Bush's $87 Billion plan...really necessary???

[xnotedgex]

Here's some interesting/disturbing information I read in Time Magazine last week about where Bush plans on spending this money; just another reason why the guy is a complete idiot:

1. $1 billion to train Iraqi police and fire fighters
THE COMPLAINT: The Administration fought a $200 million increase for America's police and fire fighters

2.$400 million for two new jails
THE COMPLAINT: With a proposed 4,000 beds in each prison, the U.S. would be spending $50,000 per inmate

3.$5.7 billion on electricity, including $1 billion to rehabilitate and replace the power infrastructure over several years
THE COMPLAINT: Compare spending $255 on electricity generation for every Iraqi with 71 cents a person spent on federally funded electricity work here at home

4.$2.1 billion to import petroleum products and invest in oil infrastructure
THE COMPLAINT: It doesn't make sense for the world's second largest oil-producing country to import the stuff

5.$303 million to repair railroads and rehabilitate three major airports as well as the port of Umm Qasr near the Kuwaiti border
THE COMPLAINT: The port is already functioning

6.$150 million for a new children's hospital in the southern city of Basra
THE COMPLAINT: The total cost could reach $700 million

7.$20 million for executive job training
THE COMPLAINT: A four-week management class would cost $10,000 a person

8.$1 million to build a museum documenting atrocities by Saddam Hussein
THE COMPLAINT: Is this really necessary

Your thoughts...

[xforgetdecember]

My thoughts? Bush is just an idiot, and I don't know why anyone would vote for him.

But.. uh.. It would be nice if this plan offered more to the people who's taxes and what not are funding it.

[yeat182]

my thoughts: things cost money. sometimes we have to sacrafice our wallets to help out other people, and Iraq will be better for it.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
my thoughts: things cost money. sometimes we have to sacrafice our wallets to help out other people, and Iraq will be better for it.

so what your saying is iraq is more important then the U.S?

let me remind you which country Bush was elected to serve...

[insincereal]

Originally posted by yeat182
my thoughts: things cost money. sometimes we have to sacrafice our wallets to help out other people, and Iraq will be better for it.

you're a genius

[Shatter590]

seems to me like Bush is more the President of Iraq the the President of the US

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
so what your saying is iraq is more important then the U.S?

let me remind you which country Bush was elected to serve...

Iraq is important to the US. and it isn't as if the 87 billion dollars was all the money the US had. if you really want to save money, stop giving out foreign aid to countries that aren't grateful for it. stop wasting it on social programs that don't work. call in all the debts owed by the countries of europe...etc.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Shatter590
seems to me like Bush is more the President of Iraq the the President of the US

no, not at all actually.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
Iraq is important to the US. and it isn't as if the 87 billion dollars was all the money the US had. if you really want to save money, stop giving out foreign aid to countries that aren't grateful for it. stop wasting it on social programs that don't work. call in all the debts owed by the countries of europe...etc.

call me crazy but it seems to be that the u.s. should be more important to the u.s. than iraq....im pretty sure that the iraqis are not grateful for what we are doing over there (over 1,100 people killed since the war "ended")...so by your logic...we shouldnt be over there doing anything and we should not be giving financial aid to their reconstruction efforts

ok, here's another point that i heard somewhere on tv, maybe that new colin quinn show on comedy central...

bush's tax plan, over the next decade, gives the top 8% of the wealthiest americans a tax cut of almost $300 billion dollars...if this plan is absolutely neccessary, is it unreasonably to cut this tax break down to $220 billion dollars...as if this would cause suffering to these people???

[Shatter590]

oh yes, the US is so much more well off than Iraq that our seniors can't afford prescription drugs, people need to work 3 jobs and still can't afford health inusrance or rent, a college degree means nothing once you graduate and the rising cost of living is paired with rising layoffs and unemployment so CEO's can make more money. Yes, we are SOOOOOOOOOOOO much better off than iraq.

Bush needs to fix this country first before he decides to "fix" another. But then again, he's rich so the problems of everyone else mean nothing to him.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by xnotedgex

bush's tax plan, over the next decade, gives the top 8% of the wealthiest americans a tax cut of almost $300 billion dollars...if this plan is absolutely neccessary, is it unreasonably to cut this tax break down to $220 billion dollars...as if this would cause suffering to these people???

the top 10% of americans pay 38% of taxes

the top 20% of americans pay 80% of taxes

the top 50% of americans pay 90% of taxes

......so the wealthy already pay way more then there fair share of the tax burdens.......so its not about what will cause them suffering or not, its about making the tax system equally fair......

[insincereal]

Originally posted by cal1082
Picking up on your sarcasm I can tell you dont think the US is much better off than Iraq. Go live over there for a month or so and see if anyone is bitching about the senior citizens in Iraq not being able to afford perscription drugs. No, i have a feeling they'll be bitching about more important things such as electricity, no jobs, bad water, and overall poor conditions. Also see if they bitch about working 3 jobs. They'll be lucky right now to find 1.

You have it so much better over here and you take it for granted.

thank god bush has the guts to run more than one country huh...that is, after all, what he was elected (err, sort of) for right

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
Yes what an idiot. The U.S is spending money to do such stupid things has build prisons, children's hospitals, job training, training police and fire fighters, and to improve infrastructure.

You we be throwing a big bash with the money? Of course they're going to put there money into that kind of stuff. Half of the arguments below are, "We're going to spend this amount of $ in Iraq here, but in the US we only spend this amount of $ which is far less." Has occured to anyone that the US is much more well off than Iraq is right now? Of course a lot of money will be need to get them off their feet.

One last thing. On the complaint amount the money going to import petroleum products and invest in oil infrastructure; that makes no sense. Yes Iraq is a huge oil producing country, but it says that they are importing petroleum PRODUCTS. This could be a number of diffrent things.

id like to see some yes and know answers to these questions if you dont mind...and then try and justify your answer

do you advocate spending $50,000 per prisoner in the two proposed iraqi jails?

was president bush elected to serve the country and people of iraq?

is the united states a charitable organization responsible for the well-being of all the inhabitants of earth?

Has it occured to you that the reason the US is better of than Iraq is because the leaders of this country in the past, have put our interests ahead of the well being of other countries?

If one of your relatives was one of the 1,100 killed since the war supposedly ended, would you think it was a small number?

If you lost multiple members of your family during this period of time, would you consider it a small number?

When Iraqi citzens murder American soldiers, does that mean they are happy with their country being occupied by the US?

If the United States were invaded and taken over by another country because they thought it was in our best interest, would you be happy?

And if this country decided to rule over you and control your government and all aspects of your society for a number of years, would you be happy?

Honestly, do you think Iraq needs $200 million dollars to import 'petroleum products' whatever that may include?

[xnotedgex]

who are the prisons being built for...who is the water for, who is the electricity for??? that's right...the prisoners

did clinton spend $87 billion dollars on the balkans??? did he even spend 10% of that???

its called imperialism when you make a preemptive strike against a country and then force your system of government on them

WWII...a perfect example of where past leaders put our interests first...we didnt become involved until we were attacked...we didnt fight for other countries...their citizens and their lives are not our responsibility

iraqbodycount.org...and my 1,100 killed was cited from an article i read in Time Magazine...a pretty reputable publication...now please explain to me how ignorance plays a role...what if your life was lost...would it be ignorant to say its ok, because it was only your life and no one else's?

And your kidding yourself if you think some goverment that we appointed is going to be making independant decisions..and your kiddings yourself if you think this goverment is going to get any respect from its citizens...one of the members of the first appointed council has already been murdered...it sure sounds like they're on the fast track to success doesnt it

Oh, and please argue for the museum...I'd love to hear that justified

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
Like i said, Bush isnt going to run Iraq. Have you seen the news at all, or read a paper? There already forming the early stages of an Iraqi government, and hope to have a new constitution written, and a governemtn in sometime next year.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/973699.asp?cp1=1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031015/wl_nm/iraq_dc_26

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031015/ts_nm/iraq_dc_24

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20031015/ts_washpost/a25105_2003oct14

Now where does it say that the US will control Iraq?

you wanna talk about ignorance....you seriously think that this so called government that is being formed is making the decisons for itself...that is ignorant

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
i know i said prisons but they are jails. you'll have many inmates come in and out of jails every year. So that 50,000 average will decrease all the time.

the real point isnt even that we're building jails..is it more important to this administration to have adequate facilities in iraq, or in its own country?


i dont know how much money the clinton administration spent on kosovo and serbia. i know we're still paying to put milosevic on trial and thats a pretty penny. Also Iraq is so much more stratigic country to the world than Kosvo and Serbia. Thats why you didnt see the mass amount of money going to Afg. [/B][/QUOTE]

http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/News-and-Human-Interest/July-99/Cost-of-Kosovo-Conflict-Said-$4B.htm

$4B...5% of Bush's plan

All i have to say is look up imperialism and then look at what we're doing in Iraq. I'd have to say imperialism wouldnt invovle forming a new Iraq gov. next year. [/B][/QUOTE]

who ever said Iraqi citizens were in favor of democracy...show me a poll of Iraqi citizens that show they want democracy...i couldnt find one...while it may be a loose interpretation of imperialism, forcing your system of government on a people is covered...and i dont know how naive one has to be be to believe that everything will be done and operating normally in a year



Explain the rebuilding of Japan? [/B][/QUOTE]
A key difference is the fact that Japan's infrastructure, including its bureaucracy, was largely intact after the war. This is unlikely to be the case in a defeated Iraq.

Another is that the Japenese Emperor accepted the defeat and the Japanese people continued to follow the Emperor's guidance in accepting the defeat. It can hardly be imagined that Hussein will willingly order his followers and the citizens of the country to accept imposed governance by the USA.

Another significant factor to consider is the uneasiness of the Middle East in general compared with the calm isolation of Japan in the years immediately following WWII.

Still another is the lack of significant natural resources in Japan which kept potential carpet-bagger style predators from pouncing, which is a sharp contrast with the enormous oil reserves possessed by Iraq



there has not been over 1,000 American troops killed. There havent been over 500 killed. I never said "it's ok" that the loss of life happend, but if you look through wars throughout history this war was ran brilliantly. You can argue about the reconstruction till this point, but the war went great. [/B][/QUOTE]

please cite your sources for for casualties..i gave you mine and sorry, im not just gonna take your word for it



lolololol, and you do know how the gov. and the constitution writing is going? Please....they are scheduled to have elections next year. If elections dont happend by next year, then you can talk like you know the gov. selection process isnt working. [/B][/QUOTE]

so account for the guy who's been killed...is that proof that it's being accepted? what if it happens again...will that be proof that its being accepted...you offer no proof for your arguments, just your opinions...i hate when people do that



I dont agree with the money for a museum as of right now. It is a very, very small amount of money out of the 87 billion. I see why they're doing it, but i still dont think it's neccessary now. [/B][/QUOTE]

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
The D.O.D says that 332 US soldiers have died since military operations have begun.



of course everyone is not goign to accept the new gov. People in Iraq arent holding hands and dancing around right now. The best sign i've seen for the acceptance of the gov. is this.

http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1008285p-7078752c.html

a poll of 1,200 people represents almost 6 million??? doesnt seem fair for you to cite that when that number of deaths isn't significant to you

[xnotedgex]

can you link me to that d.o.d statistic?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
call me crazy but it seems to be that the u.s. should be more important to the u.s. than iraq....im pretty sure that the iraqis are not grateful for what we are doing over there (over 1,100 people killed since the war "ended")...so by your logic...we shouldnt be over there doing anything and we should not be giving financial aid to their reconstruction efforts

again, the fate of Iraq is important to the US, so therefor spending a small fraction of the budget on them doesn't mean you don't care about america. and by my logic we should be over there, first because those that are attacking and killing soldiers aren't Iraqi citizens, they are terrorists. and secondly, the majority of iraqis want us there, and those that don't, do not want us to leave immediatly, leaving them with the mess we created.

ok, here's another point that i heard somewhere on tv, maybe that new colin quinn show on comedy central...

bush's tax plan, over the next decade, gives the top 8% of the wealthiest americans a tax cut of almost $300 billion dollars...if this plan is absolutely neccessary, is it unreasonably to cut this tax break down to $220 billion dollars...as if this would cause suffering to these people???

i suppose he could but that would hurt his plan for stimulating the economy, and then you'd be bitching about that....

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Shatter590
oh yes, the US is so much more well off than Iraq that our seniors can't afford prescription drugs, people need to work 3 jobs and still can't afford health inusrance or rent, a college degree means nothing once you graduate and the rising cost of living is paired with rising layoffs and unemployment so CEO's can make more money. Yes, we are SOOOOOOOOOOOO much better off than iraq.

Bush needs to fix this country first before he decides to "fix" another. But then again, he's rich so the problems of everyone else mean nothing to him.

are you kidding? you should be grateful you live in america, or any western nation. and if you need health inssurance, get a job with benefits (McDonalds and Wendy's are always hiring).

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex

was president bush elected to serve the country and people of iraq?

he is serving america. do you suddenly have a probelm helping foreign nations? do consider our help to countries like france, england, canada, mexico, japan, russia, saudia arabia, etc. etc. etc. as Bush being elected president of their countries?

is the united states a charitable organization responsible for the well-being of all the inhabitants of earth?

its a no win situation. when we don't help other countries with foreign aid you bitch about being isoloationists, and that we have to realize we live in a "global communitiy", but when it comes to helping out a country that was oppressed by a tyrant for decades and repairing the damage he did as well as what we did, we are suddenly not responsible.

Has it occured to you that the reason the US is better of than Iraq is because the leaders of this country in the past, have put our interests ahead of the well being of other countries?

it is in our best interests to rebuild iraq and establish a successful and friendly democratic nation in the middle east. if you can't see that than fat mike has truely brainwashed you.

If one of your relatives was one of the 1,100 killed since the war supposedly ended, would you think it was a small number?

first of all, they all volunteered to enter the military, knowing full well that they will put their lives on the line if nessescary. while i wish every single one of them was not dead now, i realize that it is the sacrafice THEY were willing to make for their families, friends, country, and even people like you. secondly, 1100 is a extremely small number of KIA's for a war, more than that many soldiers died every day in Vietnam. try and keep it in perspective.

When Iraqi citzens murder American soldiers, does that mean they are happy with their country being occupied by the US?

they aren't ordinary citizens, they are terrorists, they are members of Saddam's fedayeen, and repbulican guard, and yes, even members of Al-qaeda. lumping them in with the general iraqi population is like cosidering all americans were responisble for the oklahoma city bombing.

If the United States were invaded and taken over by another country because they thought it was in our best interest, would you be happy?

if it was a war for our independece from a tyrant, then yes i would be very happy (July 4th 1776....also, thanks to the french for helping free us)

And if this country decided to rule over you and control your government and all aspects of your society for a number of years, would you be happy?

first, it isn't going to be a number of years, its been 6 months or so, and the new UN resolution calls for an Iraqi constituition and government sometime in 2004. and if them controling all aspects of my society ment that i could live in freedom and didn't have to worry about Saddam Hussein, than yes I would be very very happy. Also, it seemed to work out well for the Japanses and the Germans...

Honestly, do you think Iraq needs $200 million dollars to import 'petroleum products' whatever that may include?

those "products" more than likely include equiptment for the production of petroleum. also, all plastics and rubber products are petroleum based...

[Shatter590]

quote:
are you kidding? you should be grateful you live in america, or any western nation. and if you need health inssurance, get a job with benefits (McDonalds and Wendy's are always hiring).


gee yeat, why don;t you come to NY and try looking for a job. the reason i said that was because THERE AREN'T ANY. I've been unemployed for the past year, because after 9/11 jobs dried up as our economy here shrank (no thanks to Bush snubbing us, YES SNUBBING US). Look at the state of tha nation before you makle that remark, because as our unemplyment rises, people get laid off and these jobs at Mcdonalds and wendys fill up REAL FAST, leavuing the rest of us out of luck.

quote:
it is in our best interests to rebuild iraq and establish a successful and friendly democratic nation in the middle east. if you can't see that than fat mike has truely brainwashed you.

while i can't say i agree with fat mike, he does make some decent points. Was not Iraq once a democracy, and a friendly one at that? Yes, until America snubbed them. And are there any other democracies in the area? Aside from Israel, no. Democracy will be hard pressed to be introduced in that area, and succeed.
And we will not be there for only 6 months or so. Runmsfeld himself stated that it will take upwards of 2 to 4 years to fully repair that nation. Yes, a government is possible by 2004, but that doesn't mean it will be able to stand on its own. Look at Afghanistan for proof of that.


and i do not feel lucky to live here. While I know that the US is better than most of the world, I believe our country is screwed up, and until people realize this and try to fix it, we'll stay in this state of disrepair. Ignorance had lead the people to accept what they are told, and questioning it leads to violence. We are not a nation united anylonger. People from different areas do not know what others feel. Being from NY, I am scared every day that another terrorist attack is coming, moreso now that we have invaded Iraq than before. And I am not alone in feeling that our nations grevious problems are being ignored in the face of possibly meaningless foreign affairs. Even Bush's own cabinet fight amongst themselves. Without unity will come destruction, and unfortunately unity under this administration seems quite impossible.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Shatter590

gee yeat, why don;t you come to NY and try looking for a job. the reason i said that was because THERE AREN'T ANY. I've been unemployed for the past year, because after 9/11 jobs dried up as our economy here shrank (no thanks to Bush snubbing us, YES SNUBBING US). Look at the state of tha nation before you makle that remark, because as our unemplyment rises, people get laid off and these jobs at Mcdonalds and wendys fill up REAL FAST, leavuing the rest of us out of luck.

didn't the government give NY a huge aid package following the 9/11 attacks? How exactly has George Bush snubbed you?


while i can't say i agree with fat mike, he does make some decent points. Was not Iraq once a democracy, and a friendly one at that? Yes, until America snubbed them. And are there any other democracies in the area? Aside from Israel, no. Democracy will be hard pressed to be introduced in that area, and succeed.
And we will not be there for only 6 months or so. Runmsfeld himself stated that it will take upwards of 2 to 4 years to fully repair that nation. Yes, a government is possible by 2004, but that doesn't mean it will be able to stand on its own. Look at Afghanistan for proof of that.


Iraq was not a democracy, nor was it friendly. the US didn't SNUB them (i think you need to get over getting snubbed), they INVADED Kuwait. And yes, we will be there for a few years, but we will not be in control for all that time, as soon as a constitution is drafted, a governement will be elected and power transfered to the Iraqis.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[yeat182]

also, that 87 billion, is more like 20 billion...and its a loan. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100341,00.html)

[insincereal]

Originally posted by yeat182
also, that 87 billion, is more like 20 billion...and its a loan. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100341,00.html)

The vote came as the House and Senate edged toward approval of similar $87 billion measures to finance American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the reconstruction of both countries.

Oh, you're right...thank you for reading the whole article that you sent from your own right-wing media outlet and not looking like an ass...cuz that would have been bad if you did

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
here's one of the sites:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths_4

ok, maybe the statistic i read was total casualties including wounded...my bad

still...you can't use a poll that represents the opinion of less than 1% of the population...how at all can the possibly be accurate????

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
he is serving america. do you suddenly have a probelm helping foreign nations? do consider our help to countries like france, england, canada, mexico, japan, russia, saudia arabia, etc. etc. etc. as Bush being elected president of their countries?



its a no win situation. when we don't help other countries with foreign aid you bitch about being isoloationists, and that we have to realize we live in a "global communitiy", but when it comes to helping out a country that was oppressed by a tyrant for decades and repairing the damage he did as well as what we did, we are suddenly not responsible.



it is in our best interests to rebuild iraq and establish a successful and friendly democratic nation in the middle east. if you can't see that than fat mike has truely brainwashed you.



first of all, they all volunteered to enter the military, knowing full well that they will put their lives on the line if nessescary. while i wish every single one of them was not dead now, i realize that it is the sacrafice THEY were willing to make for their families, friends, country, and even people like you. secondly, 1100 is a extremely small number of KIA's for a war, more than that many soldiers died every day in Vietnam. try and keep it in perspective.



they aren't ordinary citizens, they are terrorists, they are members of Saddam's fedayeen, and repbulican guard, and yes, even members of Al-qaeda. lumping them in with the general iraqi population is like cosidering all americans were responisble for the oklahoma city bombing.



if it was a war for our independece from a tyrant, then yes i would be very happy (July 4th 1776....also, thanks to the french for helping free us)



first, it isn't going to be a number of years, its been 6 months or so, and the new UN resolution calls for an Iraqi constituition and government sometime in 2004. and if them controling all aspects of my society ment that i could live in freedom and didn't have to worry about Saddam Hussein, than yes I would be very very happy. Also, it seemed to work out well for the Japanses and the Germans...



those "products" more than likely include equiptment for the production of petroleum. also, all plastics and rubber products are petroleum based...

stop arguing...your opinion is not valid when you claim that the reason i have a differing viewpoint is because ive been brainwashed, when, in fact, ive never visited that site and have no plans in voting for anyone because i do not believe in democracy and our government does not work for me...say no more...you're an idiot...you assume you know things because no one can possible believe anything other than what you believe right...

and i was wondering how you know the people that are attacking us soldiers...what intelligence do you have that the rest of the world doesnt have?

[Shatter590]

quote:
didn't the government give NY a huge aid package following the 9/11 attacks? How exactly has George Bush snubbed you?


the government PROMISED us one, and we're still waiting on it. For the past 2 years, NYC has had to deal with a lack of federal aid and a general cutback on funds from our own state budget, foring us to cut corners and buckle down The only reason NY is not in a hole like California is because we have a businessman for a mayor who has thankfully managed to cut our deficit and keep the city afloat.


and Iraq WAS a firendly democracy, remeber the Iran contra affair back in the early 80's? The Photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein? We supported Iraq in it's war against the Shah, gave them money and weapons and diplomatic support, then after it was all over, the US left and allowed Saddam to become a terrorist, who then attacked Kuwait.

[insincereal]

Originally posted by cal1082
watch the intel. briefs the gov. gives daily

i have a job so i can't watch every brief they give but im 99.9% sure they don't catch every guerrila that attacks the soldiers...if im wrong, please correct me

[insincereal]

Originally posted by cal1082
they dont catch all the people who do the attacks, but they have enough evidence to show.

they have enough evidence to show that every single one of these guys is a member of a terrorist organization??? that makes sense, doesnt it...

what is their evidence?

[insincereal]

in response to the gratefulness of the iraqis...here's what one soldier had to say...

"I think the people are ungrateful. They still attack us. We bring them freedom and they're still trying to kill us."

this was taken from an article on yahoo

read it for yourself if you'd like

[Shatter590]

in the interest of being fair, not ALL iraqis are opposed to US occupation, but that number has been dwindling of late. And yes, a good deal of attacks have been carried out by saddam's supporters and miltants. But outside of major urban areas, much of Iraq hates the occupation.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by insincereal
The vote came as the House and Senate edged toward approval of similar $87 billion measures to finance American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the reconstruction of both countries.

Oh, you're right...thank you for reading the whole article that you sent from your own right-wing media outlet and not looking like an ass...cuz that would have been bad if you did

the 87 billion is for the millitary in BOTH iraq and afgahnistan, yet you've been argueing this entire time that its is strictly for Iraq. and the 20 billion is for the reconstruction of Iraq only...way to not look like an ass.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
stop arguing...your opinion is not valid when you claim that the reason i have a differing viewpoint is because ive been brainwashed, when, in fact, ive never visited that site and have no plans in voting for anyone because i do not believe in democracy and our government does not work for me...say no more...you're an idiot...you assume you know things because no one can possible believe anything other than what you believe right...

and i was wondering how you know the people that are attacking us soldiers...what intelligence do you have that the rest of the world doesnt have?


my points aren't valid because they make sense, are logical and backed up with facts.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Shatter590
quote:
didn't the government give NY a huge aid package following the 9/11 attacks? How exactly has George Bush snubbed you?


the government PROMISED us one, and we're still waiting on it. For the past 2 years, NYC has had to deal with a lack of federal aid and a general cutback on funds from our own state budget, foring us to cut corners and buckle down The only reason NY is not in a hole like California is because we have a businessman for a mayor who has thankfully managed to cut our deficit and keep the city afloat.

my mistake, i thought they had given the state the money already. and not to be a dick, but the mayor of NY doesn't control the state budget....but i get your point, and it would be hard to be worse off than california.


and Iraq WAS a firendly democracy, remeber the Iran contra affair back in the early 80's? The Photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein? We supported Iraq in it's war against the Shah, gave them money and weapons and diplomatic support, then after it was all over, the US left and allowed Saddam to become a terrorist, who then attacked Kuwait.

they weren't a democracy in the 80's however, they were still ruled by Saddam. while we might have been "friends" with them, it was more of the old "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" type thing. and the US wasnt' the only country involved with Iraq in the 80's, France, Germany and Russia all played equal if not bigger roles, and have continued to support saddam even after he invaded kuwait.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by insincereal
they have enough evidence to show that every single one of these guys is a member of a terrorist organization??? that makes sense, doesnt it...

what is their evidence?

the fact that they attack american soldiers, iraqi police and innocent iraq civilians makes them terrorists. and again, most of them are hold overs from the Fedayeen Saddam and the Republican Guard....

[insincereal]

Originally posted by yeat182
the fact that they attack american soldiers, iraqi police and innocent iraq civilians makes them terrorists. and again, most of them are hold overs from the Fedayeen Saddam and the Republican Guard....

give me some names of these terrorists...since you know so much about them...or are you the one who is really being brainwashed by your own government and media outlets...back this up with facts...please show me an article on them attacking Iraqi civilians...you said your points dont make sense cuz they're backed up with facts...i dont see you providing any proof for your statements..but i guess when there is none, its hard to do...right

[insincereal]

oh, and by the way smart guy, the iraqi police and army were disbanded when the war "ended"...makes it kinda hard for these 'terrorists' to attack them huh

and since when did killing your enemy in a war situation become terrorism..is the war over just because bush got on a ship and said it was...looks like the iraqis dont think so and it looks like they're picking off our soldiers 2 by 4 by 5...we're losing the war and if americans ever open their eyes to that...bush will never be reelected...thank god people are starting to open their eyes

also, read an article in last week's Time that says their is a growing popularity for the idea of a quick retreat from Iraq now that the administration realizes what it got into...hopefully this will come to fruition

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by insincereal
oh, and by the way smart guy, the iraqi police and army were disbanded when the war "ended"...makes it kinda hard for these 'terrorists' to attack them huh

...we're losing the war and if americans ever open their eyes to that...bush will never be reelected...thank god people are starting to open their eyes


Right now there are 1,850 traffic police in Baghdad, 12,000 police on the street in the capital and 5,200 in the rest of the country. Customs inspectors and police at the different airports number 5,000. (and this was in aug.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93928,00.html

looks like he was the smart one after all.......and you are the brain washed jackass.......Maybe you need to open your eyes?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by insincereal
oh, and by the way smart guy, the iraqi police and army were disbanded when the war "ended"...makes it kinda hard for these 'terrorists' to attack them huh

and since when did killing your enemy in a war situation become terrorism..is the war over just because bush got on a ship and said it was...looks like the iraqis dont think so and it looks like they're picking off our soldiers 2 by 4 by 5...we're losing the war and if americans ever open their eyes to that...bush will never be reelected...thank god people are starting to open their eyes

also, read an article in last week's Time that says their is a growing popularity for the idea of a quick retreat from Iraq now that the administration realizes what it got into...hopefully this will come to fruition


we are LOSING the war? are you kidding me?

and yes, there are Iraqi police. you are a moron.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031003151503ifas0.3471796&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html

[yeat182]

Originally posted by insincereal
give me some names of these terrorists...since you know so much about them...or are you the one who is really being brainwashed by your own government and media outlets...back this up with facts...please show me an article on them attacking Iraqi civilians...you said your points dont make sense cuz they're backed up with facts...i dont see you providing any proof for your statements..but i guess when there is none, its hard to do...right


why don't you give me the names of all the average Iraqi citizens who just happen to drive car bombs into embassies and hotels?

here is just the most recent attack, in which 2 civillians were killed

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100586,00.html

"FALLUJAH, Iraq — Assailants ambushed a U.S. Army foot patrol outside Fallujah (search) at midday Monday, killing one American and wounding six others in the second day of attacks in this anti-U.S. hotbed, the American command reported. Two civilians also were killed.

[insincereal]

i seriously didnt think it would take people this long to catch on...i guess i overestimated the people who use this board's level of intelligence

[Shatter590]

Since I think I'm at a similar mindset with insincereal, I need to be fair.

there is an Iraqi Police force, and it's slowly being trained by the US Military. They go on daytime patrols with Army soldiers, and recently have been given more authority to act without Army supervisors in limited situations. They also get killed alongside our soldiers (and in one situation BY our soldiers).

But I have to agree with saying the war isn't over. I believe in literality sometimes, and Bush stated major combat had ended, but that doesn't mean the war has ended. The simple fact that our soldiers keep getting ambushed and killed daily by supporters of Saddam proves the war is still going on.Soon this death toll will overtake the one from major combat, and if we're not careful it could explode into another Vietnam (tho that may be a bit extreme of an analogy).

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Shatter590
Since I think I'm at a similar mindset with insincereal, I need to be fair.

there is an Iraqi Police force, and it's slowly being trained by the US Military. They go on daytime patrols with Army soldiers, and recently have been given more authority to act without Army supervisors in limited situations. They also get killed alongside our soldiers (and in one situation BY our soldiers).

But I have to agree with saying the war isn't over. I believe in literality sometimes, and Bush stated major combat had ended, but that doesn't mean the war has ended. The simple fact that our soldiers keep getting ambushed and killed daily by supporters of Saddam proves the war is still going on.Soon this death toll will overtake the one from major combat, and if we're not careful it could explode into another Vietnam (tho that may be a bit extreme of an analogy).

no one said the war is over. we simply said that we aren't losing the war. losing a few soldiers a day, while unfortunate, isn't even slightly devestating (except maybe to morale), in Vietnam we lost hundreds, and even thousands of troops a day. this is a walk in the park comparativley.

[Shatter590]

what you just said is a horrid analogy, war is never a walk in the park as long as people die. but we need to be careful, because everything there is unpredictable. it could flare up at any moment, and those results would be horrendous.

[justcallmeliz]

Originally posted by yeat182
my thoughts: things cost money. sometimes we have to sacrafice our wallets to help out other people, and Iraq will be better for it.

i agree with you and no one is saying that iraq is more important than the US but we are way more well off than the people in iraq so they need the help more than we do...

[Milonater]

My theory:

You bomb it, you bought it.

[A_Moronic_youth]

Oh I get it...

Most of you bitching about how the U.S should withdraw from USA are the same idiotic pricks that thought it'd be a brilliant venture to storm Iraq in the first place... Some of you even went as far as to put it down to humanitarian reasons. Such as "Saddam is a brutal man, we need to help the Iraqi people, blah blah blah"

Of course when it comes as any inconvenience to you guys, and YOUR tax dollars are going towards rebuilding the vast quantities of shit that is all our fault anyway... you want nothing more to do with it, it was basically "Get in there, kill the darkies and leave" The U.S owe Iraq that much, money doesn't come from nowhere and there is no way they can do it by themselves.

If there is a reason why Bush is an idiot, it's because he decided to go and piss all over iraq in the first place.

[open mind]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
the top 10% of americans pay 38% of taxes

the top 20% of americans pay 80% of taxes

the top 50% of americans pay 90% of taxes

......so the wealthy already pay way more then there fair share of the tax burdens.......so its not about what will cause them suffering or not, its about making the tax system equally fair......

but the top ten percent have way more than thirty eight percent of money in america so it still isn't fair.

[turtlefootrx]

8.$1 million to build a museum documenting atrocities by Saddam Hussein
THE COMPLAINT: Is this really necessary

riiiight. so basicly were honering the guy by giving him a museum. whether its to show the shit he pulled er not, hes still being honered.

bush is just an idiot. hes making things here tougher but makin shit so much easier in a country that didnt even vote for his stupid ass.
example: its now a new 'terrorist' law that you get a terrorist sentence (which is pretty much life) just for sending bush hate mail even if it doesnt remotely threaten his life.

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
actually i forgot the exact statistics, but the top one percent pay 30% of the taxes, while they only make between 23% and 27% of the United States total income.
that's the top one percent i said the top ten percent have more than 38 percent of the total income so having them pay only 38 percent of the taxes isn't fair.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by turtlefootrx
8.$1 million to build a museum documenting atrocities by Saddam Hussein
THE COMPLAINT: Is this really necessary

riiiight. so basicly were honering the guy by giving him a museum. whether its to show the shit he pulled er not, hes still being honered.

bush is just an idiot. hes making things here tougher but makin shit so much easier in a country that didnt even vote for his stupid ass.
.

so all the holocaust museums are just Shrines to Hitler, right......

i love how obvious idiots are always the first to insult others...

[turtlefootrx]

i love how obvious idiots are always the first to insult others...

welll since i didnt insult anyone accept the DUMBASS president. id say thatd make you the idiot.

but now that you mention it i guess i never thought about it like that. so you make a good point.

:eek: bet yr shocked someone just agreed with you, now you gotta figure out a way to play off that whole idiot comment...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by turtlefootrx
i love how obvious idiots are always the first to insult others...

welll since i didnt insult anyone accept the DUMBASS president. id say thatd make you the idiot.

but now that you mention it i guess i never thought about it like that. so you make a good point.

:eek: bet yr shocked someone just agreed with you, now you gotta figure out a way to play off that whole idiot comment...

why would i play off it? the statement was absolutely true....and look you did it again in your next post, just to prove my point....

[turtlefootrx]

after second thought you made a good point so im not gonna waste my time trying to make stupid lil comebacks. what i said was merely my opinion at the time and i didnt stop to think aboot the big picture of that. so yes im an idiot. meh, wouldnt be the first time..

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
so it's fair for the one percent to pay more?
fair in the way that a family of four that takes home 30,000 dollars a year will miss the extra few thousand dollars more than a family of four taking in a billion a year will miss a million.

[takingbackrufio]

I'm not from America, so I can't make a biased opinion on this matter. But I will say that up here, George Bush isn't our favourite person. Seriously, this guy is still after Osama Bin Laden, then he goes and starts a war with Iraq because of something his daddy started. And now, the two main targets of American troops are Bin Laden and Hussein. All I can say: What ever happened to finishing one job before starting another?

[thesecondplace]

Originally posted by open mind
fair in the way that a family of four that takes home 30,000 dollars a year will miss the extra few thousand dollars more than a family of four taking in a billion a year will miss a million.

You're a victim of the gloom and doom scare tactics of the left my friend. Who's taking this "few thousand dollars" from the family of four? Nobody! In fact Bush's tax cuts have put more money back in the hands of this family than at any point during Slick Willy's reign. Try to dispute this fact. The reason that the majority of the media doesn't report it this way is because they are Socialist. They believe that the government has a right to everyone's, especially the rich, money.

Really think about what you are saying and realize where your statements and ideology align you. Are you a Socialist? If so that's your choice to make. Then you can come right out and say that you believe government has the right to take and spend as much of your money as they want. If you truly do not believe that then its ignorant to say that giving a tax break across the board to the hard working tax paying citizens of this country is unfair.

[thesecondplace]

The simple answer to the question is "yes" the spending in Iraq is warranted. There is absolutely no question that the world is a safer place without Saddam's regime in power. Although this change was very welcomed by the Iraqi people, we can't forget that they are the innocent victims of the devistation that is part of war.

If you have look at the situation fiscally, then be assured the United States will get some return for its initial investment. No question that this will come from dealings in oil. Is there any doubt that those same liberal critics of this spending will also be critical of Bush when the US begins buying discounted oil from Iraq?

You want to criticize spending? Me too. I hate government spending. In order for the government to spend, first they have to steal it from me and you. Why not start with the billions and billions that we dole out each year to countries that we didn't just level. 15 billion to Africa because a large portion of the people on that continent are too stupid to stop having sex or at least take precautions. Or we can talk about the hundreds of billions that illegal immigrants cost this country every year. Lazy slobs on welfare? Blindly throwing billions at the public school system without actually trying to fix it? How about the prescription drug plan that was just passed? All entitlements my friends.

Of course no Lib or media wants to touch those examples (with the exception of the drug plan) because they would only be criticizing the ideals that they stand most firm on.

Libs will never ever give credit to this administration even when they know they deserve it. Average Joe American knows and sees this. That's what makes them so hilarious to watch. Its also a major reason why not one of the Nine Dwarfs stand a chance in the next election.

[DevilMayCare]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
stop arguing...your opinion is not valid when you claim that the reason i have a differing viewpoint is because ive been brainwashed, when, in fact, ive never visited that site and have no plans in voting for anyone because i do not believe in democracy and our government does not work for me...say no more...you're an idiot...you assume you know things because no one can possible believe anything other than what you believe right...

and i was wondering how you know the people that are attacking us soldiers...what intelligence do you have that the rest of the world doesnt have?


have no plans in voting for anyone because i do not believe in democracy and our government does not work for me

If you can vote and you don't, you have no right to bitch about what you see as 'corrupt' in the gov't because you didn't do a damn thing about it.

[DevilMayCare]

Originally posted by thesecondplace
15 billion to Africa because a large portion of the people on that continent are too stupid to stop having sex or at least take precautions.

Maybe they don't take precautions because they don't have them. Maybe they don't take precautions because they were never taught to use them. Bush really isn't helping when he doesn't support the teaching of birth control methods to the African people. It's abstinence or else. Therefore you get children growing up alone or in households headed by other children because the parents have died or are dying. Children who live and die without the AIDS cocktails because they can't afford them. If they manage to get to puberty, due to lack of education about safe sex they are likely to have children with AIDS. And those children will be ever worse off than their parents. It's a vicious cycle that will not end because the people of Africa have to be TAUGHT about birth control. Your one-sided view that the Africans are 'too stupid' to know how to stop the transfer of AIDS is ignorant. Would you know how it was transfered if nobody had taught you? I don't think so, so why don't you just shut your mouth before you make a complete idiot of yourself.

I'm sorry, my last comment was more about you than your view. But it's staying there because it's what I think and I'm not about to censor myself to appear more willing to accept your stance.

[thesecondplace]

Originally posted by DevilMayCare
Maybe they don't take precautions because they don't have them...It's a vicious cycle that will not end because the people of Africa have to be TAUGHT about birth control. Your one-sided view that the Africans are 'too stupid' to know how to stop the transfer of AIDS is ignorant. Would you know how it was transfered if nobody had taught you? I don't think so, so why don't you just shut your mouth before you make a complete idiot of yourself.


a) I didn't say "Africans" meaning the continent unilatterally. I said a "major portion", meaning at least enough to consider the situation a crisis.

b) condoms are very accessible to anyone in Africa that is willing to use them.

c) AIDS education in Africa has been taking place for over 15 years. So much so that it is more a part of their culture than it is in America. Is there a better "education" watching your area of the world be totally devistated by this disease? If this education is so ineffective then is throwing 15 billion more, ontop of all the other billions that we give, of our money at it a good idea? Plus the notion that these people don't know that their sexual habits are the cause of the spread of AIDS is false.

d) You can criticize the "abstinence is the best policy" all you want, but the simple fact is that it is true. In America many cringe from this statement because its mostly identified with the religious-right's propagana. But outside of this context it takes on a much greater truth, especially in Africa's case.

e) I don't take your criticism personal, because there is no chance that I will make an ass of myself. Informed dialouge (regardless of your political leanings) is healthy, yet often emotional.

Although I would consider myself a Bush supporter, I see this legislation as right-wing pandering. Just like the recently passed perscription drug plan. I truthfully align myself with ALL politicians based on a "lesser of two evils" litmus test. Isn't it ironic that we were both attacking the same person from polar-opposite angles?

At some point everyone of us has to take responsibilty for our actions. This transcends politics, culture, religion, and every other tool that we manipulate to make our day-to-day life more manageable.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by DevilMayCare
have no plans in voting for anyone because i do not believe in democracy and our government does not work for me

If you can vote and you don't, you have no right to bitch about what you see as 'corrupt' in the gov't because you didn't do a damn thing about it.

if you'll take a look at my location, you'll notice i live in florida...recent history in my state shows that the voting process doesn't matter..when brother is governor, you can get anything you want, regardless of what the people have shown they want

anyway, aside from that, the most obvious thing is, a single vote doesnt change anything, and, if you wanna use my unregistered status against me, i'll just use it for me and say i kept myself from voting for bush, so i didn't support him, it was an indirect opposition, just like it was an indirect opposition to every other canidate

and every citizen of the united states has a right to bitch...go do your homework

[DevilMayCare]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
and every citizen of the united states has a right to bitch...go do your homework

Yeah, you have the legal right to bitch but if you don't do anything to change what you're bitching about, all you are is an armchair activist.

[thesecondplace]

Originally posted by cal1082
"people shown they want"???????? How many recounts had Gore winning the state?

Answer:0

How many had Bush winning?

Answer: The original count, and i know at least 2 or 3 recounts. Then sometime last year they did some other type of recount and it also had Bush winning.

After all was said and done certain members of th media were allowded to count the ballots. Guess who kept on winning?

Keep crying about a stolen election while the rest of the world moves foward, laughing at you the whole time.

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
thats not fair then....equal would be fair
equal in this case isn't fair,but i think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
also the fact remains the top ten percent of americans don't pay their share of the taxes and the middle class foots the bill, that's not fair.

[open mind]

the low and middle income households spend between 11 and 10 percent of their income on taxes while the upper most income households spend around 5 to 7 percent of their income on taxes (according to the institute on taxation and economic policy,i tried to check it out on the irs site but couldn't find anything on tax rates by classes there without having to download some stuff i don't want to),i guess that's fair.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
"people shown they want"???????? How many recounts had Gore winning the state?

Answer:0

How many had Bush winning?

Answer: The original count, and i know at least 2 or 3 recounts. Then sometime last year they did some other type of recount and it also had Bush winning.

you think every vote cast was included in the recount???? you think the overseas voted were included???? the answer is no

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
And do you think every vote uncounted, and every vote overseas was for Gore, or enough where he'd win? I'm guessing the count that they did last year would be more accurate because they could have counted every single vote.

i do believe that gore would have had enough to overtake bush

the majority of ballots that disappeared were from heavily urban areas, which routinely vote democratic

and most politcal analysts believe that gore would have had an overwhelming victory in the overseas vote ( i don't remember what the original tally was, i'll have to do some research)

truth is, we'll never know for sure (i have my opinion and you have yours)....but this is a perfect example of why the process doesnt work for me

[thesecondplace]

Originally posted by xnotedgex

the majority of ballots that disappeared were from heavily urban areas, which routinely vote democratic


That's a lie. You're not even misrepresenting facts, you're just lying. The fact is that votes "disappear" from every polling station across America. There were no more "missing" votes in those three counties than any other place. That's why the system has been allowed to remain, because statistically it all evens out. Do you think it was just realized during the last election that the punch ballot system may lead to uncounted votes? The fact is that when a vote is as close as it was in Florida, a canidate can hand-pick a certain number (3 I believe) of counties to be re-counted. Gore chose those specific ones because they were Democratic strongholds knowing that uncounted votes will always be present and that the statistics for those counties leaned in his favor.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by xnotedgex


and most politcal analysts believe that gore would have had an overwhelming victory in the overseas vote ( i don't remember what the original tally was, i'll have to do some research)


I don’t know what "political analysts" you were looking at......but most overseas votes are military related, and the military isn't known for its liberal voting (Clark excluded)....but I’d love to see your research…


here this might help....


September 3, 2002, 9:20 a.m.
One Soldier, One Vote
Enfranchising America’s military.

By Matthew Continetti



or over 20 years, Capt. Samuel F. Wright, USNR, and "ombudsman" of the Reserve Officers Association, has worked on behalf of America's fighting men and women stationed overseas. His goal is simple: to secure the voting rights of military servicemen.

Last December Wright's advocacy paid off. Inside the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most neglected acts of enfranchisement in United States history. The law now secures a soldier's right to vote by absentee ballot in the state where he is registered to vote, whether or not he will return to that state once he is discharged from the services.



That's a major step in the fight to have military votes from overseas treated like votes at home. In a bitterly divided political climate where every vote counts, ballots from military personnel serving overseas are more important than ever. They are especially important for the GOP, which has historically been the party of choice for military voters. A 1997 study published by the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, for instance, found that the ratio of self-described conservatives to liberals in the military was a staggering 23 to 1 — and growing. Without the razor-thin victories provided by America's fighting men and women, Republicans could lose offices from the presidency to county sheriff.

In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore beat Bush by 202 votes before Florida officials counted the absentee ballots from overseas that were mostly from military personnel. After the military votes were counted, however, things changed: According to the Washington Times, Bush had "a net gain of roughly 739 votes," and thus won the presidency.

Bush could have won by an even larger majority if all the military ballots were counted. As the GAO revealed in a report issued last September, military ballots were four times more likely to be disqualified than ballots cast in the continental United States during the 2000 elections. Democratic officials who otherwise judged ballots on the basis of "intent" scrutinized military ballots from overseas, disqualifying those votes that did not have a postmark and notary signature.

The new law is meant to make it easier for military personnel to cast their votes. Capt. Wright thinks it just might work. "The percentage of disqualified military ballots will decrease," says Wright. "But the question is by how much, and how soon?"

Not everyone is satisfied with the reforms included in last year's defense-authorization bill. Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican from Colorado who is currently up for reelection, has proposed more radical changes to the current regulations on military voting. Allard's proposal, which is supported by the American Legion, would allow election officials to count military ballots that aren't notarized or do not have a postmark. These reforms would stop the widespread disfranchisement of military votes in the 2000 election from happening again.

Sen. Allard's proposals were initially part of the National Defense Authorization Act, but sources say that turf battles between the House and Senate forced lawmakers to drop the language from the bill. Despite attempts at cloture by Senate Democrats, Allard's legislation made it into the election-reform legislation now moving through the Senate.

"The Senate Majority leadership is terrified to have a roll-call vote on this topic," says one GOP staffer. Top congressional Democrats understand that military enfranchisement would be a boon for Republicans, and plan to eliminate Allard's language when conferees from the House and Senate meet to amend election reform legislation.

With the Democrats in control of the Senate, it's unlikely that Allard's reforms will make it to the president's desk. And that would be a loss not only for the GOP, but also for American soldiers worldwide. If the language does not survive the House-Senate conference, says an aide to Senator Allard, "Then it's not about turf, but it's about denying men and women in uniform the very basic rights that they are fighting overseas to protect."

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by thesecondplace
That's a lie. You're not even misrepresenting facts, you're just lying. The fact is that votes "disappear" from every polling station across America. There were no more "missing" votes in those three counties than any other place. That's why the system has been allowed to remain, because statistically it all evens out. Do you think it was just realized during the last election that the punch ballot system may lead to uncounted votes? The fact is that when a vote is as close as it was in Florida, a canidate can hand-pick a certain number (3 I believe) of counties to be re-counted. Gore chose those specific ones because they were Democratic strongholds knowing that uncounted votes will always be present and that the statistics for those counties leaned in his favor.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/archive/2072092.htm

Here's a direct qoute from the article, in case you don't feel like reading it for yourself:

"The analysis also confirmed that the voters in Democratic precincts had a far greater chance of having their ballots rejected. Only one of every 40 ballots was rejected in precincts Bush won, while one of every 27 ballots was rejected in precincts Gore won."

Here's another:

"The overall rejection rate for the 43 counties using optical systems was 1.4 percent. The overall rejection rate for the 24 punch-card counties was 3.9 percent. That means that voters in punch-card counties, which included urban Democratic strongholds such as Broward and Palm Beach counties, were nearly three times as likely to have their ballots rejected as those in optical counties."

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
I don’t know what "political analysts" you were looking at......but most overseas votes are military related, and the military isn't known for its liberal voting (Clark excluded)....but I’d love to see your research…


ok, i took that too far

but the truth is, the republican party made a massive effort to include overseas votes that they had dusqualified the day of the election....a suspiciously large percentage of these votes were disqualified because they lacked the postmark of nov 7 or before necessary to be counted...most political analysts ( i can say that with confidence now) suspect these votes were the result of the republican party and the pentagon rallying troops into sending late (and illegal) votes...would it have been a significant difference...maybe so, maybe not...i exaggerated...that's not really the main contention to the election

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
suspect these votes were the result of the republican party and the pentagon rallying troops into sending late (and illegal) votes...

That is no different from what democratic leaders and black leaders (naacp) did with black voters in the inner cities, alot of which was illegal …..

......Did you ever read about the sign (and saying) that the naacp officials and regional DNC officials in St. Louis and other urban areas were caring outside of inner city polling stations? They said things like "if your really black you vote democrat" or "if your one of us, you vote Gore".......isn't it nice to see that supposed "civil rights leaders" believe that ones skin color is based solely on who they vote for rather then their pigmentation.......

.….The point is, is that no side is innocent, don’t try to play the republicans as the only ones who did stuff they shouldn't have........because no matter what story you find or any issue you bring up I can find a similar or worse example done by the democrats and their cohorts…..

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
That is no different from what democratic leaders and black leaders (naacp) did with black voters in the inner cities, alot of which was illegal …..

......Did you ever read about the sign (and saying) that the naacp officials and regional DNC officials in St. Louis and other urban areas were caring outside of inner city polling stations? They said things like "if your really black you vote democrat" or "if your one of us, you vote Gore".......isn't it nice to see that supposed "civil rights leaders" believe that ones skin color is based solely on who they vote for rather then their pigmentation.......

.….The point is, is that no side is innocent, don’t try to play the republicans as the only ones who did stuff they shouldn't have........because no matter what story you find or any issue you bring up I can find a similar or worse example done by the democrats and their cohorts…..

it's not illegal to persuade people to vote for your side...it is illegal to persuade serviceman to vote after the deadline, and then hide the fact that you did it by not postmarking the ballots

[yeat182]

all the complaining in the world isn't going to change anything, i think its time we all moved on

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
it's not illegal to persuade people to vote for your side...it is illegal to persuade serviceman to vote after the deadline, and then hide the fact that you did it by not postmarking the ballots

picketing in front of a polling station is illegal and so is intimidating voters.....which the DNC and the NAACP did (what would you say if these were "right" groups?).........as for postmarked ballots, i'm open minded and i look into anything you post so find me a link that talks about that.......ok....

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
all the complaining in the world isn't going to change anything, i think its time we all moved on

complaining is one thing......but find corruption and/or criminal activities and stoping them will change things or at least help things...

[yeat182]

i agree with that. i was merely stating that argueing over the results of an election that took place 3 years ago isn't going to do anything, they aren't going to suddenly say, "bush, you had a good run, but now we're going to give gore a chance". no use in complaining about it...thats all. just make sure it doesn't happen again.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
picketing in front of a polling station is illegal and so is intimidating voters.....which the DNC and the NAACP did (what would you say if these were "right" groups?).........as for postmarked ballots, i'm open minded and i look into anything you post so find me a link that talks about that.......ok....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/vote-j19_prn.shtml

[SHTTYWTTY]

I think Bush's plan should give me 10 bucks. Then I can buy a few Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwiches. OOOOOOH, they're so good.

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
the fact still remains that the top 10% you say don't pay their fair share of taxes pay 65 percent of all income taxes collected in America annually
the fact also remains that the top ten percent of americans have a tax rate a third lower than your average joe.
if things were fair and equal the top ten percent would pay at the same tax rates as the average guy or gal,that to me would be their fair share.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
the fact also remains that the top ten percent of americans have a tax rate a third lower than your average joe.
if things were fair and equal the top ten percent would pay at the same tax rates as the average guy or gal,that to me would be their fair share.

they still pay a far greater amount of taxes than you're average joe...

[SHTTYWTTY]

Originally posted by yeat182
they still pay a far greater amount of taxes than you're average joe...

This is one of the advantages of being economically successful. You contribute more to the government and get a break in percentage. I couldn't agree more.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by SHTTYWTTY
This is one of the advantages of being economically successful. You contribute more to the government and get a break in percentage. I couldn't agree more.

exactly, they pay the most in taxes, whether percentage wise it equals out to what you or i pay isn't really important, the fact is they pay much much more than an average person.

i heard a statistic somewhere, and i'm not 100% about the figures so take it for what its worth, that the top 10% of the country pays 90% of the taxes...(again don't quote me, i'm not sure the exact numbers, only that the minority pays the majority of the taxes.)

[open mind]

if all citizens are equal we should be taxed equally espescially when we are talking about people who can afford it,i'm not saying take away all their wealth and give it to the rest of the people just have them take the same cut everybody else does.
also the rich get way more government money back for buisness ventures and the like, not to mention they are more likely to weasel out of a big chunk of taxes through tax attorneys the lower middle class can't afford to pay.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
if all citizens are equal we should be taxed equally espescially when we are talking about people who can afford it,i'm not saying take away all their wealth and give it to the rest of the people just have them take the same cut everybody else does.
also the rich get way more government money back for buisness ventures and the like, not to mention they are more likely to weasel out of a big chunk of taxes through tax attorneys the lower middle class can't afford to pay.

the lower class doesn't pay taxes at all, and they get money from the government (welfare)...

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
the lower class doesn't pay taxes at all, and they get money from the government (welfare)...
the lower class do pay taxes, in fact they pay at a higher tax rate than the upper class.
the rich get plenty of money from the government also, don't tell me you haven't heard of corporate welfare.

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
i'm not understanding your argument at all?

"if all citizens are equal we should be taxed equally espescially when we are talking about people who can afford it"

Do you want a flat tax? Cause this statement completely contradicts itself.
i'm not seeing what's so contradictory i'm saying that we're told all citizens are equals, but people don't have the same tax rates. the ones with the lowest tax rates are the ones with the most money,and they can afford to pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us without having to worry about losing everything.
yeah i guess i like the idea of a flat tax just as long as it's not filled with as many unneeded loopholes as our current tax code.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
the lower class do pay taxes, in fact they pay at a higher tax rate than the upper class.
the rich get plenty of money from the government also, don't tell me you haven't heard of corporate welfare.

no, they don't. if you earn less than 20K a year, you get all your federal taxes back...i don't know if you are over 18 or not, but if you have a part time job, then every year you file your taxes and then the IRS sends you back your refund for the entire amount. that isn't because you are young, its because you don't earn enough to be taxed on.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
i'm not seeing what's so contradictory i'm saying that we're told all citizens are equals, but people don't have the same tax rates. the ones with the lowest tax rates are the ones with the most money,and they can afford to pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us without having to worry about losing everything.
yeah i guess i like the idea of a flat tax just as long as it's not filled with as many unneeded loopholes as our current tax code.

the people with the most money, already pay the most taxes...regardless of the percentage.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
no, they don't. if you earn less than 20K a year, you get all your federal taxes back...i don't know if you are over 18 or not, but if you have a part time job, then every year you file your taxes and then the IRS sends you back your refund for the entire amount. that isn't because you are young, its because you don't earn enough to be taxed on.
that's the lowest of the low,if you earn more than that the irs taxes you at anywhere between 10 and 12 percent of total income until you get into the upper class.
i'm 21 by the way so i know how tax refunds work but thanks for the tip anyway ;) .

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
the people with the most money, already pay the most taxes...regardless of the percentage.
i realize that, but i can't say i already pay blank amount of taxes so lower my tax rate, and as a responsible citizen i wouldn't if it wasn't higher than everybody else's, because i know that it's going to public services people need even though i know alot of tax dollars are spent stupidly.
but i guess i'm just a bleeding heart who has to live in the real world.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
i realize that, but i can't say i already pay blank amount of taxes so lower my tax rate, and as a responsible citizen i wouldn't if it wasn't higher than everybody else's, because i know that it's going to public services people need even though i know alot of tax dollars are spent stupidly.
but i guess i'm just a bleeding heart who has to live in the real world.

well, the theory is that by giving the upper class a tax cut, they end up spending that money on investing in the economy, which creates jobs, and then the lower class/middle class benefit from that. thats the theory anyway, i'm no economics major, so hell if i know how effective it is, but our economy has rebounded quite nicely in recent months, and bush did give that tax cut....

[open mind]

yeah the trickle down theory that's been around since reagan might've auctually worked but alot of working class jobs like manufacturing have more or less left the country,everybody without a college education can't get a job in an upscale retail outlet or fancy restuarant, even if they could the pay isn't all that great.
now that i think about it there's another instance of the rich screwing over the little guy,here's an idea how about giving tax breaks to wealthy ceos who keep their companys jobs in the usa instead of somewhere in latin america or asia if something like that was going on i wouldn't feel so bad about the breaks the rich get.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
yeah the trickle down theory that's been around since reagan might've auctually worked but alot of working class jobs like manufacturing have more or less left the country,everybody without a college education can't get a job in an upscale retail outlet or fancy restuarant, even if they could the pay isn't all that great.
now that i think about it there's another instance of the rich screwing over the little guy,here's an idea how about giving tax breaks to wealthy ceos who keep their companys jobs in the usa instead of somewhere in latin america or asia if something like that was going on i wouldn't feel so bad about the breaks the rich get.

i agree, the problem with jobs leaving the USis that foreign governments refuse to protect workers rights or sign and legislation that would do so. a company simply can not compete if its competitiors are paying their workers 50 cents and hour and you have to pay them 7 or 8 dollars.

[open mind]

alright cool, i think that's the first time someones agreed with me:)
still the trickle down theory blows and lower\middle income jobs are leaving america the least the upper class could do is take the same cut in paychecks as me.

[mwhpunk]

we'll be in debt until the end of time no matter what

[BuriedAlive]

WASTE OF MONEY! but then again so was electing bush.

[BuriedAlive]

Originally posted by mwhpunk
we'll be in debt until the end of time no matter what

i dont doubt it

[yeat182]

Originally posted by mwhpunk
we'll be in debt until the end of time no matter what

nah, the democrats will just raise taxes

[BuriedAlive]

Originally posted by yeat182
nah, the democrats will just raise taxes

good point. i wouldnt doubt it though.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
nah, the democrats will just raise taxes
well you could say that republicans make democrats raise taxes by running up huge deficits,i mean sooner or later we all pay for what the government spends.

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
One thing the Bush administratoin has done wrong is spending, but Democrats are the spending champs. That's what they're known for bigger government.
it seems that the roles are being switched today.

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
i dont know if they're being switched, rather both parties are spending much to much.
i don't think you can pass this one on to the democrats because republicans currently are in control of congress, and both houses of the senate, along with a republican president

[open mind]

Originally posted by cal1082
i'm not passing it off, i said both are spending to much money. i dont see democrats running around saying less spending either.

plus the republicans have like 2 more seats in the senate right now.

thats another thing thats positive about the tax cuts. that's more money not in there hands to spend.

hmmm...keep your ears open on your first point.
that's congress that your talking about i think.
they are spending the money,except this way we all get to pay a few years from now.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
i don't think you can pass this one on to the democrats because republicans currently are in control of congress, and both houses of the senate, along with a republican president

just for the record, there are 2 houses in the congress, the senate and the house...

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
i dont understand what you're saying. All i'm saying is i think both parties have been spending to much money. I dont think roles have reveresed because you dont see democrats calling for less spending or trying to block spending bills

if you think democrats aren't calling for less spending then you obvious are not following the presidential campaign at all

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
if you think democrats aren't calling for less spending then you obvious are not following the presidential campaign at all

actually that national health care system their all calling for, will just drive spending higher and higher.........of course none of them will admit to that....

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
actually that national health care system their all calling for, will just drive spending higher and higher.........of course none of them will admit to that....

that's not the point at all, the point was, he said you don't see democrats calling for less spending when that is one of the focal points of the election

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
that's not the point at all, the point was, he said you don't see democrats calling for less spending when that is one of the focal points of the election

they also say they want to lower taxes...empty promises stated only to fool people into voting for them...both sides are guilty of it.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
who's been calling for less government spending out of the candidates. I havent seen any of the candidates pushing for less spending. I know Dean's not.

you're an idiot...go to dean's website...do some research...you don't know what you're talking about

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
they also say they want to lower taxes...empty promises stated only to fool people into voting for them...both sides are guilty of it.

not everyone says they want to lower taxes...that broad statement isn't accurate

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
not everyone says they want to lower taxes...that broad statement isn't accurate

ya two of them have even come out saying that they will raise taxes if they are elected....

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
not everyone says they want to lower taxes...that broad statement isn't accurate

i know, but it is a typical campaign promise most canidates throw out there to get votes, when in actuality very few actually do anything about it. and the democrats, being known for big government, typically have to raise taxes to pay for their social programs.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
Dean wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts (which has helped with government spending), and he wants to use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans. He also wants to assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded.

And I looked at Deans site and couldnt find him saying he wanting to curve government spending. Where's it at on his site?

learn the definition of fiscal responsibility...maybe you'd comprehend his goals a little better

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
All fiscal responsibilty means is that you dont spend more money than you have.

That doesnt mean you cut down on government spending. You can spend as much as you want as long as you have the taxes to back it up, and Dean is calling for the tax cut to be repealed.

So where on his website does it say that he wants to control government spending

you really are an idiot!! do you know what a tax cut is...clearly you don't...it means the people pay LESS taxes...therefore, the government gets less money

what happens when the tax cut is repealed? more taxes, meaning more income

and fiscal responsibility is much more broad than just 'don't spend what you don't have'...but using your narrow definition...this would include campaigning against overspending (see the topic of this thread as an example for what dean campaigns against)

you're not informed at all...let's hope your not old enough to vote yet

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
you really are an idiot!! do you know what a tax cut is...clearly you don't...it means the people pay LESS taxes...therefore, the government gets less money

what happens when the tax cut is repealed? more taxes, meaning more income

and fiscal responsibility is much more broad than just 'don't spend what you don't have'...but using your narrow definition...this would include campaigning against overspending (see the topic of this thread as an example for what dean campaigns against)

you're not informed at all...let's hope your not old enough to vote yet

the problem with dean is he will use that extra income and increase government spending.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
and sense the government gets less money that means they dont have the money to spend. Dean wanting to repeal these cuts means the government will have the money to spend on his social programs.......meaning Dean is not talking about less government spending :grin:

the government is spending money they don't have...that's the point....do you know what national debt is??? do you know what balancing the budget means????

balancing the budget, as called for by every presidential canidate except for bush who doesn't really give a shit about how the country is left when he's out of office, requires cutting back on the spending spree that the current administration is on

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
the government is spending money they don't have...that's the point....do you know what national debt is??? do you know what balancing the budget means????

balancing the budget, as called for by every presidential canidate except for bush who doesn't really give a shit about how the country is left when he's out of office, requires cutting back on the spending spree that the current administration is on

but the democrats won't spend less, they will simply raise taxes to cover their spending.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
but the democrats won't spend less, they will simply raise taxes to cover their spending.

and you can prove this how? are you saying it's better to have a president in office that we know for a fact spends money we don't have than to elect a president that might continue his habits?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
and you can prove this how? are you saying it's better to have a president in office that we know for a fact spends money we don't have than to elect a president that might continue his habits?

because one of the fundemental principles of the democratic party is to create more social programs (big government), and these programs cost money, and the only way that the government can get money is to tax the population, and therefor they must raise taxes to pay for these programs.

bush may have a deficit, but he has lowerd taxes for the population. a democrat may have a balanced budget, but will tax the hell out of the people.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
because one of the fundemental principles of the democratic party is to create more social programs (big government), and these programs cost money, and the only way that the government can get money is to tax the population, and therefor they must raise taxes to pay for these programs.

bush may have a deficit, but he has lowerd taxes for the population. a democrat may have a balanced budget, but will tax the hell out of the people.


i must have missed your proof...can you please state clearly how you know for a fact that if a democrat is elected president, he will "tax the hell out of the people"...does repealing bush's ridiculous tax cuts qualify?

bush's tax cuts benefit the top 15% of the country...they recieve roughly 63% of the total tax cuts...i'd rather have a national health care system personally

[yeat182]

i would rather pay less taxes

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by cal1082
You can prove this by looking at Dean's campaign promise of repealing the tax cuts.

I've said before I dont like the fact that Bush is spending so much money. Thats one of the only thing I disagree with him on, so i'll still vote for him.

Dean said himself though he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts (which has helped with government spending), and he wants to use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans. He also wants to assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded.

Thats not a man promising less spending.

So quit calling people idiots when you got it wrong yourself. Actually I hope you're not voting in the next election if you think fiscal responsibility means less government spending.

1.i guess technically repealing bush's ridiculous tax cuts is raising taxes but only an idiot (or republican) would use this against the campaign

2.the tax cuts have not curbed government spending at all (once again, see the topic of this thread)

3.i don't vote, i don't believe in a democratic system

4.i'm tired of arguing someone who doesn't understand fiscal responsibility...if we were talking about it on an individual basis rather than government, perhaps it would be clearer for you...i just don't like debating with irrational people (doesn't really apply to this topic, just others where you've shown incredible lack of knowledge)

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
i would rather pay less taxes

so how much money do you make a year? and how mouch do you think you'll save when you file your taxes? i doubt you save even $200

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
so how much money do you make a year? and how mouch do you think you'll save when you file your taxes? i doubt you save even $200

actually, at my current job, i get paid under the table, so when i file my taxes i will actually have to pay IRS, unlike most people that get a refund. so i have no idea how much i'll owe them. but long term, i would rather be paying less taxes than being taxed heavily on a sketchy (at best) universal healthcare program. i mean, to most teenagers and college students the tax cuts don't mean much, but to our parents now, and us in the future, they will mean much more.

[strobelite33]

Ok so Bush has proposed $87 billion dollars in order to help rebuild Iraq. I applaud them...I mean that will protect our oil for the next millenia right? I mean, that's what this war was being fought for, isn't it? Sure, Sadaam was a bastard, the whole regime was corrupt, but we didn't really seem to care until there was a "reason" for us to go over there. And way to go us on beating up on the third world. I recommend anybody who is sticking up for Bush in here (not that I'm discounting the man or you at all) to read Michael Moore's newest book Dude, Where's My Country? and see what you think about him now. I am in no way saying you don't know what you're talking about, but sometimes I think people get a little caught up in regurgitating information they're being force fed through the television without giving any second thought to it. As far as I'm concerned, I believe as Americans we do have a responsibility in protecting those who need our help, but for some reason it's only ok when something bad happens to us. I respect President Bush and could not possibly do his job, but I kinda get the feeling he's not exactly doing it either. I just wish for once we could have a president who's actions we would not have to constantly be questioning. And as far as Iraq goes, I hope that we live to see it as a true democracy, rather than as America's kid brother democracy. Once we remove our hand and the whole thing doesn't fall in on itself, I'll regard what was done as a triumph, but until then, I think we might have acted a little presumptiously.

[yeat182]

Ok so Bush has proposed $87 billion dollars in order to help rebuild Iraq. I applaud them...I mean that will protect our oil for the next millenia right? I mean, that's what this war was being fought for, isn't it? Sure, Sadaam was a bastard, the whole regime was corrupt, but we didn't really seem to care until there was a "reason" for us to go over there.

actually, we've cared about saddam since he invaded kuwait. if you recall we did drive them out of the country, forced them to comply with UN Resolutions, sanctioned them for failing to meet those resolutions, and sent inspectors in to make sure they did as they promised. we've patroled 2 no fly zones over the majority of the country, destroyed many SAM missle sites and radar installations in those no fly zones, and used cruise missles to destroy a number of targets following the ejection of UN Inspectors. not to mention the large number of troops that have been stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since 1991. all this before bush was elected. so to answer your question, no oil was not what this war was about, at least not in the sense that we invaded them to take their oil, if you want to say we protected our allies in the region who give us oil, then yes, that is probably correct. All of this by the way, proves that we did "really seem to care".

And way to go us on beating up on the third world. I recommend anybody who is sticking up for Bush in here (not that I'm discounting the man or you at all) to read Michael Moore's newest book Dude, Where's My Country? and see what you think about him now.

which facts did michael moore make up/imbelish/overstate in this book?

I just wish for once we could have a president who's actions we would not have to constantly be questioning.

i agree, we can thank LBJ and Nixon for that...