, making it a necessary evil. Carefull Steveo, Ol' Summer works for the government.
You kids have fun. I did.

[TahitiSteve]

Carefull Steveo, Ol' Summer works for the government.
Don't all Democrats? idea
j/k Summer, couldn't resist :D

[summerlove]

THE CUT and PASTE QUEEN everyone!!!!
You win! I am out. I lose!
The Queen pulled out Reagan!
You are the best! [/QB]WTF??? Now I'm a queen? Why, because I happen to have a mind of my own?
Cut and Paste - I copied an article from reuters showing "W" approval rating - just the facts, or can't you handle it?
Reagan - yea, someone pulled out Bubba-Remember??? I found it interesting, that's all. I didn't realize reagan's rating was at about 40% in the 3rd year of his term - "W"'s is much higher. just thought it insightful.
The topic of this thread is what got me going -
Democrats linked to Adolph Hitler
I think that is pure BS. Hitler had murdered millions of jews due to their religious beliefs. If the title of this thread were correct, then why are so many Jews Democrats? You would think otherwise.
With respect to my political beliefs, under your autocratic government I am not entilted to them. Under the democratic (ie: Democrary) government in which I live, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In case you've forgotten them, here they are. And, yes, I cut and pasted them.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Do you remember them? I certainly hope so.
With this, I'm leaving this topic because I think it got wayyyy off base.
And remember, no where have I tried to force feed - I've only offered my views, opinions, and statements of fact. Throughout ALL of my posts on this matter, I have been very open and respectful of everyones political beliefs. I'm sorry some feel differently.

[N:ck]

It's just backwards to say that Democrats are like Hitler, and it's lucky for the Republicans here that we're doing what we can to defend ourselves without attacking their party!

[eliminatedsprinter]

summerlove
[/qb]WTF??? Now I'm a queen? Why, because I happen to have a mind of my own?
Cut and Paste - I copied an article from reuters showing "W" approval rating - just the facts, or can't you handle it?
Reagan - yea, someone pulled out Bubba-Remember??? I found it interesting, that's all. I didn't realize reagan's rating was at about 40% in the 3rd year of his term - "W"'s is much higher. just thought it insightful.
The topic of this thread is what got me going -
Democrats linked to Adolph Hitler
I think that is pure BS. Hitler had murdered millions of jews due to their religious beliefs. If the title of this thread were correct, then why are so many Jews Democrats? You would think otherwise.
With respect to my political beliefs, under your autocratic government I am not entilted to them. Under the democratic (ie: Democrary) government in which I live, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In case you've forgotten them, here they are. And, yes, I cut and pasted them.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Do you remember them? I certainly hope so.
With this, I'm leaving this topic because I think it got wayyyy off base.
And remember, no where have I tried to force feed - I've only offered my views, opinions, and statements of fact. Throughout ALL of my posts on this matter, I have been very open and respectful of everyones political beliefs. I'm sorry some feel differently. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Summerlove
All that you have just said is why I no longer vote Democrat. I am sick to death of their authoritarian agenda. All they want to do is pass more and more restrictions and regulations and give government more and more control over good peoples lives and money.
P.S. I am still registerd as a Dem, but I doubt I'll ever vote for one again in a final election.
You see, I too keep a copy of the Constitution in my office and I find the Democrtic Party's big government, hyper-regulatory platform utterly at odds with what that document stands for.
[ August 12, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[Catmando]

rrrr:
AzDon:
A black guy goes to the poll with his white wife and he's denied while she votes. I spoke with a guy that this happened to. Were Florida citizens whose registrations were "misplaced" on election day offerred the chance to vote in the days after the election? Hell No! What your post about post-election analysis indicates is that Florida was a statistical deadlock which should have excluded their electoral votes from the tally...Gore wins! Or how about splitting them and even giving Bush the odd vote...Gore still wins! The will of the people was...Gore wins...Get it?? Nothing but unproven anecdotal bullshit. I'll kiss your ass if any of that shit really happened.
Bush won Florida...Get it? I love this. Proof right in front of your face that Gore lost so now you say Florida should have been excluded? Splitting them evenly? What provision is there in the Constitution to do that? Or is this just the same old Democrat bullshit of make up rules to fit the situation?
You are flat out amazing. Bush was GIVEN Florida by his flunkies, aiders and abettors, Jeb and Katharine.
www.gregpalast.com (http://www.gregpalast.com)
Read his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. It's all in there, all the dirt and muck of the Bush regime.

[TahitiSteve]

Summer, don’t take it personally, it’s a political debate, only rarely do these things stay civil. But when they do both parties come out ahead.
The topic of this thread is what got me going -
Democrats linked to Adolph Hitler
I think that is pure BS. Hitler had murdered millions of jews due to their religious beliefs. If the title of this thread were correct, then why are so many Jews Democrats? You would think otherwise.People constantly try to correlate republicans with Nazi’s, through their religious extremism and belief in social controls, there is at least as much correlation to the democrats, and their economic controls. (and that distinction is getting more and more muddy) I agree to say Democrats or Republicans as a whole ARE Nazi’s is out of line, but I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out the problems with both parties by comparing them to Naziism. We are heading more and more toward fascism (read Leonard Piekoffs “The Ominous Parallels” – “A study of America Today and the “Ominous Parallels” with the chaos of Pre-Hitler Germany”) and as govermnent grows and grows reversal of the trend will only become more futile.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Catmando:
rrrr:
AzDon:
A black guy goes to the poll with his white wife and he's denied while she votes. I spoke with a guy that this happened to. Were Florida citizens whose registrations were "misplaced" on election day offerred the chance to vote in the days after the election? Hell No! What your post about post-election analysis indicates is that Florida was a statistical deadlock which should have excluded their electoral votes from the tally...Gore wins! Or how about splitting them and even giving Bush the odd vote...Gore still wins! The will of the people was...Gore wins...Get it?? Nothing but unproven anecdotal bullshit. I'll kiss your ass if any of that shit really happened.
Bush won Florida...Get it? I love this. Proof right in front of your face that Gore lost so now you say Florida should have been excluded? Splitting them evenly? What provision is there in the Constitution to do that? Or is this just the same old Democrat bullshit of make up rules to fit the situation?
You are flat out amazing. Bush was GIVEN Florida by his flunkies, aiders and abettors, Jeb and Katharine.
www.gregpalast.com (http://www.gregpalast.com)
Read his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. It's all in there, all the dirt and muck of the Bush regime. cry cry cry cry cry cry sleeping sleeping
It's amazing how those people got all those DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED election boards to disenfranchise all those democratic voters.
[ August 12, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

TahitiSteve:
Summer, don’t take it personally, it’s a political debate, only rarely do these things stay civil. But when they do both parties come out ahead.
The topic of this thread is what got me going -
Democrats linked to Adolph Hitler
I think that is pure BS. Hitler had murdered millions of jews due to their religious beliefs. If the title of this thread were correct, then why are so many Jews Democrats? You would think otherwise.People constantly try to correlate republicans with Nazi’s, through their religious extremism and belief in social controls, there is at least as much correlation to the democrats, and their economic controls. (and that distinction is getting more and more muddy) I agree to say Democrats or Republicans as a whole ARE Nazi’s is out of line, but I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out the problems with both parties by comparing them to Naziism. We are heading more and more toward fascism (read Leonard Piekoffs “The Ominous Parallels” – “A study of America Today and the “Ominous Parallels” with the chaos of Pre-Hitler Germany”) and as govermnent grows and grows reversal of the trend will only become more futile. Tahiti
I like how you think. :cool:
Summerlove
You remind me of how I was when I got out of college and first started working for the Gov. wink
[ August 12, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[058]

Anybody working for the government has to protect his/hers interest. Thats why they are Democrats. Just ask the prison guard union, Gay Davis took good care of them with a generous pay increase because of a nice campaign contribution made to GD from the union. We have the best politicans money can buy.

[eliminatedsprinter]

eliminatedsprinter:
Catmando:
That's EXACTLY what the Repugnicants do;
Lie about protecting Veterans' benefits, while our troops are getting killed every day in Chickenhawk Bush's war for oil and vengeance
Lie lie lie
Cat
Please don't mention Veteran's Benefits after Al Gore's "Seven year plan to re-invent the VA" was so completly sucsessfull in slashing services and benefits during the late 90s.
In 1993 Mr Gore was givin the task of "re-inventing the VA". He got absolutly everything he wanted and you can see the results.
In 1993 one of their first steps was to order strict enforcement of idiotic elegibility codes (first cooked up by the Reagan admin). This resulted in an immediate 50% reduction of Vets eligible for free services. The next step was to convert most VA medical centers into outpatient abmulatory care centers. Then he (Mr Gore) had them merged (administratively) into the few remaining medical centers. That was followed by orders to "eliminate redundant services". This ment the closing of programs all over the nation and resulted in vets often having to travel very long distances and waiting months for services that used to be immediatly available to them at their local VA.
Here is a statistic sited by Hershal Gober (outgoing Sec of Vetrans Affairs under Clinton/Gore) in 2000. "In 1993 over 70% of all VA's were full service medical centers. Now, over 90% of all VAs are outpatient ambulatory care centers". This was his answer in an interview when asked what was the biggest achievement of the Clinon/ Gore administration with respect to the VA. The irony of all of this is that during this period of such extreme cuts in services the VA budget went up every year, even after being adjusted for inflation. So not only did the Vets get screwed big time by Clinton/Gore, so did the taxpayers.
The only thing Clinton/Gore gave our Nation's Vets were, confsion, massive waste, and huge cuts in services. Cat
Please excuse my re-posting this. But I am interested in learning your take (as a Vet) on this.
You see (for reasons of my own) Veterans are a group I care deeply about. I know first hand that the above is accurate and I would like to see how you square this with your continued support of those who are most responsible with the above dismanteling of our Nation's Veterans care system and the massive denial of promised benefits, that they are directly responsible for. :confused:

[Seadog]

What gets me is the fact that people like n:ck fail to actually read what they see. The title does not accuse Democrats of being nazis. It does not mention nazis. It mentions that the Democrats are linked to AH, and they are by their massive use of the big lie, i.e. Bush did not win the election/Florida, Bush lied about WMDs, or just about any of the crap they put out.
And this is not a statement by some person on a web site, this is an analysis by a prominent political journalist. This is someone who spends his entire time studying the working of our political system and trying to remain neutral. This is why most people are fed up with the Democrats. They have been fed this crap so long and now they are getting wise to what it really is.

[N:ck]

Seadog:
...most people are fed up with the Democrats...Where are you getting this crap?!

[N:ck]

I wasn't going to post this, but Seadog has pissed me off.
The Republican stance (and there are no exceptions in this case because this belief is part of the basis of the Republican party) is that poverty equals laziness--period! Republicans believe that those who can't make ends meet aren't trying hard enough, and that they and their families should starve because of it! Similarly, Adolf Hitler was trying to speed up the process of what he believed was natural selection by eliminating those who he considered a burden to society and the scum of the earth.
Republicans are known in many cases to be racist and homophobic. Guess what? Adolf Hitler's campaigns victimized ethnic groups and homosexuals!
And lastly, since you all are using the most obvious (supposed) common trait between Democrats and Hitler--that both are/were dishonest--I will simply say the same about your party. Republicans are dishonest.
Is that enough for you? I hold nothing against any of you personally (as eliminatedsprinter pointed out, this debate isn't about personal resentment), but please understand that there are at least as many, if not more, values linking Republicans to Hitler as there are linking Democrats to Hitler.
[ August 12, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[HOSS]

So whats wrong with natural selection. I`m 6' blonde hair, blue eyes. All natural. Not a bad idea.

[eliminatedsprinter]

058:
Anybody working for the government has to protect his/hers interest. Thats why they are Democrats. Just ask the prison guard union, Gay Davis took good care of them with a generous pay increase because of a nice campaign contribution made to GD from the union. We have the best politicans money can buy. NOT ME!! I think for myself and the longer I work for the Gov the more libertarian my views become. I say let good people run their lives!!!!My job is to serve not control or manage.
You see, I believe in what I do. I am confident that citizens and those I serve support it also. I don't need any authoritarian, tax and waste, Democrat to help me keep my job. Besides, what I do is (in my opinion) related to one of the Constitutionally mandated services that the Government is supposed to be doing, not the silly social engineering programs that they so often through away money on. Ie the National Endowment of the Arts. What a joke. Since when is the U.S. Govenment supposed to interject itself in the arts. And when has their ever been an art shortage in the U.S. Surely not in the mid 60s when this joke of a program started. Dems only support it's continuation to suck up to their big time show biz supporters. It serves no other purpose. If anything it hinders true artistic development by subjugating it to gov exposure. I can't think of anything more toxic to artistic creativity than gov bureaucracy.

[twistedpair]

Nick, (assuming there really is a nick and not just a AzDon psuedonym) I really don't think you've been around enough, or around long enough for that matter, to voice some of the opinions that you are. Wait until you are out in the workaday world, bustin' your butt to provide for your family, then you may see the frustration that leads people away from the democrats.
Whether you believe it or not, there are plenty of people on welfare and other 'entitlements' (GOD I hate that word) because they are LAZY, and much prefer to live on gov't handouts than by their own hard work. Let's just call them Victacrats, Boo-Hoo, the big bad gub'ment owes me..I'm so oppressed..poor me. These are the people your party panders to, give 'em what they want, get votes...that simple.
Us ignorant conservatives (Hate that word too, let's just call us self-starters) just want basic infrastructure and security from the government, other than that, get the hell out of my way and let me get it myself.

[Mrs Big Boy Toys]

twistedpair:
Nick, (assuming there really is a nick and not just a AzDon psuedonym) I really don't think you've been around enough, or around long enough for that matter, to voice some of the opinions that you are. Wait until you are out in the workaday world, bustin' your butt to provide for your family, then you may see the frustration that leads people away from the democrats.
Whether you believe it or not, there are plenty of people on welfare and other 'entitlements' (GOD I hate that word) because they are LAZY, and much prefer to live on gov't handouts than by their own hard work. Let's just call them Victacrats, Boo-Hoo, the big bad gub'ment owes me..I'm so oppressed..poor me. These are the people your party panders to, give 'em what they want, get votes...that simple.
Us ignorant conservatives (Hate that word too, let's just call us self-starters) just want basic infrastructure and security from the government, other than that, get the hell out of my way and let me get it myself. I agree with you. Welfare was put there for those who needed it until they get back on their feet.(short time) but not to become lifers on it because they are to darn lazy to work.i have 5 kids and both my husband and I work and the taxes they were taking out(thanks to Clinton and other Democrats)was so out rageous. Now that bush is in office I actually get to see so of MY MONEY, that I worked for.I don't mind helping those who are down on their luck but those who just think we owe them and they shouldn't have to work well If I have to so do they.

[summerlove]

Summerlove
You remind me of how I was when I got out of college and first started working for the Gov. wink [/QB]I have a degree in Political Science from a very conservative private (and catholic) university and I have a Masters in Public Administration, also from a very conservative, private university. I have over 20 years in Govt, so I'm not right out of college. I do work in Municipal Government, which is ALOT different from state and federal politics, and for the most part is non-partisan. We deal in political realities, but rarely party politics.
I have stayed away from the name calling, Dem vs. Rep agenda, and stayed mostly with my opinion. No where in my posts do you see anything remotely close to any of that (a little Bush bashing, but that's only because I can't stand him.) I know now how the republican's felt about Clinton - I feel the same way about "W"
ELIMINATEDSPRINTER had this to say about me:
All that you have just said is why I no longer vote Democrat. I am sick to death of their authoritarian agenda. All they want to do is pass more and more restrictions and regulations and give government more and more control over good peoples lives and money.
Everyone, go back and read my post. I had just copied the Bill of Rights, and this was his reply. The rest of my post was as follows:
And remember, no where have I tried to force feed - I've only offered my views, opinions, and statements of fact. Throughout ALL of my posts on this matter, I have been very open and respectful of everyones political beliefs. I'm sorry some feel differently.
Elimninateesprinter, WHY did that post make you not want to vote dem anymore? I didn't see the correlation. Sorry if I'm confused, but I am... :confused:

[Rexone]

[ August 15, 2003, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Rexone ]

[N:ck]

Yep, it's just like I said. To a Republican, poverty equals laziness--period!

[twistedpair]

And just like I said, you haven't been around enough. Although I'm sure the tough streets of LHC can really be an eye opener. :rolleyes:

[sorry dog]

Um ... back to the original statement... I'm not sure being linked to Mr. Hitler is all bad.
I mean you gotta admit that the man was a politician that knew how to get things done. Do you think Cali would have had a power crisis or budget crisis if he was the govenor?
At the very least if he were in charge the freeway system in LA wouldn't be quite at ****ed as it is today.
Achtung!

[N:ck]

twistedpair:
And just like I said, you haven't been around enough. Although I'm sure the tough streets of LHC can really be an eye opener. :rolleyes: I haven't been around long enough. Ok. I guess that means I win--it usually does! :D

[twistedpair]

I wasn't aware of a competition, what exactly did you win? Perhaps I'm unaware of your vast life experiences. I personally see people every day who scam the sytem, and they laugh at do-gooder wanna-bees like you....all the way to the bank.

[N:ck]

Don't get me wrong--I know there are people who take advantage of the system. That doesn't mean we should eliminate our social programs, just reform them.
[ August 12, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[TahitiSteve]

The Republican stance (and there are no exceptions in this case because this belief is part of the basis of the Republican party) is that poverty equals laziness--period! Republicans believe that those who can't make ends meet aren't trying hard enough, and that they and their families should starve because of it! Similarly, Adolf Hitler was trying to speed up the process of what he believed was natural selection by eliminating those who he considered a burden to society and the scum of the earth.I'm far from a supporter of the Republican party, but to continue in the same manner the Democratic stance is that if there are any poor people in the world, the duty of government is to track down those of "Ability" who have made themselves well off, and take their earned wealth at gunpoint to give it unearned to those who "Need" it. That the nation can only propser if the common interest is put before self.
The actual position of many upholders of the republican party (as opposed to that of the party itself, which sometimes gives lip service to individualism) Is that charity is a private choice. That that which one earns is theirs to do with as they please, not the property of government to confiscate and redistribute as it desires. See the fascism in the opposing viewpoint?
I can agree about the homophobic part, stemming from biblical calls to kill homosexuals (which in the same passage also says to kill eaters of cheeseburgers(mothers milk), and those who wear clothing of mixed threads). But democrats are the upholders of racial politics, I believe the majority of republicans would support a separation of race and state. The democrats all along have been the supporters of racial classifications in politics, from slavery, to Jim Crow, and now of benefits to minority races.

[OGShocker]

[/QB][/QUOTE]WTF??? Now I'm a queen? Why, because I happen to have a mind of my own?
Hey Summer. Sorry for the "queen" comment. I thought you were a female. My bad.
I see in your profile, you list your occupation as "govt". I now understand your position. I do not agree, I just understand.

[summerlove]

sorry dog:
Um ... back to the original statement... I'm not sure being linked to Mr. Hitler is all bad.
I mean you gotta admit that the man was a politician that knew how to get things done. Do you think Cali would have had a power crisis or budget crisis if he was the govenor?
At the very least if he were in charge the freeway system in LA wouldn't be quite at ****ed as it is today.
Achtung! I was gonna stay out of this AGAIN, but here we go with another assinine statement, this time from Sorry Dog: Give me a F'ing break! Hitler eliminated over 6 MILLION jews because they were, well, Jews! You want THAT! Oh my God. I honestly cannot believe the moronic chatter that having Hitler would be OK??? Huh? Achtung???Can you say German Concentration Camps? The images from the Holocost Museum in Washington D.C. are still with me. You should visit it - maybe you'll have a greater understanding of the type of person he was, and how he desire to take over the world was not perceived but real.
Adolf Hitler will be remembered as the all-powerful Fuehrer of the criminal Third Reich. Compared with him, his peers Mussolini and Franco were novices. Saddam is no where on the list, at least not yet...
I hope SD you were just trying to troll attention. If not, I feel sorry for you.

[summerlove]

OGShocker:
Hey Summer. Sorry for the "queen" comment. I thought you were a female. My bad.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
The boat name is Summer Love - I'm a guy, and I still have my nuts. They're not stashed away in my wife's purse. At least not yet! Thyanks for the correction. Also, read my prior post about my job. It'll help - a little.
Rick

[058]

95% of the Republican party is for "personal responsibility" in other words "You are what you make of yourself" We aren't VICTIMS...of anything. And when someone like the government comes along and wants to take away from us what we work hard for just to give to someone who doesn't want to work for.....well, we get a little "testy" about shit like that. Sorry but why should we work for people who do not want to work? And one other thing N:ck, we do NOT think poverty equals lazyness. Most of us has been there...It wasn't that long ago I was in that catagory but I didn't look to the government to bail me out. I came to the conclusion that I was doing something wrong and I must change.....something, I didn't know what at that time but something needed to be changed, so I reorganized my business plan and stuck to it....Well, after a couple of years of hard work, reorganization, and a much different additude it began to come together, and it worked for me. People have to realize that Mother Government isn't there to bail them out at every little set back. When you get into the working world you will understand more of what I speak.

[058]

To get back on topic.....Why is it OK for the liberals to look for a Nazi connection with Ah-nold but when a conservative mentions a Nazi connection to the Democratic party the liberals fly off the handle and accuse anybody and everybody in their line of sight of stuff that isn't printable? You Libs can't have it both ways, or haven't you heard? The same rules apply to you as you expect the conservatives to adhere to. C'mon..play fair now!!!! :D

[mickeyfinn]

N:ck:
I wasn't going to post this, but Seadog has pissed me off.
The Republican stance (and there are no exceptions in this case because this belief is part of the basis of the Republican party) is that poverty equals laziness--period! Republicans believe that those who can't make ends meet aren't trying hard enough, and that they and their families should starve because of it! Nuck-lehead,
Once you have had a few years experience behind you maybe you will understand. That statement above is false!! We don't believe that poverty is equal to laziness. We do believe that anyone who tries there best to participate and be a benefit to society will not starve. We have been down this road in other posts and you just don't seem to understand. Republicans are not the people you seem to believe they are. Most are charitable people who believe in helping those who are trying to help themselves. We are just tired of the inefficient and blanket way the government seems to think is the proper way to re-distribute our hard earned money. I dare say that if all of the social programs were to end tomorrow and that tax burden lifted from the people the result would be those who are attempting to do their best but are sincerely having problems would get better help than they do now. The only reason I have heard you give for leaving the system a mandatory system as it is now should embarrass all democrats and it seems to imply that your are just plain lazy and do not want to trouble yourself with thinking about how that help should be given. You would rather just have it taken from your check and then you can walk away and smile because you feel like you have "helped" In previous post you said:
If you were truly going to give, then what's the problem? The "inefficient" argument isn't working for me at this point because you've failed to elaborate in my recollection. What exactly are you looking for, a line-by-line report of what use your money will be put to? Also, in my thinking, it's easier (and cheaper for the altruistic individual) just to pay one's taxes and allow the government to handle the welfare program than to pay your taxes and on top of that make donations as separate transactions.
This type of thinking leads me to believe that if we were to eliminate the entitlements then people like you would "drop out" of the contribution game because it would require you to put forth additional effort. Even with that being true I believe that deserving people (Yes that is a description that is open to interpretation and does not even come close to saying everyone) would get the help they needed. The undeserving may live in poverty, however those who are living in poverty and not receiving help under these conditions will be the persons not contributing.
Bottom line is we are just plain tired of someone taking our hard earned money at gun point and giving it to others with us having no say whatsoever in how that money is distributed or even what kind of assistance is to be provided. I do not expect a line by line accounting of where my money is going to go, but it would be nice if at years end the total dollars routed to putting forth the social programs vs the actual amount of money distributed were to be published. I believe that if those numbers were common knowledge you would see many more people ranting and raving about cutting these programs.

[bigq]

N:ck:
Don't get me wrong--I know there are people who take advantage of the system. That doesn't mean we should eliminate our social programs, just reform them. they did reform Welfare, not enough...and hey the sky didn't fall.
:D

[rrrr]

N:ck:
"Fanatic" is not necessarily a derogatory term, and to say that it qualifies as name-calling is a major stretch. On behalf of my dad, I apologize for any offense.
Anyway, I have to agree with Rick on this one. I'm right! :p
Because you've flooded us with all kinds of posts, I decided to pick one and respond. It's just because I don't have the time to get to them all. (That's OK, though, as most wouldn't be worth my time anyway!)
Dave C:
Changing actual facts because you disagree with them or they don’t suit your purposes, equals “your opinion” (aka propaganda)
For example:
1) Bush won the 2000 election <---actual fact
2) Saying Bush lost because you don’t like the fact that he won fair and square <--- your opinion We are not saying that Bush didn't win the 2000 "election". What we are saying is that he didn't win it legitimately because he halted any efforts to make sure of his victory. If he was truly secure about the results, why wouldn't he have allowed the recounts to continue? It's not like we were pressed for time--the election is in early November, and the President doesn't take office until late January. That's plenty of time to get to the bottom of things, and if I recall correctly the recount was stopped in late November or early December--still waaay ahead of the January inauguration.
Bush did not win fair and square because he chose not to! It's funny (actually, it's not funny--just ironic) how you call our statements propaganda when it is classicly (at least in the case of every Republican I've talked to personally or on these boards) the Republicans who use the tactics of beating false statements into the ground and taking advantage of their numbers when possible until people grow tired of arguing and give in. Have you heard about the cases where innocent people were coerced into false confessions because of psychological games that interrogators have played on them? It's the same thing--the interrogators just don't take "I didn't do it!" for an answer!
Now, I'm going to check back every thirty minutes or so for the next four hours. If you guys really care and are willing to go one or two at a time (not five), I will try to respond to every post. Nick,
Try to concentrate. I will repeat my earlier post about the recount that was done after ther election and paid for by news organizations..... I didn't make it up, and there isn't any voodoo associated with the following words...
Bush couldn't "[halt] any efforts to make sure of his victory". He couldn't "have allowed the recounts to continue" because he was a candidate, not a person in power. Ypu make the supposition that he somehow had the Darth Vader grip on the judiciary system, which is totally stupid.
Here it is again.....
MIAMI Associated Press -
A newspaper review of Florida's "undervote" ballots concludes
that President Bush would almost certainly still have won the state had the
U.S. Supreme Court allowed a hand recount to be completed.
The Miami Herald and USA Today reported in Wednesday's editions that Bush
would have expanded his 537-vote victory to a 1,665 margin if the recount
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead under the most inclusive
standards, where even partial punches and dimples are counted as votes.
When the process was stopped, recounts using a variety of standards had
already had been completed in seven counties - Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward,
Hamilton, Manatee, Escambia and Madison - and in 139 Miami-Dade County
precincts.
The newspapers' calculations were based on the assumption that those numbers
would stand, but that in all the rest of the state the most generous
standards would be applied. On that theory, Bush's margin would have
increased, the newspapers said.
But the Herald reported that the balance would have tipped to Gore if a
recount of the undervotes had been started from scratch in all 67 Florida
counties using the most inclusive standards. Under that hypothetical recount,
free from the fragmented chronology of the post-election contest, Gore would
have won the White House, the paper found, but with an even narrower margin
of victory than Bush - only 393 votes.
An undervote is a ballot on which no preference for president registered; an
overvote is a ballot on which more than one preference registered.
USA Today's analysis focused exclusively on what might have happened if the
recount had been allowed to continue.
The results bucked the expectations of both the Democratic and Republican
teams during the Florida recount contest, finding that the more inclusive
recount standards sought by Gore would have helped Bush. And the strictest
standard sought by Republicans - that only clean ballot punches be counted -
would have given Gore an extremely narrow three-vote victory. USA Today said
that was too close to withstand the possibility of errors.
``Many Americans were asking the question 'What would the result be if the
Florida Supreme Court's order to conduct hand recounts in all 67 counties
were carried out?''' Martin Baron, the Herald's executive editor, said
Tuesday. ``We felt it was our responsibility to answer questions that so many
people had.''
The review of 61,190 undervotes did not examine so-called overvotes,
approximately 110,000 ballots cast for more than one candidate. Both papers
are planning a separate analysis of the overvote next month.
A group consisting of The Associated Press, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, CNN, The Palm Beach Post, St. Petersburg Times, The Wall
Street Journal and Tribune Publishing, which owns the Orlando Sentinel and
the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, is analyzing all uncounted presidential
ballots cast in the Florida election, including overvotes.
That ballot review, which is being conducted by the Chicago-based National
Opinion Research Center, is expected to be released next month.
The Florida Supreme Court order to conduct the hand counts specified only
undervotes should be counted. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decision
halting the recount noted that overvotes were being excluded.
Gore supporters were quick to interpret the newspaper findings as evidence
that the vice president should have won the election - and thus Florida' 25
electoral votes and the presidency.
``What this shows is that if you count the voter's intent, Gore wins. If you
look for excuses not to count votes, Bush does better,'' said Doug Hattaway,
Gore's national campaign spokesman, now working as a Democratic consultant in
Boston.
But White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said the 537-vote victory is the
correct tally.
``The law of the land are those rules that were in place on Election Day.
Using that standard, President Bush won on Election Day,'' he said.
While media reviews of the election are interesting, they do not answer the
question of what constitutes a vote, said Philip Zelikow of the Miller Center
of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, who is helping craft a
federal commission on election reform.
``The problem the Supreme Court found was that there was no consistent
standard and no time to devise and fully apply one. So newspapers are now
answering the 'What if?' questions without having to settle any of the
problems the Supreme Court confronted,'' he said.
The analysis found that, regardless of the undervote reviews, only one thing
is truly clear: Precise numbers released on election night mask a world of
imprecision and chaos.
The Herald and USA Today said only eight Florida counties were able to
produce for inspection the exact number of undercount ballots they reported
on election night.
And the Herald noted that mistakes occurred both in machine and hand counts.
It said Pasco County had acknowledged that multiple machine recounts produced
a different number of undervotes - 1,776 on Nov. 8, 1,712 on Dec. 9 and 1,744
on Feb 5. And Duval County, which reported 4,967 undervotes on election
night, ended up delivering 5,106 such ballots for inspection by the Herald
after a hand recount.
The Herald and USA Today hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to
conduct the review. At least two people - a reporter and a BDO Seidman
auditor - looked at each undervote and recorded what they saw, including
dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads on punch-card ballots and all
discernible markings on optical scan ballots.
The reporter and the auditor did not discuss findings or share notes.
BDO then entered the results into a computer database and tabulated the
different markings for each candidate. The Herald tabulated reporters'
findings to look for statistical variations, but said it did not use those
counts in its analysis.
``We wanted an organization that would be viewed as impartial and that would
be professional and careful and deliberate and accurate,'' Baron said.
The study cost more than $500,000 and employed 27 accountants, in addition to
reporters from several newspapers.
[ August 12, 2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: rrrr ]

[058]

rrrr, don't confuse 'em with a bunch of FACTS...they just don't understand. It isn't in the Democratic mantra. "Bush lost" "Bush Lost" "Bush lost" if they say it enough they begin to believe it. Shhhhhhhhh.....I think I hear AlGore calling from the lockbox. :D

[beached 1]

N:ck:
Yep, it's just like I said. To a Republican, poverty equals laziness--period! That depends. If the poverty stricken person is woking his ass off to get out of Poverty, then no. If it's a person waiting for the gubment to give a hand out and blames anyone but himself for his current status, then yes.
No one was around to help me get to where I am.
The best thing you can do for a person is give them a job. create a healthy business environment which would stimualte employment. Most people want a jobs, not hand outs. It's the rich that stimulate our economy (when's the last time you got a job from a poor guy?), pay the most taxes, therefore it's the rich that take care of us middleclass and poor people more than our gov.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/whopays.Par.0003.ImageFile.jpg
Democrats rely on ignorance. If there were no more racisim, there would be no need for Jesse Jackson. If there were no more poverty, there would be no need for a Democrat, and they know that.
[ August 13, 2003, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: beached 1 ]

[N:ck]

beached, you sound like a believer in trickle-down economics, which common sense tells us does not work! It's not the rich who stimulate the economy; it's the consumers.

[Jordy]

N:ck:
which common sense tells us does not work! That is my nomination for quote of the week. Out of every post you have thrown out, I've yet to see any common sense in any of them. pig_flyi Ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh junior. :D :D :D

[Jordy]

N:ck:
It's not the rich who stimulate the economy; it's the consumers. How many poverty level people do you know that are heavy consumers any how? Seems to me that people with a greater disposable income tend to consume more non-essentials than would someone trying to make ends meet. But then again, that's just me and I'm not 15 and a fully contributing member of society with all of life's little questions answered yet. :D :D :D

[beached 1]

The rich do more to stimulate our economy than any other social group. We live in a Trickle Down economic system (thank God). They pay the biggest brunt of our taxes, they consume the most. 19 car garages, private jets, yachts, etc. So, a poorly educated State College drop out like myself has a chance at getting a job building yachts for example. Then if I really start to do well then heck, I might just get married and have a couple kids and oh crap, we'll need a bigger car. Then I might be working soo much that I'll have to hire someone to mow my lawn. The more lawns he mows, the more lawn mowers he'll need, and then he'll need a bigger truck to haul them in, etc. Get it?
"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day" Democrat all the way. Actually, a democrat would say "Give a man a fith, a voting ballot and feed him for a day" :D
"Teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself for life" -Republican way of thinking.
[ August 13, 2003, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: beached 1 ]

[beached 1]

Damn double post
[ August 13, 2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: beached 1 ]

[rrrr]

N:ck:
beached, you sound like a believer in trickle-down economics, which common sense tells us does not work! It's not the rich who stimulate the economy; it's the consumers. Uh, yeah. I'm just waiting for my employees to start spending more money so I can give them a raise.

[TahitiSteve]

You think trickle up economics works? Just give free money to people to buy stuff? Why would anyone work, and then what would there be to buy? To do so either creates inflationary new money for the "poor", or you soak the rich to pay for it reducing the incentive to produce.
Is not trickle down just another way of saying capitalism? Let people make voluntary choices of what to buy, they pay the companies they buy those products from and the wealth trickles down to the employees? To say this doesn't work is rediculous, it's by far the most productive economic engine ever known, and its based on freedom. People are led by their own self-interest to provide what consumers want and need the most, all through voluntary agreements.
Yes Reagan amassed huge deficits through military spending. I believe unnecessarily as the USSR would have collapsed under the weight of its planned economy anyway (though he probably did speed it up). Even that however is a testament to capitalism, Communism is trickle up economics, give people their needs and expect them to work to their ability, it didn't work, never has never will. There are many other problems with communism, but just the problem of reducing or eliminating the positive incentive to work is enough to keep it from working.

[eliminatedsprinter]

summerlove:
Summerlove
You remind me of how I was when I got out of college and first started working for the Gov. wink I have a degree in Political Science from a very conservative private (and catholic) university and I have a Masters in Public Administration, also from a very conservative, private university. I have over 20 years in Govt, so I'm not right out of college. I do work in Municipal Government, which is ALOT different from state and federal politics, and for the most part is non-partisan. We deal in political realities, but rarely party politics.
I have stayed away from the name calling, Dem vs. Rep agenda, and stayed mostly with my opinion. No where in my posts do you see anything remotely close to any of that (a little Bush bashing, but that's only because I can't stand him.) I know now how the republican's felt about Clinton - I feel the same way about "W"
ELIMINATEDSPRINTER had this to say about me:
All that you have just said is why I no longer vote Democrat. I am sick to death of their authoritarian agenda. All they want to do is pass more and more restrictions and regulations and give government more and more control over good peoples lives and money.
Everyone, go back and read my post. I had just copied the Bill of Rights, and this was his reply. The rest of my post was as follows:
And remember, no where have I tried to force feed - I've only offered my views, opinions, and statements of fact. Throughout ALL of my posts on this matter, I have been very open and respectful of everyones political beliefs. I'm sorry some feel differently.
Elimninateesprinter, WHY did that post make you not want to vote dem anymore? I didn't see the correlation. Sorry if I'm confused, but I am... :confused: [/QB]SumerLove
Thanks for the response.
I know about your degrees, you have mentioned them before.
I did not mean to imply that you are right out of college. I only ment that your comments reminded me of how I thought at that point in my life. You see, for my first ten years out of college I was involved in Democratic party politics. I helped organize fund raisers etc for several democratic candidates. At that time in my life my comments on these political threads would have been just like yours. I don't have time to go into the details, but it was not ment as a putdown. Your comments just brought back memories of how I used to think (Politically). Even though I no longer hold those views, I still have some great friends from that time in my life who still hold them. "Some of my best friends are" democrats wink .
I think the above partly answers your question. Memories :cool: . The main reason your post reminded me why I no longer vote Democrat was because you included the Bill Of Rights. Of the 2 major parties I think the Democrats have the least respect for this fantastic document. It seems (to me) like they just view it as an outdated piece of paper that was written by a bunch of nasty, old, violent, slave holders, and that it is an annoyance that gets in the way of their attempts at social engineering. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are not much better, but at least they acknowledge the existance of the even numbered amendments.
I, like you, have also avoided name calling. Any Dem vs Rep type referances I may have made were intended to be aimed at the party's leadership and platforms. After all. I am still registerd as a Dem and if I included all Dems in a derogatory statement I would also be including myself.
Anyway the main reason I mentioned you by your forum name was not to single you out for critizism but rather to show you the respect of responding directly to some of the post you have made, that I have found interesting.
I tend to view this forum as a bunch of friends (or at least potential friends) with at least one commen intrest (performance boating) chatting. Nothing more. I am currently trying to meet as many people on these boards as I can. So far, I have met several and they have all been great fun. :D I have no reason to think that haveing somewat differing political views should get in the way of that. Oh well, I've got to get off this now. I hope I have clarified things a little. :cool: :) Please excuse any typos or spelling errors but this was long and I've had to type it fast with no time for editing..Thanks again for questioning me and giving me a chance to clarify things and thus avoid a negitive type misunderstanding. :cool:

[N:ck]

OK, picture this. You invented some luxury gizmo and had great success with it--then the economy went to shit.
You get a large tax cut from the government in response to the recession, and the less fortunate (or "average") get smaller tax cuts (or none at all). They will continue doing what they're doing (not spending extra money because they don't have any to spare). You will not see any increased demand for your product. You naturally will not hire more employees you don't need just because you can. You will wisely put the money away for harder times or you will likely "invest" the whole amount of your tax cut in some big item (a boat, for example). The money stays with the rich either way.
Read this: http://www.ufenet.org/research/TrickleDown.html

[N:ck]

jordanpaulk:
Out of every post you have thrown out, I've yet to see any common sense in any of them. pig_flyi Ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh junior. :D :D :D This is completely uncalled for, and to me it's basically the equivalent of biting or scratching in a fist fight!

[N:ck]

beached 1:
...If the poverty stricken person is woking his ass off to get out of Poverty, then no...That is not consistent with what other Republicans have said. In this thread and especially the last Conservatives thread (F**kin Conservatives), I was told that if someone isn't making ends meet, it's because they're not working hard enough (or, in other words, poverty equals laziness).

[N:ck]

beached 1:
...a poorly educated State College drop out like myself has a chance at getting a job building yachts for example...No, because once a rich guy has his yacht, you're out of a job! You can't deny that there are relatively very few people with that kind of money to burn!
beached 1:
"Teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself for life" -Republican way of thinking. Let me rephrase that for you.
"If the man was stupid enough to get screwed up early in life by unfavorable circumstances, he should live with the consequences (poverty and starvation). Oh, but I'll pay him minimum wage to come and work his ass off for me!"
[ August 13, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[N:ck]

rrrr:
Uh, yeah. I'm just waiting for my employees to start spending more money so I can give them a raise. If the tax cuts were fairly issued, employees of other companies could buy your products or services with the extra money. In turn, you would make more money for yourself and your employees, and the cycle would continue. As a bonus, morale would improve, and your business would become more productive!
[ August 13, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

N:ck:
OK, picture this. You invented some luxury gizmo and had great success with it--then the economy went to shit.
You get a large tax cut from the government in response to the recession, and the less fortunate (or "average") get smaller tax cuts (or none at all). They will continue doing what they're doing (not spending extra money because they don't have any to spare). You will not see any increased demand for your product. You naturally will not hire more employees you don't need just because you can. You will wisely put the money away for harder times or you will likely "invest" the whole amount of your tax cut in some big item (a boat, for example). The money stays with the rich either way.
Read this: http://www.ufenet.org/research/TrickleDown.html "The money stays with the rich either way", hmmmm so boat (and other big ticket item) builders only hire rich folks huh. Silly me, I didn't know that.

[Seadog]

I wish I had more time to spend here to counter N:ck's nonsense as he says it. It goes back to what I said before, N:ck and his ilk hear what they want to hear . Name me one country that does things the way N:ck wants. We did not get to be the only Mega power nation by being stupid., despite the democrats we elected.
I used to endorse the Democrats in the 60s. As a child, I adored JFK and believed in LBJs great society. But I grew up. I spent time in Vietnam and Korea. I saw how the rest of the world lived. When I returned, I listened to the Democrats and found them to be idiots. As time went on, they found their policies failing and instead of changing policies, they began using the big lie to win their battles. I may not agree with all the Republican policies, but at least I have faith their overall plan..

[Seadog]

N:ck:
Seadog:
...most people are fed up with the Democrats...Where are you getting this crap?! I get it from all the people I deal with. Friends and co-workers. Black, White and Hispanic. I live in a community that is highly educated, a major cross section of our nation, plus one that has a large international community.
Look at the voting patterns. Large areas of the US are converting to Republican. The big battle in Texas is the cowardly Democrats running away to prevent the Republicans to realign the congressional voting districts to reflect actual voter desires.
[ August 13, 2003, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Seadog ]

[MagicMtnDan]

This thread has been like so many before it...
1. An example of the intelligence of many who are typically fiscally conservative, successful, high tax-paying citizens.
2. An example of how liberal leaning people (typically Democrats) don't listen and can't debate because they don't have FACTS to back them up.
3. An example of why it's a waste of time to discuss and debate issues with people like N:ck who do not understand what they read or hear what's being said.
When he gets older and sees more and more Democrats reaching into his wallet taking hard-earned pay that is being given to those who won't work as hard maybe then (MAYBE) will he begin to understand and see the light.
"Youth is wasted on the young"
-George Bernard Shaw
"When I was 18 I thought I knew everything. When I was 21 I was sure I knew it all. When I was 25 I realized how little I really knew."
-Magic Mtn Dan
Knowledge and experience work together in a symbiotic relationship and are never meant to be disconnected. When a person fails to unite their knowledge and experience, they are lacking "common sense." Integration of these two traits produces a powerful sense of purpose and authority. These people seem to "have it together."
When a person has knowledge without experience, they are often awkward in the execution of their knowledge and destined to relearn most of what they have read. When a person has extensive experience without assurance that it is based upon factual truth, they often make grievous errors of judgment and technical precision. Knowledge must be sifted by experience and experience shaped by truth for maximum effectiveness.
Source of the above two paragraphs: click here (http://www.inst.net/leadership%20journal/Vol1-3.htm)

[summerlove]

eliminatedsprinter:
[QUOTE]Thanks for the response.
I know about your degrees, you have mentioned them before.
I did not mean to imply that you are right out of college. I only ment that your comments reminded me of how I thought at that point in my life. You see, for my first ten years out of college I was involved in Democratic party politics. I helped organize fund raisers etc for several democratic candidates. At that time in my life my comments on these political threads would have been just like yours. I don't have time to go into the details, but it was not ment as a putdown. Your comments just brought back memories of how I used to think (Politically). Even though I no longer hold those views, I still have some great friends from that time in my life who still hold them. "Some of my best friends are" democrats wink .
I think the above partly answers your question. Memories :cool: . The main reason your post reminded me why I no longer vote Democrat was because you included the Bill Of Rights. Of the 2 major parties I think the Democrats have the least respect for this fantastic document. It seems (to me) like they just view it as an outdated piece of paper that was written by a bunch of nasty, old, violent, slave holders, and that it is an annoyance that gets in the way of their attempts at social engineering. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are not much better, but at least they acknowledge the existance of the even numbered amendments.
I, like you, have also avoided name calling. Any Dem vs Rep type referances I may have made were intended to be aimed at the party's leadership and platforms. After all. I am still registerd as a Dem and if I included all Dems in a derogatory statement I would also be including myself.
Anyway the main reason I mentioned you by your forum name was not to single you out for critizism but rather to show you the respect of responding directly to some of the post you have made, that I have found interesting.
I tend to view this forum as a bunch of friends (or at least potential friends) with at least one commen intrest (performance boating) chatting. Nothing more. I am currently trying to meet as many people on these boards as I can. So far, I have met several and they have all been great fun. :D I have no reason to think that haveing somewat differing political views should get in the way of that. Oh well, I've got to get off this now. I hope I have clarified things a little. :cool: :) Please excuse any typos or spelling errors but this was long and I've had to type it fast with no time for editing..Thanks again for questioning me and giving me a chance to clarify things and thus avoid a negitive type misunderstanding. :cool: No hard feelings. I grew up in a very political and well organized household. My dad was a lawyer (RIP) who instilled in me the importance of helping those less fortunate than I. As a child, we spent a number of holidays driving to TJ, skid row, shelters, etc lending a hand, bringing toys to the kids, and helping serve food to those down on their luck. I hated it at the time! However, it instilled in me a desire to help those less fortunate and I am grateful to be in a position that I am able to do it today. I also remember never being able to eat green grapes as a kid, we couldn't buy a chevrolet, and my dad didn't drink Coors. We never crossed a picket line. My political beliefs are rooted to my childhood, and as a consequence, my beliefs are strong. I will always be a democrat, until that party disenfranchises those most benefit from their agenda. That is why I chose, as a career, government service. All my college buddies went on to law school, business school, CPA's, etc. They all thought I was nuts. It has been the most rewarding careeer I could have ever asked for. Could I make more "on the outside"? Sure, but many of my buddies aren't nearly as happy with their jobs as I am today.
I also don't think I ever stated my degrees before - I hate it when people do that, it comes off pompass, and I certainly do not want to imply that I am like that, because I am not. I was only making an effort, however feeble, to imly that I do know what I'm talking about, but maybe I f'up - I'm sorry if it came across poorly.
I too want to share and enjoy the "boards" as a boater, and I never would have jumped into this thread were it not for the Hitler reference. I kinda wish ***boat would remove this topic (but, I am against censorship) as I think it is doing more harm to the intent of the boards.
I'm going to Havasu tomorrow. ANybody else going this weekend? Maybe we can get back into the weekend mode now.
Rick

[N:ck]

eliminatedsprinter:
hmmmm so boat (and other big ticket item) builders only hire rich folks huh. Silly me, I didn't know that. No, but you're not going to convince me that those employees take home any significant amount of money in relation to the total profit! But more importantly, the money is simply not being spread around enough with the purchases of those big-ticket items.
[ August 13, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[N:ck]

Seadog:
I wish I had more time to spend here to counter N:ck's nonsense as he says it.I suspect it's not time you lack because you have managed to return to and participate in this thread again and again! Actually, I think that you as the starter of this ridiculous thread have entirely too much time on your hands!
[ August 13, 2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[MagicMtnDan]

N:ck:
Seadog:
I wish I had more time to spend here to counter N:ck's nonsense as he says it.I suspect it's not time you lack because you have managed to return to and participate in this thread again and again! Actually, I think that you as the starter of this ridiculous thread have entirely too much time on your hands! N:ck, comments like that demonstrate that you are a master baiter.

[N:ck]

Thanks. :D
[ August 13, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[rrrr]

N:ck:
eliminatedsprinter:
hmmmm so boat (and other big ticket item) builders only hire rich folks huh. Silly me, I didn't know that. No, but you're not going to convince me that those employees take home any significant amount of money in relation to the total profit! But more importantly, the money is simply not being spread around enough with the purchases of those big-ticket items. LMFAO, another naive individual that thinks all corporations screw the little guy. Hey nick, pull yer head outta your ass. Suppose the guys that build yachts are making obscene profits, then the word gets around. Yacht builders spring up everywhere. But wait a minute, there are only so many people that are able to buy a yacht. So the builders have to cut their prices.
Still, it isn't enough. The builder that is inefficient or has a poor product can't compete on competitive margins. He goes out of business. Then, a recession comes along, further reducung demand. The industry is gutted. Builders fail right and left.
Each builder lays off 50 or so employees. There are now over 500 people out of work.
Nick's answer? Give the 500 people a thousand dollars apiece. They aren't working, so it gets spent in a few days on house and car payments that are already late. All they did with the money is pay things they were obligated for. It does absolutely nothing for them or the economy.
The former workers are helpless as their homes are repossessed and they become homeless, dependent on the government for food and shelter. Some turn to crime as drug and alcohol takes over thier lives. The cost to society spirals out of control. The formerly middle class neighborhood where the workers live now has abandoned, burned out houses that are home to drug users and prostitutes.
My answer? Lower interest rates so the builders can borrow money to stay in business. The money will allow them to invest in new more productive machinery. Give tax cuts to businesses so they instantly have a start on returning to profitability. Offer long term tax incentives to encourage the construction of new facilities.
But the businessman has a responsibility here also. Did he do things correctly as his business failed? Are costs as low as possible? Is there anything he overlooked? He now has his core business intact, and has been able to retain his most productive employees.
The economy begins to respond to stimulus. The builder gets an order, and is able to recall a few employees. The employees (all good republicans) have survived the downtime on savings and their work ethic. Some had been working three jobs in retail and fast food.
The builder' new customer is thrilled with his yacht. The employees were so grateful to be working again that they put heart and soul into the construction. The customer has a party on the yacht, and invites all of his business associates. One of them has seen a definite improvement in his business, and decides the next day he will call the yacht builder.
The builder decides since things are looking up, he will expand his boatyard, and calls a contractor. The contractor is getting more business every day, so he decides to hire five more carpenters.
Meanwhile, the concrete company down the street is purchasing four new trucks to keep up with the increase in construction, and places an ad in the paper for drivers. The truck factory announces a second shift.
SO NICK, THE MONEY GETS SPREAD AROUND JUST FINE.
Too bad about your 500 people that are now in poverty. Your Democrat ideas doomed them to a life in living hell. But hey, at least they'll keep voting for you as you continue the class warfare battle and make sure they know it was the big corporations' greed that caused their pain, not you and your stupid, misguided policies.

[rrrr]

Oh yeah, another thing. In your world, the builders that failed pay zero taxes. The laid off employees sure as hell don't pay any. But since you passed out money to them, it has to come from somewhere.
Hey, why don't we raise the taxes of the two boat builders that are still in business? They can afford it. But it turns out to be the last straw to a struggling industry, and both are forced into bankruptcy. Yachts are now built in Singapore and Hong Kong.
But what about the tax cuts that I propose? Won't that hurt the government? Not when you consider that the yacht builder, his employees, the yacht buyers, the contractor, his carpenters, the concrete company, the drivers, the truck factory, and their workers are now earning money and paying taxes.
Don't forget that there aren't any homeless boatyard workers, no extra police, firefighters, prosecutors, courts, and jails needed because the 500 people didn't get their $1,000 handout.
So now taxes can be cut and ALL of the people that pay taxes get some of THEIR money back.
You'll figure this out someday. I'm not saying you will turn into a Republican, only that you will realize your ideals and philosophy are fatally flawed. You will then turn into a bitter, spiteful, malcontent that blames all those with money for the problems of the world. Your dad has given you a good start on that.

[mickeyfinn]

N:ck:
Seadog:
I wish I had more time to spend here to counter N:ck's nonsense as he says it.I suspect it's not time you lack because you have managed to return to and participate in this thread again and again! Actually, I think that you as the starter of this ridiculous thread have entirely too much time on your hands! You gotta love it....Why do you spend so much time responding to a "ridiculous" thread? From reading your posts and your attitude above I really get the feeling that you will never be happy until everyone who works is working their ass off in order for the maintain a standard of living for the non-working that is almost equal to the standard of living for the working. You N:ick are a closet socialist. The rich buying the boat will be paying the salary of the people building the boat, selling the boat, owning the company, owning the building that the manufacturer is renting or leasing from, the people who sell the raw materials needed for building the boat, and paying taxes on those products as well.
If the truth is told the scenario is nothing like you outlined. When the economy gets tough the rich are not normally out buying boats. The rich are losing a good chunk of their income as well. The rich people who did not inherit or win their money in the lottery know that during troubled economic times it is time to "be safe" with their money. That means it is sitting in the bank or other insured investments rather than buying luxury items. As for not hiring people just because they can, that is one of the most assinine complaints or statements I have ever heard. Wal-Mart employees thousands of people. When is the last time you walked up to a Wal-mart cash register and said "Here is an extra $10.00 to put in your cash drawer just so you can make sure you don't have to lay anyone off?"
If you are going to present arguments or present a view please do so while also giving us some supporting "FACTS". Don't come in here and repeat rhetoric that you have heard others repeat with no justification behind it. I think most of the people on these boards are reasonable people and willing to listen to others views (Just look how many with dissenting opinions from yours continue to read your post). The difference between you and the majority of people here is the majority would rather make their decisions based on FACTS not pomp and circumstance.

[N:ck]

rrrr:
Nick's answer? Give the 500 people a thousand dollars apiece. They aren't working, so it gets spent in a few days on house and car payments that are already late. All they did with the money is pay things they were obligated for. It does absolutely nothing for them or the economy.The idea is that people who get by and aren't able to do much else would be able to purchase luxury items: TV sets, DVD players, computers, etc. Rich people already have such items, so with their insanely large tax cuts they pocket the money or spend it with one business. I say, SO WHAT IF ONE (KIND OF) BUSINESS HAS THE DEMAND TO HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES? With smaller purchases ($300 or $400 items instead of a $150,000 item), many companies share in the prosperity and demand, and many companies hire new employees.
Now, three or four hundred wouldn't cut it for just the reason you pointed out--it would be used for house payments or other obligatory bills. I'm thinking that rather than Bill Gates getting a $30,000 tax cut, some of the less fortunate should receive enough of a cut that they are able to make one month's house payment, utilities, etc. and still have a few hundred left over.
Once there is demand for the luxury items, the companies that manufacture them will hire many of these less fortunate (average) folks, who will earn more money--hopefully enough to go out and buy more luxury items to continue the cycle!
All it would take is one well thought-out tax cut, and as I've explained there could be more jobs available, which is just as good for big business as it is for individuals.
rrrr:
Give tax cuts to businesses so they instantly have a start on returning to profitability. Offer long term tax incentives to encourage the construction of new facilities.Wouldn't profit incentives be more valuable to a business than tax incentives?
rrrr:
But the businessman has a responsibility here also. Did he do things correctly as his business failed? Are costs as low as possible? Is there anything he overlooked? He now has his core business intact, and has been able to retain his most productive employees. If there's no demand for his products, he will buy a yacht or wisely put the money in his pocket for a rainy day.
rrrr:
The builder' new customer is thrilled with his yacht. The employees were so grateful to be working again that they put heart and soul into the construction. The customer has a party on the yacht, and invites all of his business associates. One of them has seen a definite improvement in his business, and decides the next day he will call the yacht builder.Like I said, helping one yacht builder won't create many new jobs for individuals.

[N:ck]

mickeyfinn:
You gotta love it....Why do you spend so much time responding to a "ridiculous" thread?My excuse is that I'm fifteen, and school's out. What's yours?
mickeyfinn:
From reading your posts and your attitude above I really get the feeling that you will never be happy until everyone who works is working their ass off in order for the maintain a standard of living for the non-working that is almost equal to the standard of living for the working.Bullshit. I'm sick of you using the Old Democrat stereotypes to tell me what my beliefs are.
mickeyfinn:
You N:ick are a closet socialist.If compassion makes me a socialist, then so be it.
mickeyfinn:
If the truth is told the scenario is nothing like you outlined. When the economy gets tough the rich are not normally out buying boats.OK then. They're pocketing the money, which is even worse.
__________________
Also, I expect you to back your statements up with COLD HARD FACTS and NOT RHETORIC. Also, I expect you to back your statements up with COLD HARD FACTS and NOT RHETORIC. Also, I expect you to back your statements up with COLD HARD FACTS and NOT RHETORIC. Also, I expect you to back your statements up with COLD HARD FACTS and NOT RHETORIC. Also, I expect you to back your statements up with COLD HARD FACTS and NOT RHETORIC. Also, I expect you to back your statements up with COLD HARD FACTS and NOT RHETORIC. Getting tired of that cheap and dishonest tactic? 'Cause I am.
[ August 13, 2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[beached 1]

N:ck:
I was told that if someone isn't making ends meet, it's because they're not working hard enough (or, in other words, poverty equals laziness). Well, if I can't make ends meet it's either that I'm not making enough or spending beyond my budget. Either way, I shouldn't'expect a hand out. I'll work harder!
How do you libs discribe the poor? The unfortunate, the downtrodden, the victims? Booo friggin hoo. Life isn't fair. Get up, get going and make something out of yourself.

[Boozer]

N:ck:
rrrr:
Nick's answer? Give the 500 people a thousand dollars apiece. They aren't working, so it gets spent in a few days on house and car payments that are already late. All they did with the money is pay things they were obligated for. It does absolutely nothing for them or the economy.The idea is that people who get by and aren't able to do much else would be able to purchase luxury items: TV sets, DVD players, computers, etc. Rich people already have such items, so with their insanely large tax cuts they pocket the money or spend it with one business. I say, SO WHAT IF ONE (KIND OF) BUSINESS HAS THE DEMAND TO HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES? With smaller purchases ($300 or $400 items instead of a $150,000 item), many companies share in the prosperity and demand, and many companies hire new employees.
Now, three or four hundred wouldn't cut it for just the reason you pointed out--it would be used for house payments or other obligatory bills. I'm thinking that rather than Bill Gates getting a $30,000 tax cut, some of the less fortunate should receive enough of a cut that they are able to make one month's house payment, utilities, etc. and still have a few hundred left over.
Once there is demand for the luxury items, the companies that manufacture them will hire many of these less fortunate (average) folks, who will earn more money--hopefully enough to go out and buy more luxury items to continue the cycle!
All it would take is one well thought-out tax cut, and as I've explained there could be more jobs available, which is just as good for big business as it is for individuals.
rrrr:
Give tax cuts to businesses so they instantly have a start on returning to profitability. Offer long term tax incentives to encourage the construction of new facilities.Wouldn't profit incentives be more valuable to a business than tax incentives?
rrrr:
But the businessman has a responsibility here also. Did he do things correctly as his business failed? Are costs as low as possible? Is there anything he overlooked? He now has his core business intact, and has been able to retain his most productive employees. If there's no demand for his products, he will buy a yacht or wisely put the money in his pocket for a rainy day.
rrrr:
The builder' new customer is thrilled with his yacht. The employees were so grateful to be working again that they put heart and soul into the construction. The customer has a party on the yacht, and invites all of his business associates. One of them has seen a definite improvement in his business, and decides the next day he will call the yacht builder.Like I said, helping one yacht builder won't create many new jobs for individuals. Nick how ignorant can you be? Average people are average people because they lack the drive to and desire to go out and make something more of themself then average. That average person has just as much oppurtunity to be a rich guy as the guy who is already rich had. But because the average person doesn't posess this drive the rich should be taxed heavier so that the poor or average can afford to buy a DVD player? Give me a break kid.
Just because you don't want to make something of yourself and don't mind the thought of being "average" don't think that means I should have to pay more so you can pay less. When you get a real job and get a 5% raise that is just enough to bump you a tax bracket and cause you to actually bring home $15 a paycheck less, then and only then can you tell me about how the poor need tax cuts. Until then STFU.

[beached 1]

N:ck:
Let me rephrase that for you.
"If the man was stupid enough to get screwed up early in life by unfavorable circumstances, he should live with the consequences (poverty and starvation). Oh, but I'll pay him minimum wage to come and work his ass off for me!" It would be start for him to get back on track wouldn't it? What should I do? Give him a free house, free food, free this, free that cause, as you say screwed up early in life ?

[rrrr]

N:ck:
The idea is that people who get by and aren't able to do much else would be able to purchase luxury items: TV sets, DVD players, computers, etc. Rich people already have such items, so with their insanely large tax cuts they pocket the money or spend it with one business. I say, SO WHAT IF ONE (KIND OF) BUSINESS HAS THE DEMAND TO HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES? With smaller purchases ($300 or $400 items instead of a $150,000 item), many companies share in the prosperity and demand, and many companies hire new employees.
Now, three or four hundred wouldn't cut it for just the reason you pointed out--it would be used for house payments or other obligatory bills. I'm thinking that rather than Bill Gates getting a $30,000 tax cut, some of the less fortunate should receive enough of a cut that they are able to make one month's house payment, utilities, etc. and still have a few hundred left over.
Once there is demand for the luxury items, the companies that manufacture them will hire many of these less fortunate (average) folks, who will earn more money--hopefully enough to go out and buy more luxury items to continue the cycle!
All it would take is one well thought-out tax cut, and as I've explained there could be more jobs available, which is just as good for big business as it is for individuals.[/b]
BWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA...Well thought out socialist redistribution plan is more like it.
I used ONE type of business, the yacht builder, as an example. Did you miss the part about his expansion? The work created for all of those other companies and employees? Did you think about the jobs created when he orders engines, drives, and rigging for the yacht? It all starts somewhere, junior.
N:ck:
Wouldn't profit incentives be more valuable to a business than tax incentives?[/b]
What the hell is a profit incentive, and how could the government offer it? Because the government now takes 34% of the money my company makes, the burden is quite significant. Reducing that burden would allow me to free up money to be more competitive. I could either lower costs, improve productivity, or both. That's the ONLY way to make more money in business, junior.
Originally posted by N:ck:If there's no demand for his products, he will buy a yacht or wisely put the money in his pocket for a rainy day.[/b]
BWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA...again. If his business is about to fail, he's gonna buy a yacht or save it for a "rainy day"? How stupid can you get? Most businessmen risk every cent they have to stay in business, and work their asses off to boot. If he has any money laying around he'll use it to keep going, trying everything he knows to save his company, the thing he has worked for, sacrificed for, and the only thing that keeps him from being tossed in the street.
N:ck:
Like I said, helping one yacht builder won't create many new jobs for individuals. My company was awarded a project today. I have already called six subcontractors and five equipment vendors to let them know I will be giving them work because of it. This project will indirectly provide work for hundreds of people for several months.
You sure about that statement, junior?

[beached 1]

Democrats aren't what they used to be.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system: And this administration pledged itself last summer to an across the board top to bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
Amen! Testify! :D
In short to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures. Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the three following tests: First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.
huh? you mean no free cheese? :(
When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. idea
December 14, 1962...
JFK's Speech to the Economic Club of NY
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/jfktax.Par.0001.ImageFile.jpg

[mickeyfinn]

OK.
You want some facts here are some facts. I don't know how much difference they make but they are very interesting, especially if you believe that GW didn't actually win the election:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Counties won by Gore: 677; Counties won by Bush: 2,434. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million; Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000; Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">States won by Gore: 19 States won by Bush: 29. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2; Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

[eliminatedsprinter]

summerlove [/qb]No hard feelings. I grew up in a very political and well organized household. My dad was a lawyer (RIP) who instilled in me the importance of helping those less fortunate than I. As a child, we spent a number of holidays driving to TJ, skid row, shelters, etc lending a hand, bringing toys to the kids, and helping serve food to those down on their luck. I hated it at the time! However, it instilled in me a desire to help those less fortunate and I am grateful to be in a position that I am able to do it today. I also remember never being able to eat green grapes as a kid, we couldn't buy a chevrolet, and my dad didn't drink Coors. We never crossed a picket line. My political beliefs are rooted to my childhood, and as a consequence, my beliefs are strong. I will always be a democrat, until that party disenfranchises those most benefit from their agenda. That is why I chose, as a career, government service. All my college buddies went on to law school, business school, CPA's, etc. They all thought I was nuts. It has been the most rewarding careeer I could have ever asked for. Could I make more "on the outside"? Sure, but many of my buddies aren't nearly as happy with their jobs as I am today.
I also don't think I ever stated my degrees before - I hate it when people do that, it comes off pompass, and I certainly do not want to imply that I am like that, because I am not. I was only making an effort, however feeble, to imly that I do know what I'm talking about, but maybe I f'up - I'm sorry if it came across poorly.
I too want to share and enjoy the "boards" as a boater, and I never would have jumped into this thread were it not for the Hitler reference. I kinda wish ***boat would remove this topic (but, I am against censorship) as I think it is doing more harm to the intent of the boards.
I'm going to Havasu tomorrow. ANybody else going this weekend? Maybe we can get back into the weekend mode now.
Rick [/QB][/QUOTE]
Summerlove
Yep, it's as I suspected. You and I became Democrats for similar reasons (although my parents were school teachers and my dad still works for Cal Tech). We also went into public service for the same types of reasons. I also have left the Democratic party fold for those same reasons. You see, I really like to help people and I honestly don't believe the Democratic party leadership does. I am a huge believer in the notion that everyone should be able to live in the least restrictive environment possible. You mentioned your degrees on the "Issa pulls out" thread, however, I do not think it sounded pompass in the context of the thred. Go Trojans! wink
I don't really feel I should say a lot about my job on this forum (I don't know why, I just feel a bit funny about it), but since you are from So Cal I hopefully will see you at a lake and tell you about it. However, no politics at the lake. wink :cool:
[ August 13, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[058]

mickeyfinn:
OK.
You want some facts here are some facts. I don't know how much difference they make but they are very interesting, especially if you believe that GW didn't actually win the election:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Counties won by Gore: 677; Counties won by Bush: 2,434. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million; Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000; Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">States won by Gore: 19 States won by Bush: 29. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2; Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Interesting......esp. the Murder numbers. Says a lot for the Gore voters. wink

[blownmoney]

man guys what a boring god damn topic!!! i could swear that this website is ***boat forums?..not meet the press... wtf? lets see some big tits and some nice g-string pics,this is where most people try to escape from our daily grind , have fun and laugh, if you want to discuss politics great!, but wouldn't another venue be a better place? just my two cents!

[Boozer]

blownmoney:
man guys what a boring god damn topic!!! i could swear that this website is ***boat forums?..not meet the press... wtf? lets see some big tits and some nice g-string pics,this is where most people try to escape from our daily grind , have fun and laugh, if you want to discuss politics great!, but wouldn't another venue be a better place? just my two cents! Just dont click on the this thread. Problem solved.

[Seadog]

It is impossible to give facts to N:ck because he will ignore them and then impart some of his witty repartee' to us. Considering his linage, it is not too hard to understand.
I too was raised in a Democrat family. My Dad was military. When he got married, the only good jobs were working the mines around Picher, OK. He didn't want that for his family, so he went back into the military. From day one, we were taught to help. When things happen, it was always my family that others went to for help. We did our best to help those who were willing to work and needed temporary help.
All Democrats are not alike, nor are all Republicans. Most Republicans are for helping people that need a helping hand. If you make welfare too convenient, the temptation is much for many people not to take advantage. My people do not make a great wage, nor do I. What they do have is a strong sense of pride because I set high standards. People want to earn a living and respect. Make it too easy to earn their living and they have no pride in what they accomplish. If you give a pay raise, it has to be for a reason.

[MagicMtnDan]

N:ck - this sounds like what's been coming out of your mouth and your dad's mouth:
Principles of the Socialist Party USA
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.
Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earthThere's a lot more of this diarrhea and you can find it by clicking here (http://sp-usa.org/about/principles.html)

[N:ck]

OK, Mr. Yacht builder. Let me ask you this: In the face of an economy that produces a soft demand (if any at all) for new yachts, are you going to hire more people and expand your business and production just because you got a big tax cut?
I'll bet I know the answer. The point I was trying to make about trickle-down economics is that if you keep the middle and lower classes of society too poor to be effective consumers, then there will be no demand for any of your products.
A tax cut that doesn't reach down to ordinary, willing consumers doesn't stand much chance of creating demand for products. Therefore, no need to expand production!

[N:ck]

Besides, there other more likely "toys" that a rich guy with extra tax return would spend the money on (if he spent it)--for example, he might go on a European vacation and buy a Mercedes while he's in Germany! How would that help our economy?

[N:ck]

And one more thing... First day of school is tomorrow, so have some patience.

[rrrr]

N:ck:
Besides, there other more likely "toys" that a rich guy with extra tax return would spend the money on (if he spent it)--for example, he might go on a European vacation and buy a Mercedes while he's in Germany! How would that help our economy? You are such a wet behind the ears dumbass, nick old buddy.
You are looking at a tax break with the eyes of a 15 year old male that has discovered girls and cars.
I got my first paycheck today that reflects the tax cut. I am going to realize $690 a month from it. Gee, that would make the payment on a $110,000 boat, let's head to the dealer, right?
Uh, no. I can now send some extra money to reduce the principal on my mortgage so I can pay off my house a few years earlier. I can put a little more money into the property I bought for my mother in law, so when she dies I have more equity. I want to retire before I am ready to drop dead of a coronary occlusion.
You have ideas, and no experience. Personal tax breaks do not affect my business. My salary stays the same.
Do yourself a favor. Ask your dad to throw your ass out in the street with nothing but the clothes on your back. Use that opportunity to refine your political views.
If you are satisfied with living in a dumpster, having a bit of food and some ratty clothes to wear, then be a lifelong Democrat. By blaming your situation on others you may be able to steal money from those that earn it so you can get what you "deserve".
If you aspire to improve your situation, and resent the government taking away your hard earned money by taxing your minimum wage income, then maybe you may see my point of view. Perhaps you should have learned a trade or stayed in school, it would have made your life easier.
As I said earlier, these truths will become evident to you. Either you will embrace them and take charge of your life, or you will let the bitterness of substandard effort rule your days.
Your choice, junior.
[ August 13, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: rrrr ]

[HighRoller]

You guys have missed the point of why Nick is upset. Besides, there other more likely "toys" that a rich guy with extra tax return Nick and every other socialist/liberal operate off of envy and hatred for those who have more than they do.What is the definition of"Rich"?Nick is just mad because that guy can buy a million dollar toy and he can't.So that guy must be penalized.Liberals think that every rich person hit life's lottery.He lambastes rich people who get a huge tax cut,but never admits that these same people shoulder an unreasonable percentage of the tax burden.It's hilarious that he used the yacht business for his example.Once upon a time the yacht building industry was dominated by American firms.Well,along came the liberal Democrats,who were pissed about people dropping millions of dollars for frivilous toys and instituted the notorious luxury tax.Instead of collecting millions in unreasonable taxes,they KILLED the yacht building industry here.People refused to buy American made yachts and the industry died.How smart do you have to be to realize that by LOWERING taxes you increase revenue?Does Wal-Mart make their fortune by having high prices?How much more business does a store do on the"no sales tax"day than a regular day?Reagan doubled the treasury revenue in the 80's by lowering taxes and allowing people to keep more of THEIR money.Unfortunately the Democrat led congress spent ALL of the surplus,resulting in the huge deficit.

[Seadog]

I wonder if N:ck realizes that most Republicans are those who started from scratch and earned their living the hard way. When I graduated from high school, I was told that I could go to college and my parents would contribute a ten year old station wagon. I went into the Army and used the GI bill for my college. From age 17, I have not relied on anyone else for my living. Am I special for dong this? NO. This is how most of us get through our lives. There has to be a fine line between what our government does for us and what we do for ourselves.
I am a big believer in mandatory national service. You get the priveledges of citizenship after you contribute to your country. Male or female, married, single, parents or whatever, there is a way to contribute to our nation. The initial concept would be a huge undertaking, but could be accomplished if we do not overregulate and do not allow any exemptions except for being in a hospital.

[beached 1]

N:ck:
A tax cut that doesn't reach down to ordinary, willing consumers doesn't stand much chance of creating demand for products. Therefore, no need to expand production! The poor and middle classes don't pay as much in taxes as the rich. Tax cuts for the rich!,It's a very common Liberal complaint. Well yes, since they are paying in the most, why shouldn't they get the biggest brake. Free up the money held by the people that have the most if you will. Give them incentives to spend and invest more. Instead of giving to a corrupt politian and allowing him to dole out another gov program like the many failing ones that we see today. Social Security, welfare, midnight basketball (a clinton idea :rolleyes: ) etc. I can't think of a gov program that worked and did the things it was intended for. Much less came in under budget. Give people jobs, not free cheese. JFK said it best. You need to learn to read and comprehend. Then take economics.
In short to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures. Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the three following tests: First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.
When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

[beached 1]

Seadog:
When I graduated from high school, I was told that I could go to college and my parents would contribute a ten year old station wagon. I went into the Army and used the GI bill for my college. From age 17, I have not relied on anyone else for my living. Am I special for dong this? NO. This is how most of us get through our lives. There has to be a fine line between what our government does for us and what we do for ourselves.
I am a big believer in mandatory national service. You get the priveledges of citizenship after you contribute to your country. Male or female, married, single, parents or whatever, there is a way to contribute to our nation. The initial concept would be a huge undertaking, but could be accomplished if we do not overregulate and do not allow any exemptions except for being in a hospital. Shot you 5 for this. Good job!

[Dave C]

Welfare = restribution of wealth. It does not create new capital and therefore doesn't produce economic growth so it doesn't help the "economy." (its robbing Peter to pay Paul)
Reducing taxes, increases investment for those dollars not spent on consumption. Investment produces economic growth, therefore tax cuts will help the "economy"
(Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for life)

[Jordy]

I had to dig around to find this, but it should explain the tax system in a way that even Little Nicky can clearly understand.
Tax Cut "For The Top 1%"
What follows is an editorial written by Neil Cavuto from Fox News. It offers some good insight about our country's income tax system and how people in different tax brackets can view a tax cut (reduction). By Neil Cavuto, FOX News
"Let's put our current tax distribution method in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that everyday, 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings between the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2 the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

[Dave C]

someon said "trickle down economics" don't work and consumption makes the economy work. That is a bold face lie.
consumption is important but it does not lead to economic "growth" Only investment that makes business' grow leads to actual economic growth.
Example, over the last 3 years, the economy has grown at an anemic pace but "consumer" spending has remained good but the "economy has not recovered. Investment in business and therefore growth has been weak. The key to recovery is additional investment.
This is basic economics and I am surprised that you don't know this?...but then again they don't teach this in school anymore.

[summerlove]

eliminatedsprinter:
I don't really feel I should say a lot about my job on this forum (I don't know why, I just feel a bit funny about it), but since you are from So Cal I hopefully will see you at a lake and tell you about it. However, no politics at the lake. wink :cool: I agreee 100% - let's have a beer and talk about everything BUT politics. Also, I went back and read that other post. makes me kinda seem like an a-hole, certainly didn't mean come across any other way than saying, hey guys, this is what I do for a living (re Issa and the state issue) I'm going to refrain from making comments on the political issues from here on out. Thaks for the "spanking..."
Rick

[Dave C]

Summer.
I read back a little (page 2) and I think you missed my point. I don't care if you like the concept of financial intermediation, use it, don't use it, it doesn't matter to me. I didn't say you have to like it either or use it.
The reason I said that because I work in this business and when I explain it to certain people they don't think it is fair.
I always say, why push the rock uphill. Its easier to understand the system and work within it rather than changing from the outside.
Sorry for the confusion.

[MagicMtnDan]

summerlove:
sorry dog:
Um ... back to the original statement... I'm not sure being linked to Mr. Hitler is all bad.
I mean you gotta admit that the man was a politician that knew how to get things done. Do you think Cali would have had a power crisis or budget crisis if he was the govenor?
At the very least if he were in charge the freeway system in LA wouldn't be quite at ****ed as it is today.
Achtung! I was gonna stay out of this AGAIN, but here we go with another assinine statement, this time from Sorry Dog: Give me a F'ing break! Hitler eliminated over 6 MILLION jews because they were, well, Jews! You want THAT! Oh my God. I honestly cannot believe the moronic chatter that having Hitler would be OK??? Huh? Achtung???Can you say German Concentration Camps? The images from the Holocost Museum in Washington D.C. are still with me. You should visit it - maybe you'll have a greater understanding of the type of person he was, and how he desire to take over the world was not perceived but real.
Adolf Hitler will be remembered as the all-powerful Fuehrer of the criminal Third Reich. Compared with him, his peers Mussolini and Franco were novices. Saddam is no where on the list, at least not yet...
I hope SD you were just trying to troll attention. If not, I feel sorry for you. Sorry Dog - maybe your name should be "Stupid Friggin' Dog" - you must not have any idea of the atrocities caused by the guy you're complimenting for his political skills.
Summer Love - thanks very much for stating the facts so clearly and well. Apparently more people need to learn about history before they open their mouths.

[TahitiSteve]

I am a big believer in mandatory national service. You get the priveledges of citizenship after you contribute to your country. Male or female, married, single, parents or whatever, there is a way to contribute to our nation. The initial concept would be a huge undertaking, but could be accomplished if we do not overregulate and do not allow any exemptions except for being in a hospital.How do we get from saying it's wrong for government to steal peoples income to redistribute it to others, to saying they shouldn't steal the income but steal the whole person for mandatory service for X amount of time?
This is the other side of the Republican party, they uphold ones right to their wealth, but not to their person. The Democrats are just the opposite, upholding ones right to their person, but ones earnings are considered a community asset. As the parties converge there are more exceptions to this description, but why does neither party uphold individual rights in both the economic and personal realm?
Is it not common sense that people should be free to do as they desire given they do not violate others? That government is merely an agent to secure individual rights. That ones life is theirs to live as they desire and government is only there to make this possible?

[058]

One of the fundamental rules of our system is wealth is created, not re-distributed. N:ck, I bet you any amount of money that the fortune that Bill Gates has did not take away one dollar from your family. You may have bought Microsoft products but Gates didn't TAKE anything from you and your family. Speaking of Bill Gates I find it amusing the Clinton administration spent millions of $$$$ trying to go after Gates and Microsoft because they thought it got too "big"....WTF is too big? If he has a better product then why shouldn't he profit? I say "hooray, more power to him!!"

[Seadog]

Tahiti, where do you get blaming the Republicans for something I believe in? I do not believe in imprisoning someone, but my personal belief is that all americans would be better off if they were treated as equals and had to work with all others on equal standing. My plan is that at age 18, everyone was allowed a selection of three civic jobs out of a wide variety for 6 mos to a year. Something similar to the CCC originated by FDR. Some get to doing wilderness improvements or park upgrades, some to medical aide like paramedics, some to law enforcement and some to military. During this time they get food, board and a small cash allowance. They all wear basic clothing issued by the government. Their alternative is to forgo their rights to vote, hold office, attend college or to own property, including boats and cars.
I realize that this is a pipe dream because we don't have the guts to do it. Am I being radical or ultra conservative, no. Is this being right wing, no. I was in the Army during the draft years and while I think the volunteer army is the way to go, I also saw the draft make men out of kids. I saw punks straighten up and become leaders. I saw timid slackers become confident and I saw haters learn to work with others. It does not always work, but I think it has enough merit to help our kids be better citizens if done right.
Today the major universities are giving kids credit when they take a year off before starting college because they learn what being out there entails. I also think that one of the priviledges of such a service should be free state college tuition for those who qualify.

[Dave C]

I have a challenge for all you people with Socialist tendencies.
You need to start your own business, doing whatever, but you have to be moderately successful so that you can hire a few employees. Being an employee is too damn easy and is no fun anyway.
Then once you become moderately successful after working your ass off, then the IRS will take 45% of your income and give it to those that don’t want to work as hard as you do.
Here is the challenge:now you cannot harbor any resentment or ill-will towards those that don't work and receive entitlements you have paid for.
My point, starting and keeping a business going and being successful is risky and not easy and requires hard-work. Why shouldn't you be "compensated" for your hard work, skill and risk?

[skeepwerkzaz]

AzDon,
Just out of curiosity why should the top 95% pay more in taxes? Because they went to college? Went the extra mile trying to achieve that level of income? Because they have earned the right to make that much money? Because you are mad at them? Personally, I have spent nearly 40 thousand dollars on my education, where is my break? I have spent this money, and years of my life to be able to get a job that will some day pay off. I have worked hard to get where I am and by statistic all of those 95%r's did the very same thing. My money, not yours.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Seadog:
Tahiti, where do you get blaming the Republicans for something I believe in? I do not believe in imprisoning someone, but my personal belief is that all americans would be better off if they were treated as equals and had to work with all others on equal standing. My plan is that at age 18, everyone was allowed a selection of three civic jobs out of a wide variety for 6 mos to a year. Something similar to the CCC originated by FDR. Some get to doing wilderness improvements or park upgrades, some to medical aide like paramedics, some to law enforcement and some to military. During this time they get food, board and a small cash allowance. They all wear basic clothing issued by the government. Their alternative is to forgo their rights to vote, hold office, attend college or to own property, including boats and cars.
I realize that this is a pipe dream because we don't have the guts to do it. Am I being radical or ultra conservative, no. Is this being right wing, no. I was in the Army during the draft years and while I think the volunteer army is the way to go, I also saw the draft make men out of kids. I saw punks straighten up and become leaders. I saw timid slackers become confident and I saw haters learn to work with others. It does not always work, but I think it has enough merit to help our kids be better citizens if done right.
Today the major universities are giving kids credit when they take a year off before starting college because they learn what being out there entails. I also think that one of the priviledges of such a service should be free state college tuition for those who qualify. Seadog & Tahiti
99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time I agree with you guys, but on a couple of things here, I must disagree with ya both. wink
Seadog- I don't like the idea of compulsary service. It is not needed and I feel it violates our fundamental principles of personal liberty.
Tahiti- Right now the man who has drafted a bill and is leading the movement in congress for compulsary service is Charles Rangel a liberal Democrat from New York. So, Seadog is right, you can't pin it on Republicans.
[ August 14, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

summerlove:
eliminatedsprinter:
I don't really feel I should say a lot about my job on this forum (I don't know why, I just feel a bit funny about it), but since you are from So Cal I hopefully will see you at a lake and tell you about it. However, no politics at the lake. wink :cool: I agreee 100% - let's have a beer and talk about everything BUT politics. Also, I went back and read that other post. makes me kinda seem like an a-hole, certainly didn't mean come across any other way than saying, hey guys, this is what I do for a living (re Issa and the state issue) I'm going to refrain from making comments on the political issues from here on out. Thaks for the "spanking..."
Rick SUMMERLOVE
Just a good sprited political debate. :D
Now I get to disagree with you one more time. wink Please do not stop making political comments. I love a good debate and your more moderate left views are needed to make these political discussions more complete. After all, what fun is a debate or discussion if all points of view are not examined? :confused: :D
You do a good job of expressing your views and only a fool would seriously question your motives. These little discussions would be diminished without your input. :cool:

[AzDon]

N:ck:
OK, Mr. Yacht builder. Let me ask you this: In the face of an economy that produces a soft demand (if any at all) for new yachts, are you going to hire more people and expand your business and production just because you got a big tax cut?
I'll bet I know the answer. The point I was trying to make about trickle-down economics is that if you keep the middle and lower classes of society too poor to be effective consumers, then there will be no demand for any of your products.
A tax cut that doesn't reach down to ordinary, willing consumers doesn't stand much chance of creating demand for products. Therefore, no need to expand production! Hmmm-
I guess Mr. Yatchbuilder disappeared and nobody else is willing to answer this question truthfully, so the subject was changed. In this scenario, Mr.Yatchbuilder would be an irresponsible businessman to expand production or hire people. Most likely, he would bank the taxcut while laying off his unneeded help.
On the other hand, if there was runaway demand for his product, I don't think he'd expect a tax- cut (corporate welfare) in order to expand production, but would borrow or devise some other way of getting the necessary capital.
Also, I've read through Nick's stuff carefully, and I don't believe that he suggested anywhere that ANY taxpayer should get a taxcut larger than the amount they paid or that anybody is entitled to any kind of free handout! I think some of you guys are implying that others believe things that they have specifically denied believing in! Even Nick sees the injustice to the American taxpayer represented by Enron getting a refund of $236 million when they paid no taxes!
The point was that a taxcut that is intended to stimulate the economy is a wasted reduction in revenue if 95% of it goes to entities that aren't likely to go shopping! We have a Federal debt nearing six-trillion dollars, mostly stolen from SSI, and until we have some surplus years and make some repayments, as Mr. Clinton had suggested, it is only going to grow! At $450 billion a year deficit, Mr. Bush will add another $2.25 trillion (just in principal) to the Federal debt before the end of his second term. There is a basic cost of running the government, and Bush is giving away the store in a way that isn't likely to produce the advertized economic stimulus results!

[Seadog]

eliminatedsprinter, while I like the idea on principle, I do not see any plan happening that I believe would work. Even if it did happen, by the time the lawyers and ACLU got done with it, it would be worthless. It is like a flat tax. It would work until someone tacked on a deduction/exemption and then by the time congress got done, it would be business as usual. That is the problem with all governments is that they complicate things more than necessary.

[AzDon]

A better way of stimulating the economy through tax-cuts would be to eliminate ALL PERSONAL income tax on the first $100,000 of earnings. This would treat all individuals equally and only apply to TAXPAYERS,which are the only people that should benefit from a TAX-CUT!

[AzDon]

One more thing, there are several of you who have exceeded the boundaries of civilized debate and even a few that have resorted to verbal violence. I'm no longer going to try to reason with unreasonable people (are you listening MagicMtnDan?) If you can't discuss issues rationally and fairly, you should probably shut up and try to learn something about the issues and debating from your more intelligent and civilized spokesmen!
[ August 14, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[twistedpair]

AzDon:
A better way of stimulating the economy through tax-cuts would be to eliminate ALL PERSONAL income tax on the first $100,000 of earnings. This would treat all individuals equally and only apply to TAXPAYERS,which are the only people that should benefit from a TAX-CUT! OK Don, I'll bite, that sounds like a decent enough idea. What would be the downside? Every plan has some sort of downside. Has anyone from either side of the aisle proposed something like this?

[AzDon]

skeepwerkzaz:
AzDon,
Just out of curiosity why should the top 95% pay more in taxes? Because they went to college? Went the extra mile trying to achieve that level of income? Because they have earned the right to make that much money? Because you are mad at them? Personally, I have spent nearly 40 thousand dollars on my education, where is my break? I have spent this money, and years of my life to be able to get a job that will some day pay off. I have worked hard to get where I am and by statistic all of those 95%r's did the very same thing. My money, not yours. I don't exactly know what you mean by the top 95%?! I never said that anybody should pay a higher percentage than anybody else. I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a flat tax! Even better would be the complete replacement of PERSONAL income taxes with a tax on the WORLDWIDE GROSS RECIEPTS of businesses that wish to sell products and services in our country! This would take advantage of our position as the world's largest consumer economy!

[AzDon]

Dave C:
I have a challenge for all you people with Socialist tendencies.
You need to start your own business, doing whatever, but you have to be moderately successful so that you can hire a few employees. Being an employee is too damn easy and is no fun anyway.
Then once you become moderately successful after working your ass off, then the IRS will take 45% of your income and give it to those that don’t want to work as hard as you do.
Here is the challenge:now you cannot harbor any resentment or ill-will towards those that don't work and receive entitlements you have paid for.
My point, starting and keeping a business going and being successful is risky and not easy and requires hard-work. Why shouldn't you be "compensated" for your hard work, skill and risk? You have mistaken risk and the intelligence/connections to operate a successful business for hard work! The people that work the hardest in this country are those who recieve paychecks. They should kiss their employer's ass every day and thank them for their underpaid job! Is that it? The common misconception that many successful business owners operate under is that they have created their wealth alone and that they only employ people for charity. In reality, an employer increases his wealth exponentially by profiting from (exploiting) the labors of his employees. Smart employers know that the correct way to thank an employee is to treat him with adult civility and pay him a fair amount of his value to the company. Employers that feel that they've made it without help should be deprived of there help and see how clever they AREN'T. Oh wait, that's called a strike, something Republican legislators have worked very hard to take away as a right for workers!

[AzDon]

Dave C:
Here is the challenge:now you cannot harbor any resentment or ill-will towards those that don't work and receive entitlements you have paid for.
As an employee, I pay half of my SSI and my employer pays the other half as wages and I resent Mr. Bush stealing from my SSI funds with no plan to repay during his term in office

[AzDon]

twistedpair:
AzDon:
A better way of stimulating the economy through tax-cuts would be to eliminate ALL PERSONAL income tax on the first $100,000 of earnings. This would treat all individuals equally and only apply to TAXPAYERS,which are the only people that should benefit from a TAX-CUT! OK Don, I'll bite, that sounds like a decent enough idea. What would be the downside? Every plan has some sort of downside. Has anyone from either side of the aisle proposed something like this? The downside is that toyota might choose not to sell anything here (that wouldn't break my heart) and exceptions would probably need to be made for foriegn raw materials (like oil).It would also require everyone in business to build in the 5% margin required to pay the tax, but a startup business could be given 5 years to achieve profitability and might recieve IRS "counseling" for a few more.
On the upside, the "5%gross worldwide reciepts" tax would eliminate the "offshore headquarters loopholes, the need for tariffs, and would make collections by IRS agents more productive, and invariably require fewer agents to collect more cheated revenue!

[TahitiSteve]

From Capitalism Magazine
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1393
Adding his voice to the chorus of intellectuals and politicians who have pushed for a commitment by Americans to "national service," Bush called on "every American to commit at least two years, four thousand hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation."
Supplementing this call, he proposed a dramatic expansion of existing government service programs: a doubling of the Peace Corps—with an emphasis on expanding service to Islamic countries—and a quintupling of the AmeriCorps programAdmittedly this says nothing about conscription, but others jump on the bandwagon
From FreeRepublic.com
“Is Bush's "Volunteer" plan a siren call to mandatory service?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/621160/posts
Last fall two Republican congressmen, Nick Smith of Michigan and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, introduced a "Universal Military Training and Service Act." It would require all males aged 18 to 22 to "receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces" for "not less than six months," with possible extensions and an ongoing "call-back" obligation.
Those with religious or moral objections to military service would be required to participate in "a national service program." Meanwhile, advocates await their moment for some variant of a "bullets or bedpans" mandatory national service program that would give all young people a "choice" among military or service programs established and supervised by the government. I also found this very conspiratorical article, there’s much of it I disagree with, but since it compares our path toward compulsory national service with Hitlers, it fit the thread, and has a good amount of historical information in it if you can ignore all the “Satanic Conspiracy stuff”
http://www.cuttingedge.org/../../n1003.html
By 1935, Hitler plunged Germany to the next step. Hitler issued a law that stated that a person who wished to attend a college or university had to be partaking in this "volunteering" program. Suddenly, all the rules had changed. Now, the Federal Government was dictating that German citizens had to "volunteer". That huge line between individual freedom and dictatorship was crossed easily, with nary a German that saw what was happening to them. Hitler was much encouraged at how easy Germans accepted his forced volunteering, so encouraged that he began to implement other steps to move Germany into Fascist dictatorship. The great majority of Germans had no idea as to what happened to them, and they were not to find out for three more years. The day after Hitler forced the volunteering looked as normal as any other day. If someone had stepped forward to try to educate the public as to what had just happened to them, and what the consequences would be, no one would have believed him. He would have been laughed off the podium. Such is the condition of America today, as we move inexorably toward this identical Fascist government, the government called NAFTA. In 1939, when Hitler began World War II, Germans were extremely happy with their country. Things had not been so rosy in decades. German industry was back to work, the economy had been stabilized, and Germans could feel good about themselves. But, unparalleled disaster lurked just around the . Even a "radical" person who had read Hitler's Plan in Mein Kampf, who had listened to his speeches, and who could see where Hitler was leading, could not have predicted the scope of the disaster that lay ahead. Truth was going to prove to be stranger and stronger than even the wildest imagination could have foreseen.
Such is the case today. Are you ready?
Historian E.B. Ashton defined Fascism as "a means of regulating the people's function of serving the state". Italy's dictator, Mussolini, defined Fascism a little differently. His oft repeated principle was "Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing above the State." In Fascism, the State is supreme, ruling over the wishes of the individual. In fact, the whole concept behind this is based on the idea that private interests are always subordinate to the public interest, and that community well being takes precedence over the individual. Our entire Public School System is today teaching our children this most fundamental Fascist principle. Your child is learning this frightening concept, so that someday soon, they will be able to enthusiastically support the newest New World Order dictatorship.
Now, let us examine the specific programs which our Federal Government has already established to create this forced volunteering program.
Remember, none of these laws have been fully enforced, but the key is to get them written into law first, and then begin to enforce them at the most opportune time.
1. In 1990, President George Bush delivered a speech in which he declared that "from now, any definition of a successful life must include serving others". Immediately, ten national service bills were introduced in Congress. The bill that was actually passed, on November 16, 1990, was called the National and Community Service Act of 1990. This bill provided for mild instances of requiring volunteerism, and was accompanied by the most enticing words imaginable. No one understood the road America has just embarked upon.
2. Also in 1990, Congress and President bush created another bureau, the Commission on National and Community Service, which creates good deeds such as busing children to clean up parks. Further, educational grants targeted for older youth were integrated into college curricula. America embarked upon the Fascist ideas without its citizens being aware of what had just happened. Something isn’t bad just because Hitler believed in it, and I’m not comparing anyone to Hitler, if he liked Lobster, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop eating it. It’s the Hegelian idea of placing the community above the individual that I oppose. The state has a job, to protect my rights, the benefits of that, unfortunately, cannot be taken away from those who choose not to pay it, so paying for it must be, due to the free rider problem, mandatory Other than that the state, from a individualist/capitalist perspective should be able to mandate nothing outside of right protection.
The state already mandates a lot of charity economically, medicare, medicaid, Social Security, welfare, unemployment, AFDC, and hundreds more. Compulsory service would expand coercive charity from just the economic sphere, and into the social sphere as well. A dangerous precedent, both logically and legislatively, as well as morally wrong IMO. I oppose coercive charity both economically and socially, it should be a private choice.
I believe most the early attempts to mandate Civil Service were advanced by republicans, though I could find little information about it but that’s why I labeled it as a republican party issue. I agree it sounds more like something the democrats would support, as Rangel and I’m sure many others do.
[ August 14, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: TahitiSteve ]

[TahitiSteve]

You have mistaken risk and the intelligence/connections to operate a successful business for hard work! The people that work the hardest in this country are those who recieve paychecks.I'm sorry, and I don't want this to turn into a flame war, but this is the most rediculous thing I have ever read in my life. Owners are working 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Their income is in no way guaranteed, they have no claim to any income unless they can make the business work. If things go bad they don't eat, that's where I am right now. Without a good probability of making huge profits NO-ONE, and I mean NO-ONE would start a business.
I'm going back to being employeed, because it's simple, when off the clock, there's nothing to worry about. I get my paycheck whether things are profitable that week or not. Then I'll work on getting my business going in my spare time.
They should kiss their employer's ass every day and thank them for their underpaid job! Is that it?No-one is underpaid, everyone has the right to go out and find a job making more money, if someone will voluntarily pay them more. Employment is a voluntary agreement, the employee and employer are equals, the market and consumers determine the wages. Any mandated wage, including the minimum wage, just throws off market signals, and will make the market less responsive to consumer demands, which means a lower standard of living.
The common misconception that many successful business owners operate under is that they have created their wealth alone and that they only employ people for charity. In reality, an employer increases his wealth exponentially by profiting from (exploiting) the labors of his employees.It's a VOLUNTARY agreement, all that is not voluntary is the rediculous amount of taxation taken from both parties. You could just as easily say the employee is exploiting the employer. Are you saying that risking ones livelihood by starting a business should not reap any more than minimum wage. Those who survived the famine would be living in caves in no time. There would be no businesses.
The interest of business owners IS what makes the economy work. No business would operate without that self interest. It is not something the state can do, this is the primary reason for the failure of Communism.
Smart employers know that the correct way to thank an employee is to treat him with adult civility and pay him a fair amount of his value to the company.What is fair value? It is what the market determines. In my field I've seen what I can expect to make as an employee go from $90,000 a year to $26,000 a year. It's not some employer ripping me off, it's the market sending the signal of what people need the most. and it is just No-one is ripping me off, millions of people voluntarily go to the stores and buy what they need, signalling the market to allocate recources to what consumers want the most.
It's called creative destruction, and is one of the primary reasons capitalism outperforms all other economic systems, when something is no longer needed resources are directed to where they are needed, and people must find new fields of work. Sure it's hard for those who are downsized, but it makes everyones standard of living better over time.
Employers that feel that they've made it without help should be deprived of there help and see how clever they AREN'T. Oh wait, that's called a strike,Assuming you mean employers who mistreat their employees in any way, especially wages, absolutely they should, and employees who misjudge and ask for too much, or are more problem than they are worth should be FIRED. And the employer should be under no obligation to pay unemployment for them, nor any other costs. It should ALL be voluntary.
something Republican legislators have worked very hard to take away as a right for workers!How have they tried to take away this right? I'm not saying they haven't, I just don't know what you mean.

[AzDon]

I spent three years supporting a subcontracting business that never paid me a dime in wages. The Trucking company I leased to sold my services below cost and took a percentage from me. When I terminated the relationship, the guy was so pissed that I wasn't going to continue to provide his customers with below-cost services, that he did everything in his power to deny me any kind of employment in this town. I delivered newspapers, I delivered pizza, I could have been totally ruined financially, but I'd stopped before running out of money. When my current employer called from Texas, this asshole thought that I'd be leaving town and gave me an acceptable reference. I still smile and say nice things to him, but really, I live for the day I'll be able to piss on his grave!
[ August 14, 2003, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[AzDon]

TahitiSteve:
[QUOTE]something Republican legislators have worked very hard to take away as a right for workers!How have they tried to take away this right? I'm not saying they haven't, I just don't know what you mean. Think Air Traffic Controllers!

[AzDon]

TahitiSteve:
[QUOTE] Smart employers know that the correct way to thank an employee is to treat him with adult civility and pay him a fair amount of his value to the company.What is fair value? It is what the market determines. In my field I've seen what I can expect to make as an employee go from $90,000 a year to $26,000 a year. It's not some employer ripping me off, it's the market sending the signal of what people need the most. and it is just No-one is ripping me off, millions of people voluntarily go to the stores and buy what they need, signalling the market to allocate recources to what consumers want the most.
It's called creative destruction, and is one of the primary reasons capitalism outperforms all other economic systems, when something is no longer needed resources are directed to where they are needed, and people must find new fields of work. Sure it's hard for those who are downsized, but it makes everyones standard of living better over time. Are you implying that the transportation of goods is unnecessary? I think this country would be seriously screwed if the wheels of America's trucks stopped turning! Is it my fault that rate competition is so cutthroat that nobody can demand a liveable(per hour) wage? I work more hours and harder for less money than probably anyone on this board, so anyone that says otherwise can KMA
[ August 14, 2003, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[TahitiSteve]

Are you implying that the transportation of goods is unnecessary? I think this country would be seriously screwed if the wheels of America's trucks stopped turning! Is it my fault that rate competition is so cutthroat that the nobody can demand a liveable(per hour) wage? I work more hours and harder for less money than probably anyone on this board, so anyone that says otherwise can KMANot that it's unnecessary, but that it is a relatively low skill job, virtually anyone can do it, (I used to), and it pays a decent livable wage. With millions out of work a hell of a lot of people will be looking for trucking jobs and the rate it pays will reflect that.
What this means is that as the rate of pay for the job declines, those who are the least in need of the job will decide on another field, and those who are most desperate will keep their job.
A free market directs peoples self interests to help others. This is Adam Smiths invisible hand. Employment in a field with declining wages means one is helping people less than if they are in a field where wages are rising. Market signals direct production to what people need the most, or into the field of employment that needs them the most. The alternative is government directing people, or mandating certain wages, which will cause misallocations of resources (by distorting market signals), and make everyone worse off.
Wealth =production, both the amount of it, and the degree to which it reflects peoples needs and desires. Money is worth nothing by itself, it only has value relative to the amount of, and desire for produced goods. The most prosperous society is the one that directs effort and resources most efficiently to the proper needed and desired forms of production.
As far as working hard (meaning physically) again most anyone can do that. Employers may tend to not work as physically hard, but the mental demands are crushing.
It's all directed by the market, the employer has very little, if any, leeway to exploit employees. A company that pays more than market value to it's employees will not be able to offer competitive prices for their shipping service and will lose business. One that pays too little will not find or keep its employees.

[058]

AzDon:
I spent three years supporting a subcontracting business that never paid me a dime in wages. The Trucking company I leased to sold my services below cost and took a percentage from me. When I terminated the relationship, the guy was so pissed that I wasn't going to continue to provide his customers with below-cost services, that he did everything in his power to deny me any kind of employment in this town. I delivered newspapers, I delivered pizza, I could have been totally ruined financially, but I'd stopped before running out of money. When my current employer called from Texas, this asshole thought that I'd be leaving town and gave me an acceptable reference. I still smile and say nice things to him, but really, I live for the day I'll be able to piss on his grave! Don, You should have terminated your contract with him if he were so bad. If you made no money what were you doing working for him anyway? I've signed some of the most one-sided leases but never did any of the leases I've signed said I'd work for no money. Sounds like you should have been more careful who you signed on with. I've had my ups and downs as an Owner/Operator but I still love what I do, even after 31 years. I can't imagine doing anything else as a primary source of revenue, the machine shop and the deli are just a supplemment. Bottom line is I love being in business for myself no matter what the business....too bad things didn't work out for you, maybe you shouldn't have subcontracted or at least been more careful..

[rrrr]

AzDon:
N:ck:
A tax cut that doesn't reach down to ordinary, willing consumers doesn't stand much chance of creating demand for products. Therefore, no need to expand production! Hmmm-
I guess Mr. Yatchbuilder disappeared and nobody else is willing to answer this question truthfully, so the subject was changed. In this scenario, Mr.Yatchbuilder would be an irresponsible businessman to expand production or hire people. Most likely, he would bank the taxcut while laying off his unneeded help.
I have answered this more than once, you just can't comprehend what I'm saying. It's getting old....Ordinary, willing, consumers DON'T PAY TAXES. YOU CAN"T GET A TAX CUT IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES. You are so ****ing stupid I can't believe you made it to adulthood, Don.
Just keep driving your relocationmobile and polluting your son's mind.
I'm RICH!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I eat people like you for breakfast. I'm gonna do everything in my power to keep stupid bastards like you downtrodden and humbled.
Tomorrow I'm gonna fire three of my employees because they haven't been respectful. By noon I will be on my way to the lake. The only thing I need to worry about is which one of my boats I will be using this weekend.

[058]

Driving truck is a semi skilled occupation, just about anyone can be trained to do it. If all you bring to the job is the skill to drive a truck why should you be paid any more than what the market will bear? As a trucker, driving is the easy part. The challenge is all the rest of the business, keeping an old piece of equipment running, keep the CHP, BIT, DOT, DMV, IRS, BE, CARB, local law enforcment and anyone else who thinks they have some clout off your back plus the insurance requirements, drug testing, licence pull programs and all of this even before having to keep your customers happy. Yep, it would be a whole lot easier for me to just drive for a company but then I'd have to kiss ass to some dildo-dick brain who doesn't know shit from shinola...Thanks but no thanks. pig_flyi
[ August 14, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: 058 ]

[Seadog]

As usual, AHDon shows that he is just bitter about his inability to cope in the world. His idea that only people making over 100k should pay taxes is ludicrous. He expects 5% of the population to pay all the taxes. Besides being totally unfair and impossible, it makes the possibilities for by-passing the law great.

[AzDon]

Seadog:
As usual, AHDon shows that he is just bitter about his inability to cope in the world. His idea that only people making over 100k should pay taxes is ludicrous. He expects 5% of the population to pay all the taxes. Besides being totally unfair and impossible, it makes the possibilities for by-passing the law great. You misread the proposal! I said no taxes on the FIRST 100-grand which would give EVERYBODY the same break and therefore be unfair to nobody!

[AzDon]

058:
AzDon:
I spent three years supporting a subcontracting business that never paid me a dime in wages. The Trucking company I leased to sold my services below cost and took a percentage from me. When I terminated the relationship, the guy was so pissed that I wasn't going to continue to provide his customers with below-cost services, that he did everything in his power to deny me any kind of employment in this town. I delivered newspapers, I delivered pizza, I could have been totally ruined financially, but I'd stopped before running out of money. When my current employer called from Texas, this asshole thought that I'd be leaving town and gave me an acceptable reference. I still smile and say nice things to him, but really, I live for the day I'll be able to piss on his grave! Don, You should have terminated your contract with him if he were so bad. If you made no money what were you doing working for him anyway? I've signed some of the most one-sided leases but never did any of the leases I've signed said I'd work for no money. Sounds like you should have been more careful who you signed on with. I've had my ups and downs as an Owner/Operator but I still love what I do, even after 31 years. I can't imagine doing anything else as a primary source of revenue, the machine shop and the deli are just a supplemment. Bottom line is I love being in business for myself no matter what the business....too bad things didn't work out for you, maybe you shouldn't have subcontracted or at least been more careful.. An Owner- Operator sublease contract never states that the company is going to sell their services below cost or run you more "free" miles than paid miles. It simply states what percentage of revenue you'll be paid and what expenses you are expected to cover. It wasn't apparent at first why the money didn't cover and after it was determined it took a while to figure out how to let the tiger go! I'm not an idiot, and I'm not lazy! I have not had all the breaks in life come my way, but I do make 40 grand a year. To Tahiti, that suggests I change careers, let me ask you where you think a 47-year-old guy might start another career at 40 grand?
I've never stated that I want anyones money "redistributed" to anyone. I'm willing to pay the taxes I owe and I've never asked for any handout, but I will collect Disability, workers comp, or unemployment if any of those situations apply to me because I've never been paid enough to save a meaningful amount for a rainy day!

[AzDon]

AzDon:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by N:ck:
[qb] OK, Mr. Yacht builder. Let me ask you this: In the face of an economy that produces a soft demand (if any at all) for new yachts, are you going to hire more people and expand your business and production just because you got a big tax cut?
I'll bet I know the answer. To make it simple, this is the question that was not answered, and probably won't be because there's nobody here that will ever admit that supply- side economics makes no sense, and to answer this question honestly would be admitting to that!

[Seadog]

What should concern us all is the long term woes this nation is facing. Lawyers have gotten us in such a legal tangle that we cannot get anything accomplished. The big three auto makers are looking at bankrupcy in the next decade and our health care is becoming a dinosaur.
If you look at the national statistics, not including the costs of the lawsuites theirselves, the lawyers are costing each american adult about $500 each year. This is not an outright fee, but as money added to the cost of products and services in everything we do.
The Big three auto makers are so overburden with union benefits that most experts expect US automaking to disappear. At the best we can expect more moves to countries like Mexico where workers do the same job for $8/day as opposed to $18/hour.
Even if they move all labor out of country, the health care system is creating such a drag on the companies that they would probably declare bankrupcy and throw their retirees to the wolves. This has been happening all over our nation and has nothing to do with fat corporate cats. Corporations cannot spend more than they take in.
What I worry about is that the auto industry will become like the electronics industry. Not in the US. Same as the steel industry. Same as the textiles industries. Same as many other industries. Interesting enough, NAFTA was pushed by Bill Clinton and GW Bush is actually trying to back out of it. I agree with NAFTA in principle, but not when there is such an economic desparity between countries. We have to find a middle ground between isolationism and open market.
Probably the worst problem we have is the pharmarcy/health care industry. Because of the socialized health care of other nations, many pharmacy companies are using the U.S. to make their profit margins. Because of lawsuites, the doctors spend over half their money on insurance and precautions for not being sued. This means that they charge more, then the insurance companies, govenment add tons of paperwork to the mix. Because the public expect health care at no cost consideration, the hospitals invest in the latest and greatest equipment to keep up. Think about the last statement I made. We want the health costs kept down, but whenever an insurance claim for special treatment or a unproven technology gets denied, the media is all over it. So a person that has contributed $1000 over their lifetime, will get $250,000 worth of medical care. We are reaching the saturation point and this country is going to have to buckle down and make some hard choices. Unfortunately, nothing will happen because the special interest groups will keep everything in chains.

[Seadog]

Don, if the first $100k is tax exempt, then only those who make over $100k are going to pay taxes. As for N:ck's question, there are limits to how many times we have to say something before we get tired of everything being twisted. Supply side economics do work. They are not a cure, but a bandaide. Just remember that a bandaide helps a wound heal much faster.

[Seadog]

Just to go ahead and answer N:ck's question, how many people are going to be employed building yachts if taxes are not cut? How many if taxes are raised for the rich? Even one yacht means some employment.
Most of the tax breaks are small. It may allow my wife and I to go out to a nice restaurant a couple times. This could mean employment for the cook and the waiter if enough people do the same. More taxes just means more PB&J.

[Dave C]

AZDon,
I never said that employees don't work hard, just that most, not all, business owners work harder, AND TAKE MORE RISK.
RISK, Isn't that worth something? It seems you, as a business owner (?), can appreciate it is considering all the problems that you are having.
BTW, you ONLY pay 1/2 your SS taxes (7.65%), well I pay both halves (15.4%). How do you like them apples?
Sorry to hear about your problems but aren't you in a "very competitive" business?

[AzDon]

Seadog, you did not answer the question that was asked, you simply danced around it some more!
And about NAFTA.... It was a project of the Reagan/Bush administrations but, yes, it was supported and signed by Clinton. By the time the big boys reach presidential politics, they all become "free traders" which is to say that they support the export of all manufacturing jobs to foreign countries or foriegn owners. I see no evidence that Bush II doesn't support NAFTA as well, but find that hard to believe since he is the current incarnation of a long line of "new world order" believers!
As to healthcare, it is a perfect example of an industry that thrives as a result of tax-favoritism combined with extortion. After all, if you were dying, you'd agree to any amount that you'd need to pay to save your life, wouldn't you? The high cost of medical care has nothing to do with insurance companies or employee benefits, but is a direct result of a medical system that feels "entitled" to more money than is in print for performing the sacred trust of healthcare!! I personally would like to see healthcare not tied to employment. I'd prefer healthcare be provided at rates that are affordable enough to be paid in cash! I further believe that students who are qualified to become doctors should only be educated at public expense and medical licenses issued contingent on a pricing pledge that a signator will adhere to or face SEVERE tax consequences. After enough of the new doctors from such a program became proficient in their fields, the tax consequences might then apply to ALL doctors, say in 15 years.Malpractice insurance could be provided as part of medical licensing. Any doctor leaving the country would be required to pay off his Med. school bill or become a tax fugitive and have his diploma and license revoked! There also could be other criminal penalties specified in these school and licensing agreements for a program doctor choosing to leave the country to perform medical services elsewhere!
[ August 16, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[AzDon]

Dave C:
AZDon,BTW, you ONLY pay 1/2 your SS taxes (7.65%), well I pay both halves (15.4%). How do you like them apples? Both halves of the SSI are paid as a result of an employees value to a company regardless of who is writing the check. It's part of the overall cost of that employee and should be thought of as part of his wages just as health insurance should!
I will not be changing jobs anytime soon because my wife has cancer which, as a pre-existing condition, ties me to my job-related benefits forever! I like my job and the people I work with and I'm going to feel philosohically obligated to providing many years of profitable services for them having provided healthcare through their self-funded benefits plan!

[Dave C]

Azdon,
I will answer your supply and demand equation. You are ignoring the affects of price on this equation.
Supply and demand cannot be view separately, as you are doing, they must be viewed together in the same equation with price viewed in this equation. Plus “big ticket” items have price elasticity, meaning prices can be raised and lowered to some extent without lower demand (& vice versa).
In the face of lower demand, then supply will increased if the price is lowered enough because the lower price will increase demand. (and vice versa, in the face of increasing demand then supply will increase, since price is increased, thereby stimulating supply)
Your example only works in a down market when demand is anemic for long periods of time assuming that there is no demand of the item (which rarely occurs). You can create demand with items with high price elasticity if you lower the price. (e.g. how come eliminator boats is selling so many damn boats if things were so bad?)
In your example, if price is not lowered (which wouldn’t happen), then you can use the refund to pay down debt or buy new equipment. Most business owners reinvest in their businesses, which means the next vendor down the line would receive the “stimulus, or lower interest rates by paying off debt.
This works if you look at it in a Macroeconomic sense, not on a small scale.
I know, I know, why lower the price? Well it happens for big ticket items with price elasticity, see the incentives for cars, rebates, 0% interest, etc.

[Dave C]

I know its a cost of doing business. I meant as an a self employment tax for myself I pay both halves, 15.4%.
You said on page 4, that you pay 1/2 of that tax 7.65%.

[TahitiSteve]

The high cost of medical care has nothing to do with insurance companies or employee benefits, but is a direct result of a medical system that feels "entitled" to more money than is in print for performing the sacred trust of healthcare!! The problem with health care is Insurance, today the consumer pays less than 5% of health care costs directly, If the consumer isn't paying for it, what does he care if the cost is $10 or $10,000 dollars for an aspirin? Since costs do not attract, or drive away customers health care providers are free to raise their prices. This is not to say insurance should be done away with, but it should be used for catastrophic coverage, not for yearly physicals, or minor medical problems. Consumers paying directly for their care would be concerned about what they are charged, and would vote with their feet, and the cost of treatment would fall.

[TahitiSteve]

To make it simple, this is the question that was not answered, and probably won't be because there's nobody here that will ever admit that supply- side economics makes no sense, and to answer this question honestly would be admitting to that!If you are using supply side to mean cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending, then I agree It makes no sense. Really taxes could be taken out of the picture concerning economic stimulation almost completely. What matters is spending, more specifically what matters is what is produced. Taxes are only important concerning what % of the money supply can be spent by consumers for what they want, vs what % is spent by government for what government wants.
Government spending can create short term economic stimulation by dumping more money into the economy, but that is driven by income, and not by production so it is inflationary, long term it will have little effect, and any growth it spurs will be offset by a corresponding recession.
Cutting spending can have a short term negative effect on the economy, people are put out of work that were in unnecessary government supported fields, and it takes time for them to be reintegrated into the economy, however the long term effect is that the market directs production to where the consumer demands it, the supply of what people want is increased, and standards of living rise.
It's almost paradoxical, doing the right thing for long term economic stimulation will have an initial negative effect. The wrong thing will initially appear to help the economy.

[AzDon]

I consider the issue of insurance in the healthcare debate as a subterfuge, whipping boy, or scapegoat! Insurance companies take the actual costs and add their layer of cost, and then send the bill! I will agree that healthcare provided as an insurance scheme encourages the overuse of the system, because everybody wants the piece they are paying for without leaving any behind for people in the pool with catastophic illnesses. It's truly a perfect example of why a commune-istic system does not work...human nature and greed! That's why I'm in favor of everyone paying for their own healthcare-period! EXCEPT THAT as a sacred trust the actual cost of care has been allowed to spiral for decades without reason. The costs of providing healthcare to the nation need to be brought into line with the reality of what people can reasonably be expected to pay!
[ August 16, 2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[AzDon]

I consider the issue of insurance in the healthcare debate as a subterfuge, whipping boy, or scapegoat! Insurance companies take the actual costs and add their layer of cost, and then send the bill! I will agree that healthcare provided as an insurance scheme encourages the overuse of the system, because everybody wants the piece they are paying for without leaving any behind for people in the pool with catastophic illnesses. It's truly a perfect example of why a commune-istic system does not work...hunan nature and greed! That's why I'm in favor of everyone paying for their own healthcare-period! EXCEPT THAT as a sacred trust the actual cost of care has been allowed to spiral for decades without reason. The costs of providing healthcare to the nation need to be brought into line with the reality of what people can reasonably be expected to pay!

[Seadog]

Don, this is why it is not possible to have an intelligent conversation with you or your son. I did answer the questions in terms that any fool can see, but you are the one dancing around the facts. Like so many lame liberals, you distort and select facts to suit your opinion and then wonder why the world doesn't bow to your so called superior intelligence. You don't want any answer that don't meet your preconceived notion of reality. BTW, just so you'll know, the world is not flat.

[AzDon]

Dave C:
Azdon,
I will answer your supply and demand equation. You are ignoring the affects of price on this equation.
Supply and demand cannot be view separately, as you are doing, they must be viewed together in the same equation with price viewed in this equation. Plus “big ticket” items have price elasticity, meaning prices can be raised and lowered to some extent without lower demand (& vice versa).
In the face of lower demand, then supply will increased if the price is lowered enough because the lower price will increase demand. (and vice versa, in the face of increasing demand then supply will increase, since price is increased, thereby stimulating supply)
Your example only works in a down market when demand is anemic for long periods of time assuming that there is no demand of the item (which rarely occurs). You can create demand with items with high price elasticity if you lower the price. (e.g. how come eliminator boats is selling so many damn boats if things were so bad?)
In your example, if price is not lowered (which wouldn’t happen), then you can use the refund to pay down debt or buy new equipment. Most business owners reinvest in their businesses, which means the next vendor down the line would receive the “stimulus, or lower interest rates by paying off debt.
This works if you look at it in a Macroeconomic sense, not on a small scale.
I know, I know, why lower the price? Well it happens for big ticket items with price elasticity, see the incentives for cars, rebates, 0% interest, etc. I can believe that any item will find a home when it's been priced cheap enough. Maybe if he lowered his boat prices to 90% of his cost, he could sell a zillion of them!!
I just remember when boatbuilders were dropping like flies in the early 80's and I don't believe that a tax rebate check to any of these boatbuilders would have saved one single job and apparently, Dave C, neither do you, because you have not answered the question directly, as asked, but tried to explain it in some other context! This is not to imply that the shop owner shouldn't be the person to decide the fate of the rebate check, but to point out that as economic stimulus, it's a misappropriation of government funds, unless there's a surplus and paying down the existing national debt doesn't matter!

[mickeyfinn]

AzDon:
Dave C:
Azdon,
I will answer your supply and demand equation. You are ignoring the affects of price on this equation.
Supply and demand cannot be view separately, as you are doing, they must be viewed together in the same equation with price viewed in this equation. Plus “big ticket” items have price elasticity, meaning prices can be raised and lowered to some extent without lower demand (& vice versa).
In the face of lower demand, then supply will increased if the price is lowered enough because the lower price will increase demand. (and vice versa, in the face of increasing demand then supply will increase, since price is increased, thereby stimulating supply)
Your example only works in a down market when demand is anemic for long periods of time assuming that there is no demand of the item (which rarely occurs). You can create demand with items with high price elasticity if you lower the price. (e.g. how come eliminator boats is selling so many damn boats if things were so bad?)
In your example, if price is not lowered (which wouldn’t happen), then you can use the refund to pay down debt or buy new equipment. Most business owners reinvest in their businesses, which means the next vendor down the line would receive the “stimulus, or lower interest rates by paying off debt.
This works if you look at it in a Macroeconomic sense, not on a small scale.
I know, I know, why lower the price? Well it happens for big ticket items with price elasticity, see the incentives for cars, rebates, 0% interest, etc. I can believe that any item will find a home when it's been priced cheap enough. Maybe if he lowered his boat prices to 90% of his cost, he could sell a zillion of them!!
I just remember when boatbuilders were dropping like flies in the early 80's and I don't believe that a tax rebate check to any of these boatbuilders would have saved one single job and apparently, Dave C, neither do you, because you have not answered the question directly, as asked, but tried to explain it in some other context! This is not to imply that the shop owner shouldn't be the person to decide the fate of the rebate check, but to point out that as economic stimulus, it's a misappropriation of government funds, unless there's a surplus and paying down the existing national debt doesn't matter! I really can't believe this thread is still alive. I guess since the conservatives see the liberal viewpoint and think....Hmmm....I now I can convince them that their view is really as dumb as others have been saying, they go ahead and answer. The liberals on the other hand are as dumb as their views and repeat the same thing over and over in response to the conservatives post. This sounds like a never ending thread if this continues. Sounds like azdon just doesn't believe supply and demand are truly linked together. All I know is that if a business can make more money by selling volume then they will gladly lower prices and increase production. This is especially true if it is a massed produced item where costs actually go down in response to the quantity produced. The condition we are in today is one where the economy is actually not in bad shape. Consumer spending is not much different from when everyone was on top of the world. The only difference is the amount of money people are willing to put into investments. In an economy such as today's when there are a lot of people sitting on the fence considering purchasing a luxury item but still a little wary because they here everyone telling them how bad things are the tax breaks may allow manufacturers to drop the prices just enough to encourage these people to get off of the fence due to the fact that a good buy is to be had. This in fact works it's way through the economy as people are put to work building, selling, providing raw materials, subcontractors etc.
So yes supply side economics do work. The problem comes when people fail to realize that the economy is not controlled with a light switch. I didn't get to the point that it is in today overnight, nor will it return to the powerful market of a few years ago overnight. This is how the republicans have been blamed for the economic problems to begin with. The strong markets were a direct result of Reagans economic plans, It just took a while to get moving. The current downfall which the country is in now is due to the efforts of the Wonderful efforts of Slick Willy and his bunch. Just be glad that we got rid of them and got someone in office that understood a little more about economics in time to keep the current recession from continuing to spiral into a depression. I would hope that since so many of the democrats have so much time on their hands since they are sitting at home drawing a large portion of everyone elses paycheck they could look at history and see that democrats are not the right thing for this country.

[AzDon]

The US economy is driven by our willing consumerism for the world's coolest products. If we can't keep the American consumer's income in a happy place, then we can't expect that products will be purchased, regardless of where they are made! Consumer/investor confidence is the defining factor of what IS a recession and that is why recovery can't be forced! Confidence needs to be bought back from consumers enough so that people start buying again, and that is when recovery becomes fact! It's a simple concept that doesn't require abstract anecdotal contortions to explain or understand!
I believe that the taxation scheme that would work the best is a "percentage of worldwide gross" tax on companies wanting to sell products and services here because it exploits our strength as consumers by selling access to our market AND, at the same time, shifting the tax burden away from individuals, who'd then have 100% of their own money to spend.
As an added benefit, the IRS would be chasing bigger tax cheats for bigger collections, requiring fewer agents. The scheme could also free Customs from tarriff duty and allow them to reallocate their resources to uncovering international crime! In other words SMALLER GOVERNMENT!
I do believe though that we need to identify areas of profitable manufacturing and protect domestic-made products from underpriced foriegn competition as the Japanese do. Allowing foriegners to "dump" underpriced products in this country has been a national disgrace and cost too many jobs as American businesses have often seen the price of these goods dip "below cost" through foriegn government susidies and other unfair pricing schemes.

[058]

AzDon:
TahitiSteve:
[QUOTE]something Republican legislators have worked very hard to take away as a right for workers!How have they tried to take away this right? I'm not saying they haven't, I just don't know what you mean. Think Air Traffic Controllers! I'm thinking Air Traffic Controllers and I'm also thinking violation of their contract....The Controllers struck when they clearly had a "no strike" clause in their contract that they signed and agreed to. Reagan did the right thing by firing them. What gives them the right to disregard and violate the contract that they themself negotiated and signed?

[mickeyfinn]

AzDon:
The US economy is driven by our willing consumerism for the world's coolest products. If we can't keep the American consumer's income in a happy place, then we can't expect that products will be purchased, regardless of where they are made! Consumer/investor confidence is the defining factor of what IS a recession and that is why recovery can't be forced! Confidence needs to be bought back from consumers enough so that people start buying again, and that is when recovery becomes fact! It's a simple concept that doesn't require abstract anecdotal contortions to explain or understand!
I believe that the taxation scheme that would work the best is a "percentage of worldwide gross" tax on companies wanting to sell products and services here because it exploits our strength as consumers by selling access to our market AND, at the same time, shifting the tax burden away from individuals, who'd then have 100% of their own money to spend.
As an added benefit, the IRS would be chasing bigger tax cheats for bigger collections, requiring fewer agents. The scheme could also free Customs from tarriff duty and allow them to reallocate their resources to uncovering international crime! In other words SMALLER GOVERNMENT!
I do believe though that we need to identify areas of profitable manufacturing and protect domestic-made products from underpriced foriegn competition as the Japanese do. Allowing foriegners to "dump" underpriced products in this country has been a national disgrace and cost too many jobs as American businesses have often seen the price of these goods dip "below cost" through foriegn government susidies and other unfair pricing schemes. AZDON,
I believe that you have a great idea. I don't know how you tax people on the world wide gross, especially if the company doesn't reside here. I do think the idea of taxing based on the country's gross is a fair way to tax. The republicans have already submitted this in two different bills. They are called "NATIONAL RETAIL SALES TAX". Businesses do not pay taxes they collect them. It doesn't make sense to try and make each business or corporation pay a tax and file returns. It would be far simpler to just expand on the sales tax that is already in place in many of our states. This places an equal tax on anyone purchasing goods sold in this country. For goods sold outside of this country an export tax could be easily put into place to take care of this. The national retail sales tax would be the most "fair" way to insure that taxes are paid equally, I think however that if what you are objecting to is the fact that tax burdens are too high on the lower income portion of society then you are doing them a grave disservice by implenting this type of "fair" system. (see the analogy of the guys splitting the dinner tab) The national retail sales tax would virtually eliminate the IRS. Assuming the dollars being contributed to the federal government for all uses remains constant under both systems the retail sales tax should result in lower prices as well. Sounds to me like your beliefs on taxation really make you a closet republican or maybe even a libertarian.
Welcome to the club!!!

[eliminatedsprinter]

Mickeyfinn
I like how you think. :cool:
[ August 15, 2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[AzDon]

I get the concept of shifting the entire tax burden to sales taxes, but I think it would put the brakes on shopping and create a "Black Market", especially for big-ticket items. I think many people would refuse to buy new and choose used (already taxed) items.
I came up with the "worldwide gross" idea as a way of making foriegn companies pay for the damage they do to our economy by adding a layer of taxes to their cheap-ass products. They COULD choose not to sell here and that would be fine with me!

[mickeyfinn]

AzDon:
I get the concept of shifting the entire tax burden to sales taxes, but I think it would put the brakes on shopping and create a "Black Market", especially for big-ticket items. I think many people would refuse to buy new and choose used (already taxed) items.
I came up with the "worldwide gross" idea as a way of making foriegn companies pay for the damage they do to our economy by adding a layer of taxes to their cheap-ass products. They COULD choose not to sell here and that would be fine with me! The foreign company thing could be addressed with REAL import taxes. As far as people buying used do you really think that is a big issue? It would give the lower income people a way to avoid some taxes if they purchased things such as autos from an individual. If a car is used and up for resale by a business then it would be subject to the sales tax just as they are today in areas with sales tax. The only real problem I have with the retail sales tax is a concern on behalf of the older generation who have already been saving money that they have already paid taxes on. It would not be fair to this group to tax them again when they spend it.(and N:ck said we lack compassion..we only lack compassion for the the lazy..Not the people who have worked hard and contributed). Even if we go to this system we will make the problem worse on those in poverty unless we establish don't tax neccesities such as food, drugs and medical care.

[AzDon]

mickeyfinn Sounds to me like your beliefs on taxation really make you a closet republican or maybe even a libertarian.
Welcome to the club!!! [/QB]People have been too busy assuming that I represent all their negative stereotypes that they haven't paid attention to a thing I've actually said.
I believe that every function of the government's expenditures should make economic sense! I do not believe in "entitlements" per se, but believe that all social programs should be administered by the military, whose only assistance should be to those who enlist. The help would be humane and civilized, but not free! I also deplore foriegn aid payments, our membership in the U.N. and all treaties that claim to be "free trade" agreements because most of them aren't fair to U.S. interests! I deplore the "pork" or federal money doled back for local projects. How about they don't take that money from us in the first place and we'll pay for the projects locally? I also don't believe government has any business supporting the "ARTS"
I do believe that the government should have a mission to prevent industries such as oil, medicine, and the energy traders from racketeering, price fixing, or otherwise taking advantage of American consumers. We should be able to have complete confidence that our government is doing the business of government efficiently and watching out for the interests of ordinary citizen so our economy can remain healthy!

[mickeyfinn]

AzDon:
mickeyfinn Sounds to me like your beliefs on taxation really make you a closet republican or maybe even a libertarian.
Welcome to the club!!! People have been too busy assuming that I represent all their negative stereotypes that they haven't paid attention to a thing I've actually said.
I believe that every function of the government's expenditures should make economic sense! I do not believe in "entitlements" per se, but believe that all social programs should be administered by the military, whose only assistance should be to those who enlist. The help would be humane and civilized, but not free! I also deplore foriegn aid payments, our membership in the U.N. and all treaties that claim to be "free trade" agreements because most of them aren't fair to U.S. interests! I deplore the "pork" or federal money doled back for local projects. How about they don't take that money from us in the first place and we'll pay for the projects locally? I also don't believe government has any business supporting the "ARTS"
I do believe that the government should have a mission to prevent industries such as oil, medicine, and the energy traders from racketeering, price fixing, or otherwise taking advantage of American consumers. We should be able to have complete confidence that our government is doing the business of government efficiently and watching out for the interests of ordinary citizen so our economy can remain healthy! [/QB]OK...ITS official.
AZDON is a card carrying Libertarian.
GO DON!!!!

[MagicMtnDan]

AzDon:
mickeyfinn Sounds to me like your beliefs on taxation really make you a closet republican or maybe even a libertarian.
Welcome to the club!!! People have been too busy assuming that I represent all their negative stereotypes that they haven't paid attention to a thing I've actually said.
I believe that every function of the government's expenditures should make economic sense! I do not believe in "entitlements" per se, but believe that all social programs should be administered by the military, whose only assistance should be to those who enlist. The help would be humane and civilized, but not free! I also deplore foriegn aid payments, our membership in the U.N. and all treaties that claim to be "free trade" agreements because most of them aren't fair to U.S. interests! I deplore the "pork" or federal money doled back for local projects. How about they don't take that money from us in the first place and we'll pay for the projects locally? I also don't believe government has any business supporting the "ARTS"
I do believe that the government should have a mission to prevent industries such as oil, medicine, and the energy traders from racketeering, price fixing, or otherwise taking advantage of American consumers. We should be able to have complete confidence that our government is doing the business of government efficiently and watching out for the interests of ordinary citizen so our economy can remain healthy! [/QB]Right on Don, most of this makes sense - good for you (and thanks for making some of your ideas more clear).
Let me add one more thing - the government's primary job is (today) to make 1000% certain that a blackout of significant size NEVER happens again!
There is NO EXCUSE for a blackout this big to happen and EVERYONE in government should focus on finding out why it happened and make sure it never happens again! They need to stop thinking about their own pocketbooks and their own benefits and take care of their constituents! US!

[eliminatedsprinter]

AzDon:
mickeyfinn Sounds to me like your beliefs on taxation really make you a closet republican or maybe even a libertarian.
Welcome to the club!!! People have been too busy assuming that I represent all their negative stereotypes that they haven't paid attention to a thing I've actually said.
I believe that every function of the government's expenditures should make economic sense! I do not believe in "entitlements" per se, but believe that all social programs should be administered by the military, whose only assistance should be to those who enlist. The help would be humane and civilized, but not free! I also deplore foriegn aid payments, our membership in the U.N. and all treaties that claim to be "free trade" agreements because most of them aren't fair to U.S. interests! I deplore the "pork" or federal money doled back for local projects. How about they don't take that money from us in the first place and we'll pay for the projects locally? I also don't believe government has any business supporting the "ARTS"
I do believe that the government should have a mission to prevent industries such as oil, medicine, and the energy traders from racketeering, price fixing, or otherwise taking advantage of American consumers. We should be able to have complete confidence that our government is doing the business of government efficiently and watching out for the interests of ordinary citizen so our economy can remain healthy! [/QB]AzDon
Don't get me wrong on this response. I'm not trying to pop off and be a smart a$$. But if you believe all of the above, why on earth would you support the Democratic party? :confused: They support what you say you oppose and they have not historically been any better at watching out for us ordinary folks or any less beholding to big biz than the Rebulicans. Esp now. Todays Democratic party has no resemblance at all to what it was 30 years ago...
[ August 15, 2003, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[mickeyfinn]

MagicMtnDan:
AzDon:
mickeyfinn Sounds to me like your beliefs on taxation really make you a closet republican or maybe even a libertarian.
Welcome to the club!!! People have been too busy assuming that I represent all their negative stereotypes that they haven't paid attention to a thing I've actually said.
I believe that every function of the government's expenditures should make economic sense! I do not believe in "entitlements" per se, but believe that all social programs should be administered by the military, whose only assistance should be to those who enlist. The help would be humane and civilized, but not free! I also deplore foriegn aid payments, our membership in the U.N. and all treaties that claim to be "free trade" agreements because most of them aren't fair to U.S. interests! I deplore the "pork" or federal money doled back for local projects. How about they don't take that money from us in the first place and we'll pay for the projects locally? I also don't believe government has any business supporting the "ARTS"
I do believe that the government should have a mission to prevent industries such as oil, medicine, and the energy traders from racketeering, price fixing, or otherwise taking advantage of American consumers. We should be able to have complete confidence that our government is doing the business of government efficiently and watching out for the interests of ordinary citizen so our economy can remain healthy! Right on Don, most of this makes sense - good for you (and thanks for making some of your ideas more clear).
Let me add one more thing - the government's primary job is (today) to make 1000% certain that a blackout of significant size NEVER happens again!
There is NO EXCUSE for a blackout this big to happen and EVERYONE in government should focus on finding out why it happened and make sure it never happens again! They need to stop thinking about their own pocketbooks and their own benefits and take care of their constituents! US! [/QB]Not saying that I disagree with you Magic but I do know a little about the power industry. If the cause of this blackout was truly due to the grid being overloaded then be careful what you ask for. The only way to make 1000% sure that this never happens again is to:
1. Build enough power generation capacity to power the entire connected load to the grid.
2. Pick some factor of reliability and design to it.
This all sounds good until you look at what it entails.
The problems with these are:
1. A high percentage of homes and businesses have more load connected than will ever be used at the same time. Almost all large industrial facilities are this way. To design to this standard would mean that the power companies would be required to provide generation capacity to supply maybe as much as 150 to 200% of the maximum demand ever seen. This is a HUGE capital expenditure and would have very significant effects on the entire rate structure of the power industry
2. Picking a level of reliability to design to. Maybe that number is 120% or 150% excess generation capacity in order to assure that power is available even if large generation stations are offline for some reason. This would be on top of excess capacity in #1 above. Again this would be a HUGE capital expenditure.
What you have suggested sounds great, but I don't know that the people in this country are ready to fund it.

[AzDon]

eliminatedsprinter:
Todays Democratic party bears no resemblance at all to what it was 30 years ago... Exactly! and I believe that Mr. Clinton wanted to do things for the American People that made economic sense, but was thwarted by all the nasty partisan politics and special interests he was trying to battle (like the AMA on healthcare). I would prefer to see a candidate that is not a "Great Society" throwback, but someone that has at least as much imagination and ideas about how to straighten out the financial problems as I do, and the abilities to communicate and work thru these things and get a consensus to achieve the goals.
I also believe that the Republican party has been hijacked by NWO types that love the idea of deficit spending to the brink of bankruptcy and NAFTA type trade policies! I was a Republican back in the days before freespending Reagan hijacked the party and "fiscal conservative" actually meant Republican. I don't vote stereotype, I vote for the candidate that best represents what I think government should be whether he's Republican or Democrat. I believe some of you guys would do well to investigate Mr. Bush's positions on issues of importance to people and ask yourself if you are a person or one of the entities that Mr. Bush holds near-and-dear before deciding to blindly elect him to another term. If I truly felt he represented my interests, I'd vote for him, but his record shows he cares nothing about people!

[twistedpair]

Your kidding yourself if you think any politician cares about you. You are a vote, a number, an opinion poll. He (or she) will do what they can to appease you so they can get elected and pursue THEIR agenda. The elephants just happen to throw their appeasement efforts at things I care about, like guns and gas and the ability to use them where I damn well see fit.

[Dave C]

AZdon, you do sound like a libertarian for a moment there. I agree with some of that, in theory at least.

[Dave C]

AZ Don, I also like the idea that politicians should work for the people and not special interests but I'm not deluding myself to think that they will work for the people because they won't.
I don't like special interests any better than you do.
But lets face it, special interests rule, so I try to align myself with the special interest that would benefit myself

[N:ck]

[ August 15, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[twistedpair]

Damn, and this was just starting to turn into a civil discourse until little nicky shows back up. Why don't you go jerk off, or pop a zit, ya' know, something your qualified for, and leave the grown ups to deal with the grownup subjects.

[N:ck]

I admittedly didn't read through everything until my dad pointed out that "people were starting to see things his way". (I still believe in what I said but decided, I like to think maturely, that it was inappropriate.) Hence, the edited post. End it.
[ August 15, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

N:ck:
I find it hilarious that Seadog (and many others, for that matter) accuse us of everything that they are far more guilty of. I'm not sure whether they're very clever and deceptive, mentally ill, or just plain moronic. Answer my question Seadog. If you think that you're answering and we're not comprehending, then restate your answer in terms that "idiots" like me can understand. Wow, Seadog.
This last post here was uncalled for. I don't recall ever reading a post by you that would warrent such a rude reply. It's just not your style.
Come on R:ck.
I know some people here have called you some nasty things, but Seadog is one of the most mature and self controlled debaters on these boards. His comments are usually to the point and very well thought out. Persnoal insults are not his style. Don't make them part of yours, just because some others have made them part of theirs. :cool:

[N:ck]

N:ck:
I admittedly didn't read through everything until my dad pointed out that "people were starting to see things his way". (I still believe in what I said but decided, I like to think maturely, that it was inappropriate.) Hence, the edited post. End it. Now, if you guys really believe in civilized debate and are not just trying to make me look bad (I regret making the post), please reciprocate and remove the unnecessary distraction.
[ August 15, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

N:ck:
N:ck:
I admittedly didn't read through everything until my dad pointed out that "people were starting to see things his way". (I still believe in what I said but decided, I like to think maturely, that it was inappropriate.) Hence, the edited post. End it. Now, if you guys really believe in civilized debate and are not just trying to make me look bad (I regret making the post), please reciprocate and remove the unnecessary distraction. Good move R:ck :cool: But don't do it because people are seeing things your Dad's way. Do it just to keep things friendly and civil. :)
Here, I'll go back to my first reply on this thread. As it deals with it's aboriginal topic. idea
[ August 15, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[AzDon]

Nick has had a bad day at school. they gave him a locker that's 1 foot tall and he's about 5'10"

[eliminatedsprinter]

eliminatedsprinter:
Actually the "Big Lie Theory" was first documented (or at least best explained) by the great historian/statesman Niccolo Machiavelli. When he wrote the first objective annalysis of the methods by which power is obtained and kept. Macchiavelli wrote about these things as a historian to expose such tecniques, but unfortunatly, many have used his work as a how too. Gore uses it more than most. Thank goodness he is such an inept stiff or he'd probably be more effective in achieving his goals. :p