Why should I vote for Bush?...
-
"...The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg. That was understood by those with some concern for their country. As the US invaded Iraq, the historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush's grand strategy was "alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president [Franklin D Roosevelt] said it would, lives in infamy". It was no surprise, added Schlesinger, that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism" and the belief that Bush was "a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein" (4)..." http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030[^] "...The administration recently projected deficits of more than $450 billion this year and $475 billion next year — numbers that don't even factor in money borrowed from Social Security (news - web sites) and other trust funds, Stenholm said. "Budget deficits place a drag on the economy and our living standards now and in the future," Stenholm said. "Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) has repeatedly warned that deficits undercut the ability of the economy to grow in a way that reduces unemployment and increases the wages of American workers." The economy has lost 3.2 million private-sector jobs since Bush came to office in 2001, and unemployment has risen from 4.1 percent to 6.2 percent, he said...." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=1278&e=2&u=/ap/20030809/ap_on_go_co/democrats_economy[^] I tried looking for somet
Why did you waste all that effort. You had no intentions of voting for him anyway, no matter what he has or hasn't done. Be honest. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush? he's set all-time spending records. he's up 18% (i think) over Clinton right now, Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. Recommend, yes. Promise, yes. Spend, no. That is the responsibility of the Congress, which can and from time to time does ignore recommendations and promises made by the President. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. but first, he wrote: With the welfare state initiated by FDR, and fanned into flames by LBJ so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? right. that's what i thought. -c CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: He is not a Democrat. :laugh: but a Democrat is not a Libertarian;) Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. but first, he wrote: With the welfare state initiated by FDR, and fanned into flames by LBJ so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? right. that's what i thought. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Exactly. LBJ and FDR both enjoyed hugh democratic majorities in Congress. They took advantage of that majority and pushed through an overtly socialistic agenda - which has virtually crippled us as a society. They didn't spend the money, but they are repsonsible for the programs that the bulk of our national debt goes to pay for.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. but first, he wrote: With the welfare state initiated by FDR, and fanned into flames by LBJ so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? right. that's what i thought. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Yes, LBJ especially was a master at pushing agendas through Congress. Kennedy, a pretty decent President for the amount of time in office, had a social agenda that he had difficulty making happen. LBJ was able to push it through to take "our" eyes off of what was happening in 'Nam. Mike
-
Why did you waste all that effort. You had no intentions of voting for him anyway, no matter what he has or hasn't done. Be honest. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
Gary Kirkham wrote: Why did you waste all that effort. You had no intentions of voting for him anyway, no matter what he has or hasn't done. Be honest. Honestly, I wanted Bush supports to give me a reason to vote for him. So far I see no logical reason to. no BS Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles.
Stan Shannon wrote: That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles. Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Exactly. LBJ and FDR both enjoyed hugh democratic majorities in Congress. They took advantage of that majority and pushed through an overtly socialistic agenda - which has virtually crippled us as a society. They didn't spend the money, but they are repsonsible for the programs that the bulk of our national debt goes to pay for.
right. and again, GWB isn't responsible for spending increases, even though he also has the majority in both houses. but democratic presidents are. i understand, you don't have to say it again. CheeseWeasle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Yes, LBJ especially was a master at pushing agendas through Congress. Kennedy, a pretty decent President for the amount of time in office, had a social agenda that he had difficulty making happen. LBJ was able to push it through to take "our" eyes off of what was happening in 'Nam. Mike
right. GWB is not responsible for anything that happens under his watch, even though he has majorities in Congress and could presumably pass whatever he wants. But Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. as long as we're clear on this. -c CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles. Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. I don't see how. I suppose my attitude is that there is *no* realistic way of getting back to those values. So, given a choice between the socialistic left (Democrats) and the capitalistic right (Republicans) I choose the lesser of two evils and vote Republican.
-
right. and again, GWB isn't responsible for spending increases, even though he also has the majority in both houses. but democratic presidents are. i understand, you don't have to say it again. CheeseWeasle
A small majority. My biggest problem with Bush is that he *isn't* taking advantage of that majority the way Democratic leaders have in the past. For some reason he seems to still feel obligated to pander to the left even though he doesn't need to. I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
-
JoeSox wrote: Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. I don't see how. I suppose my attitude is that there is *no* realistic way of getting back to those values. So, given a choice between the socialistic left (Democrats) and the capitalistic right (Republicans) I choose the lesser of two evils and vote Republican.
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't see how. they must be included in the nationally televised debates. Which the CPD will not let them in because they are a threat to the two-party monopoly. I have done research on this. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
A small majority. My biggest problem with Bush is that he *isn't* taking advantage of that majority the way Democratic leaders have in the past. For some reason he seems to still feel obligated to pander to the left even though he doesn't need to. I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle
-
right. GWB is not responsible for anything that happens under his watch, even though he has majorities in Congress and could presumably pass whatever he wants. But Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. as long as we're clear on this. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. Nope - I referenced FDR and LBJ. LBJ was unique is his knowledge of how to move the Congress. These are skills that neither Kennedy nor Clinton possessed. Kennedy and Reagan had great success, as has Bush, in reducing taxes but only by speaking directly to the country not by working through congressional politics. Mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created No, it is the half-vast majority. Those that dont' pay income tax. Mike
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created No, it is the half-vast majority. Those that dont' pay income tax. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Those that dont' pay income tax the rich? CheeseWeasle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. Nope - I referenced FDR and LBJ. LBJ was unique is his knowledge of how to move the Congress. These are skills that neither Kennedy nor Clinton possessed. Kennedy and Reagan had great success, as has Bush, in reducing taxes but only by speaking directly to the country not by working through congressional politics. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kennedy and Reagan had great success, as has Bush, in reducing taxes yup. but we were talking about the other side of that coin: reducing spending, which Bush has spectacularly failed to do. (but of course Bush can't cut spending himself, just like he can't reduce taxes himself) -c CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't see how. they must be included in the nationally televised debates. Which the CPD will not let them in because they are a threat to the two-party monopoly. I have done research on this. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.What I meant was, even if the Libertarians won the presidency, how could a party that does not represent any aspect of what our government was originally intended to be bring us back to those founding principles?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle
I agree with you on that. That is exactly why he doesn't do it. It would take more balls than he obviously has. Unfortunantly the majority of the public, especially minorities and females, have bought into a set of socialistic ideas that are very distructive to their best interests and antithetical to everything we, as Americans, were supposed to value politically.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: No, everybody should care. But give me a break, we've got 15+ months till the presidential election in the US. The Democratic primaries haven't even started yet. I was hoping not to read election rants in the Soapbox until at least January, ideally not until next summer. What you should be caring about MORE is that USA citizens are dieing everyday overseas! No thanks to this administration. If my son or friend or fellow CPian died over there, I would feel it would have been a political death which would not stand still in my mind.:| I don't like seeing the USA having a military presence in every corner of the earth it gets me more when these people obeying orders end up dead, and their families are the ones that suffer the most. So your dam-straight I am thinking about how I am voting for now, and it looks like the State of California is also waking up. Our military should protect our borders nothing more nothing less, imo. Joe Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: What you should be caring about MORE is that USA citizens are dieing everyday overseas! Don't presume to know what I care about or to what degree. X| JoeSox wrote: If my son or friend or fellow CPian died over there, I would feel it would have been a political death which would not stand still in my mind. I think that can be said of all wars. Like it or not they are fought for political reasons. PERIOD. If you single this war and this president out, you're not being honest with yourself. JoeSox wrote: I don't like seeing the USA having a military presence in every corner of the earth it gets me more when these people obeying orders end up dead, and their families are the ones that suffer the most. It's not a perfect world. The UN is mostly impotent and politically motivated as well. While tragic for the dead and their families, they knew what they were getting into when they volunteered. JoeSox wrote: Our military should protect our borders nothing more nothing less, imo. The Truman Doctrine is a very tricky thing. There are times where I agree with you and times I don't. Keep in mind that every president since Truman has followed his doctrine to one degree or another. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.