Bush Vs Kerry Discussion
camO_o
Join Date: 2004-04-19 Member: 28028Members
Join Date: 2004-04-19 Member: 28028Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">... resumed from locked topic in OT</div> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80548&st=0' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...opic=80548&st=0</a>
[ keep senseless arguments, unsupported claims, and personal opinions on "right" or "wrong" out of here please. this is about choosing the right leader for our nation, not about what you think a good leader is. ]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He never "lied" unless you have some cold hard proff that he knew our intelligence was/is flawed. He did what most leaders would have done, trusted the intelligence that seemed to be true and acted upon it in a way that seemed fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
link please.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/01/sprj.irq.blix.retires/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/01...q.blix.retires/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blix was quoted by Reuters as saying: "Well we still don't exclude that they can find things but the longer time passes, the less possibility perhaps.
"But I think we were vindicated in the prudence that we showed. We consistently maintained that unaccounted for is not the same thing as saying things exist. They might exist, they might not exist and I think everything shows that that was wise." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blix believes Iraq may have destroyed most of its dangerous weapons but questions remain why Saddam did not produce data showing he had disarmed.
The diplomat speculated that Saddam might have wanted to create the mystique that he still had weapons of mass destruction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.rense.com/general33/msmsn.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rense.com/general33/msmsn.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the nearly seven weeks since inspections resumed in Iraq, he said, "we have been covering the country in ever-wider sweeps, and we haven't found any smoking guns." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp</a>
by gosh, digging out two links and providing support for my arguments took me the entirety of the two seconds it took to type UN WMD into google!
while we're on the topic of military service, let's talk about bush's! let's compare and contrast.
Kerry: 1968 - recieved 3 purple hearts (one of which is actually questionable, involving a self inflicted wound)
Bush: 1968 - began his uh... texas air national guard service.
for those of you interested in informing yourselves (such a precious few):
<a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201178/posts' target='_blank'>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201178/posts</a>
<a href='http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background.htm' target='_blank'>http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies..._background.htm</a>
some timelines i dug up using google. i'm sure you can find better though, these were the first two links that popped up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->camO.o, it is wrong to do what he did. He called his fellow soldiers baby killers and what have you, then later on down the road went on to call himself a hero. I still believe that he lied about his purple hearts just to escape Vietnam, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh christ please. later on down the road is 36 years later! you're judging a man based on two statements, made over three decades apart! as i've already said, soldiers have a right, if not a duty, to protest if they feel the need. kerry felt the need. without people like Kerry, we may still not be aware of the atrocities many of our soldiers committed in the war, to which a modern parellel can be drawn to the Abu Gharib prison incident.
[ keep senseless arguments, unsupported claims, and personal opinions on "right" or "wrong" out of here please. this is about choosing the right leader for our nation, not about what you think a good leader is. ]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He never "lied" unless you have some cold hard proff that he knew our intelligence was/is flawed. He did what most leaders would have done, trusted the intelligence that seemed to be true and acted upon it in a way that seemed fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
link please.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/01/sprj.irq.blix.retires/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/01...q.blix.retires/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blix was quoted by Reuters as saying: "Well we still don't exclude that they can find things but the longer time passes, the less possibility perhaps.
"But I think we were vindicated in the prudence that we showed. We consistently maintained that unaccounted for is not the same thing as saying things exist. They might exist, they might not exist and I think everything shows that that was wise." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blix believes Iraq may have destroyed most of its dangerous weapons but questions remain why Saddam did not produce data showing he had disarmed.
The diplomat speculated that Saddam might have wanted to create the mystique that he still had weapons of mass destruction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.rense.com/general33/msmsn.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rense.com/general33/msmsn.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the nearly seven weeks since inspections resumed in Iraq, he said, "we have been covering the country in ever-wider sweeps, and we haven't found any smoking guns." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp</a>
by gosh, digging out two links and providing support for my arguments took me the entirety of the two seconds it took to type UN WMD into google!
while we're on the topic of military service, let's talk about bush's! let's compare and contrast.
Kerry: 1968 - recieved 3 purple hearts (one of which is actually questionable, involving a self inflicted wound)
Bush: 1968 - began his uh... texas air national guard service.
for those of you interested in informing yourselves (such a precious few):
<a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201178/posts' target='_blank'>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201178/posts</a>
<a href='http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background.htm' target='_blank'>http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies..._background.htm</a>
some timelines i dug up using google. i'm sure you can find better though, these were the first two links that popped up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->camO.o, it is wrong to do what he did. He called his fellow soldiers baby killers and what have you, then later on down the road went on to call himself a hero. I still believe that he lied about his purple hearts just to escape Vietnam, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh christ please. later on down the road is 36 years later! you're judging a man based on two statements, made over three decades apart! as i've already said, soldiers have a right, if not a duty, to protest if they feel the need. kerry felt the need. without people like Kerry, we may still not be aware of the atrocities many of our soldiers committed in the war, to which a modern parellel can be drawn to the Abu Gharib prison incident.
Comments
I wouldnt have a problem letting it go if only he could let it go. "Im John Kerry and Im reporting for duty." Thats pretty lame. But what he did was not simply protest, he made up falsities to hurt his fellow soldiers psychologically and then he uses his record in his campaign. <i>Thats</i> where the problem comes in. It just shows hes all about what is popular at a given time.
And about the link for bush's "lying", I will get one tomoorow since the WSoP is on and after that Im going to bed.
however, my vote, if i had one, would not be going towards Bush. like many (if not most) kerry-voters, the basis for this is that simply, he is the lesser of two evils. the basis for this argument is laid out in my previous post.
war sucks. get over it. i'm sure your conscience would rest easy if it were saddam doing that to his people in secret instead, just because he felt like it. to pull out of iraq now would be the most irresponsible, destructive, and all-around evil thing to do to the iraqi people right now. so please, just give it up already. i see these stop signs that some anti-war activists spray-painted with 'war' so it reads 'stop war'. i would go spray 'whining', if it weren't vandalism and illegal.
Are you kidding me?
Like one thing Bush says is that if Kerry gets into office he will raise taxes, but he says that like hes talking to everyone when in fact he's only talking about people who make $200,000 a year. Do you make $200,000 a year? When Kerry says he's raising taxes he is talking about for the rich people. Reporters on FOX (the premier pro-Bush network) said even if Kerry taxed the rich that it wouldn't make up for the U.S. deficit, but if you don't make $200,000 a year you are probably thinking what I'm thinking which is, "I'd sure like to see him try" Sure go ahead, tax the rich, lets see if it fixes things, I'm ALL for trying that, would be a nice switch.
Because you see, in America, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer for one main reason. The poor don't know how money works, they don't know how to make money work for them. It's not just about balancing your checkbook, its about understanding all the tools, vehicles, and laws that allow a person to make maximum profits during their lifetime. The poor don't understand this but the rich do, THATS WHY THEY ARE RICH! And they have no qualms about taking money from poor people. I am not making this up; I personally have begun to learn about money and make my own profits, I got a condo in San Diego at 26 years of age that I rent out and I'm already looking into another property. I can see how the money moves out of the pockets of the poor and into the pockets of the rich.
The majority of poor people don't vote because they dont care about politics. Rich people do because it makes them money and they know the issues. That's why health care costs were raised, and benefits were taken from vets, and average U.S. soldiers salaries were cut by 60%. Yes, thats right the soldiers that are dying in Iraq for us are barely making ends meet because Bush cut their pay. Where is all this money going? Well, how else do you think Bush can afford to give tax cuts to the rich people making $200,000+ a year? He takes it from the average joe who doesn't know, doesn't care, and doesn't bother to vote. Bye bye health care, overtime, soldier wages.
Not to mention that the soldiers in our army don't have much of a choice... Where do you think the Army gets its recruits? Beverly Hills? Wall St? The Hamptons where all the rich people are? Guess again! They go to the slums of America where there's no jobs, no hope for advancement, nothing, oh except for the local Army recruiter down the street. Have you ever talked to a military recruiting officer? They will say just about anything to get you to sign up, and once you do THEY OWN YOU for at least 4 years. Don't buy into the hype of two weekends a month in the National Guard, it never works out that way. And then like I said before, you get paid next to nothing because Bush has to pay the $200,000+ making rich people so they keep him in office.
But if Bush is all about the rich people then how does he sell the poor people to his side? Well, besides the token ethnic figureheads that pepper the onstage crowd behind him (because they make $200,000 too; paid puppets) and the promises of reform and new programs that sound like they are for you but really for the $200,000+ making rich people, um... GUNS. Because in the slums and low income Mid West and Southern states, there ain't nothing else to do but shoot deer and blow up gophers with pipebombs. So he let's the Assault Weapon Ban slide and all the gun toting NRA zealots love him, eventhough he's stealing all their money! Gun nuts: do us all a favor, go on a gun diet, give up UZIs and AK-47s for a couple years and help us get this monster out of office.
The whole world hates us because we short change third world countries even worse than we short change the poor average working joe in our own country. Thats why we got an airplane shoved up the arse of our main financial center; they want their money back too! And their land assets as well.
"But Bush protects us, he's a mean mof and nations fear him", pro-Bush people say. Let me tell you something: America is already powerful without Bush. We were powerful before Bush and we will still be powerful afterwards. Our military is automatic. And if the people feel we need to move to strike any president we elect will give the word to attack, its a no brainer. Bush is not the single thread keeping America from falling into the abyss. We've got guns for days. We are safer than any other nation on Earth.
No, what we need to do is start mending our relationship with the rest of the world, not alienating them by forcing our culture and beliefs on them. I'm concerned about the future of young people. These old rich people in politics only care about living comfortably before they pass on and it doesn't matter to them that they are leaving their children with a big pile of crap that if it gets any bigger may be impossible to clean up. If there was ever a time for young people to vote, IT IS THIS NOVEMBER. I know I am, in fact, its my first time. But I feel that I gotta do something to get this monster out of office.
Kerry? Oh yeah, well like I said ANYTHING is better than Bush.
Uh, it's called debate. it's one of the best ways for people to inform themselves on both sides of the line. it stimulates critical thought and actual research, without which we would be worthless as a people. so no, we have not had enough of these threads.
once again, debate != flamewar, unless unsupported, knee-jerk, and misinformed arguments are brought into the discussion, which happens when threads like this are in OT.
<a href='http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-542/tab09.txt' target='_blank'>http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/v...0-542/tab09.txt</a>
nice post. there are numerous things wrong with our political system today. big bucks win campaigns, and third parties are never elected. the people have a choice of two parties, while the third (or fourth) candidate remains only as a salutory gesture and a good joke. money runs things here, and education equals money, and likely hood to vote. the poor are not only uneducated, they're well, poor. the system needs to change, but reform is unlikely unless something enormous happens, that allows america to get its **** together and realize what's happening in their government.
i need two more years to vote >_>
I fail to see how being against a war makes one incapable of leading a country out of a war.
It's rather like bringing up a voting record against a crappy bill designed to both barely help some soldiers and screw the American people. "OMG he hates the soldiers!" Of course not, that's rediculous. A bad bill is a bad bill, and a bad war is a bad war.
Are you kidding me? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
no. i'm not kidding. we've already committed to the occupation of iraq. pulling out now would be a disaster. so just bear with it. things may still be bad, but unless the administration completely messes this up, it will start getting better. it's like getting a flu shot as a kid - it hurts, and you cry, but it helps you in the long run.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not to mention that the soldiers in our army don't have much of a choice... Where do you think the Army gets its recruits? Beverly Hills? Wall St? The Hamptons where all the rich people are? Guess again! They go to the slums of America where there's no jobs, no hope for advancement, nothing, oh except for the local Army recruiter down the street. Have you ever talked to a military recruiting officer? They will say just about anything to get you to sign up, and once you do THEY OWN YOU for at least 4 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know where you got that idea, I've seen army recruiters at every school I've been to, and I've been to a wide variety (richest public school district in Colorado, crappy school districts in Louisiana). They do pressure you and really try to intimidate you verbally into signing up, yeah, but it's not like they're dragging you off forcibly.
Anyway, i find it curious that you seem to approve of rich people being taxed more than the poor, just because they can "afford it". Why is that? Almost all people here can get by (the people that are here legally, i mean), if they work. Minimum wage jobs can't really support a family, but I think if you want to start a family it's your own responsibillity to make sure you can support one. Almost no-one in the US is destitute except by choice or being disabled or something.
Oh, and btw - rich get richer, poor get poorer? Um. Why is that a bad thing again? Isn't it good enough that the "poor" workers get better wages than they did before?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During the last century human longevity exploded as much of the world became industrialized. Productivity and income rose to unprecedented levels, permitting vast improvements in the standard of living. Innovation in agriculture permitted adequate nutrition for whole populations. Innovation in engineering resulted in sanitary and safe living and working conditions. And innovations in affluence and medicine resulted in immunizations and antibiotics that could be provided through primary medical care for all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/INEQUALI.HTM' target='_blank'>yeah.</a>
<a href='http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/01/30&ID=Ar00700' target='_blank'>talking about.</a><a href='http://www.wfs.org/rev2374.htm' target='_blank'>again</a>
<a href='http://www.nightlybusiness.org/transcript/2002/trnscrpt111402.html' target='_blank'>today's stock market report</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->11/14/02: Paul Kangas' Wall Street Wrap Up
JEFF YASTINE: Today was another one of those "one-way" markets where stocks open higher, and buyers moved in on just about every dip. The Dow reflecting that upbeat mood that rocketed more than 100 points higher right at the open. An unexpectedly strong (AUDIO GAP) HSBC (HBC), helping the bulls. At midday, the Dow was still about 90 points in positive territory. Then in afternoon trading, the NASDAQ added another 10 points of gains. It was propelled by strong buying in all the old favorites, it was like the old times: networking stocks; chip stocks; software; you name it, they were all going higher. In late trading, it devolved into a wrestling match, as bulls struggled to keep the Dow above 8500, and the NASDAQ above 1400. And the Dow did succeed in that level there, closing at 8542, up 143 points on the day. Meanwhile the NASDAQ jumping more than 3 percent, 3.7 percent to be exact, to close at 1411 1/2.
*snip*
Bond prices fell sharply, as today's retail sales report spooked traders. Retail sales were flat overall, but excluding autos, sales for everything else rose at twice the level that economists expected. That data tended to undercut the view that consumer buying power is weakening. And also there were reports that a sizeable reallocation program was taking place with certain institutions selling Treasuries and buying stocks. So corporate and tax free issues fell sharply and so did Treasuries, boy, did they ever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rich people getting richer is good for the economy, because while some of them just hoarde their wealth, you have a lot who reinvest their money and expand upon existing or create new markets, whereas nearly money going to "poor" people almost inevitably ends up going to stuff that's not going anywhere (foodstuffs, basic needs).
Name them. I went into Fahrenheit 9/11 having read no criticism of it, picked out roughly four points that I thought constituted some serious issues for Bush. Reading criticisms of F9/11 left me with nothing but suspicion of a little too much friendliness with the Saudi's, everything else proved to be blatantly false.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because you see, in America, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer for one main reason. The poor don't know how money works, they don't know how to make money work for them. It's not just about balancing your checkbook, its about understanding all the tools, vehicles, and laws that allow a person to make maximum profits during their lifetime. The poor don't understand this but the rich do, THATS WHY THEY ARE RICH! And they have no qualms about taking money from poor people. I am not making this up; I personally have begun to learn about money and make my own profits, I got a condo in San Diego at 26 years of age that I rent out and I'm already looking into another property. I can see how the money moves out of the pockets of the poor and into the pockets of the rich. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's capitalism at its finest - those most skilled get the money, those less skilled get less money. A fool and his money are soon parted. I fail to see the problem here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The majority of poor people don't vote because they dont care about politics. Rich people do because it makes them money and they know the issues. That's why health care costs were raised, and benefits were taken from vets, and average U.S. soldiers salaries were cut by 60%. Yes, thats right the soldiers that are dying in Iraq for us are barely making ends meet because Bush cut their pay. Where is all this money going? Well, how else do you think Bush can afford to give tax cuts to the rich people making $200,000+ a year? He takes it from the average joe who doesn't know, doesn't care, and doesn't bother to vote. Bye bye health care, overtime, soldier wages.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was one of those issues that had me concerned. Not for long.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush "supported closing veterans hospitals" says Moore. The Bush Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals. Moore does not say that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. (For more, see the Final Report of the independent commission on veterans hospitals, which agrees with some of the Bush proposals, and with some of the objections raised by critics.)
According to Moore, Bush "tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans." What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay from $7 to $15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year. Prescription costs would have remained very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Some, not all, veterans would have faced a doubling of their prescription co-pay, but only to a level which is common for many people with prescription insurance, and hardly a large enough increase to make a great difference in most cases.
Bush, announces Moore, "proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%." Not exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an "imminent danger" bonus of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a special increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support renewing the special bonus, but then changed its position.
Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places where their families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush's initial opposition to extending the special increase was presented by Moore as "cutting assistance to their families by 60%." (Edward Epstein, "Pentagon reverses course, won’t cut troops’ pay," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)
Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a "cut," Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to total compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which constitute only a small percentage of a soldier’s income. An enlisted man with four months of experience receives an annual salary more than $27,000. (Rod Powers, "What the Recruiter Never Told You: Military Pay." The figure includes the value of health care, housing, and so on.) So allowing the $75 per month supplemental bonus to expire would have amounted to a "cut" of only about 3 percent of total compensation, even at the lowest levels. So Moore claim of a "33%" cut is a ten-fold exaggeration.
Although Moore presents Bush as cutting military pay, Bush did the opposite: in 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to raise all military salaries by 3.7%, with extra "targeted" pay increases for non-commissioned officers. NCOs are lower-ranking officers who typically join the military with lower levels of education than commissioned officers. (Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, "Defense Department Targets Military Pay Increases for 2004," American Forces Press Service.)
(Deceits: 1. Closing veterans hospitals without mentioning of opening of veterans hospitals, 2. Cutting combat soldiers' small bonus as if it were a cut in total salary, 3. Omission of Bush pay increase for military. Prescription drugs not counted as deceit, although important context is missing.)
[Moore response: Quotes the movie as referring to "combat soldiers' bonus pay." The theatrical movie I have seen does not include the word "bonus." On other matters, Moore provides citations which are consistent with my explanation of the facts, and does not attempt to explain or justify the deceits or omissions.]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ouch. Dont feel bad Relsan, you are but one statistic in a lonnnggg lonnnggg line of people who have been fooled, but there's no shame in been taken in by the master - MM is an absolute genius at this stuff. I used to be one of his strongest advocates - just seach for "gun control" in discussion about 1 year ago <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The whole world hates us because we short change third world countries even worse than we short change the poor average working joe in our own country. Thats why we got an airplane shoved up the arse of our main financial center; they want their money back too! And their land assets as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhh, no. You got that plane up "there" because you have troops in Saudi Arabia - unless you can see some hidden motive for Bin Ladin to claim that when he actually meant "this is for teh poor kids".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"But Bush protects us, he's a mean mof and nations fear him", pro-Bush people say. Let me tell you something: America is already powerful without Bush. We were powerful before Bush and we will still be powerful afterwards. Our military is automatic. And if the people feel we need to move to strike any president we elect will give the word to attack, its a no brainer. Bush is not the single thread keeping America from falling into the abyss. We've got guns for days. We are safer than any other nation on Earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. President Clinton demonstrated to the Islamic world that there is one thing that Americans really respond to: casualties. The military disaster in Ethiopia was a moment of inspiration for Bin Ladin - Americans died, so Americans quit. Acting weak makes you a target.
As for "Kerry the great diplomat" I have an article of him insulting every member of the Coalition of the Willing - which I shall post soon. Great ambassador he's going to be....
I'm all for capitalism but I don't think rich people should stick a leg out to trip the poor people as they are coming out the gate. Everybody should get a CHANCE to get rich. When you are born in a rich family, they teach you from a young age how to handle your money and get rich; you also get into better schools and get high quality education. In a poor family you don't learn about money and you don't get the best schooling. So basically poor kids are born without the same opportunities.
You're the one being fooled if you think that is best for America. The cure to cancer or Alzheimer's could be in the mind of a poor little girl but we all miss out because education was cut to pay for Mr. Willingshires yacht. Everybody should get the same chances at opportunity and while it may be difficult to reach that ideal, we shouldn't actively pass laws and cut useful programs to make it entirely impossible. Especially when the only reason is to fill rich pockets and keep the masses less educated so we have people to fill low paying blue collar jobs. Its wrong.
You say a fool and his money are soon parted, I say everyone is BORN a fool but only select people are shown the light to the wisdom of having a good education; rich people. Most well educated people were LUCKY they were born in a well off family; they weren't any wiser than people who were born poor.
Case and point, if you don't give a person the education to know how to make money, or instruction on when and when not to start a family, its a self fulfilling prophecy that they will fail. Rich people then look at them and say "They shouldn't have done that, I wouldn't have done that" Well your parents taught you not to do that! You were lucky Mr. Rich Person! And no I'm not talking about you specifically; I have no idea what your situation is.
And speaking of education that is exactly WHY the military mainly gets their recruits from poor families. Eventhough the recruiters are in the rich areas as well, as soon as a rich kid gets it in his mind to enlist, the rich parents say, "WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT??? You've got a great education that WE paid for, you could become a doctor and heal millions of people, why become a statistic, son? Stay in school and go to college." And thats exactly what the rich kid does; thats what my parents told me and thats what I did. The poor kid is not so lucky and he has no excuses for the recruiter. He has no education, no job, no opportunity, so he is easy pickings for the recruiter and thats why they frequent poor areas.
And as for all those statistics you mentionned I can't help but notice that they all involve taxing the poor, the elderly, and infantry soldiers. Are the rich even being taxed somewhere in there???
And the hate for America has to do with a lot more than a few troops in Afganistan. It has to do with our entire foriegn policy. The world has been saying this for years and it shouldn't be downplayed and the focus redirected to our latest and greatest infraction.
Oh and one more thing about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. If you keeping going with that you will find that as time passes there will be more poor people and less rich people. Why? Well for one thing poor people make more kids. For another, well you say rich people getting richer is good because they know the right things to do with the money. This is true, but they DON'T do the right things with their money, they DON'T help the masses, they help themselves because they have an attitude like yours which is "Why help the poor people, they are fools, they will just waste the money, I'm gonna go spend it enhancing my cultural appetites and bid $60,000 on a painting or something" Next thing you know the poor people outnumber the rich people so greatly that its not capitalism anymore, its communism with a select elite making all the decisions. What happened to the land of opportunity?
Get Bush out of office and stop this madness.
First of all, you say poor people are born without the same opportunities. Hmm, free education, a good job if they want it (military), continued education through the military (paid for by tax dollars). That sounds like a pretty good leg up in life to me - and yet you see this as a negative thing?
America has long been a land of opportunity - equal opportunity, and just because some people are fortunate / rich doesn't mean that they have to pay the way for the unfortunate / poor.
Yes, the argument that a rich person shouldn't go to the military because of all the life saving they can do (as a doctor or whatever) is a perfect argument against you! What happens when you need surgery in the hospital - do you want a well educated, probably rich doctor looking after you, or would you rather have the poor kid who just signed up for 4 years?
Needless to say, that poor kid could become a surgeon in the army, and when he gets out work in a hospital and make the big bucks - tell me how that sounds like the "poor getting poorer".
The problem is that your view assumes all poor people are incapable of doing anything on their own - without a government program to assist them the whole time.
My view says that people "choose" not to do anything. It doesn't take rocket science to choose not to spend a lot of money on booze and cigaretts, yet poor people consistantly do this. To blame that behavior on Bush... wow, bit of a stretch.
Everyone DOES have a chance to get rich. The stories of "I started out with nothing but a shoe-string and look where I am now" are endless. You said yourself - the stupid get poorer whilst the intelligent get rich. I'm sorry, but this isnt 3rd grade - in the real world, those with skills get rewarded. Those without get nothing.
I am a "poor" Australian. My father supported 5 kids and a wife on a teachers salary of $45,000 AU, which is about 22k US. My mother read to me every day since I was 2, she hammered the importance of education into me, and despite the fact that my school clothes had patches over every elbow and knee, I did well at primary school. I then went to secondary school and subsequently succeeded. Primary and Secondary education is available to every single citizen in Australia, hell its compulsory. I thought you yankee's had the same? My primary school was a public school, and it didnt have the greatest reputation. My secondary school was a quite expensive private school, but my parents sacraficed heaps to get me and my siblings there - please dont tell me I'm rich so I got a good education....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're the one being fooled if you think that is best for America. The cure to cancer or Alzheimer's could be in the mind of a poor little girl but we all miss out because education was cut to pay for Mr. Willingshires yacht. Everybody should get the same chances at opportunity and while it may be difficult to reach that ideal, we shouldn't actively pass laws and cut useful programs to make it entirely impossible. Especially when the only reason is to fill rich pockets and keep the masses less educated so we have people to fill low paying blue collar jobs. Its wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously - I doubt Americans are deprived of at least primary and secondary level schooling. What funds exactly are these that are being cut, and what were they going to be used for? And since when does the American taxpayer buy people yatchs? I dont buy this "keeping the lower class down". I've worked, schooled and lived with the lower class - they keep themselves down. Their interests extend to women, pot, alcohol, food, and precious little else. I ask them what their plan for life is, and I get a blank stare. Everyone at my private school had a dream for life - I think thats taking them further than a little certificate saying "Rockhampton Grammar School".
Learning how to deal with money is a part of life, not a part of education. My sister (a para legal studying law) is very intelligent, but she cant budget to save her life. Recently my Dad consolidated her debts to try and dig her out. She had a great education - why is it that she isnt a financial whiz? Could it be that she honestly doesnt give stuff like that much thought?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And speaking of education that is exactly WHY the military mainly gets their recruits from poor families. Eventhough the recruiters are in the rich areas as well, as soon as a rich kid gets it in his mind to enlist, the rich parents say, "WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT??? You've got a great education that WE paid for, you could become a doctor and heal millions of people, why become a statistic, son? Stay in school and go to college." And thats exactly what the rich kid does; thats what my parents told me and thats what I did. The poor kid is not so lucky and he has no excuses for the recruiter. He has no education, no job, no opportunity, so he is easy pickings for the recruiter and thats why they frequent poor areas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think many people are in the Army because they couldnt think of a decent excuse to tell the recruiter. They look at their scores at high school, they realise that getting tertiary education will be hard as hell and frankly the lack both the willpower and the desire for it, see a honourable, well paid, well respected, education included job in the military and they jump for it. I dont see the military as some insidious monster that the poor are pressured into - I see it as offering them a way out, a great opportunity. Still, its lower paid than anything that a highly educated professional would get, so they target those most likely to accept - poorer folk. They dont press gang them, they just offer. I am seriously contemplating joining the military in Australia, if they'll have me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as for all those statistics you mentionned I can't help but notice that they all involve taxing the poor, the elderly, and infantry soldiers. Are the rich even being taxed somewhere in there???<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are they even being taxed? Wow. My aunt works as a bank manager, and she told me that any earnings after about $70,000, the government takes 50c out of the dollar earnt. She then demonstrated how she worked, as she put it, three days a week for her, and two days a week for the government. The rich get taxed alright, they are just often sneaky dogs who use accountants to dodge most of it. Thats disgusting and really needs to be shut down, but they do get taxed alright.l
I dont like the idea of a massive gap between the rich and the poor - it irks me no end that the Hilton whor3 Paris dances around the world acting the fool, spending thousands of dollars on expensive garbage etc when people are dying of cholera that requires $10 medication. I just dont see any way of really controlling this without removing the motivation to succeed, and try harder to earn more money.
Still, I'm not clear if you believe me about Bush and the veterans. He did NOT cut their pay as specifically claimed by Micheal Moore - dont you think its going a little bit past biased and more into the realm of flat out lies?
Ahhh okay, you arent talking about education specifically. You are actually talking about social issues that lead to poor education, crime, teenage pregnancy etc. Poor education is merely a symptom of social issues, and definately a catalyst, but is not the direct cure. How do you educate someone when their entire family is unsupporting? When they can see that selling drugs will make them popular, get them respect and a whole stack of cash straight up now?
Rich people dont see a solution - hell I dont see a solution past a religious reformation, and I am highly doubtful that will ever happen. I dont think it has always been like this, poor people used to be jealous of rich people because of what their education enabled them to do, now they are just flat out jealous of their wealth but dont have the get up and go to do so, and even then their social situation is dragging them back....
That one truely has me stumped....
As a Christian should you not be against the murder that takes place in war? Should you not be striving for equality between people? Should you not believe in better living conditions for the poor? You seem to come across as, a Darwinist in the political sense, that survival of the fittest should take place in society. Poor people can't simply get rich by hard work; it’s an illusion of the American dream. Go watch Arthur Miller's 'The death of a sales man'.
Ive chosen to refer to pieces of classic literature rather than some of the diabolical Internet references that are used by people in these forums.
The government should not be in the business of being "parents". Ulitmatly these people are doing what they are predisposed to do - "eat, drink, and be merry". It is unfortunate that their social situation doesn't teach them that hard work will reap better rewards. Propper discipline is out, beating your kids is in. Work is out, getting drunk is in.
Yes, this is unfortunate, but at the same time it is a logical falicy to say that the "rich" are responsible for this mess. The opportunities are there, the "rich" can't make people take them. Handing them more money is not the answer, and more government is not a solution.
Welcome to <a href='http://www.suntimes.com/output/mitchell/cst-nws-mitch05.html' target='_blank'>"the soft bigotry of low expectations".</a>
You seem to have this notion that public education is poorly funded in low income areas. That is simply not true. In Washington DC they spend 11,000 per pupil, constantly going to congress to ask for more money. What is lacking is the discipline in both the home and in these schools. No amount of money will fix that.
Since bush took office, there has been a 58% (aprox) increase federal spending for education since Clinton. That was higher then the spending increases on education when he first came, then left office.
The purpose of cutting taxes was to provide fiscal stimulus in addition to the monetary stimulus (cutting interest rates). 1% of the top earners in this country pay 38% of the federal income tax. It would make sense that the tax cut would give tax cuts to people who pay more federal income tax. (btw, percentage wise, the poor got a larger chunk slashed then the rich. Of course 4% of 500,000 is more then 10% of 50,000)
Can you please tell me how an euntrapanour/business people steal from the poor when attempting to generate wealth?
As a Christian should you not be against the murder that takes place in war? Should you not be striving for equality between people? Should you not believe in better living conditions for the poor? You seem to come across as, a Darwinist in the political sense, that survival of the fittest should take place in society. Poor people can't simply get rich by hard work; it’s an illusion of the American dream. Go watch Arthur Miller's 'The death of a sales man'.
Ive chosen to refer to pieces of classic literature rather than some of the diabolical Internet references that are used by people in these forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I was thinking about Animal Farm as a direct comparison to the issue of socialism last night, and socialism is exactly what is described - not the utopian 'every animal is equal', but the 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'. It seems that this is the case with all socialistic policies - the poor are somehow 'more equal' than everyone else because they magically 'deserve more' just because they have less, and somehow the burden falls on the rich because they 'can afford it'. Lemme tell you, that's not equality, that's the death of a big part of the innovative drive in humans.
Christianity is all about charity and giving to your neighbors. However, Christianity views it as an individual responsibility/choice (e.g. church offerings going to support homeless shelters), not a collective responsibility (e.g. income taxes going to fund socialist/welfare programs). And, btw, Christianity doesn't teach economic equality of the rich and the poor; read Proverbs - basically, foolish people become poor, while the wise are able to make a living and be comfortably well-off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I recently just graduated from high school. I got a chance fortunately to switch from very poor school to a reasonably good one. I can tell you from my personal experience is that funding isn’t the issue, (Specifically in my case, both schools in the same district receiving the same funding) the main issues were school discipline, what goes on at the student home and teachers don’t who care. I believe that in my case, funding was isn’t an issue when somehow 1 of the schools has a horrendous dropout rate and poor academic performance in general, while the other meets or exceeds basic standards. regardless what local bureaucrats, teachers and administrators say, school performance is not tied to the amount of funding they receive (Of course there are always exceptions).
You seem to have this notion that public education is poorly funded in low income areas. That is simply not true. In Washington DC they spend 11,000 per pupil, constantly going to congress to ask for more money. What is lacking is the discipline in both the home and in these schools. No amount of money will fix that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes. thank you.
How are the rich tripping the poor?
Currently in the USA, the top 1% (in terms of wealth) of our population pays 35% of our taxes, the top 5% pay 50%.
Remember, we have a several trillion dollar government. If this isn't progressive, then I don't understand what is.
Actually, I was thinking about Animal Farm as a direct comparison to the issue of socialism last night, and socialism is exactly what is described - not the utopian 'every animal is equal', but the 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'. It seems that this is the case with all socialistic policies - the poor are somehow 'more equal' than everyone else because they magically 'deserve more' just because they have less, and somehow the burden falls on the rich because they 'can afford it'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have totaly missed the point. Animal farm is a political satire about socialism. The pigs come up with the line 'some are more equal than others' because they want to screw over the other animals, and reap the rewards of the others hard work for themselves. i.e. the lazy rich are making money of the hardworking poor.
You may notice at the end where the pigs are sitting around smoking cigars and laughing (they start to look human). They are not being forced to help the poor. They are just plain exploiting them. A trend which Orwell noticed in society.
A trend that Orwell noticed in Socialist and Communist nations. Orwell was a ferverent anti-Socialist and anti-Communist.
Most of the rich in America work hard for their money. The Poor do not need more social services; they need to make better decisions. People can make it, it just takes a fair amount of effort. No one starts out on the same monetary level, but that doesn't mean that Mr. Parents Make 13k A Year cannot be more wealthy than Mr. Parents Make 100k A Year.
There is equal oppurtunity in America. The problem is that people don't think anymore; instead they just go with the flow, ending up chained to a desk working a job they hate for 40 years, eating unhealthily, not saving for the future, and so when the time comes to retire they have to rely on the government, which is exactly how Liberals want things to become. Socialism is ever popular with those who simply go with the grain.
America was a country designed for those who are willing to go against the grain and make things happen. That means that average people who come out of college with an average degree are only going to have average success.
Believe it or not, most wealthy people are not uppity and/or haughty. They simply understand that they worked hard and spent their money wisely, which created wealth and profit for them, and now there are people who are saying that the wealthy "owe" society something because they made good decisions. If anything, society owes them for creating jobs and giving value to the nation.
The side that Bush is for supports and understands this in ways Kerry and his friends hate and loathe. I'd rather have Bush in office over Kerry any day of the week.
And for future reference, quoting Michael Moore is like waving a neon flashing light over your head that says "tool." I'm not saying that you are one, Reslam, but quoting him is a bad idea in a real debate. Fahrenheit 911 was designed as a propaganda film, no ifs, ands, or buts. It has been ripped apart through and through countless times since its release, but since most people don't bother to read, they wouldn't know this.
Edit: Also, public education has become a terrible black hole used to indoctrinate children instead of creating independent and high quality citizens. Whenever the government gets involved in a system, it becomes a monopoly, wherein the quality of the product or service is drastically reduced. Charter schools offer an interesting solution to this situation. If government schools are forced to compete with other schools, standards get raised, which results in higher quality students.
Schools have been proved to be grossly inefficient with money management, so throwing money at schools only furthers the problem. Taking money from schools forces them to wake up, and start teaching.
Well im a darwinist and something of an entrepreneur myself with the businesses I've started. But i still believe in a <b>responsibility</b> to help those who are in need. If it were actually as simple as you say, if life started out fair for everyone, then I would be right behind you. But the sad fact is that it doesnt, and many people end up failing not for lack of skill or audacity, but simply because of poor circumstance. You cant be considered responsible for your "poor investments" if your house burns down, or if you injure yourself and cant work. Our society has grown to be what it is because of compassion and cooperation. By accepting a society where only the fit survive we are reducing ourselves to simple beasts. Its necessary to care for the weak, not because its the christian thing to do, not because its the human thing to do, but because its to the overall benefit of society.
There are two basic ways to look at helping people in need. The first is to give the man what he needs. The second is to give the man the skills to get what he needs himself. The second one is better than the first because it fosters personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. During the time that the man is learning, he will be helped out, but he should make an effort to pay back what was given to him.
The ability to meet a need through effort and work is an important part of the human psyche. Therefore, instead of simply meeting the man's need, you are giving him the ability to meet the need through his own ability. That is the strength of capitalist compassion versus socialist compassion.