Why George W. Bush is an Outstanding President

[bludhoundz]

That wasn't the whole point of my post.. see the top and bottom as well

[Forest_Archer]

Blud, you really take the cake. Too bad I have to spread out my rep more before giving it to you again. :(

[drakonfire]

oh yes bush is a horrible president, i mean he is personally responsible for every bad thing that has happened, and he is a greedy SOB redneck from a state that barely even wants to be a state anyway, he graduated as an average student, has below average intelligence, and is an all around bad person...


i know i'm not the only one who thinks this is a load of trash

first, he graduated from yale! stop looking at his grades, he made it through! frikkin YALE! - you don't get through yale without some game, even if its just yale average - you realize yale average is probably 4.0 material at a lot of state schools right? and don't you dare say it was his family or money that got him through, that is just plain insulting to one of our nations most prestigious colleges

second the president cannot control the economy, why are we under this misguided impression? yeah he can wield more than a bit of influence, but all the influence in the world cannot defeat economic laws (referring to natural economic laws) has bush been the greatest for the economy? heck no, but what president has? would gore or kerry have done a better job? i don't know, but something funny about the "what if?" game, you never know the answer, and you never WILL!

thirdly, the war(s) in the middle east -- have you ever had the pleasure of taking care of children in either a classroom or afterschool setting? -- doing so teaches an important principle with discipline, you HAVE to follow through, it may not be the _best_ thing, and you may only realize this after you have made the decision, but if you renig and chagne your mind, the children will not understand why, the point of the lesson will be lost on them... now it may seem a bit of a stretch equating the terrorists in the middle east with inner-city children (whom i work with everyday) but the principle is the same, bush went in there with the support of america, now he has lost that support (a lot of it anyway) but he is between a very very hard rock and an impossible place - if he pulled out now it would set a most horrid precedent of leaving a commitment unfinished and would create a power vacuum easily taken advantage of by terrorists or terrorist symapthetic leaders

now then, you can sit there and ridicule his decisions, his life, his families life, and just about anything else you want to, but in all reality, what good will that do? make you feel better? great, you know what else does that? helping people, working out, accomplishing something -- so why not try to work with the system until you can do something to change it? get involved in your local politics, with your city, join a boys and girls club, serve a meal at a soup kitchen, promote your next favorite presidential candidate and what they will do for the country (not what they will do better, what they will DO) -- in short, stop complaining about whats wrong and start doing whatever you can to FIX IT -- the president doesn't fix our country, we fix our country

good grief i have wasted far to much time on this as it is, so i am outta here

forest, my apologies, i did not sign my rep, though you will see my name because you are a gold, just know i did not mean to do that anonymously

[HorNeT]

he is personally responsible for every bad thing that has happened
He's responsible for 911?

[bludhoundz]

He was using the italics to emphasize that it couldn't possibly be true.

[Forest_Archer]

Drakonfire, I think you contradicted yourself a little in your post.

Why can't we discuss politics? And yes! Discussing this WILL help! If we didn't discuss things we have to change in our government, imagine it in a few years!

Well.. in a few years, that crackpot (Bush) will still be president.. but you get what I'm spittin' :laugh:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Drakonfire. Don't try to put icing on the war by calling it "The war in the Middle East". It's in Iraq when it should have been in Afghanistan. Don't say that "Well, Saddam was a bad man and we needed to get him!" Because that's just bullshit. We needed to get Osama. We can't go around being the "world police" (shut up about that movie). We simply don't have that right. In Afghanistan, we had an excuse. A good and valid one too. They attacked us and caused a devastating terrorist attack. We needed to retaliate. Give me a reason that we absolutely needed to go to Iraq other than that we had the obligation to get rid of Saddam.

As for his intelligence, the man is not a redneck. He was born in what, Connecticut? He's no cowboy, as his PR guys would suggest. Have you noticed no one in his family speaks with that accent? He's a liar.

On the bit about Yale... have you ever heard the expression "Money talks, shit walks"? I don't care if it was the greatest school ever made. Everyone has their price. My sister got into Harvard for her perfect SAT, mass amounts of extracurriculars and grades. She's getting a scholarship for it. But there is another from my school who is getting in and he is a complete moron. He's rich as hell, but a moron. No scholarship for him.

Sound familiar?

[meat.eater]

No, mr. Bush hasnt been a great president.

But you're a moron if you think he's unintelligent. He knows infinetly more about politics than a "normal american."

Its like... even the sucky basketball player on the worst team in the NBA could wipe the floor with you in a game of basketball.

America just has a habit of comparing epopel to the absolute best of their proffesion. So everyone always looks incompetant.

[Hey1001]

Good for your sister, but I just saw a report that tons of applicants with perfect SATs and extracurricular activities are being dinged by the top schools because the number of applications is way up. Bet there was more than stellar credentials. Maybe legacy, like Bushie had when he got admitted to Yale?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Good for your sister, but I just saw a report that tons of applicants with perfect SATs and extracurricular activities are being dinged by the top schools because the number of applications is way up. Bet there was more than stellar credentials. Maybe legacy, like Bushie had when he got admitted to Yale?
Right. A first generation Puerto Rican girl with a legacy at Harvard. Good try to bring down my happiness. She got in on skill alone.

Oh, and in case you didn't get it, no one in my family has gone to Harvard before.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Stupid slow computer...

[Jehutyv.2.0]

No, mr. Bush hasnt been a great president.

But you're a moron if you think he's unintelligent. He knows infinetly more about politics than a "normal american."

Its like... even the sucky basketball player on the worst team in the NBA could wipe the floor with you in a game of basketball.

America just has a habit of comparing epopel to the absolute best of their proffesion. So everyone always looks incompetant.
He may know things about politics. But that doesn't make him intelligent. Learn the difference.

And so what if people compare them to the greatest? Are we supposed to settle for the worst and be fine with it? Our President should be one who is above the rest. That's why he'd be in that position. Would you want the guy who manages the McDonald's to be president? Exactly.

[Hey1001]

Right. A first generation Puerto Rican girl with a legacy at Harvard. Good try to bring down my happiness. She got in on skill alone.

Oh, and in case you didn't get it, no one in my family has gone to Harvard before.
Had some good pizza. Sausage, chicken, peppers, onions. Thin crust.

I'm not trying to bring down your happiness, I'm just going by what I know. I just made a comment. But now that you brought it up, well maybe she got in because of affirmative action. If as you make it sound, your parents are blue collars who didn't go to college, then she would be a shoo in.

In any event, I'm pretty sure she's not the first Puerto Rican that goes to Harvard. Not that that matters; being admitted to Harvard is a great achievement, no matter how it came to be.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Had some good pizza. Sausage, chicken, peppers, onions. Thin crust.

I'm not trying to bring down your happiness, I'm just going by what I know. I just made a comment. But now that you brought it up, well maybe she got in because of affirmative action. If as you make it sound, your parents are blue collars who didn't go to college, then she would be a shoo in.

In any event, I'm pretty sure she's not the first Puerto Rican that goes to Harvard. Not that that matters; being admitted to Harvard is a great achievement, no matter how it came to be.
Thanks for misunderstanding. Let me break this down for you: She's Puerto Rican. Therefore, there is no legacy. Every member of my family is educated. Affirmative action hardly applies.

And I don't know how you infer that my parents are "blue collars who didn't go to college" just because I said that no one went to Harvard. But, I guess when you read "didn't go to Harvard" and "Puerto Rican" the obvious assumption would be "College-uneducated blue collars", eh?

The point of my original post was not to be focused on my example of the sister, but of the moron who got in because he's loaded. It is to show that the phrase "Money talks, shit walks" rings true.

[Hey1001]

Thanks for misunderstanding. Let me break this down for you: She's Puerto Rican. Therefore, there is no legacy. Every member of my family is educated. Affirmative action hardly applies.

And I don't know how you infer that my parents are "blue collars who didn't go to college" just because I said that no one went to Harvard. But, I guess when you read "didn't go to Harvard" and "Puerto Rican" the obvious assumption would be "College-uneducated blue collars", eh?

The point of my original post was not to be focused on my example of the sister, but of the moron who got in because he's loaded. It is to show that the phrase "Money talks, shit walks" rings true.
Let me break this down to you: Legacy has nothing to do with your race, it has to do with whether your parents went to the school. Affirmative action has nothing to do with whether your parents are educated, it has to do with whether your ethnicity is an underrepresented class. Harvard will count your sister as a Puerto Rican when it reports on its minority students.

I inferred that your parents may have been blue collars when you said "first generation Puerto Rican." That is what that phrase infers, at best. It is used by immigrants when they illustrate the hardships they went through to succeed, like in, "I am a first generation Martian, my parents swept floors and cleaned toilets, yet I became an astronaut."

I agree that "money talks," but only so much. Bush still had to do the work at Yale. And the money of Senator Kennedy's family (and their tremendous influence and power) didn't talk enough to impede Harvard from expelling him when he was caught copying in a Spanish test (I'm just using this as an example, and not to discredit the senator's great career). And, if our president should be "aboie the rest" as you say, then in the Bush-Kerry race, Bush was above Kerry, at least in academic standards, because Bush graduated from Yale with a better GPA than Kerry.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Let me break this down to you: Legacy has nothing to do with your race, it has to do with whether your parents went to the school. Affirmative action has nothing to do with whether your parents are educated, it has to do with whether your ethnicity is an underrepresented class. Harvard will count your sister as a Puerto Rican when it reports on its minority students.

I inferred that your parents may have been blue collars when you said "first generation Puerto Rican." That is what that phrase infers, at best. It is used by immigrants when they illustrate the hardships they went through to succeed, like in, "I am a first generation Martian, my parents swept floors and cleaned toilets, yet I became an astronaut."

I agree that "money talks," but only so much. Bush still had to do the work at Yale. And the money of Senator Kennedy's family (and their tremendous influence and power) didn't talk enough to impede Harvard from expelling him when he was caught copying in a Spanish test (I'm just using this as an example, and not to discredit the senator's great career). And, if our president should be "aboie the rest" as you say, then in the Bush-Kerry race, Bush was above Kerry, at least in academic standards, because Bush graduated from Yale with a better GPA than Kerry.You still don't understand, do you? I know that legacy has nothing to do with race, or in this case, ethnicity. But if you look at the fact that she's a 1st generation Puerto Rican and not a New Yorican, there is almost no way that there were others in the family to have gone. There. The logic is spelled out for you.

"At best"? You saying that implies you have no understanding of what Puerto Rico actually is. That also indicates that you're applying a stereotype to hispanics. I used the phrase for reasons indicated above.

Sure he had to do the work. But that doesn't make him some super genius. I never mentioned that his GPA factored into anything because frankly, I don't think it matters. But to say Yale graduate = brilliance automatically is simply ridiculous. But, if you want to say GPA is what puts people above the rest, go ahead. Also, why are you only factoring in Kerry? What about Gore?

[ReTodd]

President Bush is a great president because he had Cheney handle the Valerie Plame leak. I mean, that is friggin' genius. Cheney was going to retire anyways after the 2006 elections now all Bush has to do is throw in a pardon as a retirement gift.

Bush plays a minor role in his presidency, about as much a role as the Hamburglar has in making your strawberry shake. His whole administration is so old school they used to be against the Brown v. Board and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and DeLay were the triumvirate and now that one is gone and the second is on his way out this administration will have even less power than we have seen over the past year. I dare anyone to think of one accomplishment the man has made on his own. College, Military AWOL, Oil Industry, Arrest Record, Baseball, Politics? All riding his daddies coat tails. Yes, I would have done much more if I were in his position.

I am still waiting to see a quality administration in my lifetime. It will never happen because the best people are not willing to subject themselves and their families to the crap that their colleagues, the media, and the American people put them through.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

President Bush is a great president because he had Cheney handle the Valerie Plame leak. I mean, that is friggin' genius. Cheney was going to retire anyways after the 2006 elections now all Bush has to do is throw in a pardon as a retirement gift.

Bush plays a minor role in his presidency, about as much a role as the Hamburglar has in making your strawberry shake. His whole administration is so old school they used to be against the Brown v. Board and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and DeLay were the triumvirate and now that one is gone and the second is on his way out this administration will have even less power than we have seen over the past year. I dare anyone to think of one accomplishment the man has made on his own. College, Military AWOL, Oil Industry, Arrest Record, Baseball, Politics? All riding his daddies coat tails. Yes, I would have done much more if I were in his position.

I am still waiting to see a quality administration in my lifetime. It will never happen because the best people are not willing to subject themselves and their families to the crap that their colleagues, the media, and the American people put them through.Well, think about this: If a truly great, fair-minded, wonderful person became president... they'd be assassinated almost immediately after being sworn in. For some reason, the people of the world just don't like things easy.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Jesus, my computer keeps doing this...

[Hey1001]

Void.

[Hey1001]

Jesus, my computer keeps doing this...
I understand (or assumed) that just because a person is from an underrepresented ethnic background that doesn't mean that there can't be legacy. I'm pretty sure that there are Puerto Rican families with more than one generation that has attended Harvard. I was thinking outside the stereotype; maybe I'm wrong. In any event, it is a great accomplishment for your sister, especially in this supracompetitive admissions environment.

I never equated attending Yale (or Harvard or any other top school) with brilliance, although it is hard to argue there is no correlation. GPAs are an accepted measure of ranking individuals to see who is "above the rest," at least in academic circles.

What about Gore? Like Bush, he followed his father into politics. I'm not aware that he distinguished himself too much as a senator. He was a good vice president (it is hard to be a bad one). He was a fool to distance himself from president Clinton in his 2000 presidential run. I think many voters were disappointed that he turned his back on his "family" (i.e., the democrat president) over a personal mishap at a time of weakness. Hillary stuck with Clinton and swept New York, whereas Gore's attitude cost him the presidency. Clinton gave Gore a platform from which to shine and in return Gore abandoned him at a difficult time. I think voters value loyalty to your own more than a lesson in morals. And no, Gore did not invent the internet,

Going to war was very misguided, but it still remains to be seen whether Bush's views will ultimately prove right or wrong. Domestically, the economy has not been stellar, but it doesn't suck either.

[Man's Laughter]

Bush is a crappy President. How else can you put it?

[weasel35]

One thing was forgotten......He can't say Nuclear

[endless]

Took me a second to find this. If any of you have ever been to rotten.com you would know about how they press the limits with real pictures of death and dieing. I would suggest that you don’t ever go there. But here’s a link I wanted to show you. Of something that really interested me.

http://fotm.rotten.com/fotm/

Personally its makes me sick that something like that can happen.

[HorNeT]

That they can make something Illegal?

Damn, that does suck.

[weasel35]

That they can make something Illegal?

Damn, that does suck.
Bush has that much power....he needs to be impeached.

[~X-Doomsday~]

Im from Canada so i dont really care who leads his country but... Bush is stupid, He loves war just like my friend but more, Bush just likes big toys because his is small and cant plz the wife. I think the Canadian PM is ok we dont have a bad one like bush but we dont have a great one like ME<<<<

[weasel35]

Im from Canada so i dont really care who leads his country but... Bush is stupid, He loves war just like my friend but more, Bush just likes big toys because his is small and cant plz the wife. I think the Canadian PM is ok we dont have a bad one like bush but we dont have a great one like ME
your lucky that you live in canada and that your PM is ok.......(unlike Bush)

[~X-Doomsday~]

lol we have had some bad ones and have cost us a lot of money but im 13 so it isnt my tax money fixing there problems

[HorNeT]

Bush has that much power....he needs to be impeached.
How do you know he did it, dumbass?

Most likely, he didn't.

[weasel35]

Becuase the thread was made to diss bush....any other questions?

[Excaliber]

your lucky that you live in canada and that your PM is ok.......(unlike Bush)

Most of your 16 posts have been bashing the President and asking why your grey account gets wipped. He is a better President than you would make.

Get out of the forums noob. I'm tired of your spam.

Becuase the thread was made to diss bush....any other questions?
That has nothing to dowith Hornets previous comment

[HorNeT]

Damnit guys! get it right!

Bush loves war because the terrorists attacked us!
We should have done nothing!
Nothing at all!!

Boo for bush!

[TheBlazedAce]

And no, Gore did not invent the internet,
I can't believe people still spew this nonsense. Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet, he claimed he took initiative in helping it towards creation. As a senator he was one of the few who proposed a massive computer network to the rest of congress as well as invested in similar prospects:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/

[Excaliber]

Damnit guys! get it right!

Bush loves war because the terrorists attacked us!
We should have done nothing!
Nothing at all!!

Boo for bush!

Why should we have done nothing?
So the terrorists would bomb us for a joke next time?

[HorNeT]

Sarcasm, works wonders, doesn't it?

[Excaliber]

Sarcasm, works wonders, doesn't it?

<-- Pwnz0rxz:dry:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Took me a second to find this. If any of you have ever been to rotten.com you would know about how they press the limits with real pictures of death and dieing. I would suggest that you don’t ever go there. But here’s a link I wanted to show you. Of something that really interested me.

http://fotm.rotten.com/fotm/

Personally its makes me sick that something like that can happen.
I never really liked Rotten... but censoring that is sick. Damn Gonzales and Bush... Well done, End, for finding this.

[cuckoo]

What exactly did Rotten.com have on it?

[endless]

I never really liked Rotten... but censoring that is sick. Damn Gonzales and Bush... Well done, End, for finding this.

Yeah i found it by luck one day. Made me sick for the rest of the day.. what the hell happened to freedom of speech...

[drakonfire]

last post because i hate these threads

ever notice how people complain and bash the president (whoever it is, clinton, bush) and claim they can do a better job, but that they don't want to put up with all the crap? what have they been doing? oh yeah, giving the president crap, man we suck

and when i say we i don't exclude myself, i was not the greatest clinton fan, but sign me up on the list to admit he was a good president, not the best by any stretch, but then, which one was?

i'm done, so much hypocrisy even from myself turns my stomach

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Yeah i found it by luck one day. Made me sick for the rest of the day.. what the hell happened to freedom of speech...
Normally, people misuse that term, because it only means that the government cannot censor a person's expression. But now, the first amendment is actually being violated... the government does not have the power to do something like that outside an organization's own rules.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

last post because i hate these threads

ever notice how people complain and bash the president (whoever it is, clinton, bush) and claim they can do a better job, but that they don't want to put up with all the crap? what have they been doing? oh yeah, giving the president crap, man we suck

and when i say we i don't exclude myself, i was not the greatest clinton fan, but sign me up on the list to admit he was a good president, not the best by any stretch, but then, which one was?

i'm done, so much hypocrisy even from myself turns my stomach
Your illogicallity turns my stomach more.

How many people in this thread have claimed they could do a better job? Maybe one or two. But most of us claim that others could do a much better job. It is practically the people's duty to complain about the president, so that the president may rise up to surpass the challenges and criticisms. Bush has failed in that so far.

I'd say Clinton was pretty good. Why'd they get rid of him? Because he lied about a personal affair. He didn't set up any terrible wars that lasted throughout his term or send the economy into the shitter. He just lied about getting a blowjob from an intern. Now, I don't care who you are; Poor person, rich person, middle-class, president, or even God. If you got a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, and your wife was Hillary Clinton, you'd lie about it too.

I'd say the best president, not for his quality during term, but for a different reason, was Washington. The man founded the country and ambushed the British. To reload a musket, which took an incredible amount of time, the British troops could get three rounds every minute. The colonies were armed with rocks, pitchforks, and snow.

Bloody brilliant.

[boogieman]

great game for you all... :D (http://www.miniclip.com/bushshootout.htm)

[ReTodd]

Damnit guys! get it right!

Bush loves war because the terrorists attacked us!
We should have done nothing!
Nothing at all!!

Boo for bush!

Hornet, I love you (in a plutonic way) and appreciate your sarcasm but you've got it all wrong. The US government under President Bush and the Republican Congress has done next to nothing to combat terrorism. We went to war in Afghanistan. Excellent! The only problem is that we have very few troops engaged there, less than 20,000.

The following quote by Bush during a press conference sums it up and is taken from the Whitehouse website:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Reporter asking Question: "Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?..."

President Bush: "...So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you"

[007 GOD]

heres why bush is a great president. my cousin, and 16 members of his patrol are dead.

[The Coder]

great game for you all... :D (http://www.miniclip.com/bushshootout.htm)

I don't like that game... or bush... of course, I do come from the only democratic place in VA, and am probably living closer to bush than any of you... wait, that has no real meaning as to why I dislike bush... Anyway, I was born a democrat, raised a democrat and I will die a democrat... and a bush hater

[mushroom_girl]

heres why bush is a great president. my cousin, and 16 members of his patrol are dead.
If you're talking about your cousin being in the Army and him dying...how is that Bush's fault?

No offence, but your cousin didn't have to join the Army. He did it knowing what dangers faced him. I just thought I should say that. I'm not trying to be insensitive either I'm sorry for your loss.

[Aro23r]

I don't like that game... or bush... of course, I do come from the only democratic place in VA, and am probably living closer to bush than any of you... wait, that has no real meaning as to why I dislike bush... Anyway, I was born a democrat, raised a democrat and I will die a democrat... and a bush hater

What a well-argued position. Nicely done, sir.

[ReTodd]

If you're talking about your cousin being in the Army and him dying...how is that Bush's fault?

No offence, but your cousin didn't have to join the Army. He did it knowing what dangers faced him. I just thought I should say that. I'm not trying to be insensitive either I'm sorry for your loss.

Because Bush needlessly sent our troops to Iraq in a preemptive military strike without provocation. If I had been in the army and sent to Afghanistan, fine. If they had told me I was shipping to Iraq, fine again, I hear Canada is nice this time of year.

EDIT: No comments to my highlighted bush quote from the last page? I will assume everyone agrees then:)

[007 GOD]

If you're talking about your cousin being in the Army and him dying...how is that Bush's fault?

No offence, but your cousin didn't have to join the Army. He did it knowing what dangers faced him. I just thought I should say that. I'm not trying to be insensitive either I'm sorry for your loss.

no, i understand, but bush decided to have a a patrol go into an unmarked city. ait was just 30 men. No armored cars, no artillary abckup, no nothing. He just sent them in. He wanted to know if there were oil wells. There were oil wells, but there was also 250 iraqi outlaws there waiting. And lets not forget that we are in Iraq to begin with because George W is finishing what his dad started. This is all my personal views by the way.

[mushroom_girl]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a Bush supporter. But people seem to be blaming him for EVERYTHING. And not everything can be his fault.

ReTodd: But his cousin signed up for it. When you enlist in the army, you know that you could die, no matter where you're going.

007: So Bush blindly sent them in. That was not a smart move at all, and he should have given them back-up. You're right about that.

[ReTodd]

ReTodd: But his cousin signed up for it. When you enlist in the army, you know that you could die, no matter where you're going.

You sign up for the military to protect your country. Prove to me that the war in Iraq is protecting or in the best interests of of the United States and I will concede.

[mushroom_girl]

You sign up for the military to protect your country. Prove to me that the war in Iraq is protecting or in the best interests of of the United States and I will concede.
I can't give you a reason. I really don't know that much about the war, I'll be totally honest there.

However, when you sign yourself up for the military you sign yourself up to fight for your country. Fighting=potential of being hurt. Fighting in a war=potential of being shot/blown up/killed in some way. It's the truth. When you sign up for the military, you know what you're getting into. And whether the orders that you have are rediculous or not, you need to obey them because you knew going in that you might not make it out. Plain and simple.

I still sympathise for those who lost people they care about. Those people are much braver than I am, and I am not bashing them in any way. If anything, the Bush administration could find some better plan besides blindly sending troops, like 007's cousin, into an unmarked city.

[Aro23r]

Duty, Honor, Country

Duty comes before Country.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Not according to Webster.

[ReTodd]

When you sign yourself up for the military you sign yourself up to fight for your country. Fighting=potential of being hurt. Fighting in a war=potential of being shot/blown up/killed in some way. It's the truth. When you sign up for the military, you know what you're getting into. And whether the orders that you have are rediculous or not, you need to obey them because you knew going in that you might not make it out. Plain and simple.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

According to the oath, you would have more reason to attack United States government than Saddam Hussein. How did Saddam threaten anything outside of Iraq other than Hornet's supply of twinkies?

[Aro23r]

It says you will uphold the Constitution. As the wording goes, the rights inherent in the Constitution extend to all man, not just those who live within the geographical area known as the United States.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat

Your Commander in Chief says that Iraq is an enemy of the United States.

Their's not to make reply
Their's not to reason why
Their's but to do and die.

I do feel that the Iraq war was unnecessary; however, I'm just stating the military point.

[mushroom_girl]

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
But you are forgetting something...Obey the orders of the President: If he tells you to go fight in Iraq, you go. Plain and simple. That is what you signed up for. The Army is about combat and, like Aro pointed out, it is part of the Creed that you be prepared to fight.

According to the oath, you would have more reason to attack United States government than Saddam Hussein. How did Saddam threaten anything outside of Iraq other than Hornet's supply of twinkies?
Again, I do not know too much about the war. I have not looked that far into it. I cannot give you an answer to this.

[ReTodd]

Yes, but you uphold the constitution first and foremost so if what the president tells you to do is unconstitutional you don't have to fight in Iraq. We all know now that the weapons of mass destruction were not there and saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, so why did we go to war?

And yes, the president is whittling away at the constitution, which I consider an attack and an affront to everything I stand for.

[HatchetKlown17]

no, i understand, but bush decided to have a a patrol go into an unmarked city. ait was just 30 men. No armored cars, no artillary abckup, no nothing. He just sent them in. He wanted to know if there were oil wells. There were oil wells, but there was also 250 iraqi outlaws there waiting. And lets not forget that we are in Iraq to begin with because George W is finishing what his dad started. This is all my personal views by the way.

If you do not like that decision than take it up with General John Abizaid. He is the head of CENTCOM and approves all military actions going on throughout Iraq.

I personally have had 3 friends killed in Iraq; their families and friends blame no one for their deaths. They freely joined the armed forces and were glad to do so. They willingly gave their lives and to say they died for nothing is disgracing their valiant deaths.

EDIT: Corrected 2 grammatical errors. :(

[Forest_Archer]

Okay, I just thought I'd bump this thread, as it is an old favorite of mine and George dubbyah has been acting quirky lately.

For example, he recently went to a foreign meeting and said s*** on live television, and another funny thing he did was give an unexpected backrub to a German ambassador (correct? I knew they were German...).

I've been paying attention to the news, as well as the Daily Show and Colbert Report lately. Funny stuff.

[HatchetKlown17]

Okay, I just thought I'd bump this thread, as it is an old favorite of mine and George dubbyah has been acting quirky lately.

For example, he recently went to a foreign meeting and said s*** on live television, and another funny thing he did was give an unexpected backrub to a German ambassador (correct? I knew they were German...).

I've been paying attention to the news, as well as the Daily Show and Colbert Report lately. Funny stuff.


I can appreciate some of the humor on the Colbert Report, but I personally just dont find John Stewart funny. :dry:

[BaxVarlet]

I can appreciate some of the humor on the Colbert Report, but I personally just dont find Jon Stewart funny. :dry:

I'm the total opposite, I find the Daily show a lot funnier than the Colbert Report.

[Office_Shredder]

no, i understand, but bush decided to have a a patrol go into an unmarked city. ait was just 30 men. No armored cars, no artillary abckup, no nothing. He just sent them in. He wanted to know if there were oil wells. There were oil wells, but there was also 250 iraqi outlaws there waiting. And lets not forget that we are in Iraq to begin with because George W is finishing what his dad started. This is all my personal views by the way.


Not to beat a dead horse, but I can't believe no one called this bullshit. In no way shape or form did Bush personally decide to send 30 men (keep in mind he's running an army with hundreds of thousands of people as a side job) into a city. It was probably an officer in the army

[Neil]

:P I nearly neg-rep-ed you before reading. Then, you were saved by the fact that I don't know how to "rep" anymore.

Bush is stupid. I'm not going to say anything more because I don't want to type a page-long post. Disagree with reasons and I will explain the terrible accuracy of your reasons. But everything that he's done that's bad...well there have been books over it.

[Office_Shredder]

:P I nearly neg-rep-ed you before reading. Then, you were saved by the fact that I don't know how to "rep" anymore.

Bush is stupid. I'm not going to say anything more because I don't want to type a page-long post. Disagree with reasons and I will explain the terrible accuracy of your reasons. But everything that he's done that's bad...well there have been books over it.


Who are you talking to? The person making fun of Bush, or the other person making fun of Bush?

Or me, for a comment specifically not referring to Bush?

[savanna]

snork told me i should come back to this because its a hate thread.
i dont like bush.
at all..
he just wants to finish daddys work.

[HatchetKlown17]

If you do not like that decision than take it up with General John Abizaid. He is the head of CENTCOM and approves all military actions going on throughout Iraq.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I can't believe no one called this bullshit. In no way shape or form did Bush personally decide to send 30 men (keep in mind he's running an army with hundreds of thousands of people as a side job) into a city. It was probably an officer in the army

I do believe I called that BS back then. ;)

[The Cheat]

I can appreciate some of the humor on the Colbert Report, but I personally just dont find John Stewart funny. :dry:

WHAT? How can you not like both? :eek: :eek:


http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/stewartcolbert/male

[Coffin Fedder]

Colbert report is the shit. Carlos Mencia is why the hell funnier when he starts getting into the politics though.

[HatchetKlown17]

Honestly, there have been only a few of Carlos Mencia's skits that I find humorous. None of them having political innuendos. I guess I just have a wierd sense of humor. :wacko:

[The Cheat]

Colbert report is the shit. Carlos Mencia is why the hell funnier when he starts getting into the politics though.


I don't like Mencia. Watched it several times......just don't think it is funny. :dry: :dry: :dry: :dry:

I want a colbert painting like the one he has only of myself. :cool:

Still.....everyone should read "AMERICA...the book."

[Coffin Fedder]

Ok heres some reasons of why bush is an outstanding president. Didn't throw Dick Chaney in jail because he shot someone a couple of times and could of killed him. He spends billons and billons of dollars the the USA doesn't have. He's retarded. Also, he has a twin monkey just because he does.

[The Cheat]

Ok heres some reasons of why bush is an outstanding president. Didn't throw Dick Chaney in jail because he shot someone a couple of times and could of killed him. He spends billons and billons of dollars the the USA doesn't have. He's retarded. Also, he has a twin monkey just because he does.


Ya.....everyone knows.


Not much more can be said about the guy. Everyone knows he F**ked just about everything.

[Anarchy_United]

Colbert Report is hysterical.
Mencia is really, really funny sometimes, and not so funny other times.

[The Cheat]

Colbert Report is hysterical.
Mencia is really, really funny sometimes, and not so funny other times.


The Daily Show and Colbert Report are always very funny.:cool: :cool: :cool:

Mind of Mencia is never funny. Ever. :dry: :dry:

[Excaliber]

Ok heres some reasons of why bush is an outstanding president. Didn't throw Dick Chaney in jail because he shot someone a couple of times and could of killed him. He spends billons and billons of dollars the the USA doesn't have. He's retarded. Also, he has a twin monkey just because he does.

Hmmm... Just in case you didn't know... Our country does not share their bank account with you... Just in case you didn't know...

The U.S. definately has billions of dollars... This is not the depression...

Well He is also obviously not ''retarded'' if he managed to win the presidential election and not the millions of other U.S. citizens...

The President does not control who goes to jail or not... And Cheney was not going to jail for an accidental shooting...

You obviously don't know what you are talking about...:rolleyes:

[The Cheat]

Hmmm... Just in case you didn't know... Our country does not share their bank account with you... Just in case you didn't know...

The U.S. definately has billions of dollars... This is not the depression...

Well He is also obviously not ''retarded'' if he managed to win the presidential election and not the millions of other U.S. citizens...

The President does not control who goes to jail or not... And Cheney was not going to jail for an accidental shooting...

You obviously don't know what you are talking about...:rolleyes:



Oh no....you are not one of them are you?

[Excaliber]

Oh no....you are not one of them are you?

A person who actually knows what goes on? I am afraid that I am.

EDIT: This is officially not an Anti-Cheat post...:)

[The Cheat]

A person who actually knows what goes on? I am afraid that I am.

EDIT: This is officially not an Anti-Cheat post...:)


Not that.....are you a Bush supporter? It seems like it by your other post. But I could be wrong.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Any thing Anti-Cheat is not cool. :p

[HatchetKlown17]

Actually, the president has the authority to pardon anyone currently in jail. Look at Clinton before he left office. ;)

Cheney's shooting was a straffing accident, there are I believe ~800 of them annually. Just because the Vice President happen to be involved its automatically assumed to be a cover up? Get real!

[Forest_Archer]

Well um.. I don't think it's exactly good karma to have a vice president who has shot someone. Just an opinion, I suppose.

[HatchetKlown17]

I dont think it was good karma to have a president who had an affair, lied about it under oathe, and lied to the American public.

The difference is Cheney's was an accident, Clinton would have gained my respect had he admitted to his adultry from the beginning.

[The Cheat]

I dont think it was good karma to have a president who had an affair, lied about it under oathe, and lied to the American public.

The difference is Cheney's was an accident, Clinton would have gained my respect had he admitted to his adultry from the beginning.


*sigh*

Who cares about that Clinton thing? Nothing was wrong. He lied about a PERSONAL issue. Bush lied to the entire country about WAR.

Two very different things.

[S_K_O_F]

Well um.. I don't think it's exactly good karma to have a vice president who has shot someone. Just an opinion, I suppose.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to be vice-president. That is like saying, "I don't think anyone who has ever caused a car accident should be president."

Hate Bush because you don't agree with him. That is perfectly ok to do. But don't go picking at straws trying to find more ways to make fun of him.

Also, in reference to your last post. How many presidents in our past have been in the military? And how many of those presidents served in a war? How many of them do you think shot someone in that war? on purpose!

It is just plain foolish to try to use the VP's accident as a reason that he is a bad VP.

[uniquinous]

meh if you had to make a mistake between shooting someone with a spray from a shotgun, or oral sex.... :huh:

no no - you make good points. Here's the thing though - sexual relations of our government aren't the concern of the American public. The vice president in a drive-by IS. Yeah, it was wrong of him to lie about it when he HAD to tell anyway, but really... what... did it prove? That for a lapdance and a cigar orgasm he'll hand over our missile codes? It's a slippery slope argument - and we shouldn't be so demanding to say the president can't have a personal life while he serves.

I'm more worried about Cheney accidentally sending our missiles to the wrong place. :p

>.>

<.<

BARTLET FOR PRESIDENT!

[S_K_O_F]

*sigh*

Who cares about that Clinton thing? Nothing was wrong. He lied about a PERSONAL issue. Bush lied to the entire country about WAR.

Two very different things.

While the personal issue thing is perfectly fine to debate. The fact that he lied in court was the real issue with clinton. He was guilty of perjury.

It is different to knowingly lie to a judge than to state false information that is believed to be true because of supporting evidence.

In your eyes, Bush lied. In my eyes, he stated what was thought to be facts.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I know the difference between lying and just plain being wrong.

[S_K_O_F]

meh if you had to make a mistake between shooting someone with a spray from a shotgun, or oral sex.... :huh:

no no - you make good points. Here's the thing though - sexual relations of our government aren't the concern of the American public. The vice president in a drive-by IS. Yeah, it was wrong of him to lie about it when he HAD to tell anyway, but really... what... did it prove? That for a lapdance and a cigar orgasm he'll hand over our missile codes? It's a slippery slope argument - and we shouldn't be so demanding to say the president can't have a personal life while he serves.

I'm more worried about Cheney accidentally sending our missiles to the wrong place. :p

>.>

<.<

BARTLET FOR PRESIDENT!
I would have to agree. The Presidents personal life shouldn't be our business. Neither should Brad Pitt's.
But he did lie in court. That was the real issue. Too bad it was overshadowed by the nosey American public.

[HatchetKlown17]

I couldn't have said it any better, SKOF.

[Neil]

What is one man's personal affair compared to the deaths of over 2500 innocent lives for absolutely no reason?

I'm sorry I can't quote right now because images on TAO don't always show up when I'm in Firefox, for some reason.

GWB is not suffering from a mental illness. He is just crazy and stupid.

Dick Chaney did not necessary deserve to go to prison for that. And the President can pardon him. That was a true accident on Dick Chaney's part. And he shot the person once, not a couple of times. He was pardoned by the victim himself.

The USA does have billions of dollars. But they also have a billions of dollars in deficit. Therefore, the money is sort-of ours, and he has been wasting it, so, we increase the deficit. How stupid of him. He thinks we need to go conquer the Middle East like Alexander the Great and establish governments and destroy the religion of Islam. And Bush doesn't have a twin monkey. Come on.

In a way, our country does get money from us, and it's called taxes. Then, they go spend it on useless things, promise to lower taxes, and instead lower taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor.

Our economy is at a low-point, whether you call it a depression or not.

He came into office because stupid people voted for him. Some of you have probably voted for him and now hate him. He even got re-elected; that's how stupid the Americans are.

And Excaliber, from your post it doesn't appear that you have any idea what's going on.

Accidental shooting, car accident, all bad Karma. Something that, however, is against the law, is drunk driving and desertion of forces, which were commited by our current President.

:P I'm worried about Cheney shooting our missiles in the wrong place too.

[uniquinous]

GWB is not suffering from a mental illness. He is just crazy and stupid.
They call that "unretarded" in Texas - it's a good thing there ;)
(sorry if anyone's actually from Texas)

[HatchetKlown17]

promise to lower taxes, and instead lower taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor.

Just this part shows your ignorance.

People bitch because the poor get less money back, and the rich get "richer"... Lets take a look at the tax brackets.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/306/taxesfc2.png
Image is a screenshot of the IRS websites official 2006 Tax Rate Schedule.

Say the "rich" man in particular makes exactly $336,550... bottom end of the top bracket. He pays $97,653 in income tax. Now the "poor" person we are referring to makes say...$30,650... They pay $4,220 in income tax.

Now, if the "rich" man gets say, $9,700 back (I am unsure of the ammount at that point), while the "poor" person gets $420. To you, it may seem like a huge differece. But if you look at it, they are balanced returns.

This isnt a secret, it's just that liberals would rather take the tax returns the "rich" are entitled to, and give more to the poor. Aren't we founded on equality? You pay x ammount in taxes, you get x/y back.

Please Note: The above returns are just examples, the percentage of return is off, and I admit that... it just made the numbers easier. ;)

[Spit_101]

He created the word nucular.

;)

[HatchetKlown17]

He created the word nucular.

;)

I'll give you that. ;)

[uniquinous]

i think his father did and it was just passed down :p

[Forest_Archer]

Bush and Dick, the two stooges. :happy:

[Northwind]

This isnt a secret, it's just that liberals would rather take the tax returns the "rich" are entitled to, and give more to the poor. Aren't we founded on equality? You pay x ammount in taxes, you get x/y back.
Actually, another way to look at this is that the people who profit most from the American economy should carry the majority of the burden of keeping it running. So to say that the rich are "entitled" to certain tax return totally ignores the fact that they are doing quite well and maybe, just maybe, SHOULD shoulder the bulk of the load.

And the fact remains that during this administration, the gap between the richest few percent and the poorest has increased. Talk to me about equality now. How much more do the "rich" really need?

And by the way, we are comfortably middle class and it seems only fair that we should pay a larger percentage of our income to the government than do people who are poorer than we are. It's not that I love shelling out money, but I like knowing that I'm giving something back to a system that has helped me prosper.

[R G]

The USA does have billions of dollars. But they also have a billions of dollars in deficit.

Try over a TRILLION dollars! And you can't lay all of that on GWBush as the US has spent more than it has taken in for many decades...not just the last 6 years.


Therefore, the money is sort-of ours, and he has been wasting it, so, we increase the deficit.

The Congress and Senate are more responsible for "wasting" money than the President. Ultimately the citizens are to blame the most as they seem to not vote on what is best for the country as a whole but for what best benefits them or their local district. The Congress and Senate are the ones that send in the bills that are stacked with "Pork Barrel Project" for their own districts...and ultimately they add "Pork" to get reelected...


The US government is suppose to be a Republic however it seems as though as in the last 20 years it is ran more like a Democracy....not a good thing if you truly understand government.

I forget who said it but one one of the most thought provoking quotes regarding Democracy is this - "Democracy is doomed to fail as soon as the citizens realize that they can vote themselves more money in their own back pockets"

Historically with very few exceptions governments ran under a Democracy have lasted on average less than 200 years...


In a way, our country does get money from us, and it's called taxes. Then, they go spend it on useless things, promise to lower taxes, and instead lower taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor.

Yea right....refer to the Hatchet's post for clarification. You talk about people who were stupid to vote for Bush yet you use "facts" (and that term is used loosely) and "terms" that politicians use to get votes as the truly stupid citizens don't bother to look into the facts for themselves.

Don't buy into the class envy crap. The rich keep getting rich because they do the things that make them rich and the poor do the things that make them poor...

Our economy is at a low-point, whether you call it a depression or not.

Talk to some of your fore fathers who lived during the Depression era and ask them if our economy is at a "low-point"...I am sure they will set your ass straight as you have no idea what a low point is if you think this is a low point.

I didn't live during the depression but even in my life time I can think of several periods that were worse than this. Hell I think our economy is doing quite well.


He came into office because stupid people voted for him. Some of you have probably voted for him and now hate him. He even got re-elected; that's how stupid the Americans are.

Sometimes people vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact I can only think of one time that I have ever voted for a person, more so than casted my vote against another person.

And Excaliber, from your post it doesn't appear that you have any idea what's going on.

And you do??

[Lucien Lachance]

I'm surprised I can even post, I keep gettin logged off every 5 seconds from the forums and I can't even rep anyone. Anyway, wether you like it or not Bush is president, deal with it. :)

[R G]

Actually, another way to look at this is that the people who profit most from the American economy should carry the majority of the burden of keeping it running. So to say that the rich are "entitled" to certain tax return totally ignores the fact that they are doing quite well and maybe, just maybe, SHOULD shoulder the bulk of the load.

I am not opposed to helping people, but I should not be forced to help those that do not want to help themselves and to those that abuse the system. The government is not suppose to be a charity to help people. That is why churchs and non-for profit institutions were set up.


And the fact remains that during this administration, the gap between the richest few percent and the poorest has increased. Talk to me about equality now. How much more do the "rich" really need?

And should the government be setup to dictate and decide how much anyone really needs? The desire for more keeps the economy going...just imagine if all the rich people in the world said the hell with this crap...closed all the business that they owned and said "I have all I need to hell with everyone else"....Read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged sometime great book that illustrates this point.:)


And by the way, we are comfortably middle class and it seems only fair that we should pay a larger percentage of our income to the government than do people who are poorer than we are. It's not that I love shelling out money, but I like knowing that I'm giving something back to a system that has helped me prosper.

I am also middle class too, but I would prefer to decide where my money goes and to what causes I support. I earned the money I should get to decide. I should not be forced to contribute to social help plans and the government decide and too often times squander the money. Local charities would do a much better job.

That being said there are somethings that I expect to be taxed for ... Roads .. Infrastructure .. Defense .. Science .. things that are needed to move a country forward and protect it from enemies and to control disease.

[Excaliber]

*sigh*

Who cares about that Clinton thing? Nothing was wrong. He lied about a PERSONAL issue. Bush lied to the entire country about WAR.

Two very different things.

What was this so called lie?

[Excaliber]

What is one man's personal affair compared to the deaths of over 2500 innocent lives for absolutely no reason?

I'm sorry I can't quote right now because images on TAO don't always show up when I'm in Firefox, for some reason.

GWB is not suffering from a mental illness. He is just crazy and stupid.

Dick Chaney did not necessary deserve to go to prison for that. And the President can pardon him. That was a true accident on Dick Chaney's part. And he shot the person once, not a couple of times. He was pardoned by the victim himself.

The USA does have billions of dollars. But they also have a billions of dollars in deficit. Therefore, the money is sort-of ours, and he has been wasting it, so, we increase the deficit. How stupid of him. He thinks we need to go conquer the Middle East like Alexander the Great and establish governments and destroy the religion of Islam. And Bush doesn't have a twin monkey. Come on.

In a way, our country does get money from us, and it's called taxes. Then, they go spend it on useless things, promise to lower taxes, and instead lower taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor.

Our economy is at a low-point, whether you call it a depression or not.

He came into office because stupid people voted for him. Some of you have probably voted for him and now hate him. He even got re-elected; that's how stupid the Americans are.

And Excaliber, from your post it doesn't appear that you have any idea what's going on.

Accidental shooting, car accident, all bad Karma. Something that, however, is against the law, is drunk driving and desertion of forces, which were commited by our current President.

:P I'm worried about Cheney shooting our missiles in the wrong place too.


You think I don't know what I am talking about?

I expected no more of a response than that from a child...

Karma is not real! Just because you stepped on a crack yesterday does not mean that because of karma you will die today...

WTF are you talking about conquering the middle east... Are you stupid?!?!

I think you need to do some cold hard research before you post your reply

[Office_Shredder]

Try over a TRILLION dollars! And you can't lay all of that on GWBush as the US has spent more than it has taken in for many decades...not just the last 6 years.

He went in with 5-6 trillion dollars in debt, and now it's about 9 trillion or something obnoxious like 8.5 trillion.

So he's responsible for about a third of it, which is highly impressive.

The Congress and Senate are more responsible for "wasting" money than the President. Ultimately the citizens are to blame the most as they seem to not vote on what is best for the country as a whole but for what best benefits them or their local district. The Congress and Senate are the ones that send in the bills that are stacked with "Pork Barrel Project" for their own districts...and ultimately they add "Pork" to get reelected...

So why doesn't Bush just veto it and insist on less pork? Seriously, it's his war, his tax breaks, you can't possibly believe the majority of the blame is from Congress. Who the hell do you think is running Congress anyway?


The US government is suppose to be a Republic however it seems as though as in the last 20 years it is ran more like a Democracy....not a good thing if you truly understand government.

I forget who said it but one one of the most thought provoking quotes regarding Democracy is this - "Democracy is doomed to fail as soon as the citizens realize that they can vote themselves more money in their own back pockets"

Historically with very few exceptions governments ran under a Democracy have lasted on average less than 200 years...

I agree with this. Politicians aren't willing to make the tough choices anymore, because people don't like tough choices. They enjoy living in their own comfortable little world


Don't buy into the class envy crap. The rich keep getting rich because they do the things that make them rich and the poor do the things that make them poor...

Has anyone here read Of Cannibals by Montaigne? It raises some interesting questions on this point...

Of course the rich do things to get rich... I find it interesting that you decide the poor do things that make them poor. I'm sure you'll agree that in a balanced economy, it is impossible for everyone to be equally wealthy, in fact, if there is not a large gap between rich and poor, the economy will probably stall (lack of incentive to suceed). This directly implies that people who are poor do not necessarily try to be poor, so much as lose out from the system. Is someone who works two minimum wage jobs and spending it all on a two room apartment trying to be poor? The system as is really isn't class dynamic anymore, and it's difficult to move up (or down for that matter).

Besides, look at Japan. They've got a great economy too (recent study showed Tokyo has the highest buying power in the world), and the wealth gap isn't nearly as much as it is in the US (we're talking about factors of 10 difference here). So it's obvious that in the right setting, the poor don't need to get poorer as the rich get richer. The same holds true of some socialist nations in Europe.

Sometimes people vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact I can only think of one time that I have ever voted for a person, more so than casted my vote against another person.

Stop causing the problem, and start creating a solution. Vote for good candidates, not against bad ones. Most people don't realize that SOMEBODY needs to start the change, and it might as well be them

[R G]

He went in with 5-6 trillion dollars in debt, and now it's about 9 trillion or something obnoxious like 8.5 trillion.

So he's responsible for about a third of it, which is highly impressive.
So why doesn't Bush just veto it and insist on less pork? Seriously, it's his war, his tax breaks, you can't possibly believe the majority of the blame is from Congress. Who the hell do you think is running Congress anyway?

Simply because nothing would ever get accomplished....and that would not necessarily be a bad thing either...lol Congress and the Senate take way too long to make things happen...too much grand standing and the like. Ronald Reagan had the right idea about a Line Item Veto...of which was later tossed out in the Clinton years I believe

Of course the rich do things to get rich... I find it interesting that you decide the poor do things that make them poor. I'm sure you'll agree that in a balanced economy, it is impossible for everyone to be equally wealthy, in fact, if there is not a large gap between rich and poor, the economy will probably stall (lack of incentive to suceed). This directly implies that people who are poor do not necessarily try to be poor, so much as lose out from the system. Is someone who works two minimum wage jobs and spending it all on a two room apartment trying to be poor? The system as is really isn't class dynamic anymore, and it's difficult to move up (or down for that matter).

Of course there are exceptions to every rule and I am not going to deny that. Could you not say too that the example that you use of the person who works two minimum wage jobs is part to blame? Didn't apply themselves in school. Don't want to look for better jobs paying more. Maybe look for a roommate... etc etc...

To support my claim that the poor do things to make them poor do some research on some lottery winners who were poor before they won the lottery... There are many cases of lottery winners who were poor who became rich only to blow it all and are back to being poor again.

I can also point to some people that I have ran across in life that were not given the best of circumstances in life only to "take the bull by the horns" and succeed...One of them is a very good friend of mine. His family was as poor as they come..by the age of 18 both his mom and dad had passed away which left him and his brother all alone on their own. He went to college got his PHD and designs microchips. His brother last I heard delivers Pizza.

Like I said earlier though there are always exceptions to the rule.

Stop causing the problem, and start creating a solution. Vote for good candidates, not against bad ones. Most people don't realize that SOMEBODY needs to start the change, and it might as well be them

Name a good canidate that has ran for the US President in the last 10 years...

Think about it...Al Gore, John Kerry, Ralph Nader etc etc

The only guy that was not a bonifide idiot was Alan Keys (Libertarian)...but he didn't have a chance in hell. If the election was not as close as it was I would have voted for him, but then again if he didn't run that election would not have been as close as it was in the first place....still the guy was very intelligent.

Another choice would be to run for President myself, but I have too many skeletons in my closet. ;)

[Northwind]

I earned the money I should get to decide. I should not be forced to contribute to social help plans and the government decide and too often times squander the money. Local charities would do a much better job.

That being said there are somethings that I expect to be taxed for ... Roads .. Infrastructure .. Defense .. Science .. things that are needed to move a country forward and protect it from enemies and to control disease.
I hear what you're saying. It would indeed be bad if all our entrepreneurs rolled over and played dead. However, this is not my point. My point is that the people who benefit the most from our current system should contribute the most. This seems fair and equitable to me and doesn't unneccessarily damp down the desire of the wealthy to accrue more wealth.

You say you "earned" your money. I might say the same as I work damn hard for what I've got and went to a crapload of years of school (21 in all) to practice my field. However, I have also benefitted a great deal from factors that I can't take credit for. I was born to reasonably successful parents who came from a background that allowed them to connect hard work with success (many families legitimately haven't experienced this). I was brought up in a "free" (tax supported) educational system that gave me the tools I needed to suceed (at schools that were a damn sight better than those in poverty-stricken neighborhoods). I continued to go to school at institutions that were also largely supported by tax dollars. I used a combination of my education and experiences along with some family connections to help me get some of my earliest jobs that were a springboard for what I am doing now.

But maybe you weren't as lucky as I. Maybe you came from destitute parents who had been destitute for generations. Maybe you were educated in sub-par schools and still managed to get a decent education on your own. Maybe you did grow up in a neighborhood in which few of your classmates had ever seen any direct connection between education and success and thus denigrated the value of an education as a reasonable stepping stone to a better life. Maybe you worked 40 hours a week while attending college because you didn't have any help from family or the government to meet tuition and living costs.

My guess is that you also benefitted from at least some of the same factors that I did. Factors that you didn't "earn" in any real sense. Factors that came to you as a result of being middle-class in America. Factors that are largely unavailable to those growing up in the depths of poverty. And yet you now convince yourself that you "earned" your middle class status.

Sorry, but I don't see how it's now "fair" NOT to have you pay a reasonable portion of your perks back to the rest of society.

As for local charities being "better" at delivering services to people - if that were the case, then why was welfare ever invented in the first place? Where were all the "local charities" then? I guess we could abandon welfare and watch children starve across the country like they once did, but I'm not sure that's a country that I'd want to claim as my own.

And don't even get me started on Ayn Rand. The philosopher for the "I got mine, screw you" crowd. No thanks.

That last sentence sounds a bit harsher than I am intending. I don't mean to attack you personally, but I DO mean to attack your ideas. I think they lead to a society in which everyone is out for themselves and no one acknowedges that we're all in this together. I think those are dangerous ideas.

Because in the end, we ARE all in this together and those of us who benefit the most should chip in their fair share to ensure that the system benefits everyone as equally as possible. :)

[Office_Shredder]

Simply because nothing would ever get accomplished....and that would not necessarily be a bad thing either...lol Congress and the Senate take way too long to make things happen...too much grand standing and the like. Ronald Reagan had the right idea about a Line Item Veto...of which was later tossed out in the Clinton years I believe


Umm... the Line Item Veto act was signed into law by Clinton, then tossed by a judge appointed by Reagan


Of course there are exceptions to every rule and I am not going to deny that. Could you not say too that the example that you use of the person who works two minimum wage jobs is part to blame? Didn't apply themselves in school. Don't want to look for better jobs paying more. Maybe look for a roommate... etc etc...

When does this person have time to look for a better paying job? When he's grabbing his three hours of sleep at night, or when he's taking his hour break between jobs?

And about school... a lot of public schools are absolutely terrible, and prepare you for nothing. So it really doesn't matter how much you apply yourself in those schools. I agree that needs to be fixed too.

To support my claim that the poor do things to make them poor do some research on some lottery winners who were poor before they won the lottery... There are many cases of lottery winners who were poor who became rich only to blow it all and are back to being poor again.

A lot of rich people also blow their money (Tyson, to come up with one example on the top of my head). But somehow, they're gi

I can also point to some people that I have ran across in life that were not given the best of circumstances in life only to "take the bull by the horns" and succeed...One of them is a very good friend of mine. His family was as poor as they come..by the age of 18 both his mom and dad had passed away which left him and his brother all alone on their own. He went to college got his PHD and designs microchips. His brother last I heard delivers Pizza.

Not to be a bugger about it, but it was probably your taxpayer dollars paying his way through college with scholarships ;)

Like I said earlier though there are always exceptions to the rule.

Only because rich people were being taxed to pay for higher education.



Name a good canidate that has ran for the US President in the last 10 years...

Why would Al Gore have been a bad choice? He would have been exactly like Clinton (very similiar at least), and Clinton didn't exactly lead us into a pithole

[R G]

Umm... the Line Item Veto act was signed into law by Clinton, then tossed by a judge appointed by Reagan

Yea that is true I got that all screwed up...lol I just remember reading about how Reagan wanted to see a line item veto to cut out some of the pork in bills like he did when he was governor of California.

When does this person have time to look for a better paying job? When he's grabbing his three hours of sleep at night, or when he's taking his hour break between jobs?

Guess he could call in sick...Look through the newspaper in the classifieds while he's in the shitter...it can be done just would take someone with some initiative.

And about school... a lot of public schools are absolutely terrible, and prepare you for nothing. So it really doesn't matter how much you apply yourself in those schools. I agree that needs to be fixed too.

Can't disagree with you there...School Vouchers would help alot to fix this problem. How do you feel about that topic?

A lot of rich people also blow their money (Tyson, to come up with one example on the top of my head).

Yea and Mike Tyson was originally poor before he became rich...thanks for helping me illustrate my point ;)

Not to be a bugger about it, but it was probably your taxpayer dollars paying his way through college with scholarships ;)

No scholorships just Government subsidized loans...

Why would Al Gore have been a bad choice? He would have been exactly like Clinton (very similiar at least), and Clinton didn't exactly lead us into a pithole

Well he did invent the internet so I have to give the guy some credit...:rolleyes:

[Office_Shredder]

Can't disagree with you there...School Vouchers would help alot to fix this problem. How do you feel about that topic?

I'm split on it. While school vouchers are certainly a band-aid solution, as kids go from bad districts to good, two things happen:

1.) Bad districts go bankrupt, or become even worse
2.) Good districts become overcrowded (the new kids only pay for teachers, books, etc. not buildings), and become bad.

So it really doesn't look all that great from a public school perspective. Personally, I think more public magnet schools, like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_County_Academies (hey! my school's on wikipedia! :) ) would be more effective at getting smarter kids the faster education, and the local schools to run at the "normal" pace. It's a public high school that takes kids from all over the county, and to get in you need to score at the top of an entrance exam relative to other kids from your town. It's been a successful experiment in Bergen County, and I think should be implemented in more places.



Yea and Mike Tyson was originally poor before he became rich...thanks for helping me illustrate my point ;)

He won his first title when he was 20. So... he was poor as a kid. However, you previously claimed that people who were poor could work their way up the ladder and become rich, yet here you imply that if you're poor as a kid, you're screwed.

Which side do you take?



No scholorships just Government subsidized loans...

I highly doubt that a kid with no parents didn't get scholarship money to go to college.



Well he did invent the internet so I have to give the guy some credit...:rolleyes:

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"


You make the call

[R G]

I hear what you're saying. It would indeed be bad if all our entrepreneurs rolled over and played dead. However, this is not my point. My point is that the people who benefit the most from our current system should contribute the most. This seems fair and equitable to me and doesn't unneccessarily damp down the desire of the wealthy to accrue more wealth.

I don't see how taxing people at a higher percentage based solely on their income is fair and equitable when we all have the opportunity as citizens to go forth and succeed.

Time for a new system either a Flat Tax or a National Sales Tax.


You say you "earned" your money. I might say the same as I work damn hard for what I've got and went to a crapload of years of school (21 in all) to practice my field. However, I have also benefitted a great deal from factors that I can't take credit for. I was born to reasonably successful parents who came from a background that allowed them to connect hard work with success (many families legitimately haven't experienced this). I was brought up in a "free" (tax supported) educational system that gave me the tools I needed to suceed (at schools that were a damn sight better than those in poverty-stricken neighborhoods). I continued to go to school at institutions that were also largely supported by tax dollars. I used a combination of my education and experiences along with some family connections to help me get some of my earliest jobs that were a springboard for what I am doing now.

First of all...21 Years!!! Holy crap! You sound like a professional student to me...j/k What is your field anyway Northy?

I have absolutly no problem with scholorships and government subsidized loans for those seeking a higher education.

But maybe you weren't as lucky as I. Maybe you came from destitute parents who had been destitute for generations. Maybe you were educated in sub-par schools and still managed to get a decent education on your own. Maybe you did grow up in a neighborhood in which few of your classmates had ever seen any direct connection between education and success and thus denigrated the value of an education as a reasonable stepping stone to a better life. Maybe you worked 40 hours a week while attending college because you didn't have any help from family or the government to meet tuition and living costs.

My parents were lower middle class when I was growing up....and the best education that I ever earned were the lessons that I learned from them....Honesty...Trust is hard to earn but easy to loose...Man is only good as his word...A good work ethic will take you a long way in life...stuff like that.

And yea I did work 40 hours a week while in college...

My guess is that you also benefitted from at least some of the same factors that I did. Factors that you didn't "earn" in any real sense. Factors that came to you as a result of being middle-class in America. Factors that are largely unavailable to those growing up in the depths of poverty. And yet you now convince yourself that you "earned" your middle class status.

Sorry, but I don't see how it's now "fair" NOT to have you pay a reasonable portion of your perks back to the rest of society.

Don't have a problem with paying a "fair share" into the system...but you can not tell me that our current tax system is fair.

As for local charities being "better" at delivering services to people - if that were the case, then why was welfare ever invented in the first place? Where were all the "local charities" then? I guess we could abandon welfare and watch children starve across the country like they once did, but I'm not sure that's a country that I'd want to claim as my own.

Well unfortunatly there have been times in American where times were not so rosy as they are now. If the citizens don't have any money then obviously they can not donate to charity in the first place.

And the welfare system is not a Federal system anymore thanks to Clinton signing in the Federal Welfare Reform Act.

That last sentence sounds a bit harsher than I am intending. I don't mean to attack you personally, but I DO mean to attack your ideas. I think they lead to a society in which everyone is out for themselves and no one acknowedges that we're all in this together. I think those are dangerous ideas.

Because in the end, we ARE all in this together and those of us who benefit the most should chip in their fair share to ensure that the system benefits everyone as equally as possible. :)

Well you can't attack me personally as you have no idea where I live so you have no other choice than to attack my ideas...:p

You make me sound like Ebenezer Scrouge and nothing could be further from the truth. I donate to several local charities. I like to help people but I see too often how ineffiecient government is too...

[R G]

He won his first title when he was 20. So... he was poor as a kid. However, you previously claimed that people who were poor could work their way up the ladder and become rich, yet here you imply that if you're poor as a kid, you're screwed.

Which side do you take?

I wouldn't call beating someone to a bloody pulp working your way up the ladder...but I guess you could say he worked hard in the gym.

Quite obviously though he did not learn a damn thing about finances and basic responsibility.


I highly doubt that a kid with no parents didn't get scholarship money to go to college.

He's a very proud individual and I am sure he could have gotten scholarships, but he didn't.



http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

You make the call

OK - He didn't invent the internet. He's one senator that voted to help to make it happen.

[Office_Shredder]

I wouldn't call beating someone to a bloody pulp working your way up the ladder...but I guess you could say he worked hard in the gym.

Quite obviously though he did not learn a damn thing about finances and basic responsibility.

Ok, fine. Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, there are more.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P75072.asp

Unless you're going to argue that none of them were rich long enough to learn how to handle money well. I still don't get where the cutoff line is


OK - He didn't invent the internet. He's one senator that voted to help to make it happen.

He was the first person to push for major funding and federal support for networking the nation. Did you even read the paragraphs I posted? I selected them for a reason.

Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country

and

without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Kind of give him some credence for up and above support of the internet

[!Diamond!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM

[R G]

He was the first person to push for major funding and federal support for networking the nation. Did you even read the paragraphs I posted? I selected them for a reason.
and
Kind of give him some credence for up and above support of the internet

He might have supported the internet just like a majority of the senators that voted to fund it at the time, but he did not invent it...for you to insinuate that he was the main guy that is responsible for the internet is as absurd as his original statement was.

[Rockstar Energy]

Bush is horrible.

[Office_Shredder]

He might have supported the internet just like a majority of the senators that voted to fund it at the time, but he did not invent it...for you to insinuate that he was the main guy that is responsible for the internet is as absurd as his original statement was.

So by being the creator of the High Performance Computer Act, which directly funded the National Information Infrastructure and created the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, which funded MOSAIC. So he essentially pushed through legislation and ran programs as a senator and a vice president that developed both the hardware and the software sides of this. The High Performance Computer Act was even nicknamed the "Gore Bill". So he was just one of those guys who voted with the majority, right?

Of course, he also won a Webby Lifetime Achievement Award for his more than thirty years of work on pushing for government support for the internet, which was presented to him by Vint Cerf, widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of the internet. Gore even invented the term "Information Superhighway".

A two minute google search followed up by ten minutes of reading will set the record straight with you. Stop blindly accepting the Bush campaign's misquote of Gore (they didn't even quote his words, they changed it up), and start reading for yourself. Or, you can choose to continue wallowing in ignorance, feeling comfortable that Gore was a bad choice because he 'invented the internet'

EDIT: In case you're too lazy to spend the minute on google, I'll get you the websites for you
http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/specialwin.php
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-04-gore-webby_x.htm
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/

[Epic warriors]

Sorry, for bringing the thread back onto the subject it was about, ie Bush = good/bad
I dont really think anyone who says things like "more and more of our imports are coming from abroad" should really be in power, let alone in power in the most powerful country in the world. The only reason he came to power was because he was a preacher as well as a politician, surely power should be determined by political prowress rather than religion.

[Forest_Archer]

George Bush's daughters were arrested for pot. :happy:

[The Cheat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D4uAW_3Gjg&NR


http://vidsearch.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1053250704

[Epic warriors]

lol, briliant, love the 2nd one

EDIT: in response to Excaliber's neg, no i wasn't joking, and what the f*** is your problem anyway, if u disagree with my point, say, mong.

[green97sierra]

i like cheese. cheddar cheese. on a ritz cracker. with a small, yet thick, slice of ham

[R G]

So by being the creator of the High Performance Computer Act, which directly funded the National Information Infrastructure and created the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, which funded MOSAIC. So he essentially pushed through legislation and ran programs as a senator and a vice president that developed both the hardware and the software sides of this. The High Performance Computer Act was even nicknamed the "Gore Bill". So he was just one of those guys who voted with the majority, right?

Of course, he also won a Webby Lifetime Achievement Award for his more than thirty years of work on pushing for government support for the internet, which was presented to him by Vint Cerf, widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of the internet. Gore even invented the term "Information Superhighway".

A two minute google search followed up by ten minutes of reading will set the record straight with you. Stop blindly accepting the Bush campaign's misquote of Gore (they didn't even quote his words, they changed it up), and start reading for yourself. Or, you can choose to continue wallowing in ignorance, feeling comfortable that Gore was a bad choice because he 'invented the internet'

EDIT: In case you're too lazy to spend the minute on google, I'll get you the websites for you
http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/specialwin.php
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-04-gore-webby_x.htm
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/


Oh good god OS...Go read the links yourself.

His direct quote was "...took the initiative in creating the internet.."

Sure he played a pivital role in see that the internet was financed...OK big deal he won an award...from a somewhat liberal organization to make a point...The key inventor of the internet says "He is due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions.

Even if he was the damn inventor of the internet he still would not make a good canidate for President of the United States in my humble opinion...

Hell he couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee, which if he did he would have won the election that he ran in despite what happened in Florida...what does it say about a man that can not even get the majority of his own statesmen to vote for him...

After the whole debacle the Democratic Party did not even have enough faith in the guy to stand by him and give him another shot at it.

[Epic warriors]

i like cheese. cheddar cheese. on a ritz cracker. with a small, yet thick, slice of ham

mmmmmm, ham

[Anarchy_United]

Well, all I can say is, Bush is much better president than I would make.

[Epic warriors]

but is that saying much?

[Office_Shredder]

Oh good god OS...Go read the links yourself.

His direct quote was "...took the initiative in creating the internet.."

Sure he played a pivital role in see that the internet was financed...OK big deal he won an award...from a somewhat liberal organization to make a point...The key inventor of the internet says "He is due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions.

He did take the initiative in creating the internet... funding is exactly what got it off the ground. The key inventor says "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions"

From context, and certainly from the "indeed" (which you so happened to misplace, and also happens to completely change the tone of the sentence), he's saying that Gore IS deserving of thanks, as opposed to what Bush had you believe.

Even if he was the damn inventor of the internet he still would not make a good canidate for President of the United States in my humble opinion...

Why? I asked why he would be a bad choice, and you replied by sarcastically pointing out that he invented the internet. Now that that's debunked, do you have a logical response, or just partisan politics?

Hell he couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee, which if he did he would have won the election that he ran in despite what happened in Florida...what does it say about a man that can not even get the majority of his own statesmen to vote for him...

The majority of his own statesmen?

Maybe if Republican voters didn't buy into the spin politics their party puts out, and instead listened to facts (20 posts later, and your only irrelevant reason for not voting for him has been shot down, and you haven't supplied a new one, for example), he would have won his home state. Besides, who wants to win Tennessee anyways? I'd rather not have y'all's s'port now, kay? :p

After the whole debacle the Democratic Party did not even have enough faith in the guy to stand by him and give him another shot at it.

Actually, he decided not to run again. So much for that hypothesis

EDIT: You sounded a bit frustrated by the topic (and it's not the most important thing in the world)... I'll redirect you to my last post not focused on Gore (I spent my last couple of posts on that because you only quoted that part) here if you want to discuss something more pressing:
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=947324&postcount=862

[Jeffery]

Well, all I can say is, Bush is much better president than I would make.
Bah. I;d have been a better president. We'd have nuked the middle east already, and taken all the oil.

[R G]

He did take the initiative in creating the internet... funding is exactly what got it off the ground. The key inventor says "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions"

From context, and certainly from the "indeed" (which you so happened to misplace, and also happens to completely change the tone of the sentence), he's saying that Gore IS deserving of thanks, as opposed to what Bush had you believe.

Oh god let's argue symantics now...The award was used as a slap in the face to Bush...There were many more people much more deserving of an award than Gore...



Why? I asked why he would be a bad choice, and you replied by sarcastically pointing out that he invented the internet. Now that that's debunked, do you have a logical response, or just partisan politics?

I thought he was way too much of an environmentalist for one thing. He also didn't seem to be as honest to me , but I wouldn't call Bush a saint either. Like I said I voted for the lesser of two evils in that election....whether you agree or not is irrelative as that was over six years ago now and it was my vote to decide upon...not yours.



The majority of his own statesmen?

Maybe if Republican voters didn't buy into the spin politics their party puts out, and instead listened to facts (20 posts later, and your only irrelevant reason for not voting for him has been shot down, and you haven't supplied a new one, for example), he would have won his home state. Besides, who wants to win Tennessee anyways? I'd rather not have y'all's s'port now, kay? :p

You didn't shoot down anything...He helped in the progress of the internet...sure...just like several hundreds of other individuals. But you want to make it sound as though as if not for him the internet would not exist today....Pffft...He was one senator out of a majority that voted on a bill that allowed government to spend money on it...which was originally used to support defense communications.

You seem to snub your nose at the South in general with that comment about TN....hope you don't run for President as very few presidents have ever been to the White House with out carrying the majority of the Southern States....and I bet you that Gore would have loved to have won TN...;)



Actually, he decided not to run again. So much for that hypothesis

You can believe that if you want to as that is what was reported. I liken it to a geeky freshman having a crush on the homecoming queen. The geeky freshman tells a few of his friends and the word gets out. The homecoming queen finds out about it and says hell no. The geeky freshman then just plays it off and says "Oh I was not interested in her...Whatever gave you that idea?"

What do you think he was gonna do get out of politics and make movies with some great success? Oh please...


EDIT: You sounded a bit frustrated by the topic (and it's not the most important thing in the world)... I'll redirect you to my last post not focused on Gore (I spent my last couple of posts on that because you only quoted that part) here if you want to discuss something more pressing:
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=947324&postcount=862

I assume you are talking about my comments that Rich do things that make them Rich and poor do things that continue to do things poor and the comment "Unless you're going to argue that none of them were rich long enough to learn how to handle money well. I still don't get where the cutoff line is"

The comment is a general accessment of what happens in the world in my opinion. Sure there are exceptions. My friend is a good example of someone who was poor that has broke the cycle. And then there are those that were rich and are no longer. There is no set "cutoff line" or rule of thumb regarding this just generalities regarding that statement.

[S_K_O_F]

I hear what you're saying. It would indeed be bad if all our entrepreneurs rolled over and played dead. However, this is not my point. My point is that the people who benefit the most from our current system should contribute the most. This seems fair and equitable to me and doesn't unneccessarily damp down the desire of the wealthy to accrue more wealth.

You say you "earned" your money. I might say the same as I work damn hard for what I've got and went to a crapload of years of school (21 in all) to practice my field. However, I have also benefitted a great deal from factors that I can't take credit for. I was born to reasonably successful parents who came from a background that allowed them to connect hard work with success (many families legitimately haven't experienced this). I was brought up in a "free" (tax supported) educational system that gave me the tools I needed to suceed (at schools that were a damn sight better than those in poverty-stricken neighborhoods). I continued to go to school at institutions that were also largely supported by tax dollars. I used a combination of my education and experiences along with some family connections to help me get some of my earliest jobs that were a springboard for what I am doing now.

But maybe you weren't as lucky as I. Maybe you came from destitute parents who had been destitute for generations. Maybe you were educated in sub-par schools and still managed to get a decent education on your own. Maybe you did grow up in a neighborhood in which few of your classmates had ever seen any direct connection between education and success and thus denigrated the value of an education as a reasonable stepping stone to a better life. Maybe you worked 40 hours a week while attending college because you didn't have any help from family or the government to meet tuition and living costs.

My guess is that you also benefitted from at least some of the same factors that I did. Factors that you didn't "earn" in any real sense. Factors that came to you as a result of being middle-class in America. Factors that are largely unavailable to those growing up in the depths of poverty. And yet you now convince yourself that you "earned" your middle class status.

Sorry, but I don't see how it's now "fair" NOT to have you pay a reasonable portion of your perks back to the rest of society.

As for local charities being "better" at delivering services to people - if that were the case, then why was welfare ever invented in the first place? Where were all the "local charities" then? I guess we could abandon welfare and watch children starve across the country like they once did, but I'm not sure that's a country that I'd want to claim as my own.

And don't even get me started on Ayn Rand. The philosopher for the "I got mine, screw you" crowd. No thanks.

That last sentence sounds a bit harsher than I am intending. I don't mean to attack you personally, but I DO mean to attack your ideas. I think they lead to a society in which everyone is out for themselves and no one acknowedges that we're all in this together. I think those are dangerous ideas.

Because in the end, we ARE all in this together and those of us who benefit the most should chip in their fair share to ensure that the system benefits everyone as equally as possible. :)

It sounds like you need to look in to the fair tax plan.

[Forest_Archer]

Someone please tell me what's so fair about...

- Taxing the middleclass.
- Having taxcuts on the rich.

[Realist]

"Fair" isn't the goal.

You can get "fair" by taking everything from everyone so everyone is equal at zero.

The goal is as much prosperity as possible.

You get that by free and competitive markets, as little government intervention as possible, a flat tax, free trade....

[Northwind]

It sounds like you need to look in to the fair tax plan.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of it til you mentioned it. I'll have to explore it a little more. I do have a couple of initial reactions to this site (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html).

First, while there seems to be some allowance for lower incomes, the tax seems much "flatter" than our current system. I think movement toward a flat tax is a move in the wrong direction. I guess part of it depends on how much allowance is made for necessities. Poorer people spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on necessities (food, clothing, etc.) and a "flat" tax punishes them disproportionately more (e.g., let's say a poor person spends 50% of their income on necessities, while a rich person only has to spend 10% on necessities. This means that the poor person is taxed on 50% of their spending for this, while the rich are only taxed on 10% of their spending on these items.) There was some mention of a carve-out for necessities in the article, though I'd like to see more detail on this.

Second, I wonder what effect this will have on the economy. While people will have more money in their pocket (as there is no income tax), there is a disincentive to buy as much with the addition of a 23% tax on sales. In a lot of ways, I think this would be a good thing as I think that Americans are overly consumeristic and the current setup is not sustainable at this rate forever (precipitating a "crash" at some point). However, it seems likely to produce a significant market devaluation that is going to be extremely politically unpopular. Thus, I don't see that this will be explored in any serious way by those in power.

However, it is inte