Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Shock: Bush Says Something Intelligent watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMagicMan)
    Then please don't put words into my mouth. I was never claiming we should not help the unable. My points were purely directed towards the unwilling. So you are in fact agreeing with my argument.
    I think you will find that the where you have quoted me comes from a reply from a posting by an Siarach,

    (Original post by an Siarach)
    The herd will defend the young yes, but a grown adult who contributes nothing to it is a different matter - find me an example of other animals providing one of the herd with food simply because it is unwilling to hunt/feed itself.
    I never argued that you said that. Yes to a large extent I do agree with you, people who choose not to work and simply live off the welfare are effectively diverting the states resources from other more needy people, wasting working peoples money and wasting their own opportunities, a great shame all round.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The best Bush exerpt:

    http://www.kontraband.com/show/show....T=movies&NSFW=
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    The best Bush exerpt:

    http://www.kontraband.com/show/show....T=movies&NSFW=
    Excerpts like that one do make Bush look bad. As a Bush supporter, even I have to admit that he often has a hard time articulating his ideas.

    Kerry seems to have the opposite problem. Many of the things that he says are perfect in terms of grammar and pronounciation, but totally moronic. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a politician say. Another example is when he bashes the no child left behind act and the patriot act that he voted for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Excerpts like that one do make Bush look bad. As a Bush supporter, even I have to admit that he often has a hard time articulating his ideas.

    Kerry seems to have the opposite problem. Many of the things that he says are perfect in terms of grammar and pronounciation, but totally moronic. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a politician say. Another example is when he bashes the no child left behind act and the patriot act that he voted for.
    I'm not sure how promoting the fact he murdered people in vietnam is a good thing eiether, surely bush in not going anywhere and not killing anyone (ignoring his wife, a bottle of alchohol and a car, oh and Afghanistan, hmm iraqi too, ok not personally killing anyone) is better?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    I'm not sure how promoting the fact he murdered people in vietnam is a good thing eiether, surely bush in not going anywhere and not killing anyone (ignoring his wife, a bottle of alchohol and a car, oh and Afghanistan, hmm iraqi too, ok not personally killing anyone) is better?
    He never killed anyone with a bottle of alcohol and a car and some people, such as myself, think it's a good thing that those murderous regimes were toppled. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
    Kerry is a very unimpressive candidate. Many of his fellow veterans and people who served with him can't stand him. Here is a new ad on television where he is admitting to commiting attrocities/war crimes in Vietnam

    http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/sellout.mov
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Made in the USA]Kerry is a very unimpressive candidate. Many of his fellow veterans and people who served with him can't stand him. Here is a new ad on television where he is admitting to commiting attrocities/war crimes in Vietnam[QUOTE]

    Yeah, I can back that one up. My family has always been involved in helping Vietnam Veterans through a variety of organizations, and the veterans HATE him. I can remember as a kid hearing ppl from Massachusetts talk about how they hated that he was their senator. Most Vietnam war veterans loathe the man.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Yeah, I can back that one up. My family has always been involved in helping Vietnam Veterans through a variety of organizations, and the veterans HATE him. I can remember as a kid hearing ppl from Massachusetts talk about how they hated that he was their senator. Most Vietnam war veterans loathe the man.
    Men that have served with Kerry have a new book out called unfit for command. A lot of book stores are deliberately trying to make the book hard to get ahold of, but try to pick it up if you can. There is information in there than the media (even the conservative media) has yet to discuss. It will be interesting seeing how Kerry handles it in the next few weeks. It's still too soon to tell what kind of impact the book will have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Men that have served with Kerry have a new book out called unfit for command. A lot of book stores are deliberately trying to make the book hard to get ahold of, but try to pick it up if you can. There is information in there than the media (even the conservative media) has yet to discuss. It will be interesting seeing how Kerry handles it in the next few weeks. It's still too soon to tell what kind of impact the book will have.

    Can i ask you as an american why why when there are millions of decent americans is it that you elect the people you do?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave134)
    Equally you could have it so that there is no money, and everyone is given what they need. Extreme again, but in my opinion still valid.
    I agree with this. I have a theory about not having money which is hard to explain.
    The only person I have successfully explained it to is my mum, and she agrees with it.
    To me, money has no value, it's just a number. However, to survive, I have to use this system because others are not willing to not use money. If people did not demand things for their service we would not need to pay for things. If you think about it, everything starts from the raw materials. If people collecting these raw materials (whether it be mining rock, felling trees etc) for free, then the people who need the raw materials would not need to charge for the things they make out of it.....and so on.
    If it is not material (e.g. advice from a doctor, lecture at university) people only charge for these things because they need money to buy things (e.g. computers) that have a price because they are made of materials that needed to be collected (e.g. oil needs to be collected to make the plastic casing of computers)...and so on.
    A tad confusing, but it all makes sense in my head.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    Can i ask you as an american why why when there are millions of decent americans is it that you elect the people you do?
    Because only politicians run for office

    [I know this ? wasn't directed at me, but I couldn't resist]
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    Can i ask you as an american why why when there are millions of decent americans is it that you elect the people you do?
    It's a democracy and we have elections. American citizens vote for the candidate they prefer. I'm not sure how else to answer the question.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
    American politics is boring. Lets keep talking about economics!

    To all the people who compare the concept of State to herd behaviour in animals: Comparing human beings (and all associated concepts, ie nations, welfare state, tax, war, ect) to animals is like comparing 'The Lord of the Rings' to a pile of tissue paper. There are some physical similarities (in that both are made of sheets of paper) but there is a lot more to the book than to the Kleenex. There is not really any reason for us to behave like prides of lions.

    Higher taxes for the rich is a good thing. You work harder, and you get more disposable income, and your country gets richer. It's win-win scenario.
    Most of the debate on American politics pertains to the subject. I don't find it boring, but that is probably because I live in the United States

    Taxing the rich is not a good idea. It means that you tax those activities--thrift, hard work, and risk-taking--that contribute the most to elevating the standard of living in the long run.
    You're also taking away any incentive to become rich with high taxes. People aren't going to try and aim as high if they know that it just means that the government is going to penalize them for it.

    Rich people that are taxed will spend less. The restaurants will suffer and probably let go of some poor guy that washes dishes. "The Rich" might not buy a new car, causing less fortunate auto workers to lose their jobs. We're all connected and going after one group hurts us all in the end.

    As for a country getting richer from taxes, this is not necessarily be true. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s, revenue actually doubled! You can grow the economy with tax cuts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Taxing the rich is not a good idea. It means that you tax those activities--thrift, hard work, and risk-taking--that contribute the most to elevating the standard of living in the long run.
    You're also taking away any incentive to become rich with high taxes. People aren't going to try and aim as high if they know that it just means that the government is going to penalize them for it.
    I agree to an extent, i believe inheritance tax should be all but total though.
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    As for a country getting richer from taxes, this is not necessarily be true. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s, revenue actually doubled! You can grow the economy with tax cuts.
    Valid point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    It's a democracy and we have elections. American citizens vote for the candidate they prefer. I'm not sure how else to answer the question.

    But its like our system in the way that you basically have two parties and hardly anyone votes for the 3rd guy. Its not really a fair system nor very democratic, yes you vote but you can only vote in extremly rich people or people backed by huge companys, a truely democratic system would allow for anyone to run and limit the amount of money that can be used to it is equal, then perhaps it won't always be the rich people winning all the time?

    Democracy is so much smarter than Dictatorships becouse people have the illusion that they're in control when in reality they just vote for who they're told to vote for.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    But its like our system in the way that you basically have two parties and hardly anyone votes for the 3rd guy. Its not really a fair system nor very democratic, yes you vote but you can only vote in extremly rich people or people backed by huge companys, a truely democratic system would allow for anyone to run and limit the amount of money that can be used to it is equal, then perhaps it won't always be the rich people winning all the time?

    Democracy is so much smarter than Dictatorships becouse people have the illusion that they're in control when in reality they just vote for who they're told to vote for.
    Actually, the money collected by the two parties is awfully close. I don't think that, at this point, a few million dollars on either side will make a whole lot of difference. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties will have collected more than 500 million dollars each by November, if they haven't passed that point already.

    Corporations usually finance the campaigns of both candidates. The logic behind this is that the winner of the election, no matter who it is, will be less likely to interfere with those who backed them financially.

    As for having to be rich or backed by corporations, what about Howard Dean? I doubt that he was backed by a significant number of corporations and he didn't need to be rich. His campaign shattered previous fundraising records for the Democratic presidential primary. Dean has been credited with being the first national candidate to play to the strengths of the Internet, in particular by engaging the American public directly in the political process.

    Even with the money he had, he still imploded. If the public doesn't like your message, it really doesn't matter how much you use your money to hit them over the head with it. It sort of reminds me of films in a way. How many big-budget films with no substance have left you disappointed? Most of them would still be disappointing even with twice the budget.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Actually, the money collected by the two parties is awfully close. I don't think that, at this point, a few million dollars on either side will make a whole lot of difference. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties will have collected more than 500 million dollars each by November, if they haven't passed that point already.

    Corporations usually finance the campaigns of both candidates. The logic behind this is that the winner of the election, no matter who it is, will be less likely to interfere with those who backed them financially.

    As for having to be rich or backed by corporations, what about Howard Dean? I doubt that he was backed by a significant number of corporations and he didn't need to be rich. His campaign shattered previous fundraising records for the Democratic presidential primary. Dean has been credited with being the first national candidate to play to the strengths of the Internet, in particular by engaging the American public directly in the political process.

    Even with the money he had, he still imploded. If the public doesn't like your message, it really doesn't matter how much you use your money to hit them over the head with it. It sort of reminds me of films in a way. How many big-budget films with no substance have left you disappointed? Most of them would still be disappointing even with twice the budget.
    No you're not getting what i'm saying, my point is nothing to do with the main parties being funded closely, even the 3rd guy, my point is say if you wanted to be president in a true democratic system you would have equal opertunities to do so, yet if you wanted to you'd find it an impossible task. It shouldn't be that way. Why shouldn't you be able to run to be president if you wanted, its as much your country as Bush, Kerry's of Dean's.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    No you're not getting what i'm saying, my point is nothing to do with the main parties being funded closely, even the 3rd guy, my point is say if you wanted to be president in a true democratic system you would have equal opertunities to do so, yet if you wanted to you'd find it an impossible task. It shouldn't be that way. Why shouldn't you be able to run to be president if you wanted, its as much your country as Bush, Kerry's of Dean's.
    It can be unfair and will continue to be somewhat unfair until some campaign finance reform is enacted.

    Despite the inherent inequities in elections, it is still possible to successfully run for president without backing from very rich people or corporations. That's why I gave the Howard Dean example. I don't like Howard Dean, but he proved that individuals can make a difference and it shows the power individuals have when it comes to raising money for a candidate they like. His campaign shattered previous fundraising records and he did it by starting a grassroots campaign, raising money mainly from individual donors. I think the average contribution was a paltry $74. People were talking about how Dean raised his money more than Dean himself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If people listened closer to bushes policies then they would understand hes a good politician
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ColdFire)
    If people listened closer to bushes policies then they would understand....
    - he's a good leader
    - the policies are sincere


    i dont think you can necessarily say he is a good politician

    more good news from the LA Times.

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush has moved past Sen. John F. Kerry in three of the most hotly contested Midwestern battleground states despite continued doubts about the country's direction and the president's policies, new Los Angeles Times polls have found.

    According to the surveys, Bush has opened leads within the margin of error in Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri — states at the top of both campaigns' priority lists.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    - he's a good leader
    - the policies are sincere


    i dont think you can necessarily say he is a good politician

    more good news from the LA Times.

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush has moved past Sen. John F. Kerry in three of the most hotly contested Midwestern battleground states despite continued doubts about the country's direction and the president's policies, new Los Angeles Times polls have found.

    According to the surveys, Bush has opened leads within the margin of error in Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri — states at the top of both campaigns' priority lists.
    One of the reasons why is dropping may be, as surprising as it seems, because of some ads that are running on television regarding his service. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a group of Vietnam War veterans that have released three ads questioning John Kerry’s war record. They have been condemning his anti-war testimony to Congress when he returned home from Vietnam more than 30 years ago. Veterans who served with him get a pass when they call him a fraud. That's an accusation that people who aren't veterans, having not served, could never get away with making.

    If John Kerry can't run on his war record, what can he run on? His 19 year voting record in the senate? For good reason, he's avoided talking about his voting record, but now he might have to.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers continue to drop, especially if Bush get a bounce following the upcoming convention.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.