Will you re-elect Bush?
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Jeffro » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:16 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Solid poop seems to have more recyclable nutrients than do the splatter-blast shits. Just an observation.
Only one smilie can describe this:
http://www.purevolume.com/vagabond
2.4 Ghz, 4x256 RDRAM PC1066,
Radeon 9700 Non-Pro, 4.6
Catalysts, SB audigy 2, DSL
My belated uh... $.50
by PudriK » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:26 pm
First, let me say that I enjoy a good political debate when I can find it. It seems to be difficult these days, because most people prefer to resort to name-calling and generalizations, and the nihilistic attitude that any discussion is pointless. An informed debate, citing details and evidence, is how we learn and adapt our thinking. To all those numerous posters that did not meet this ideal: pause, collect your thoughts, and back them up.
Since I haven't been taking active part until now, I'll make my points cronologically...
The 2000 election: real dirty, and in the end I don't know enough to say who "really won." But you have to appreciate that in America, after a ~50-50 popular vote, and a controversial legal decision, there was no civil war, no rioting. At least most people were able to move on and let it go. Still, it's surprising the personal hatred that resulted for W. W-haters don't realize that calling him names, etc. just makes them sound ignorant, as if they have no substantive arguments. And let's face it, almost all politicians are were born with a silver spoon up their ass.
The war in Iraq: It occured to me going into this that W was grabbing for justifications. First, al-Qeida, then the missles, then uranium, etc. I don't get this "where are the WMD" debate. Everybody knows he HAD them, we gave them to him. The point was Saddam never proved to the world he got rid of them. Still, I never fully bought the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Instead, it seemed to me that a few people in the administration had been looking for a reason to inject a Western government into the Arab region by force, that Afghanistan was too poor to be an influential player in the region, and that 911 and the war on terror gave them a good reason to do it in Iraq. Personally, I think our more-attractive culture will win out in the long run, but Americans are impatient.
As for the whole, congress never approved it BS, I ask, what do you call a bill that authorizes the president to use force? Sure, they never mentioned the word "war," but we've found that word distasteful since Korea. Because the reasons for war were so tenuous, Congress shied away from using the term. But they clearly supported Bush's actions, just in a way that enabled them to avoid responsibility. It wasn't illegal, just cowardly.
That said, now that we're there, we had better stick it out, no matter what the financial and human cost, because our national integrity is on the line, and we have a chance to really accomplish something great. I am disappointed in the national media for not covering recovery efforts at all. CNN, etc only seem to mention casualties. Meanwhile, NPR did a great piece on the efforts of the US to rebuild sewage, electricity, and other services in Iraq. WE can be proud of what our people are doing over there. It may be slanted, but you get a lot more information out of NPR than you get from commerical media.
Election 2004: I can forgive W for going back on his promise to reduce our military obligations overseas, since 911 changed the playing field. But we have to start pulling troops out of places they aren't needed (Europe for one). ANDthe growth in spending during W's tenure is unforgivable for a conservative president. A budget is proposed by the president, amended by congress, and signed into law by the pres. So we have both the Leg. and Exec. to blame. My solution, keep GW, but vote Libertarian or Dem for Congress. Ideally, enough votes for Libs, resulting in democrat victories, would send a signal to the Rep party to come back to the right. Also, when the Congress and Pres are different parties, spending excess is reduced. (See Clinton era.) For once I'd like to see the Government propose to eliminate a department.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy: tired of hearing liberals on this. Any tax cut is good, and of course the people who pay the VAST majority of the taxes are going to see a larger cut. I especially like it when liberals complain that non-tax-paying families are being treated unfairly by not receiving the tax rebate paid to other families. How can you get a rebate on money you haven't paid? Another example of buying votes.
I'll finish with two thoughts:
One, I'd like to see the National Retail Sales Tax become a center stage idea. It deserves more debate and may possibly a grand solution to the convoluted tax system. This may be the exact domestic issue Bush needs to ensure a 2004 win.
Two, to all those who like to bash the French, remember, if they hadn't SAVED OUR ASSES in 1781 at Yorktown, we wouldn't exist. Talk about ungrateful (or is it ignorant?)
Since I haven't been taking active part until now, I'll make my points cronologically...
The 2000 election: real dirty, and in the end I don't know enough to say who "really won." But you have to appreciate that in America, after a ~50-50 popular vote, and a controversial legal decision, there was no civil war, no rioting. At least most people were able to move on and let it go. Still, it's surprising the personal hatred that resulted for W. W-haters don't realize that calling him names, etc. just makes them sound ignorant, as if they have no substantive arguments. And let's face it, almost all politicians are were born with a silver spoon up their ass.
The war in Iraq: It occured to me going into this that W was grabbing for justifications. First, al-Qeida, then the missles, then uranium, etc. I don't get this "where are the WMD" debate. Everybody knows he HAD them, we gave them to him. The point was Saddam never proved to the world he got rid of them. Still, I never fully bought the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Instead, it seemed to me that a few people in the administration had been looking for a reason to inject a Western government into the Arab region by force, that Afghanistan was too poor to be an influential player in the region, and that 911 and the war on terror gave them a good reason to do it in Iraq. Personally, I think our more-attractive culture will win out in the long run, but Americans are impatient.
As for the whole, congress never approved it BS, I ask, what do you call a bill that authorizes the president to use force? Sure, they never mentioned the word "war," but we've found that word distasteful since Korea. Because the reasons for war were so tenuous, Congress shied away from using the term. But they clearly supported Bush's actions, just in a way that enabled them to avoid responsibility. It wasn't illegal, just cowardly.
That said, now that we're there, we had better stick it out, no matter what the financial and human cost, because our national integrity is on the line, and we have a chance to really accomplish something great. I am disappointed in the national media for not covering recovery efforts at all. CNN, etc only seem to mention casualties. Meanwhile, NPR did a great piece on the efforts of the US to rebuild sewage, electricity, and other services in Iraq. WE can be proud of what our people are doing over there. It may be slanted, but you get a lot more information out of NPR than you get from commerical media.
Election 2004: I can forgive W for going back on his promise to reduce our military obligations overseas, since 911 changed the playing field. But we have to start pulling troops out of places they aren't needed (Europe for one). ANDthe growth in spending during W's tenure is unforgivable for a conservative president. A budget is proposed by the president, amended by congress, and signed into law by the pres. So we have both the Leg. and Exec. to blame. My solution, keep GW, but vote Libertarian or Dem for Congress. Ideally, enough votes for Libs, resulting in democrat victories, would send a signal to the Rep party to come back to the right. Also, when the Congress and Pres are different parties, spending excess is reduced. (See Clinton era.) For once I'd like to see the Government propose to eliminate a department.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy: tired of hearing liberals on this. Any tax cut is good, and of course the people who pay the VAST majority of the taxes are going to see a larger cut. I especially like it when liberals complain that non-tax-paying families are being treated unfairly by not receiving the tax rebate paid to other families. How can you get a rebate on money you haven't paid? Another example of buying votes.
I'll finish with two thoughts:
One, I'd like to see the National Retail Sales Tax become a center stage idea. It deserves more debate and may possibly a grand solution to the convoluted tax system. This may be the exact domestic issue Bush needs to ensure a 2004 win.
Two, to all those who like to bash the French, remember, if they hadn't SAVED OUR ASSES in 1781 at Yorktown, we wouldn't exist. Talk about ungrateful (or is it ignorant?)
PudriK
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
- Sannop
by Sannop » Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:54 pm
Pudrik........... I could see myself discussing many issues with you. I can see that even if we were to disagree, we would enjoy the chance to understand how someone else reaches his or her conclusions. You have posted (by far) the most enjoyable post to read so far in this thread.
On your new points:
1) Interesting. National sales tax.. I have to hear more pros and cons before I could develop any opinion.
2) I could agree with your view on the French tension issue if I felt that there was any ungratefulness toward the French before WWII. Our relations were fantastic.. the gift of Lady Liberty is one example. I think that the French developed an animosity towards the United States after WWII. I hate to say that “they started it”, but the childish metaphor might fit.
My personal opinion is that they have had a constant need to prove that they are not in need of a "big brother" to protect them; therefore, they develop a rebellious attitude toward the US. I think that this is similar to a little brother not wanting to be in his older brothers shadow and building resentment. I do not mean to say that the French are our “little brother”, only that the French might have subconsciously felt this way after Germany was defeated.
They already had tensions with England dating back to the Middle Ages, and the fact that their rivals helped “save” them might have heightened the necessity to prove to the world, and themselves, that they were not an inferior nation. This has led to the modern “French attitude” so disdained by many Americans. How to remove this tension? I don’t know, but Americans will not accept the superior attitude demonstrated by the French in recent times unless they feel that it is deserved. We readily accept Japanese superiority complex because we have this illusion of Japan as the pinnacle of efficiency. The Japanese intimidate many Americans. The issue is really that we are not impressed with the modern French, we ask “Where does the attitude come from?”
This is meant as some of my thoughts, and I really would like some interesting views. If you can’t be mature than you will just go on my ignore list with several others… so if you will flame, you will get one shot.
On your new points:
1) Interesting. National sales tax.. I have to hear more pros and cons before I could develop any opinion.
2) I could agree with your view on the French tension issue if I felt that there was any ungratefulness toward the French before WWII. Our relations were fantastic.. the gift of Lady Liberty is one example. I think that the French developed an animosity towards the United States after WWII. I hate to say that “they started it”, but the childish metaphor might fit.
My personal opinion is that they have had a constant need to prove that they are not in need of a "big brother" to protect them; therefore, they develop a rebellious attitude toward the US. I think that this is similar to a little brother not wanting to be in his older brothers shadow and building resentment. I do not mean to say that the French are our “little brother”, only that the French might have subconsciously felt this way after Germany was defeated.
They already had tensions with England dating back to the Middle Ages, and the fact that their rivals helped “save” them might have heightened the necessity to prove to the world, and themselves, that they were not an inferior nation. This has led to the modern “French attitude” so disdained by many Americans. How to remove this tension? I don’t know, but Americans will not accept the superior attitude demonstrated by the French in recent times unless they feel that it is deserved. We readily accept Japanese superiority complex because we have this illusion of Japan as the pinnacle of efficiency. The Japanese intimidate many Americans. The issue is really that we are not impressed with the modern French, we ask “Where does the attitude come from?”
This is meant as some of my thoughts, and I really would like some interesting views. If you can’t be mature than you will just go on my ignore list with several others… so if you will flame, you will get one shot.
by PudriK » Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:26 am
Thanks, Sannop. I had thought it rather long.
1) Check out FairTax.org and NRSTA, and work from there. I agree, I don't know enough about it/haven't heard enough expert opinion on the concept to form a solid opinion. In principle I like the idea, but the devil is in the details, especially when it comes to the transformation from one to the other. One issue I haven't yet found discussion on was how to make sure the immediate jump in prices are matched with an immediate jump in take home pay. After all, you're paid at the end of the month, but the rent is due now. That may just work out to a large, one-time budget hiccup. Also, how would this affect internet commerce.
2) Fascinating theory. I'll have to pose it to a francophile cousin of mine who spent a lot of time over there to hear her take on it. I'll let you know...
1) Check out FairTax.org and NRSTA, and work from there. I agree, I don't know enough about it/haven't heard enough expert opinion on the concept to form a solid opinion. In principle I like the idea, but the devil is in the details, especially when it comes to the transformation from one to the other. One issue I haven't yet found discussion on was how to make sure the immediate jump in prices are matched with an immediate jump in take home pay. After all, you're paid at the end of the month, but the rent is due now. That may just work out to a large, one-time budget hiccup. Also, how would this affect internet commerce.
2) Fascinating theory. I'll have to pose it to a francophile cousin of mine who spent a lot of time over there to hear her take on it. I'll let you know...
PudriK
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:20 pm
Originally posted by Sannop
Pudrik........... I could see myself discussing many issues with you. I can see that even if we were to disagree, we would enjoy the chance to understand how someone else reaches his or her conclusions. You have posted (by far) the most enjoyable post to read so far in this thread.
I agree. Regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions, his delivery is very respectable AND refreshing, if not frighteningly adult-like.
(Yes, I know I'm no saint sometimes:cool: )
Pudrik, if you can't tell, I've been trying recently to veer this thread permanently off-course. Despite the good read, your big post ruined that.
Gee, thanks.
j/k:D 
by PudriK » Thu Aug 07, 2003 9:13 pm
She wasn't able to get to your point directly before we gave up on the cell phone connection, but I did learn something new.
From what she says, in Europe, the French Universities are considered some of the very best for science and engineering. Of course, I mentioned that no European has put a man on the moon or invented the internet. To this she responded that before we had internet, the French had Minitel. What's that?
I did some quick googling: Starting in 1980, the French launched an electronic phone directory service that used subscription terminals, kind of like AOL with hardware. By 1985, it had expanded over much of the country, and had many other services, including chat services which gained a reputation as being mostly for erotica. See also this.
Of course, the internet existed long before this, expanding off ARPANET in the 1970s. But in 1985, very few Americans had access to it in their homes. (I remember those days of BBSing). That's one example of advanced French engineering. Minitel still exists today, but has been tied into the internet now. So we can still say we're better.
PS It occured to me that Europeans often complain about American arrogance. I wonder what the Chinese think?
PPS Doug, sorry to ruin your fun. 
From what she says, in Europe, the French Universities are considered some of the very best for science and engineering. Of course, I mentioned that no European has put a man on the moon or invented the internet. To this she responded that before we had internet, the French had Minitel. What's that?
I did some quick googling: Starting in 1980, the French launched an electronic phone directory service that used subscription terminals, kind of like AOL with hardware. By 1985, it had expanded over much of the country, and had many other services, including chat services which gained a reputation as being mostly for erotica. See also this.
Of course, the internet existed long before this, expanding off ARPANET in the 1970s. But in 1985, very few Americans had access to it in their homes. (I remember those days of BBSing). That's one example of advanced French engineering. Minitel still exists today, but has been tied into the internet now. So we can still say we're better.
PS It occured to me that Europeans often complain about American arrogance. I wonder what the Chinese think?
PPS Doug, sorry to ruin your fun.
PudriK
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
- Sannop
by Sannop » Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:16 pm
I really am interested in what she has to say.
Well when it comes to technology the French are, in my opinion, to be highly respected for their attitudes and knowledge on nuclear power. They are one of the few (the only that I know of) nations that produces the majority of its electricity from nuclear reactors.
I was a nulcear power plant operator while in the Navy and I am a physics teacher, if you want to discuss nulcear power i would love to any time. I am a strong advocarte for its usage.
Well when it comes to technology the French are, in my opinion, to be highly respected for their attitudes and knowledge on nuclear power. They are one of the few (the only that I know of) nations that produces the majority of its electricity from nuclear reactors.
I was a nulcear power plant operator while in the Navy and I am a physics teacher, if you want to discuss nulcear power i would love to any time. I am a strong advocarte for its usage.
- frankk6969
-
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 9:50 pm
- Location: Near Chicago
by frankk6969 » Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:32 pm
I can't vote so it doesn't matter what I think.
I got this at danasoft.com- Cpl. Bingham
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests