View Full Version : Kerry's body language scares me
Friendly1
10-14-2004, 08:45 AM
Every time I see this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot
trust me!".
I am just blown away by how powerful his body language is. I suspect he is being overcoached in his
gestures. They don't seem natural at all.
Whatever people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express
doubt about his sincerity. He truly believes in what he says.
I just have this recurring image of living through
another 8 years of Clintonesque scandals with Kerry.
Why do the Democrats go for these scary candidates like
Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry? Are there no honest people left on the liberal side of the isle, or are they all
TOO honest to get up there and try to deceive the American people?
Growing up as a teenager in Georgia, I
didn't much care for Jimmy Carter as President, but at least he was sincere about his feelings. (Which is not to
say that some of the Georgia newspapers didn't brand him as the biggest liar since Cain, but he was very honest
about his beliefs.)
Pancho1188
10-14-2004, 08:58 AM
Whatever
people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express doubt about his sincerity. He truly believes in what he
says.
That's what scares people.
belgareth
10-14-2004, 09:00 AM
Good observations, Friendly.
I rarely watch TV so hadn't noticed his body language. It reinforces my basic fear that we cannot trust either
candidate. Disappointing.
koolking1
10-14-2004, 12:44 PM
Friendly1, I'd like your
take on Cheney's body language in that particular debate.
Also, life was better for me under Clinton: gas
was $1.30; the stockmarket was booming; there wasn't any major war with our GIs getting killed daily; employment
was good; health care costs hadn't spiralled out of control; NORAD/CIA/US Air Force/FAA had never let us down
before (strange, huh?); France and Germany were reliable allies and friends; North Korea and Iran had no nukes; the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict was simmering but not raging out of control; our military wasn't stretched thin
beyond danger level; the National Guard guys and gals had their usual one weekend a month of socializing (and
training!) and were available for hurricane/disaster relief; airlines were making money and not laying off
people/shutting down pension funds; and - seemingly no hope is in sight to boot!!! Do I think Kerry would do a
better job - no.
Friendly1
10-14-2004, 02:05 PM
I did not watch the
Cheney/Edwards debate. Sorry. I don't have any new opinions about Cheney, although he has always sort of spooked
me.
Politically, I am middle of the road. I like certain thing the Democrats advocate and certain things the
Republicans advocate. I think they're all way too extreme for my tastes.
The Clinton years were indifferent
for me. But right now, I could use a change in the economy, and I don't think we're going to get one any time
soon.
Kerry MIGHT bring that on, but at what cost? Bush might bring that on, but at what cost?
Presidential
elections are always a pain in the neck for me. You never hear the whole story from either side and I am just sick
and tired of the acrimonious attacks back and forth.
But if I had to vote for someone today, it would be Bush.
At least he doesn't leave me wondering about what comes next. I think it's pretty clear to everyone we're in
this for the long haul as far as our involvement across the globe goes. Kerry can't change that. But if he stands
before our nation and says, "This is the way things are", I want to feel like he at least believes what he is
saying, even if it turns out not to be true later on.
koolking1
10-14-2004, 02:19 PM
good points and I often
agree.
belgareth
10-14-2004, 02:37 PM
The issue with gas prices is a
real one and is probably directly related to Bush and company. It very much looks like the same kind of tricks the
energy companies were pulling during the energy crises in California a few years back.
The stock market was a
false bubble that many people knew was going to burst. It was largely related to the dot-com fiasco but there were
other factors involved as well. My broker warned me while Clinton was in office to get out of the market, that it
was due for a crash. The number of jobs lost due to that was and is beyond the control of the president or the
government in general. Off-shoring is one of the other major contributors to technology job loses and that was going
on well before Clinton left office and was, if not condoned by his administration, at least a blind eye was turned
to it. I could easily argue that the tax dodges that encourage companies to go off-shore are in large part
associated with the democrats, along with the higher taxes the so-called progressives are so cheerful about that the
large corporations are trying to dodge.
I don't know about where you are but American Airlines was laying
people off here long before Clinton left office, it was part of a trend that started during his tenure.
The
issue of war is a twisted one. The planning and preperation involved in the WTC attack took place during Clinton's
administration. The hijackers were allowed into the US to train to fly under Clinton. That is when the real failure
of our intellegence and security services took place. The WTC attack would have led to war regardless of who was
president. That's not to say I agree with invading Iraq, I don't. If we had spent $100,000,000,000 to hunt down
the real perpetrators, the world would be a safer place. In any case, the military would be involved which leads to
the next point. The democrats have been the ones leading the charge to downsize the military, if anybody is at fault
for the military being streched thin, it should be laid at the feet of those who lobbied for the downsizing of the
military. We were attacked and had little choice but to respond.
If you want to be picky, the terrorist attacks
on our country are a result of many years of failed policy under all presidents, be they democrats or republicans.
Our foreign policy has earned us contempt, resentment and ridicule the world round, both the overly aggressive
attempts to manage other country's governments and the appeasement attempts. We are lousy neighbors!
Does that
mean I think Bush is a good president? Absolutely not! But it doesn't mean I think Kerry will be any better.
Elk Dreamer
10-14-2004, 03:41 PM
I would stand defensive and
stiff on a stage with someone running around smerking, with facial tics, sneers, grunting and acting like a monkey
on a chain. Who probably was on chain or a wire. Look for the DVD movie In Search of Fire and watch it carefully. It
will clarify the whole body language discussion.
Many are going to be surprized with the results of this
election, ask the vets returning
from Iraq who they are going to vote for? Their answer will surprize you.
Elk
einstein
10-14-2004, 04:38 PM
Every time I see this guy
speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust me!".
I am just blown
away by how powerful his body language is. I suspect he is being overcoached in his gestures. They don't seem
natural at all.
Whatever people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express doubt about his sincerity. He
truly believes in what he says.
I just have this recurring image of living through another 8 years of
Clintonesque scandals with Kerry
Nice post!
I saw the same thing, I jsut didn't know what I was looking
at. I knew Kerry seemed too contrived, like he's trying to be someone he's not, trying to be what his coaches
tell him to be.
Bush has always seemed more sincere and natural. I'd much rather sit down and have a beer with
Bush than Kerry.
Bill Clinton just seemed slimy in the debates. I knew I couldn't trust him, but didn't know
why.
I'm still undecided on who to vote for. I don't think either of them can destroy the country, I hate
this "most important vote in this generation" crap.
I plan on on checking the polls, and if Missouri is close,
I'll vote for Bush or Kerry. If it isn't close, I'll be voting Badnarik. Kerry has pulled out of Missouri,
cancelled his TV ads, and sent his workers to other states. There's a pretty good chance Bush will take MO.
Friendly1
10-14-2004, 04:49 PM
Bush Jr. has the same problem
his father did. He is pointing to some very obvious character flaws in his opponent, but he is not focusing on the
issues that really concern people. Bush Sr. said Clinton would turn out to be slimy, and he did. Jr. says Kerry
will flip-flop, and I believe that.
But I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 in part because I was mad at Sr. for not
understanding how many people were hurting financially. It looks to me like Jr. is in the same boat with Dad. He
just doesn't get it.
But I would rather have him calling the shots than Kerry. We don't need another Somalia.
Bush Sr. got us into it for good reasons. Clinton just bungled it, and then shamefully acted like we had suffered
a military defeat in the Battle of Mogadishu. Technically, we won, and we only suffered the casualties we did
because Clinton refused to give the troops the armored support they asked for.
Would Kerry be that wussy? I
hope not. But I'm afraid he would never do anything anywhere unless he had at least 150 nations sending troops
along with us.
We had a coalition of 30 nations going into Iraq. We don't have that now, and that's a mark
against Bush. But if Kerry is going to stand up there and insist we had no allies going into Iraq, I just can't
see him dealing honestly with us or anyone else on future military situations.
At least Bush hasn't tried to
cover up the scandals in his administration. He may not be the brightest lighbulb in the box, but at least we
don't have to wonder if he is going to be impeached.
Holmes
10-15-2004, 08:55 AM
Every time I see
this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust
me!".
Have you ever formed an impression based on body language, only to find out down the road that
you were just dead wrong? I'll bet the answer is yes.
Sometimes (maybe or maybe not in Kerry's case - I
don't know the man personally) body language can be really misleading and it is possible to read too much into it
all.
I do agree that his body language is rigid and unnatural, but maybe he just happens to suck at nonverbal
communication. (And, heck, maybe he's a bad dancer, too.)
At least Bush hasn't tried to cover up the
scandals in his administration.
:lol: Ba-dump-bump.
Friendly1
10-15-2004, 02:10 PM
Kerry is generally considered
the winner of the Presidential Debates in part because of his body language. He is said to have excellent debating
skills. Bush does come off as a bit of a rookie. I think most people would. What I see in Kerry is a very
polished, well-practiced set of mannerisms which occur over and over again. He just strikes me as very
artificial.
As for judging someone on the basis of their body language and finding out I was wrong, I haven't
been cognizant of the importance of body language long enough to have made some sort of discovery like that.
So
far, I am reasonably satisfied with the conclusions I've drawn about people I have met.
Elk Dreamer
10-16-2004, 12:37 AM
Koolking 1, Things were
better under Clinton. I have traveled Ohio,Indiana,and Michigan
this summer. You cannot believe the number of
people who have lost their jobs, unemployment benefits, and now their homes. Several businesses have failed others
are already starting pre Christmas clearance sales. 2005 car models are full on the lots. All of this is not related
to 9/11. A Ohio National Gardsman recently returned from duty in Iraq he found out his promised promotion and
orginal job did not exist. He beat the streets for a couple of weeks looking for non existent work before comitting
suicide. Bush's solution during the debate was to offer these folks retraining at Jr colleges or reeducation, God
knows for what jobs?
Bush himself was not successfull in business without the Saudi's bailing him out. He cannot
run the country any better. What are folks going to do give him 4 more years to drive us into a deeper hole?
DAdams91982
10-16-2004, 12:50 AM
Friendly1,
I'd like your take on Cheney's body language in that particular debate.
Also, life was better for me under
Clinton: gas was $1.30; the stockmarket was booming; there wasn't any major war with our GIs getting killed daily;
employment was good; health care costs hadn't spiralled out of control; NORAD/CIA/US Air Force/FAA had never let us
down before (strange, huh?); France and Germany were reliable allies and friends; North Korea and Iran had no nukes;
the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was simmering but not raging out of control; our military wasn't stretched thin
beyond danger level; the National Guard guys and gals had their usual one weekend a month of socializing (and
training!) and were available for hurricane/disaster relief; airlines were making money and not laying off
people/shutting down pension funds; and - seemingly no hope is in sight to boot!!! Do I think Kerry would do a
better job - no.
I believe alot of what you say is exagerated myself (Especially the US Air Force comment,
I dont see How we let you down)... Almost everything you say is in response to Sept. 11... not Bush. Bush at least
had the Kojones to do something about it. Things change.... and you gotta respond to them.
Adams
belgareth
10-16-2004, 05:34 AM
Things were
better under Clinton.
You really believe that? You think the economic slow down happened overnight or
even in as little as a year? Or even that the president has much control over it? What nonsense! It took years of
neglect before the situation came to a head with the stock market bubble collapsing, 9/11, energy costs and the war
in Iraq have only made matters worse. Bush is a terrible president but let's at least deal with the problem
honestly.
a.k.a.
10-16-2004, 09:42 AM
Every time I see
this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust
me!".
Yes, but doesn’t Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?
And even when he’s wearing his “man of the people” costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled
up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and you’re not.” attitude.
I think it’s a bad idea to pick candidates
on the basis of their body language, but if that’s all we have to go by... What could be scarier than that famous
Bush smirk? That’s the sign of a strong malevolent streak — if not a downright sadistic personality.
And then there’s those moments when his eyes wander off while his mouth is still talking. I’m not sure how to read
that (Drugs? Brain damage? Voices from God?), but it sure doesn’t inspire confidence.
Elk Dreamer
10-16-2004, 10:50 AM
A.K.A Great post. You have
it exactly B.M.O.C. Big Man on Campus I have seen a lot of them and they are not at your side when the going gets
tough. Cheney has some of the same sneers as he speaks out the side of his mouth. I think they have nothing but
contempt for the people they fool with their lies including the far right Christians who they manipulate so easily.
Belgareth take a good look at the energy crisis that came to a head early in California and the Cheney energy
meetings in DC which the Republicans went to court to keep from disclosing their discussions. I feel a brighter,
intelligent, President would have taken the Country in a far better direction than the quagmire pit in Iraq. None of
the Bush Boys have done well with their public service or business interests. Neil Bush who you seldom hear anything
about nowdays was the brother that ripped us off a few years ago with a massive Savings and Loan Scam. He and his
cohorts rode off scott free with the life savings of many folks. We were left with that empty bag. W is going to do
the same thing with this Countries resources if he can pull it off before enough people wake up.
I think people
are waking up. I think many are going to be surprized with the sweep that is going to take Kerry into office;
barring a contrived trumped up fear raising terrorist attack of some type. I see more Kerry/Edwards signs in usual
Republician territory than ever before that is one visible thing tells me that people are waking up.
Elk
Holmes
10-16-2004, 11:36 AM
Yes, but doesn’t
Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?
And even when he’s wearing his “man of the
people” costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and
you’re not.” attitude.
I think it’s a bad idea to pick candidates on the basis of their body language, but
if that’s all we have to go by... What could be scarier than that famous Bush smirk? That’s the sign of a strong
malevolent streak — if not a downright sadistic personality.
Bush's personality has been
described thusly on many occasions. And anyway, it's written all over his face: "Yee-haw, I'm above the
law!"
During all three debates, his demeanor was that of an arrogant little brat who'd been caught stealing
milk money, only to stamp his feet over the fact that someone had the balls to call him on it.
Unprofessional
and unpresidential.
Friendly1
10-16-2004, 12:09 PM
Yes, but doesn’t
Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?
And even when he’s wearing his “man of the people”
costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and you’re not.”
attitude.
Nothing wrong with that. As long as he expresses himself sincerely, we know where he stands.
We are under no obligation to agree with him.
But as long as Kerry uses artificial gestures and poses to mislead
people into thinking he is being sincere, we have no idea of where he stands.
I think it's a bad idea to pick a
candidate on the basis of political speeches and television and radio advertisements, but that is how we do it,
isn't it?
This country seems more in love with the idea of picking the guy who can conduct the best poison pen
campaign than with the idea of finding a good, decent candidate and going with him (or her).
Elk Dreamer
10-16-2004, 12:52 PM
Friendly 1,
Read the
Party platforms, that gives you in depth positions on most issues and the Candidates seldom veer far from that
platform in their decision making. Some people pick their candidates according to looks only but the majority pick
on how the candidate and Party policies are affecting them personally. The guys coming home from Iraq have been
instructed not to talk but most of them I have talked with feel that Bush and company let them down with the whole
Iraq game plan. The growing AWOL list certainly indicates the current frustration levels.
Elk
belgareth
10-16-2004, 01:04 PM
Belgareth
take a good look at the energy crisis that came to a head early in California and the Cheney energy meetings in DC
which the Republicans went to court to keep from disclosing their discussions. I feel a brighter, intelligent,
President would have taken the Country in a far better direction than the quagmire pit in Iraq. None of the Bush
Boys have done well with their public service or business interests. Neil Bush who you seldom hear anything about
nowdays was the brother that ripped us off a few years ago with a massive Savings and Loan Scam. He and his cohorts
rode off scott free with the life savings of many folks. We were left with that empty bag. W is going to do the same
thing with this Countries resources if he can pull it off before enough people wake up.
Elk
If you'll
go back and read what I said, I believe that Bush and his gang are responsible for the energy crises issues. That
does not change the fact that you are laying the blame for some things on him that he simply could not have done.
All I am doing is trying to interject some small dose of reality.
I hope the country wakes up soon and realizes
that both parties are full of crap, both candidates are bought, paid for and owned by other interests and do not
have the best interests of you and I in mind. Clinton was not responsible for the economic growth except in as much
as he left it alone. At the same time, if he had been paying some attention to the economy he might have seen the
impending crash coming. But maybe he did, maybe he wanted the republicans to be blamed by an uninformed and gullible
public. I don't know.
Friendly1
10-16-2004, 03:58 PM
I hope the
country wakes up soon and realizes that both parties are full of crap, both candidates are bought, paid for and
owned by other interests and do not have the best interests of you and I in mind.
I don't think most
people will ever accept that. We had to put up with eight years of Clinton shenanigans because people didn't want
to believe that he was the shady character he turned out to be.
Bush's foreign policy has proven to be more
effective than Clinton's. During the Clinton administration, it was common enough for leaders of other nations to
launch into anti-American tirades. Now, about the only people doing that are terrorists and Democrats.
I wish
we could bring our troops home from Iraq today, but I'm glad we're not looking at another 12 years of Saddam
Hussein's blustering (and people don't seem to be aware of just how many troops we had committed to that region
even though we weren't technically at war with Iraq).
Do we have another few years in Iraq? Looks like it.
Doesn't matter who is President. The only way we can get out of Iraq is to build a stable Iraqi government.
We'll end up in a Vietnam-like quagmire if and only if there is a civil war. We haven't even begun to approach
Vietnam-like policies and politics. I hope it never comes to that.
Of course, it was the Democrats (Kennedy and
Johnson) who gave us the Vietnam quagmire. Nixon eventually got us out of there, although he reneged on several
campaign promises before doing so.
Carter gave us Iran.
Reagan gave us Beirut. But Reagan also stared down
the Soviet Union and their system crumbled from within (something which was bound to happen eventually).
Unfortunately, it seems like there is still a danger that Russia might revert to some of the old Soviet ways (or
never entirely abandoned them).
In the wake of September 11, I am grateful for the fact that I can drive down to
the local mall without concern for bomb-laden buses and suicide bombers.
When I read about the quagmire in
Israel and the Palestinian territories, I wish they would just stop killing each other. But that doesn't seem
likely to happen. It would benefit both sides to stop, but neither side has the will to back off and risk being
perceived in their own minds as weak.
Today's foreign policy is really only about one thing: making sure
everyone else perceives you as being strong. That is the way it is between India and Pakistan. That is the way it
is between Russia and the Chechen rebels. That is the way it is between Syria and the rest of the Middle East.
That is the way it is between the United States and the rest of the world.
Clinton made us seem weak, and we
paid the price for it. Until everyone else changes, looking weak and vacillating is a bad thing for us.
We had
better reasons for going into Iraq than people give us credit for. At the time, all we had to go on was the
now-discredited intelligence that Saddam Hussein was still building weapons of mass destruction.
Bush made the
right decision. He didn't order anyone to fabricate evidence to suport that decision. He could have timed it
differently, but once he made the ultimatum which followed that last U.N. resolution, the time table was set.
As
long as people continue to get their truths from propagandists like Michael Moore and Gun Boat Veterans for Truth, I
seriously doubt we'll ever have a well-informed electorate. We have highly opinionated voters, and that's about
it.
But we may get an unusually high voter turnout in a couple of weeks. If that happens, then the past few
months of political nonsense will have been more worthwhile than the previous several elections.
belgareth
10-16-2004, 05:08 PM
We are in agreement on almost
every point you made. The points of disagreement are:
1. Bush made the wrong decision to attack Iraq. He
justified it through fabrication. Saddam could have been marginalized by publicly ignoring him while keeping a
covert eye on his activities. Eventually he would have been regarded much as the boy who cried wolf. The effort
should have been focused on finding and punishing the people who really attacked us. Single-minded determination to
hunt them down then over-whelming force used to punish them would have demonstrated far more strength while creating
fewer enemies, IMHO.
2. Voters can be educated! I think the huge influx of registrations is a good sign. People
may be getting fed up with business as usual. I hope that a sizeable portion of them do not vote party, no matter
how they are registered. Of the ones who do vote party, how many are going to come away disillusioned when their
party wins and fails to fulfill promises? These people are finally registering to vote because they feel there is
something important to do. What happens when the promises are not fulfilled?
Whatever happens, the next few
years could be interesting.
HK45Mark23
10-16-2004, 06:59 PM
:goodpost: Both of the previous posts are good. I do believe there were enough time to remove, give away to
terrorist or other rouge countries or burry the alleged weapons before we invaded. I am not convinced there were no
weapons. It has been proven there was the mind trust and intensions to manufacture WMDs. Friendly1, I agree with
you. I think it takes several years to feel the effects of a Presidential. So I think we are feeling the effects
of poor leadership from a prior administration. I was heartbroken to see someone disgrace the office with so many
scandals. I also think that the standards in America declined and moral decay ran ramped as a result. I do think
that Bush has re-instilled dignity and ethics to the Office of Presidency. It is true that a lot of the process of
campaigning is crap. I hate the mud slinging. The disinformation and misinformation runs ramped. A lot of the
promised are unobtainable. Also let’s not forget that the FBI, CIA, Great Britton and Russia all thought there were
WMD. Also France, Germany, The UN and Saddam Hussein all were dipping there hands into the oil for food money. So
it all comes out in the wash.
As far as
body language goes Kerry has the mismatched and rehearsed gestures, IMHO Bush is honest and possibly holding top
secret info in the interest of the people. That may be why he reacts kind of strangely. I my self have known
things I had to keep to my self and have had uninformed “ignorant” people make arguments based on unsubstantiated
information while I could not reveal my knowledge. It is a hard position to be in. I felt like screaming “You
Idiots, You Don’t Know What You Are Talking About” and spilling the beans. I did not and in time they knew the
wisdom I had and the inferiority of their previous positioning. Remember Kerry is an old pro when it comes to
politics, he is well rehearsed. Bush is not. But, Bush has grit.
HK45Mark23:wave:
Friendly1
10-16-2004, 07:21 PM
We are in
agreement on almost every point you made. The points of disagreement are:
1. Bush made the wrong decision to
attack Iraq. He justified it through fabrication.
Bush didn't fabricate anything. He wasn't in the
position to do that, much less get away with it. The media have done a pretty good job of determining that the only
fabrications came out of British intelligence. But neither Bush nor Blair ordered anyone to falsify intelligence.
They had no need to.
What happened was a gross misinterpretation of complicated evidence.
As for
marginalizing Saddam, that was never going to happen. We had committed almost 100,000 military personnel to the
region because of Saddam. And because of the sanctions against Iraq, thousands of Iraqi children were malnourished
and dying every year. We bear some responsibility for those deaths and hardships because the policy of sanctions
did not achieve what it was intended to achieve (the overthrow of Saddam).
2. Voters can be educated! I
think the huge influx of registrations is a good sign.
Voters cannot be educated very well, because the
airwaves (and the Internet) are overwhelmed with partisan politics.
Look at how many people believe that Bush
stole the last election (an impossibility) and how many people believe that Bush falsified the intelligence leading
to the war in Iraq (another impossibility).
A great deal of nonsense is accepted as fact without challenge by a
lot of people. Even when the facts are published and discussed to death in the media, the false allegations (such
as these two points) which led to the revelations of the facts and all the subsequent analysis and discussion
continue to be endlessly repeated -- and therefore unnecessarily believed -- by millions of people.
There will
probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were not properly awarded and there will probably always be
people who claim that Bush did not finish his military service honorably.
Both charges are false. Both charges
continue to be repeated over and over.
The truth is always the first victim in any conflict. That rule applies
in Presidential politics as well as in all walks of life.
Elk Dreamer
10-17-2004, 01:53 AM
Regardless of all the
opinions expressed here, and most of them are simple opinions. Like As os we all have one. This election and the
aftermath is going to be one of the most interesting ever, due to the partispation of thousands of new people who
have been registered and are inspired by the controversies truth and untruths. You might just as well vote and hang
on for the ride boys. I voted two weeks ago. LOLOLO
Elk
HK45Mark23
10-17-2004, 02:20 AM
Elk, this is true. I am glad to here that
you voted. I can't wait. Too many have not taken the issues seriously in the past. Your statements about
opinions are true. Thank God we live in a place where we can express our opinions. It is a wonder that we live in
a place where the people govern their selves as we do in this great democracy. I cherish the right to express my
self. I cherish the right to vote. When others don’t hold the same views and they diametrically oppose my beliefs,
I stand up and say, “I don’t agree but think God we can disagree in public and hold debate for the sake of
intellectual stimulation,” and I would fight to the death to protect this right. It is unfortunate, but most
debates only results in both parties being more deeply rooted in there beliefs. Seldom do people go home and think,
"Gee I think that I should reevaluate my position." Even if after doing so they still feel the same, then, at least
they did not just self justify as is human nature. I feel the point of the debate is to look at things from
multiple view points. For it is only after empathizing from many different perspectives, that one can start
obtaining the wisdom necessary to make rational decisions. Thanks.:thumbsup:
HK45Mark23
belgareth
10-17-2004, 04:24 AM
Friendly,
Ok, fabrication
was the wrong word. Your term 'Gross misinterpretation' is a much better term. Bush selected what he wanted to
believe based on his personal desires, IMHO. But the whole argument is based on the belief that we have the right or
obligation to act as the world's police, judge and jury. That's what we were doing in trying to oust Hussien.
Desert Storm was done right, including stopping when we did. The implementing of sanctions afterwards are of
debatable value as sanctions in general have proven to be pretty worthless in changing a country's direction. Look
at Cuba for a great example of that.
In Desert Storm we were asked to help defend an ally and we did so. The
difference is that we were not invited into Iraq by anybody, nor were we directly attacked by Iraq. We made the
decision to attack another country because we didn't like it's leadership. Another country's leadership, unless
physically attacking us, is not our business. The comment about the children dying, while a tragedy worthy of
humanitarian efforts, carries no weight while so many of our own are hungry and homeless. It certainly is not a good
reason to kill untold numbers of innocent bystanders in a foriegn land.
You state that voters cannot be educated
very well. In large part I agree with you because of the social/political climate we are working within. But to
believe they cannot be educated at all is another thing altogether. If I were to accept that trying to educate the
public is an impossible task, that would be tatamount to stating that our democratic system is unworkable. There is
some argument for that but in my idealism I choose to not accept it. Rather, I'd like to look at the long road of
believing that we can change the social/political climate. It doesn't much matter to me if you or anybody else
votes for Bush, Kerry or Donald Duck. What matters is that you take a little effort to learn the issues and vote
what/who you believe is in the best interests of the country as a whole. The information is readily available to
most people through one means or another without relying on the media or campaign mudslinging. The necessary
critical thinking skills and community interest can be taught, they were taught at one time but we've moved away
from that in our educational system.
"There will probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were
not properly awarded and there will probably always be people who claim that Bush did not finish his military
service honorably.
Both charges are false. Both charges continue to be repeated over and over."
There will
also be Flat Earthers and people who believe JFK's assasination was a CIA conspiracy. Teaching our children to
think rather than to memorize information would go a long ways towards correcting that. Holding politicians to their
word would also be a step in the right direction. So would elimination of the huge campaign contributions and term
limits.
HK45Mark23
10-17-2004, 04:55 AM
:goodpost: Well stated. Good post. Not sure about Bush's motives, but very well put.
I also recall Nicholo Machiavelli stating something
to the effect that the morality of a leader is different from that of the common man. If a leader perceives a treat
to his people it is his obligation to assassinate the one who is the threat. I would not be ok for one of us to
kill some one, but if one of us was a king or a leader and we perceive a threat to the people it is our moral
obligation to the people to “take out” the threat. I use this concept when evaluating a threat to my family,
friends and anyone who I can prevent from suffering severe bodily harm or death. Clinton was also in the know about
the possibility of various threats from Bin laden to Hussein and did nothing. I don’t like the idea of the U.S. as
the world police but we are doomed if we act the part or don’t due to our strength and wealth. Don’t get me wrong I
am not for the Robin Hood idea. I believe in Jeffersonian democracy and capitalism.
HK45Mark23:wave:
belgareth
10-17-2004, 05:18 AM
I completely disagree with
Machiavellian philosophy on that point. It implies that a government has a higher authority than the people but in
fact the opposite is true. The people are the ultimate authority. Under that philosophy, I have no right to use
lethal force to defend myself but the government may use lethal force to require me to conform to the government's
decisions. I lose the right to voice my opinion if it is contradictory to the government's best interests, which
are not always the people's best interests. Government has an obligation to protect and to serve but wars of
aggression are never done to protect.
Again, you are speaking from the concept that we have a right to tell
others how to act, we don't! Reverse the situation and say that another country the size and strength of our own
decides our system is unfair and causing suffering and death to a percentage of our people. Arguably, it is
happening here in the United States in greater numbers than in Iraq. Do they have the right to invade the US to
enforce their beliefs on us? I think we would object rather forcefully, don't you?
Or take it down to the
micro: if your neighbor decides that they don't like the way you run your household, does your neighbor have the
right to come into your home and use force to change the way you do things? Then why should a government have the
right to do that with another country?
Holmes
10-17-2004, 05:23 AM
I would not be
ok for one of us to kill some one, but if one of us was a king or a leader and we perceive a threat to the
people it is our moral obligation to the people to “take out” the threat. [/font]
Yes, but what if
that "perceived threat" is, in reality, no threat at all, but rather the product of our own paranoia or ulterior
motives?
belgareth
10-17-2004, 05:25 AM
Yes, but what if
that "perceived threat" is, in reality, no threat at all, but rather the product of our own paranoia or ulterior
motives?
If you can prove it, that makes the peron no different from any other mas-murderer.
Friendly1
10-17-2004, 08:06 AM
But the whole
argument is based on the belief that we have the right or obligation to act as the world's police, judge and jury.
That's what we were doing in trying to oust Hussien. Desert Storm was done right, including stopping when we did.
The implementing of sanctions afterwards are of debatable value as sanctions in general have proven to be pretty
worthless in changing a country's direction. Look at Cuba for a great example of that.
I agree that
trying to police the world has been as frustrating an experience for us as people have made it out to be. The
policy was implemented after World War II in stages out of fear that if we stood by and did nothing, we would find
ourselves in another world war.
Ironically, we will never know if that policy succeeded. At least one political
analyst has already declared that the war on terrorism is already a world war (just not fought with massive
armies).
I also agree with you about the distinctions between the first Persian Gulf War and the last one.
...The comment about the children dying, while a tragedy worthy of humanitarian efforts, carries no weight
while so many of our own are hungry and homeless. It certainly is not a good reason to kill untold numbers of
innocent bystanders in a foriegn land.
Our government was directly responsible for the deaths of those
Iraqi children. The partial failure of the sanctions and their impact on the people of Iraq were noted years ago.
Bush had the choice of continuing to kill Iraqi children for years to come, or trying to bring about an end to the
United States' responsibility for the suffering.
Naturally, it wasn't described in those terms. No one would
have approved a war to end the suffering of Iraqi children. Everyone blamed Saddam Hussein for not cooperating with
the U.N. But the sanctions policy, though preventing Hussein from building WMD, nonetheless prevented thousands of
Iraqi families from receiving proper care.
One of the alleged goals for the sanctions was to coerce the Iraqi
people into overthrowing Hussein. I think our leaders saw that as a low-potential outcome of the sanctions, but
they defintely called for Iraqi rebellions more than once.
You state that voters cannot be educated very
well. In large part I agree with you because of the social/political climate we are working within. But to believe
they cannot be educated at all is another thing altogether.
I think voter education is an ongoing process.
But I don't think effective voter education occurs where the issues are concerned. Almost everything we are told
about the issues is being funneled through analysis and legal objection.
Where is the simple rundown of the
facts for the interested voter?
Not everyone will want to analyze them. Not everyone will arrive at a fair
analysis. But our system doesn't try to educate the voter so much as persuade the voter.
So, persuasion and
education are not the same in my book. The few media outlets that simply try to inform without analysis get drowned
out by the big guns.
"There will probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were not
properly awarded and there will probably always be people who claim that Bush did not finish his military service
honorably.
Both charges are false. Both charges continue to be repeated over and over."
There will also be
Flat Earthers and people who believe JFK's assasination was a CIA conspiracy. Teaching our children to think rather
than to memorize information would go a long ways towards correcting that. Holding politicians to their word would
also be a step in the right direction. So would elimination of the huge campaign contributions and term
limits.
That means we need to change the way we do things, because what you are saying has been said
throughout my life. I have never seen any successful attempts to change the system.
Both the Republicans and
the Democrats benefit strategically and financially from the current system. None of them have any incentive from
the system itself to change. Those Democrats and Republicans who do honestly want to change the system so that it
more fairly represents the people's interests, don't seem to have either a clue how to do it or the means to pull
it off.
So, we're stuck with what we've got. Bush's call for and end to 527 ads may eventually mean those
sort of things go away. But the special interest groups will find new ways to get around the laws.
belgareth
10-17-2004, 09:35 AM
That
means we need to change the way we do things, because what you are saying has been said throughout my life. I
have never seen any successful attempts to change the system.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats benefit
strategically and financially from the current system. None of them have any incentive from the system itself to
change. Those Democrats and Republicans who do honestly want to change the system so that it more fairly represents
the people's interests, don't seem to have either a clue how to do it or the means to pull it off.
So, we're
stuck with what we've got. Bush's call for and end to 527 ads may eventually mean those sort of things go away.
But the special interest groups will find new ways to get around the laws.
Give the man a prize! He hit
the nail on the head. :thumbsup:
Yes, I've been hearing it all my life too. Yes, both major parties grossly
profit by the way things are and have no reason to change them. But stuck with it we are not. It's a massive task
but no more so than many other tasks undertaken and accomplished by good people.
To say or believe that it
cannot be accomplished is defeatist and I've never been good at that. It''s a lot better in my eyes to try to
accomplish what you believe is the right thing than to go through life accepting that which you never tried to
change. The way to change something like this is much like sitting on the top of a mountain rolling snowballs down
the hill. The majority will founder and stop in a few seconds. Every now and again one will grow and thrive.
Eventually, one may even start an avalanch that sweeps the side of the mountain clean. I think I'd like to keep
roilling snowballs.
You mentioned that we had an obligation to resolve the issue of starving children in Iraq
and I agree with that, kind of. Since the sanctions were created through a parlimantary body that were were a
functional part of at the time, we had the obligation to continue to work through that body to remove them. The
sanctions weren't working, they were causing suffering and grief and they were created through the action of a
group that we support! Instead of taking appropriate action to remove the sanctions, we take it upon ourselves to
unilaterally determine a new course of action?
Friendly1
10-17-2004, 11:25 AM
Since the
sanctions were created through a parlimantary body that were were a functional part of at the time, we had the
obligation to continue to work through that body to remove them. The sanctions weren't working, they were causing
suffering and grief and they were created through the action of a group that we support! Instead of taking
appropriate action to remove the sanctions, we take it upon ourselves to unilaterally determine a new course of
action?
The United Nations hasn't exactly been an effective arbiter of international justice. It wasn't
really created to arbitrate disputes -- only to provide a medium for open communication. It seems to have acquired
responsibilities by accretion without any real plan for the future.
We had plenty of U.N. Security Council
resolutions authorizing the use of force. Several dozen nations obviously felt those resolutions were sufficient to
go into Iraq.
So, where was the unilateralism?
The United States by no means acted alone. "Unilateral" is
one of those oft-used words which has been rendered meaningless, since every coalition that suffers any opposition
at all is accused of acting unilaterally.
The United States did not act alone. But if George Bush is going to
be faulted for acting like the leader of a coalition of dozens of nations, then he shouldn't be accused of failing
to establish or maintain U.S. influence over seas.
I am of Hispanic descent, and I was ashamed for the Spanish
people when they withdrew from Iraq in the wake of the Madrid bombing. But, what I think is even worse, is the fact
that they have shown the world that they can be pushed around and bullied and they will end up paying an even more
terrible price for that weakness.
belgareth
10-17-2004, 12:02 PM
That last paragraph put me in a
tough spot because I don't believe we should be there but don't believe we can back out because terrorists acted
in a cowardly manner. There's no good answer to that other than my firm belief that we should not have been there
in the first place.
Yes, we did decide unilaterally to stop working through a democratic body. The fact that
other groups followed does not change the unilateral nature of our initial action. I also disagree with the need for
force to deal with Iraq. What have we really accomplished? How many have been killed because we didn't like their
leader? How many are suffering or dead as compared to when Saddam was in power? Don't misunderstand me, I am not
against defending oneself or one's allies. I am opposed to unnecessary violence though and I believe our presence
in Iraq is unnecessary.
What form of overseas influence are you advocating? Our current method has been a dismal
failure in large part. I haven't been faulting Bush for not maintaining an overseas influence, I am faulting our
foriegn policy since at least WWII.
HK45Mark23
10-17-2004, 03:17 PM
It''s a
lot better in my eyes to try to accomplish what you believe is the right thing than to go through life accepting
that which you never tried to change. Bravo chap:wave:
HK45mark23
Friendly1
10-17-2004, 04:15 PM
Yes, we did
decide unilaterally to stop working through a democratic body. The fact that other groups followed does not change
the unilateral nature of our initial action...
We did not issue orders to other nations. That is the only
way a unilateral action could have taken place.
We approached other nations and negotiated a coalition with
them. That coalition took action.
The original blockade against Iraq in 1990 was enacted in the same way. That
coalition just happened to draw more countries into it because they were concerned (rightly so) that Saddam Hussein
wouldn't stop with just taking Kuwait.
...I also disagree with the need for force to deal with Iraq.
What have we really accomplished?...
We removed a threat to the stability of that region of the world.
Saddam Hussein attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He attacked Iran in part because President Reagan thought it would
help unbalance Iranian interests (perhaps it did).
He attacked Kuwait because he couldn't win a war with Iran
and he wanted to increase his power and prestige in the Arab world.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), we had
long-standing mutual defense treaties -- negotiated by FDR in the 1930s and/or 1940s -- with Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait. So, the only countries weak enough for Saddam to pick on just happened to be close American allies.
In
short, what have we gained? We have removed a threat to two countries that we have an obligation to protect. The
less we have to protect them in the long run, the less likely we'll end up fighting half or all the Arab/Muslim
world.
...How many have been killed because we didn't like their leader?...
Don't know.
American politics, so far as I know, are based more on who we have signed treaties with than anything else these
days.
...How many are suffering or dead as compared to when Saddam was in power?...
I believe
they are still counting the bodies from his regime.
Do we bear direct responsibility for the Arabs who are over
there slaughtering Iraqis? Well, our post-major-conflict policy certainly sucked big time. We bear responsibility
for the direct consequences of that policy.
Anyway, Iraq is not about personal issues between Bush and Saddam.
It's about the mess of treatires and obligations we have incurred through the past 60-70 years (pretty much for two
reasons: to secure an oil supply and to prevent a nuclear war).
What form of overseas influence are you
advocating? Our current method has been a dismal failure in large part. I haven't been faulting Bush for not
maintaining an overseas influence, I am faulting our foriegn policy since at least WWII.
I think we agree
more on the general history and less on the current situation.
belgareth
10-17-2004, 04:36 PM
We removed
a threat to the stability of that region of the world. Saddam Hussein attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He attacked
Iran in part because President Reagan thought it would help unbalance Iranian interests (perhaps it did).
He
attacked Kuwait because he couldn't win a war with Iran and he wanted to increase his power and prestige in the
Arab world.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), we had long-standing mutual defense treaties -- negotiated by FDR in
the 1930s and/or 1940s -- with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So, the only countries weak enough for Saddam to pick on
just happened to be close American allies.
In short, what have we gained? We have removed a threat to two
countries that we have an obligation to protect. The less we have to protect them in the long run, the less likely
we'll end up fighting half or all the Arab/Muslim world.
The region seems to be less stable than while
Hussien was in power. Admittedly he isn't stirring up trouble but quite a few others have started doing so.
World-wide, terrorism has increased. Yes, we have a treaty obligation with those two countries that basically state
we will help defend them in the event they are attacked. Whether they were going to be attacked is unprovable at
this point. Unprovable also is the assertion that we could have accomplished much the same thing by stationing
troops in those two countries except it would have caused fewer deaths, would have cost less and would not have
required us to invade another country.
Don't know. American politics, so far as I know,
are based more on who we have signed treaties with than anything else these days.
I believe they are still
counting the bodies from his regime.
The accounts I have read describe entire regiments of troops wiped
out as well as thousands of civilians. It is debatable about the troops, they did stand in harms way. However, you
first must accept our right to invade Iraq for that be be a valid argument. Without accepting that argument you can
count those deaths as being unnecessary. Using that argument, we've killed far more in a short time than Hussien
did during his entire reign.
Anyway, Iraq is not about personal issues between Bush and
Saddam. It's about the mess of treatires and obligations we have incurred through the past 60-70 years (pretty much
for two reasons: to secure an oil supply and to prevent a nuclear war).
The issue of nuclear war has never
been demonstrated. Maybe he could and would have built the weapons, but maybe not. There's a lot of what if's in
that argument. Securing an oil supply is not a reason for a war! That is no more than a massive example of armed
robbery.
Friendly1
10-17-2004, 09:39 PM
The region
seems to be less stable than while Hussien was in power.
There don't seem to be any wars brewing. Acts
of terrorism have increased, but there is actually increased stablity in the region right now because no one wants
to bring the U.S. forces down on their own regime.
We have exchanged one kind of stability (minimal terrorism)
for another kind of stability (minimal war).
The accounts I have read describe entire regiments of troops
wiped out as well as thousands of civilians. It is debatable about the troops, they did stand in harms way. However,
you first must accept our right to invade Iraq for that be be a valid argument.
Until they stop counting
bodies, there is no point in trying to lodge numbers against us or Saddam.
Saddam Hussein forfeited all his
rights long ago. The real question is, did the Iraqi people have any exercisable rights?
People only criticized
the U.S. government for not sending troops to end the slaughter in the Balkans.
We sent troops to end the
slaughter in Iraq and now people are criticizing the U.S. government for doing that.
It's a no-win proposition.
But at least there have been no more world wars since we took on the role of occasional police force for the
world.
In any event, we are there now, and leaving before a strong Iraqi government is put in place would be
disastrous. We do owe it to th Iraqi people to give them a chance at building a better future for themselves no
matter how much they end up hating us for doing so.
Not because it was the right thing to do all along, but
because it is the only thing we can do now to justify it beyond what justifications have already been offered (and
rejected).
The issue of nuclear war has never been demonstrated.
I wasn't speaking of
preventing an Iraqi nuclear war, I just meant ANY nuclear war.
I think that most people who were around when
Israel took out Iraq's first weapons-grade nuclear facility would agree with me (and this is by no means my own
original proposition) that the Israelis would not have permitted Saddam to finish construction of another
facility.
Like it or not, we also acted in order to keep Israel from attacking Iraq and igniting a multinational
conflict in the Middle East.
I don't agree with Israeli politics, but then, I don't have to worry about
whether I will be stepping into the wrong cafe tonight.
Securing an oil supply is not a reason for a
war!
Sadly, it is. Because, without oil, we cannot defend ourselves or our allies.
People around the
world don't care about American sensibilities. There are a thousand future strong men out there building their
assets with the goal of seizing power somewhere.
We will ignore most of them as they go about committing murder
and rape, just as we allowed the Serbs to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of Croatians and other ethnic
groups, just as we allowed Saddam to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of his own people, just as we allowed the
Somali warlords to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of their own people, just as we allowed the Hutus to murder
and rape hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, just as we are allowing the Janjaweed to murder and rape tens of thousands
of people in Darfour.
The only ones we really care about are the ones who can somehow drag us into a war.
And when we go to war, we have to have oil so our aircraft will fly and our tanks will roll.
Iraq by itself
never supplied more than 5% of our foreign oil needs. But it did threaten the main sources of our Middle Eastern
oil.
And since we're not on the best of terms with Venezuela, we need to keep what friends we have who are
still willing to work with us.
The Kuwaities love us. We fought their war, not for oil, but for honor, and to
keep our word. We invaded Iraq largely because a lot of people felt the right job had not been finished. So, our
leaders saw what they saw in that faulty intelligence, and the rest of us saw it with them.
Anyone who says we
invaded Iraq so that we could get Iraq's oil just doesn't know much about where the oil comes from.
But we
WILL fight wars for oil. True oil wars, or at least the very serious threat of them, still lie in the future, as
the reserves dwindle.
SweetBrenda
10-17-2004, 10:00 PM
I don't
believe we should be there but don't believe we can back out because terrorists acted in a cowardly manner.
There's no good answer to that other than my firm belief that we should not have been there in the first
place.I totally agree with you on this Bob.:thumbsup:
Me as many
others wish the War will end some time soon but we have to be realistic, is not going to be that easy or even
any time soon..
A few days ago my Family were talking about this subject and it was very
interesting to hear everyone's opinion on this matter most of my Family are voting for the same one.
:think: I'm pretty much sure who am I voting for, but I can't deny having doubts about it.
Karry really have a way to express himself.
Bush is more down to
earth though...
On Wed 10/13 while they where here in Tempe Arizona I think Karry did a
good impression in a lot of people. I saw a lot of people on his side holding posters and such outside. That took me
by surprise honestly.
Pancho1188
10-18-2004, 05:53 AM
:think: I'm pretty much sure who am I voting for, but I can't deny having
doubts about it.
Karry really have a way to express himself.
Bush is
more down to earth though...
On Wed 10/13 while they where here in Tempe Arizona I
think Karry did a good impression in a lot of people. I saw a lot of people on his side holding posters and such
outside. That took me by surprise honestly.I find it ironic that what Bush has going for him is
'down to earth', when that's one of the reasons Howard Dean lost (remember the "Wooo!" incident? Come on, the man
was 'rallying the troops', and they call him 'unpresidential'. Bush screws up his speeches, and he's 'down to
earth')...
As for people holding signs and such at Kerry's campaign stop...When a candidate makes a stop
in an area, all of those die-hard fans show up with signs and banners. Hell, even Nader gets people holding signs
and banners when he goes to events. Why? Because they are their events. People show up, and they pass out banners.
It's not like somebody's birthday party where they invite a bunch of people and nobody shows up. They're running
for president. People are going to support them. ;) That said, the vote is currently 50/50 now (although I think
those polls are inaccurate), so each candidate has a strong following.
Interesting thought: I've noticed
that recent elections have been about voting for the party instead of the candidate. I mean, there are many people
who vote Republican but may think Bush has made mistakes. On the other hand, there are so many people who don't
care about Kerry but are voting Democrat to get Bush out of office. I guess that probably happens in many elections.
After all, the most recent have been called the "lesser of two evils" for a reason...
Holmes
10-18-2004, 06:14 AM
How exactly is Bush "more down to
earth?"
SweetBrenda
10-18-2004, 06:42 AM
I was just giving
my opinion on Bush and Karry.
I don't spect for you or anyone else to agree with me of
course, we all are intitle to our own opinion when it comes to elections
The reason I said
he's more down to earth is by the way he was responding to certain questions he was asked while he was here in AZ.
If you didn't hear it than you wouldn't know what I am referring to.
I'm done with this.
Peace
:lovestruc
Brenda
Pancho1188
10-18-2004, 06:49 AM
I'm voting for myself. After
realizing that I can't run for President, I'm going to sue the United States government for age discrimination.
This will be an election year to remember! :thumbsup:
Pancho1188
10-18-2004, 06:51 AM
If you didn't hear it than you wouldn't know what I am referring
to.
I'm done with this. Ouch...if I didn't know you any better, I'd say
the claws came out on that one! :run:
On an added side note, I agree with you on one thing: I'm surprised
that anyone goes to those things to hold banners and cheer. :lol: Then again, I'm a cynical ol' fool who
thinks that supporting any cause is a waste of time. I don't want that sentiment to spread, though, because then I
would have to support my causes because no one else would be supporting them! What a strange world this is... :)
Friendly1
10-18-2004, 06:57 AM
Ouch...if I
didn't know you any better, I'd say the claws came out on that one! :run:
I'd say Bush sounds more
realistic than Kerry on most issues. People keep hounding Bush about the situation in Iraq, but so far, the
administration has been pretty good about giving warnings for when things would get worse.
They weren't so good
at predicting or preparing for the insurgency.
And they weren't so good at avoiding the prison scandal.
DAdams91982
10-18-2004, 07:57 AM
1)They
weren't so good at predicting or preparing for the insurgency.
2)And they weren't so good at avoiding the
prison scandal.
1)No one could.
2)This was done by some very low class predjudice people... We in the
military live by the Law Of Armed Conflict which is what will punish these people... it shouldnt be a black eye for
President Bush.
Adams
HK45Mark23
10-18-2004, 08:48 AM
Prison scandal? You call that a scandal. It was not that bad. At worst they were mishandled. What
about the real crimes these terrorist prisoners had possibly committed against the people by blowing up school
busses full of children and etc. It is a good thing I was not there; I would have used real science to extract
intelligence from the scum. Ha Ha Ha! Also there is word that some released prisoners are back to their true
terrorist roots. We had already captured them, but ignorant people around the world who change with the wind cried
like little babies. Here is a poem I like.
Queen Elizabeth I
(1533–1603)
[The doubt of future foes exiles my present joy]
The
doubt of future foes exiles my present joy,
And wit me warns to shun such snares as threaten mine annoy;
For
falsehood now doth flow, and subjects' faith doth ebb,
Which should not be if reason ruled or wisdom weaved the
web.
But clouds of joys untried do cloak aspiring minds,
Which turn to rain of late repent by changed course of
winds.
The top of hope supposed the root upreared shall be,
And fruitless all their grafted guile, as shortly ye
shall see.
The dazzled eyes with pride, which great ambition blinds,
Shall be unsealed by worthy wights whose
foresight falsehood finds.
The daughter of debate that discord aye doth sow
Shall reap no gain where former rule
still peace hath taught to know.
No foreign banished wight shall anchor in this port;
Our realm brooks not
seditious sects, let them elsewhere resort.
My rusty sword through rest shall first his edge employ
To poll their
tops that seek such change or gape for future joy.
HK45Mark23:kiss:
Holmes
10-18-2004, 09:46 AM
Prison scandal?
You call that a scandal.
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers.
Pancho1188
10-18-2004, 09:59 AM
Badgers? We
don't need no stinkin' badgers.
Mushroom! Mushroom!
Friendly1
10-18-2004, 11:12 AM
Prison scandal? You call that a scandal. It was not that bad. At worst they were
mishandled.
They
were tortured, some of them died, and many of the prisoners weren't supposed to be there anyway.
It was a situation that got out of control, and last time I checked on, several dozen people had been published,
investigated, and/or charged with crimes. The investigations continue.
We don't need to sweep this under the
rug.
HK45Mark23
10-18-2004, 11:54 AM
Hey, Maybe I am ignorant. I have not heard of any prisoners dieing, please provide me with reference
material. I also don’t think terrorist prisoners deserve the rights we get as Americans so the Supreme Court thing
is crazy. Now several terrorist are free again reaping havoc. How about Kerry stating that he committed atrocities
against noncombatants and committed war crimes but did not know at the time they was war crimes, he was an officer
not a non commissioned soldier. And as far as that goes ignorance to the law is no excuse, he still is guilty of
war crimes by his own admission. And in Lindy England’s case I know you must follow the orders of your superiors
but I still have the personal convictions to evaluate what is going on and not to just follow rules and orders
mindlessly. I will follow if they are just and righteous. If I do not think it is OK I will face a court-martial.
Quoted originally by
Pancho
“I find it ironic that what Bush has going for him is 'down to
earth', when that's one of the reasons Howard Dean lost (remember the "Wooo!" incident? Come on, the man was
'rallying the troops', and they call him 'unpresidential'. Bush screws up his speeches, and he's 'down to
earth')...”
We are use
to Regan and Clinton who are very good public speakers. Many intelligent people are not smart. And wisdom is not a
byproduct of intelligences. Matter of fact many people who are not smart or highly intelligent are very wise. Just
because Kerry can speak eloquently and recall information (usually incorrectly) does not mean he can make wise
decisions. The ability to speak publicly is very important and Bush should be come a member of Toast Masters, but
he is wise in some important ways. Why are some people so upset? He stated from the onset that this would be a
bloody and long conflict. Dean was just stooped to cry out like that. It was not dignified and showed how unstable
he is. We don’t want some one who behaves that way to run our country.
HK45Mark23
Holmes
10-18-2004, 12:01 PM
Many intelligent
people are not smart.
- Yogi Berra :D
a.k.a.
10-18-2004, 12:24 PM
Hey, Maybe I am
ignorant. I have not heard of any prisoners dieing, please provide me with reference material.
"Two
Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No.
153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of
an empty room, splattered with blood."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
Pancho1188
10-18-2004, 12:25 PM
Dean was just stooped to cry out like that. It was not dignified and
showed how unstable he is. We don’t want some one who behaves that way to run our country.
Note: HK, not directed at you, just rhetoric. I'm too lazy to remove the second-person tonality of it all. That
and I'm still mad that everyone trashed a person for doing a positive thing of raising his supporters' morale.
You can do something positive and lose an election, but you'll still win even after you are caught in the middle of
a big lie.
But it's okay to have a man at the helm who accidentally tells doctors to have sex with their
patients?
"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice thier love with women across this country."
Seriously,
though...if my supporters were bummed, I'm totally going to get them psyched.
"Woo!"
To remove my shot at
Bush, I would vote for even the worst public speaker if he actually got the job done.
'Unpresidential'. What do you call sleeping with your intern or bumbling your speeches? :lol:
Friendly1
10-18-2004, 02:45 PM
But it's
okay to have a man at the helm who accidentally tells doctors to have sex with their patients?
At least we
don't have any goofy pictures of him riding around in a tank (ala Michael Dukakis) or endless media jokes about his
claiming to be the father of the Internet (ala Al Gore, although someone told me that what Gore originally claimed
was distorted beyond recognition by the media).
"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice thier love
with women across this country."
Don't you watch late-night cable television? We have PLENTY of love
doctors these days....
To remove my shot at Bush, I would vote for even the worst public speaker if he
actually got the job done.
So, that means you won't be voting for anyone at all this year? I admit, I am
tempted to select "None of the above" myself. But the last time I avoided voting for a Bush, I got a Clinton.
There are days, about once every four years, when I think, "The two-party system sucks".
And then I read about
another Italian government collapsing and I think, "Well, at least we have a two-party system".
DAdams91982
10-18-2004, 10:50 PM
There's No Politics in the Foxhole
By
GREG KELLY
cid:image001.gif@01C4B4FE.36BFD150ashington —
Punishment will continue until morale improves" - or so goes the absurdist joke told in every barracks and chow line
in the American military. In this election season, however, an almost equally absurd caricature of the
American warrior is emerging - that of a hyperpolitical, ultrasensitive creature whose morale rises and falls with
every modulation in the debate back home over the progress of the war in Iraq.
Readily fueling this notion are President Bush and Senator John Kerry, each of whom would have us
believe that the troops stand squarely behind him. In their first debate, the senator told this story of being at a
political rally a few days earlier: "A couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the
Guard. And they both looked at me and said: 'We need you. You've got to help us over there.'
"
Minutes later, President Bush warned against the prospect of a
Kerry presidency: "The troops would wonder, how could I follow this guy?"
So, when the troops are not fending off insurgent attacks, are they obsessively tuned in TV news,
waiting to be patted on the back or offended, their performance contingent on the rhetoric emanating from the small
screen?
Of course not. If all politics is local, so is morale. A
rifle platoon commander in Falluja knows his unit's morale is not the president's responsibility; it's
his.
I speak from experience. I served in the Marine Corps under two
Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and one Democrat, Bill Clinton. I flew missions over
Iraq enforcing the no-flight zone in the late 1990's. And I saw combat with the Army as a journalist,
embedded with the Third Infantry Division during the invasion of Iraq last year.
In
all of that time, the morale of the units I served in or beside was never determined by politicians, pundits or the
press. High or low, the spirits of our men and women in Iraq stem from more mundane concerns. They
ponder the same problems that Americans have back home, only with their quiet moments occasionally punctuated by
unthinkable worry: Do I like the people I work with? Who will be killed next? Why is the e-mail system down again?
Would I rather be mutilated by an improvised bomb or captured?
That is not to say
military men and women don't care about or follow politics. They skew decidedly Republican, especially among the
officers. Overall, however, partisan preferences are mostly benign, akin to rooting for one sports team over
another. Professional warriors do not have much time for political debate when they have a mission to conduct and
troop welfare to worry about.
But there are plenty of people who
don't wear a uniform who will try to draft those who do into the political realm. Some members of Congress tried as
much last month, when the House Armed Services Committee brought in a group of recently returned soldiers and
marines to testify about conditions in Iraq. Members invited them to weigh in on one of the most
politically charged debates of the past year and a half: the question of the news media ignoring the "good news
stories" inside Iraq. The officers had the good sense to stay above the fray.
And
there is particular zeal on the talking-head circuit to score political points through the troops. On "The
McLaughlin Group" earlier this month, the conservative pundit Patrick J. Buchanan said that Mr. Kerry was
demoralizing the troops by "poor-mouthing" America. This led the liberal political analyst Lawrence
O'Donnell to respond: "I don't care if they're demoralized! They have to go to war and be prepared to live with
the debate that goes on in the United States about whether it's right or wrong." Mr. O'Donnell will not be running
the U.S.O. any time soon, but he was more right than wrong, and professional warriors understand that.
Citing troop morale to advance a political campaign is an unwelcome politicization
of an institution that strives to remain apolitical. It is also ineffective: our service members don't let the
political winds determine their morale. Their work is too important.
Greg Kelly, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, is a former Marine jet
pilot.
Adams
DrSmellThis
10-19-2004, 03:45 AM
I'm glad I'm taking a break
from this one. Carry on, guys! ;)
Elk Dreamer
10-24-2004, 09:09 PM
Nine more days and the ball
is rolling for the Kerry / Edwards change throughout the USA!
Elk
belgareth
10-25-2004, 03:48 AM
Maybe. There's still a lot of
undecided out there. The experts aren't sure which way they'll swing.
Pancho1188
10-25-2004, 04:59 AM
Experts estimate that most
undecideds on Nov. 2 go to the challenger.
belgareth
10-25-2004, 05:45 AM
Experts
estimate that most undecideds on Nov. 2 go to the challenger.
They've also said that this year it may be
different, that there are too many issues affecting the unusually high voter registrations.
Pancho1188
10-25-2004, 07:11 AM
They've also
said that this year it may be different, that there are too many issues affecting the unusually high voter
registrations.
They also guess that those new voters are most likely to be/vote Democrat. Two main
reasons:
1. People are voting out of spite (just to get Bush out)
2. People who don't usually vote tend to be
liberal and lean that way...either by being against the system or whatever. Since those people are either poor with
a mindset that the government doesn't help them or they can't make a difference, they usually vote for the party
that seems to be more for the working class, which tends to be the Democratic party. (This is under the assumption
that Republicans are more likely to have already registered to vote)
One could do an interesting
psychological study on this...the mindset of voters, party affiliation, and locus of control. One could conjecture
that those who don't vote have an external locus of control vs. those who do/internal locus of control. You could
stretch your guess by saying those with internal locus of control believe they can accomplish something, go out and
do it, make a lot of money, become more conservative in their politics and don't need the government interfering,
and therefore tend to vote Republican...vs. external -> victim of circumstance -> not as successful -> believe in
government protecting the working class -> vote Democrat.
Hmmm...
Although I would be an exception to
this because I consider myself liberal with internal locus of control...because everything I do is my fault, dammit!
;)
belgareth
10-25-2004, 09:04 AM
They also
guess that those new voters are most likely to be/vote Democrat. Two main reasons:
Not the article I
read, they said they couldn't be sure what was going to happen. I tried to find it this morning but couldn't.
We'll see, in any case.
Pancho1188
10-25-2004, 11:20 AM
True. I was merely stating the
fact that those who have tried the hardest to get people to vote for this particular election are trying to get
people to vote against Bush (I refer to people like Michael Moore and those in the typically liberal media..."Vote
or Die"...I can't help but think that that insinuates that if we don't vote Bush out of office, we'll die...but
maybe it's inferring that if we vote for Kerry we'll all die...I guess you have to give the benefit of the doubt,
but I don't see how simply not voting is going to kill you---despite those rumors I've heard about potential
drive-by shootings in areas of low voter turnouts. ;) Just kidding.)
Then again, I didn't see any statistics on
how many new voters came from these untraditional methods of getting people to register as opposed to the national
movement to vote more. Therefore, I would agree with you, Bel. It could just be everyone wants a piece of the
action.
Either way:
1. It's going to be interesting.
2. Whoever wins may have the most justified reason
for being in office because this vote may see the biggest turnout in who knows how long. Good stuff.
belgareth
10-25-2004, 11:56 AM
One pundit suggested that many
of the newly registered voters might even go for somebody outside the two big parties. I doubt that will happen but
it would sure be fun to watch.
DrSmellThis
10-25-2004, 12:21 PM
The only thing we know for
sure is that suprises are possible. I don't think Bush will win by a big margin unless something funky happens,
though. He may win. They're predicting Bush will get twice the African-American vote this time, compared to 2000,
due to the importance of religious issues like abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage in this campaign. (It
amazed me that these issues were discussed so extensively in the debates whereas the environment was never mentioned
once.). Ohio papers are endorsing him. Bush is staying "on message" with the "I'll fight terrorism and
Flipflopper won't" schtick. It plays well in speeches where you don't have any other side. Still, I'll give the
edge to Kerry due to the new voters. Nader will be insignificant. I live right in the middle of Nader's strongest
support base historically (Portland, or "Little Beirut", as George Sr. calls it), and he has alienated them.
belgareth
10-25-2004, 12:25 PM
I'd vote against Bush just on
the abortion, Gay marraige and Stem cell issues. No, Doc. That does not mean I will vote for Kerry. I saw an article
today that the Brits support Homer Simpson, I may write him in. Beats the alternatives. :LOL:
Elk Dreamer
10-25-2004, 12:35 PM
You guys pay too much
attention to the spin masters and polls both are going to be way off this time Kerry/Edwards ticket is on a roll and
will stay on a roll right up to thru the finish. Get ready for a big surprize! The Truth. LOLOLOLOL
Elk
:thumbsup:
I'd vote against
Bush just on the abortion, Gay marraige and Stem cell issues. No, Doc. That does not mean I will vote for Kerry. I
saw an article today that the Brits support Homer Simpson, I may write him in. Beats the alternatives.
:LOL:
Texas is a lost cause anyway.
belgareth
10-25-2004, 02:22 PM
Texas is a lost
cause anyway.
Surprisingly, Bush's home town newspaper is supporting Kerry. It never pays to generalize.
:)
Besides, I learned politics in California.
DeMoKiLL
10-25-2004, 02:33 PM
They also
guess that those new voters are most likely to be/vote Democrat. Two main reasons:
1. People are voting out
of spite (just to get Bush out)
2. People who don't usually vote tend to be liberal and lean that way...either by
being against the system or whatever. Since those people are either poor with a mindset that the government doesn't
help them or they can't make a difference, they usually vote for the party that seems to be more for the working
class, which tends to be the Democratic party. (This is under the assumption that Republicans are more likely to
have already registered to vote)
One could do an interesting psychological study on this...the mindset of
voters, party affiliation, and locus of control. One could conjecture that those who don't vote have an external
locus of control vs. those who do/internal locus of control. You could stretch your guess by saying those with
internal locus of control believe they can accomplish something, go out and do it, make a lot of money, become more
conservative in their politics and don't need the government interfering, and therefore tend to vote
Republican...vs. external -> victim of circumstance -> not as successful -> believe in government protecting the
working class -> vote Democrat.
Hmmm...
Although I would be an exception to this because I consider
myself liberal with internal locus of control...because everything I do is my fault, dammit! ;) hey watch it
mr. pancho, im a republican, they both are horrible canidates but you know those good democrats;-) tax the hell out
of the rich who worked to get rich, then give it to the poor. Or of course the good old affirmative action which
means, if your black and if they don't have many black applicants your guaranteed to get in. I think that, everyone
needs to have a fair chance to get into college based on how hard you work and what grades you make. If a college is
99.8% asian and .1 % white and .1% black so be it, its about working hard not about race or gender.
-btw sorry
if I offended anyone with this post
Peace and <3 :-)
Surprisingly,
Bush's home town newspaper is supporting Kerry. It never pays to generalize. :)
Besides, I learned politics
in California.
Yea, but when was the last time a Democrat won that state?
belgareth
10-25-2004, 02:52 PM
Yea, but when was
the last time a Democrat won that state?
Which one and which office?
belgareth
10-25-2004, 03:29 PM
Don't know as I haven't kept
track. I do know that the state senate has been primarily democrats fr a long time and only changed with the last
election.
Friendly1
10-25-2004, 09:58 PM
I seriously doubt Kerry will
win the election. The media seem to be doing their darndest to paint Kerry as breathing down Bush's neck, but in
driving from Florida to Texas and back, and in speaking to a lot of people, I haven't heard of much support for
Kerry at all at the grass roots level.
It's sort of like the violence in Iraq. Very few people over there are
actually being killed (in a country of 24 million, the deaths are only in the low thousands). Most people go about
their lives and their situations are gradually improving. Do the media report that? No. They focus on the
terrorist attacks.
But you can tell there is less and less for the media to write about because every new story
recaps the previous three stories.
Take the situation with Bush's tax cut. Some media reports claim that it
favored the rich. However, two thirds of the tax cut benefitted middle class and low-income people, and two-thirds
of the people who benefitted from the tax cut were middle class and low-income people.
How is it, then, that the
tax-cut "favored" the rich? That's just political spin being picked up by the press.
Most sources seem to
agree that the tax-cut didn't create jobs as promised, but they don't bother to explain how raising taxes on the
rich and lowering taxes still further for the low-income and middle class people will create more jobs. If your tax
bill is cut by $1,000 more, how many people will you plan to hire in the coming year?
There is no meat to the
media coverage. No meat usually means no upset.
Kerry needs a miracle to win the election. I don't see one
arriving in the next week, but then, a week can be a very long time.
Elk Dreamer
10-26-2004, 12:19 AM
Fla to Texas, LOLOLOLOL
Nothing decided there.Look at Key States for the meat. The Miracle is happening,
Kerry/Edwards are on a roll.
Bush and Chaney playing catch up. Incumbents running like chicks with their heads off. Do you think they would do
that if they had it in the bag?
Until this campaign Bush was the guy who liked to be in bed by 7:00 PM, Chaney
was seldom seen in public.Rice in her office, Laura in the Library, Babs and Jen in a bar, Its Its over thanks to
PA,Oh,Mi,Minn. You can feel it in the air and your guts if your alert and not sucking your own pheromones.
LOLOLOLOL
Elk : :rofl:
DrSmellThis
10-26-2004, 02:55 AM
It's sort
of like the violence in Iraq. Very few people over there are actually being killed (in a country of 24 million,
the deaths are only in the low thousands). Most people go about their lives and their situations are
gradually improving. Do the media report that? No. They focus on the terrorist attacks.
http://pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564
Pancho1188
10-26-2004, 05:14 AM
How is it,
then, that the tax-cut "favored" the rich? That's just political spin being picked up by the press.
All tax cuts that benefit all citizens favor the rich. Since the rich have more money, they save more
money from tax cuts because they give more to the government in the first place.
That doesn't make his tax cut
targeted toward the rich, it's just that the more money you have, the more money you get back when your taxes are
lowered. Simple math. The media just spins it and the people eat it up because they want to blame rich people for
their problems.
It's funny because if you actually ask people about our tax system, most people think it's a
decent system (besides the complications of it all, the system in general). In fact, if you said, "How about we tax
the rich 80% and tax people who make under $30,000 per year 0%?" People would actually not like that because they
wouldn't feel it was fair to the rich and would feel that they weren't contributing to the government.
People
whine and complain, but statistics have shown that when polled on the actual system instead of idealogy like, "Do
you think the rich or the poor should be taxed more?" our system does pretty well with citizens...
That just
goes to show you how the media and government can make something out of nothing.
(Before everyone comes in and
says, "I hate the tax system and would love to pay less," I'm just stating figures from my tax course a year or so
ago that polled citizens on the tax system)
Pancho1188
10-26-2004, 05:30 AM
hey watch it
mr. pancho, im a republican, they both are horrible canidates but you know those good democrats;-) tax the hell out
of the rich who worked to get rich, then give it to the poor. Or of course the good old affirmative action which
means, if your black and if they don't have many black applicants your guaranteed to get in. I think that, everyone
needs to have a fair chance to get into college based on how hard you work and what grades you make. If a college is
99.8% asian and .1 % white and .1% black so be it, its about working hard not about race or gender.
-btw sorry
if I offended anyone with this post
Peace and <3 :-)
:)
I'm laughing because I thought I was more
likely to offend Democrats in my post than Republicans. I guess I just offend everyone. :frustrate
I agree
with you on the rich who worked hard to get rich, but on the affirmative action thing: I think that you should get a
job/college/scholarship/whatever based on merit, but you have to realize that the system is heavily divided by race.
African Americans get worse education than many other races because many of them are located in inner-city schools
or places with a bad education system. In other words, the current education system is very lopsided, and the
effects of segregation, slavery, etc. are still being felt today with a divided class and education system. Isn't
it wrong for African Americans to miss out on educational and vocational opportunities because they went to a bad
school?
I believe that it's not race that's the problem anymore; it's social class. However, most of the
people in the lower class are, in fact, minorities.
Again, I agree that education should be based on effort, but
after living in DC and seeing these inner-city schools...I wonder about the divided system...not by race, but by
class that just happens to correlate with race.
I am personally an example of a person who grew up poor (if
anyone knows the poverty line statistics, I could tell you where I was for a single mother with 2 kids) but went to
a good school. I'm doing well now. Think about all of the other people who could do well, too, if they went to a
good school regardless of their social class. Had I went to a bad school...well, I certainly wouldn't be where I
am today. Since I'm not a minority, I would've been royally screwed because no one's going to help out a stupid
'majority'. :nono:
Anyway, I just felt like playing devil's advocate. You don't need to justify this
with a response.
Friendly1
10-26-2004, 08:47 AM
All
tax cuts that benefit all citizens favor the rich. Since the rich have more money, they save more money from tax
cuts because they give more to the government in the first place.
There is no logic in such a statement.
MOST of the tax money saved was saved by people making less than $100K per year.
Hence, the tax cuts favored the
majority of people, not the rich.
DrSmellThis
10-26-2004, 12:26 PM
From economists at the
Brookings Institution:
"Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would confer by far the
biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers. After-tax income would increase by more than 6 percent for households in
the top 1 percent of the nation's income distribution, 2 percent for households in the middle 60 percent, and only
0.3 percent for households in the bottom 20 percent. The share of the tax cut accruing to high-income taxpayers
would exceed their share of federal tax payments today, so their share of the federal tax burden would decline. The
tax cuts will ultimately have to be financed with other tax increases or spending cuts. Once plausible methods of
financing the tax cuts are taken into account, more than three-quarters of households are likely to end up worse off
than they would have been if the tax cuts had never taken effect."
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/2004
0919galeorszag.htm (http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20040919galeorszag.htm)
Pancho1188
10-26-2004, 01:30 PM
There is no
logic in such a statement. MOST of the tax money saved was saved by people making less than $100K per year.
Hence, the tax cuts favored the majority of people, not the rich.
I think you're looking at it
differently than I am. I am talking about each person. People say that a rich person benefits more than a poor
person through tax cuts. This is absolutely true. If you reduce both of our tax rates by 1% and one guy makes
$1,000,000 and I make $10,000, he just saved $10,000 while I only saved $100. Therefore, a tax cut favors the rich
because they will always save more money. Notice in this black-and-white, unrealistic example that it would take 100
of me to save the equivalent amount of money of one of him.
You are speaking in terms of the number of people it
affects. If you reduce the tax rate by 1%, most of the people who benefit will be working class because there are
more poor than rich. That is true.
However, the total money will always benefit the rich because the top
20% pay 80% of the taxes and the bottom 80% pay 20% of the taxes. If anyone would like to do the math on how much
you would have to deduct poor people's taxes to equal the deduction of the rich, be my guest. That's too technical
for me. But if you take my example, to give me the same benefit as the rich guy, you'd have tax me 0% because his
tax savings equalled my total income!
"Favor the rich" means that they save more money than poor people, which
will always be true because they have more money and pay more taxes. How is this not logical?
However, if
the total money saved by people making less than $100,000 per year was more than the total money of people making
over $100,000 per year, then you could easily argue that it did not favor the rich. I'm just trying to defend
politicians and the rich who always get the "tax cuts favor the rich" stigma because according the the media's
definition, it will always be true.
Friendly1
10-26-2004, 07:36 PM
I think
you're looking at it differently than I am. I am talking about each person. People say that a rich person benefits
more than a poor person through tax cuts.
And a rich person is hurt less by raising taxes than a poor
person, so all increases in taxes benefit the rich.
Wealthy or poor, all people in the United States are
expected to contribute part of their income to the government's budget. The wealthiest people in this country --
the multimillionnaires -- invest their money in various tax-deferred plans, such as tax-free bonds (which means they
are lending their money to the government). It has been argued through the years that they don't pay taxes.
Hence, they aren't benefitting from any tax cuts.
The less wealthy people, who nonetheless still fall in that
ambiguous category of "the wealthy", do pay taxes. They pay proportionately more taxes than people with lower
incomes, and they pay substantially more taxes (as individuals) than people with lower incomes.
So, any tax cut
across the board benefits them LESS than it benefits the people who earn less than they do.
They may end up with
thousands more dollars at the end of the year, but they earned those dollars to begin with. Some how, some way.
Therefore, no tax cut can ever benefit the rich, unless it specifically targets the rich (and Bush's tax cuts
didn't do that -- the wealthy taxpayers benefitted less than the middle class taxpayers).
Having your money
taken from you is not a benefit. The benefits really come from the programs those taxes pay for, and last time I
checked, there were more programs benefitting the poor than benefitting the rich.
Friendly1
10-26-2004, 07:39 PM
From
economists at the Brookings Institution:
"Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would
confer by far the biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers.
Blah, blah, blah.
I've read all that
hokum before. What all these tax-cut analysts conveniently neglect to point out is that the income taxes are
deducted from income.
We may not like the fact that we are making only 1 per cent of the income of the guy next
door, but he is earning it.
We already have a progressive tax system. The more you make, the more they take.
The rich aren't benefitting from the tax system more than the middle class or the poor. The rich just earn more
than the rest of us.
Pancho1188
10-27-2004, 05:27 AM
Wealthy or
poor, all people in the United States are expected to contribute part of their income to the government's budget.
The wealthiest people in this country -- the multimillionnaires -- invest their money in various tax-deferred plans,
such as tax-free bonds (which means they are lending their money to the government). It has been argued through the
years that they don't pay taxes. Hence, they aren't benefitting from any tax cuts.
...
Therefore, no tax
cut can ever benefit the rich, unless it specifically targets the rich (and Bush's tax cuts didn't do that -- the
wealthy taxpayers benefitted less than the middle class taxpayers).
I'm not going to argue on the
following points because you're right:
1. The rich use tax shelters
2. The rich pay a lot more percentage of
their income to taxes
3. Everyone deserves to contribute to the government in which they enjoy the benefits of
living
4. The rich (well, the ones that earned it through hard work and not by screwing people out of their
pensions like Enron) deserve their income just like everyone else does
5. Everyone will always complain
about paying taxes, and the poor have the benefit of blaming the rich for no reason because the poor reap benefits
(army, police, government, etc.) because of the money that rich people pay to the government---in fact, people
should be thankful for what they already have to some extent
#2 proves my point, however, since the rich pay so
much more taxes then they would benefit from a tax cut...You can't say that Bush's tax plan didn't benefit the
rich. Bush lowered every tax bracket with his new tax plan. He lowered the top tax bracket to like 33%
(can't remember...might be 36 or something...I'm sure someone on the forum knows the exact numbers) from whatever
it was previously. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. In fact, if the rich have more money to spend, then
they invest it into the economy and help get us out of a recession. You know the poor don't have that much control
on whether they keep their jobs or not because of the economy. I know that I would like to reach that tax bracket
one day, and I sure as hell don't want to be paying all of it in taxes.
Anyway, your reference to non-taxable
investments is:
1. referring to interest income vs. non-interest income, and even if the rich
invested all of their money in tax-deferred plans would still have to pay taxes on their non-interest
income
2. referring to only a portion of people's total investments (The reason why they're tax-free is because
they're from the government and they're low-interest. No one is going to put all of their money in low-interest
investments.)
Again, I am not arguing that the rich don't deserve a tax break. Hell, I am with Bel (I think it
was Bel who was for the flat tax) when I say that everyone should pay an equal share to the government unless
you're, say, below the poverty line. I think that the rich deserve a tax break if the middle and lower class get a
tax break. However, I'm against tax breaks all together because you're just going to have to raise taxes again,
anyway...look at the deficit! Anyone who knows basic economics knows that it's a good temporary solution to rid
the economy of a recession/depression, but as soon as the economy is back on its feet, the government will be right
back at your door asking for that money they need to balance the budget that currently entered into the (how many 0s
are in a trillion? 1,000,000,000,000) 13+ figure range.
They have Kerry pegged as the guy who will increase
taxes. How else are you going to pay for all of this? It's like the teenage girl who goes nuts with daddy's
credit card and daddy has to start whoring his daughter out to pay for the debt---(okay, it's not like that, but I
just wanted to say that)---I mean has to tax away all of his family's allowances to pay off the debt.
belgareth
10-27-2004, 06:24 AM
You're right, Pancho, I
brought up the flat tax and would support it under certain conditions. But it will never come to pass because the
conservatives will fight it for one reason, the liberals (ok, progressives) for another.
In a private discussion
I tried to explain what I think is wrong with the way our country and most others is run. Look at it as a machine
producing some product, the GDP. Currently our machine uses more than 50% of it's total output for it's control
systems, ie: government. People complain all the time about their inefficient car that uses 5% of it's gross energy
budget to operate but tolerate a government that uses ten times as much. As an engineer, if i were to design a
machine that was so inefficient, I'd never work again.
Some factions want to tax the richest to help support
the poorest and within certain limits, that's not a bad thing. However, the way we are doing it, about 15% of every
tax dollar taken from the wage earners to help the needy actually gets to the people it's intended for. The rest
goes to support the machine. There's something terribly wrong with that and no matter who is paying the larger
portion, no matter who gets the better tax breaks, we are all getting screwed. A flat tax would not make things
better right now because of the inefficiency of the machine. It would only result in government having less
accountability and greater deficits. We need to fix the mind set that ever increasing taxes are ok, that it is our
responsibilty to pay for our leaders inability or unwillingness to operate in an effective and efficient manner.
Holmes
10-27-2004, 06:44 AM
Franki? :D
belgareth
10-27-2004, 06:51 AM
Franki?
:D
Thank you! Guess I need another cup of coffee this morning.
Pancho1188
10-27-2004, 07:20 AM
However,
the way we are doing it, about 15% of every tax dollar taken from the wage earners to help the needy actually gets
to the people it's intended for. The rest goes to support the machine. There's something terribly wrong with that
and no matter who is paying the larger portion, no matter who gets the better tax breaks, we are all getting
screwed.
If you want a good analogy:
That's the way telemarketing for donations work (used to work,
at least) as well. I'm not sure if they have those anymore with the "Don't Call List" initiative, but when people
used to call you to ask for donations, 85% would go to the telemarketing company and 15% would go to the charity.
Friendly1
10-27-2004, 08:39 AM
#2 proves my
point, however, since the rich pay so much more taxes then they would benefit from a tax cut...You can't say that
Bush's tax plan didn't benefit the rich.You're right. When I wrote, "No tax cut can ever benefit the
rich", I should have said, "no tax cut can ever favor the rich". The initial point was whether the Bush tax cut
favored the rich, which it did not do, since the rich benefitted less from the tax cut than everyone else.
...In fact, if the rich have more money to spend, then they invest it into the economy and help get us out
of a recession....I wish that were always so, but it's not. The Bush tax cut has been criticized because
part of its reasoning is exactly that: if you give back more money to everyone, then everyone will spend more, and
more jobs will be created.
But the more money you have, the less likely you'll actually spend it on consumer
goods and services.
A Houston area financial expert runs an afternoon talk radio show where he and other people
in his industry give callers free analysis of stocks, mutual funds, the markets, and the economy.
One day, Lance
Roberts (the show's host/chief expert) got a call from someone about stock options. I am paraphrasing from memory,
and may not remember this correctly, but Lance made a comment about how the CEOs of corporations manage their
companys' reputations so their stock prices remain healthy so that the (the CEOs) can cash out their stock options
and make money.
A CEO's primary obligation is to his company's shareholders. The shareholders want their stock
to either pay dividends or have a consistent trading range so that they can buy low and sell high on a regular,
profitable basis. Most of the large shareholders in the Fortune 1000 are mutual funds, pension funds, etc.
Now,
Lance also told the caller that he had just recently helped a CEO cash out $100 million in stock options. What we
(the listeners) learned from that call was that the stock market is being used by the major funds to scrape profits
from the trading ranges and by the major executives of the corporations to make money off their stock options.
Pretty much, everyone else who invests in the market loses money (which is where the profits come from for those
who do make money). That includes schmucks like you and me who hope our 401(k) plans will keep increasing in value.
In a market experiencing consistent expansion (such as happened in the 90s when the tech stocks went crazy), 401(k)
and other retirement funds will increase in paper value. But as soon as the market deflates, that paper value
vanishes (it happened in the 1980s, too -- Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, lost $2,000,000,000 in one day and he
laughed it off, saying it was all on paper anyway).
Lance said that the CEOs who cash out their stock options
know all this, and they therefore don't trust the stock market.
Well, this got me to thinking. So, I called
Lance and I asked him, "Do rich people invest in the stock market?"
He said, "No. Except for speculators and
people like T. Boone Pickens, rich people don't invest in the stock market. It's too volatile."
So, I said,
"Well, if a CEO goes to all the trouble of managing his company's reputation so that he can make $100 million on
stock options, where does he put all his money?"
Lance replied with one word: "Bonds."
Usually, he
explained, U.S. Treasery bonds, which are sold in $10,000 blocks.
1. referring to interest income
vs. non-interest income, and even if the rich invested all of their money in tax-deferred plans would still
have to pay taxes on their non-interest incomeNo. You don't pay taxes on government bonds. At least
not all of all them. Many municipal bonds are tax-free, too.
You see, all the working people are advised to put
X per cent of their portfolio into stock funds, Y per cent into bond funds, etc. We feed the market with our
gullibility. A few of us are lucky on occasion and we make a little money. In fact, I have 100 shares of a company
which are worth $2-3 a piece. I paid 15.5 cents per share for them. Oboy.
So, basically, this is all a huge
digression, but generally speaking, the wealthy are not favored by tax plans because most of them manage not to pay
taxes on large portions of their incomes anyway.
Tax free and tax deferred investments benefit AND favor the
wealthy because they CAN and DO invest more money in those kinds of investments.
I am about ready to give up on
401(k) plans myself. I have bailed out of them several times and have paid that 10 per cent penalty every time. It
about eats up whatever I had made.
I could do like other people and leave the money alone, but the market is so
volatile you have to manage your money carefully to maintain any growth.
Lance Roberts does explain how he helps
his stock investing clients make money. Presumably, he is telling the truth. But there is so much analysis involved,
that the average person just cannot do the job right.
From now on, I may just put all my extra money into U.S.
Savings Bonds. Not quite as good as Treasuries, but they are easy to get and you don't have to worry about market
volatility.
HK45Mark23
10-27-2004, 10:16 AM
Rich people do not use stocks or bonds to insulate their selves from taxes or even to hold their
money. Corporations have a tax filter and real-estate have a tax filter. So you make a living to invest in your
corporation that holds real-estate. Employees and self employees like Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and small
business owners pay the highest taxes because the tax laws are written against them. If you own a company or invest
into other companies, then you have the tax advantage. So, either you work a system, or are the system like
Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and small business owners, (in both cases you pay high taxes,) or you own a system or
invest in systems, (In which you pay less taxes.) I think that this may be the reason that people think Kerry only
paid 17% taxes. I think that is the amount they said. Any way if you look at the tax deferred income that comes in
through corporations and real-estate holdings you can easily account for the 12 or 17% total tax consequences. They
only have to pay taxes on actual salary, and only on what is left over in the corporations’ after all non taxable
expenses.
I am
conservative and would support a flat tax. Your feelings of why people are upset with rich people are correct, the
Robin Hood model and entitlement mentality are not going to promote anything but communism and socialism. I prefer
to produce for my self instead of the government rationing to me. I also prefer to educate my self instead of being
“educated” by the government for their purposes, (propaganda and mind control as history reveals is common in these
government and economic models). Capitalistic democracy is the best government / economic model in the world. Even
after hurricanes, war and the Twin Towers we are still the strongest and most envied nation on the planet. To those
who wine about it Whaaaaaa hiccup cough Whaaaaaa!
HK45Mark23
Pancho1188
10-27-2004, 12:23 PM
I wish
that were always so, but it's not. The Bush tax cut has been criticized because part of its reasoning is exactly
that: if you give back more money to everyone, then everyone will spend more, and more jobs will be created.
But
the more money you have, the less likely you'll actually spend it on consumer goods and services.
Keynes believed that there was a ratio for this. In other words, with every additional dollar a person receives
(whether it be in income or tax return), they'd save x% and spend y%. I assume you're referring to the point
where x = 100 (rich who have enough money already don't spend any more). However, investments may lead to
investing in other companies that will be spending that money to try to create a profitable business. Although one
person/company isn't spending, another one is. Government bonds are a means to lend money to---guess who?---the
government. Who's spending more in the recession? The government! So you see, someone is spending more
thanks to the additional investments! :thumbsup:
(Conspiracy theorists can now use that logic to claim that
Bush made tax breaks to fund the war he was planning to begin with as a means to get us out of the
recession...although that's a stretch even for the paranoid :hammer: )
No. You don't pay
taxes on government bonds. At least not all of all them. Many municipal bonds are tax-free, too.
I know
you don't pay taxes on government bonds. As I said, that's interest income. The rich are still taxed on
non-interest income, which is a fancy way of saying their salary. What I was trying to say was that it
doesn't matter if all of their investments are tax free because the government's still taxing them on that $100K+
they're making from their job that allow them to make those investments. All of that money they're investing with
tax free returns is money they already paid taxes on when they accumulated it from working (exceptions are IRA/401K,
which are taken before taxes but eventually get taxed when you take that money out, anyway). In other words, the
rich can't completely avoid taxes on their own income because the government takes it out of their paycheck (okay,
so Al Capone did it, but what happened to him? ;)). They can do the little tricks that lower the amount of their
total income (deductions, exemptions, etc.), but eventually they have to claim whatever's left of their salary. I
stuck with salary for all of my examples with benefitting from tax breaks because the poor don't have anything
saved to be taxed and the rich find ways of sheltering their interest income from tax.
Elk Dreamer
10-27-2004, 06:44 PM
You guys are way off the
topic of the thread. What is the matter is Kerry's winnning body language too much for you to discuss? Your like
Bush, change the topic = a change in reality. Time for a reality check instead of tax babble that never goes
anywhere.
Elk :trout:
Pancho1188
10-28-2004, 05:47 AM
Last time I checked, this was
the Open Discussion forum and a political thread at that. Talking about the possible tax legislation that may ensue
from a candidate's election is pretty relevant on that topic. I could easily bring that back to the first topic by
saying, "Does Kerry's body language suggest that he is telling the truth/lying about his plans on taxes?"
I
believe that criticizing and even insulting other posters/discussions is more off the topic of a thread than talking
about the potential tax laws from the candidates.
Friendly1
10-28-2004, 10:41 AM
It could be worse. We could be
debating whether to re-elect Al Gore, Father of the Internet.
hmmmm.... how would this world be
different if Gore were in office?
Pancho1188
10-28-2004, 12:14 PM
Possibilities:
No war in
Iraq
No/Less tax cut
No trillion-dollar deficit
Not having every nation hate us
More threats or terrorist
activity
Less jokes about tripping over words in speeches
A lot less voting in 2004 - No Fahrenheit 9/11, Mosh,
Vote or Die, etc.
Oh, yeah, and Kerry's body language speaks well when he shoves Bush's own
words in his face.
Elk Dreamer
10-28-2004, 01:50 PM
Now its getting interesting
again, Thanks.
Elk :thumbsup:
Friendly1
10-28-2004, 02:40 PM
Possibilities:
No war in Iraq
No/Less tax cut
No trillion-dollar deficit
Not having every
nation hate us
More threats or terrorist activity
Less jokes about tripping over words in speeches
A lot less
voting in 2004 - No Fahrenheit 9/11, Mosh, Vote or Die, etc.Nonsense. 9/11 was going to happen regardless of
who was President.
Gore, being the wuss he is, would have screwed up everything completely.
Afghanistan
would probably still be in the hands of the Taliban, training more suicide bombers to attack us, and we'd probably
still have 10s of thousands of troops committed to the Persian Gulf for the sole purpose of enforcing sanctions
which killed more Iraqi children than hurt Saddam Hussein.
We would still have had the same intelligence picture
about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (meaning, everyone would still believe they were there), or else we would
have invaded Iraq to find out whether Saddam did indeed have the WMD.
We probably would not feel as safe in our
homeland as we do today.
And we'd still be enduring endless complaints about Gore's having stolen the
election, his claims to have founded the Internet, and the loss of jobs his environmental policies would have
resulted in.
But Gore would undoubtedly blame the economic slump on Clinton. He would have had no one else to
blame it on.
Pancho1188
10-28-2004, 03:23 PM
Nonsense.
9/11 was going to happen regardless of who was President.
You're absolutely right. Please note that I
said no Fahrenheit 9/11, which meant the movie wouldn't have been made. I do not contest 9/11 for a moment.
It would've happened. The movie, however, was to trash Bush. Had Bush not been in office, there wouldn't be a
need to trash him...and I don't think Moore would've attacked Gore like that.
I do believe, however, that we
would not have invaded Iraq like Bush did (maybe eventually the same outcome, but not like it is
now...would've taken longer to enact). I still think Bush was all too excited to take him out because of his
father. Gore wouldn't have had that bias. Secondly, Bush was on a crusade to take out whoever presented even a
remote threat. I do not think that Gore would've had the same intensity. These are hypotheticals, however, and
could be wrong. We'll never know, so I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?
Holmes
10-28-2004, 04:10 PM
Secondly, Bush
was on a crusade to take out whoever presented even a remote threat.
Absolutely. The operative word
being remote.
Pancho1188
10-28-2004, 04:22 PM
Absolutely. The
operative word being remote.
Ironically, this is his strongest selling point. The very
'mistakes' Bush made that everyone criticizes are the same ones that make everyone who is not related to/attached
to a soldier sleep easy at night. Sure, he's ignoring everyone's rights and freedoms (I'd say a country has a
right to a government other than a US-clone...and the US could 'let sleeping dogs lie'), but we sure do
feel safe now. By the time Bush is through, every country that used to oppose the US will be like the US and will
think like the US and therefore would never want to attack the US. I think Bush would be well to give Jack
Nicholson's speech in A Few Good Men. After all, who are we to reap the benefits of the protection he
provides and then question the means by which he provides it? We can't handle the truth!
Friendly1
10-28-2004, 09:34 PM
You're
absolutely right. Please note that I said no Fahrenheit 9/11,
I wasn't picking on your selection
of the movie. Almost every major decision the Bush Administration has made since that fateful day has been driven
by the intensity of the attacks.
Gore would have been similarly driven. He just would not have been as
effective as Bush in quashing further attacks.
We have to pay a price, as a people, for the swiftness of the
Bush Administration's response to 9/11. Most people aren't yet ready to acknowledge that, and Kerry is now trying
to distance himself from his own support for that response.
But in our government's zeal to prevent further
attacks on American soil, a few thousand Arab-Americans (and probably some other minorities) saw their rights vanish
over night. Some of them were undoubtedly linked to Al Qaida, but I doubt many of them were.
The "Fahrenheit"
movie is just balderdash -- partisan half-truths and innuendos preying on people's fears and guilt. It
misrepresents the truth and is only refective of the kind of backlash Gore would have suffered from the other side,
had he been in place.
No one would have been prepared to handle 9/11 in the surgical, sterile way Kerry is
falsely arguing he would have.
An invasion of Iraq was inevitable. Saddam Hussein threw out the U.N. weapons
inspectors and had no intention of allowing them to return. Bush's being President the past four years only means
we had a decisive, swift-acting administration in place.
Although I said we will pay a price for some of the
things the Congress authorized the Administration to do, we are nonetheless safer at home today than we would have
been under Gore or Kerry.
Bush takes care of his people. He doesn't posture and change his position just
because it's politically expedient to do so.
He's not the most articulate person to ever hold the Presidency,
but he at least took on a very difficult task without reservation. We don't need all the agonizing Kerry would put
us through when times get tough.
Friendly1
10-28-2004, 09:40 PM
By the time
Bush is through, every country that used to oppose the US will be like the US and will think like the US and
therefore would never want to attack the US.
I don't think so. Bush's policies have definitely
irritated the Muslim world. You're talking about hundreds of millions of people.
By the time he is finished,
if he is allowed to finish the job, people will respect America about the way they did right after World War II.
They won't like us, they probably won't want to be like us, but they will understand better that we only
occasionally elect bad leaders to office -- and that we will do whatever it takes to correct such errors, if anyone
takes advantage of them.
That doesn't mean the rest of the world will believe we turn around and elect good
leaders. I just mean that they'll understand that if they try to take a hard line with us, we'll back a President
who stands up to the bullying and says, "Forget it. We aren't going to put up with this."
In a major crisis,
such as the War for Independence, the War Between the States, the World Wars, and now the War on Terrorism, we have
demonstrated a remarkable ability to blur the lines we have spent hundreds of years drawing -- and in the aftermath
we come back and say, "Well, maybe we should have done something different."
It's always easier to look back
and see the swath of destruction you created than to understand the harm you are inflicting while you are forging
ahead in a crisis.
Pancho1188
10-29-2004, 05:24 AM
By 'country' I meant
government. Would you bite the hand that fed you? (translation: We take down governments we don't like, put in
ones that are like ours, and those governments will of course like/support the US because it put them into power)
Those hundreds of millions of people you're referring to will, of course, still hate the US as you said.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.